This just feels much different than 1994, doesn't it?

[scheming daemons]

in '94, the people were actually voting FOR the Republican Party. The GOP presented the "Contract With America", and while we knew it was all bullshit... at least they were running ON something other than anti-Clintonism.

I remember being despondent the morning after that election. That the people of the country were accepting right-wing mantra as truth and that it was going to be a long time before Democrats got congress back.



I don't have that feeling today. I don't get the same vibe that the people were voting FOR Republicanism. Indeed, exit polls show that the populace has no more confidence in the GOP than they have in the Democrats and Rasmussen even has a poll showing that nearly 60% of the voters expect to be disappointed by the Republicans in congress by 2012.


Yesterday was simply... utterly.... ONLY about 9.6% unemployment. No party can survive that kind of economic number.

We did well... given that backdrop... to hold onto one chamber of congress.



This Republican win wasn't a "wave" like in 1994. In 1994, the American people decided to try Republicanism after 40 years of not seeing it in action.

I get the distinct impression that the American people have the GOP on a much shorter leash than they ever had any party before.

If they decide to spend two years obstructing and not dealing with the economic problems we're facing, I think they're back out on their collective ears.

As it stands, we'll need about 25 gains in the House to take it back in '12. If this GOP congress acts like they are indicating they are going to, 25 seats will be a piece of cake.

[gkhouston]

1. Yesterday was also about vast amounts of corporate money spent on Republican

candidates. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I agree and I pointed this out yesterday

we still control the senate and a few governor mansions.

But some folks think it is.

I expect another wave election, cannot predict for what, in 2012.

Why?

The system is highly unstable...

Oh and their majority is not strong and they have a bad case of the tea.

People think Blue dogs are bad... wait until you see the bad case of the tea.

One new man to watch though is Rand Paul... he has a better chance to do a LOT of damage in the US Senate... (Debt increase limit) than the whole of the US Congress.

[zbdent]

3. back then, the Republicans didn't have Fox to tell the "liberally biased media" what the

latest "outrage" was to be ... they just had Rush Limbaugh (saying "Day nnn of 'America held hostage'), and conservatives had to wait until the noon (EST) hour to find out what to think.

[Wednesdays]

15. Actually, Fox was around in 1994, but not nearly as potent as it is now

Back then, Fox seemed to at least pretend it was middle-of-the-road, and not the 24/7 propaganda outlet it is today. In 1994, Bill O'Reilly was host of the entertainment show Inside Edition, and Sean Hannity was a small-time radio jock.

[deaniac21]

4. Nope, they were voting against what they've been getting.

[David__77]

5. Seems quite different to me, but I'm also in California, so...

No one should simply say though that people were simply voting "no" to Democrats. They did, objectively, cast votes for right-wing candidates. "Would-be Democratic voters" do not count for anything in terms of political power. THAT said, I think this is more of a super-sized 1982 than a 1994, if an analogy must be made. People weren't suddenly sliding to the left in 1982, but they were scared, and Democrats mightily benefited in the house and gubernatorial races. Reagan, of course, won in a landslide two years later.

[scheming daemons]

6. I agree with this... and I said so last night....

2010 is to Obama was 1982 was to Reagan.

[Gaedel]

9. 2010 versus 1982

In 1982, the reaction was against Reagan

In 2010 the reaction was against Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

[scheming daemons]

13. Obviously, it wasn't against Reid.

[Gaedel]

18. They ran against him in more places than Nevada

They were running against Pelosi everywhere as well.

Unless you regard six senate seas lost as nothing.

[Wednesdays]

17. 1982 was against Reagan, Falwell, Edwin Meese, and James Watt

Works for both sides.

[MidwestTransplant]

7. I agree and I was thinking the SAME thing just a second before seeing your post.

[grace0418]

8. I've been saying this for awhile. Whoever was in power after the 2008 election

was going to be fucked. All the results of Bush's 8 disastrous years in office were coming to fruition right at the end of his term, but all anyone would remember at the polls was that 2009 and 2010 sucked and somebody was going to pay.

[Mimosa]

10. I remember you saying it

So we can't blame this completely upon the DLC. Or Rahm Emmanuel.

[grace0418]

20. The Dems didn't do themselves any favors. They should have acted more

decisively in those two years, stopped trying to cater to the damn nutjob Republicans so much. If I knew I was going to lose no matter what, I'd choose to go down fighting.

I think that may have been their only chance. If they'd acted more decisively and done more with those two years (and I know that Pres. O did get a lot done, I'm not disputing that), progressives would have been more eager to fight for them. And independents too, probably. As it was I voted while holding my nose.

[Gaedel]

12. Yes

in 2008, the presidency was a "poisoned chalice".

[grace0418]

21. As excited as we all were, I think we knew that going in.

Sigh...

[gkhouston]

14. And the President has known this from day one. Rachel was correct about this

the other night: he spent his first two years concentrating on policy, not politics. He served the country more than his own political interests. That's not something many present-day Republicans would do.

[grace0418]

19. Of course no present day Republican would do that. They don't care about anything

but themselves and their bank accounts. Of course they're too stupid to realize that if they keep fucking the country over, and the planet over, it's going to affect them eventually too and no amount of money in the world will help them at that point.

[JackRiddler]

11. Tens of billions of dollars from anonymous donors coming up say it's going to be worse.

[madinmaryland]

16. Well.... There was no DU, nor much in the way of the internets.

Also there was no FOX or 24-hour news other than CNN. Also, MTV actually was "Music TV" with "Music Videos".

I think a lot more people fell in behind Clinton than are falling in behind Obama. That could change, but we will see.