What experts said in 1994

[KingFlorez]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/beltway-beast/a-midterm-flashback/

A Midterm Flashback
by Benjamin Sarlin
Nov 1, 2010

As you may have noticed, we at The Daily Beast have been busily digging into coverage of blowouts past for historical parallels to tomorrow's election. I wanted to highlight one little gem from the news archives as we head into the final day of the midterms.



Here are excerpts from a few predictions by the major election analysts that were published in Campaigns & Elections two weeks before the 1994 midterms:


Charles Cook, editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report:


"The Democrats will lose 20-25 in the House; four to five in the Senate. I'm seeing softening for Democrats in key Senate races, such as Virginia. Anti -incumbency, despondency among Democratic voters and a galvanization of GOP voters are the overarching trends. Democrats are disillusioned with Clinton; Republicans hate him and will turn out in droves. The GOP vote is coming home and it's hardening earlier than usual."


Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the Rothenberg Report, a political newsletter:


"The Democrats will lose 24-26 seats in the House; three to five in the Senate. They're vulnerable in the South and in traditionally Republican districts in the North that they've been able to hold in the past by splitting the Republicans. However, President Clinton's unpopularity is uniting the GOP. This isn't a particularly ideological election, though. It's just insiders versus outsiders, and Democrats are the insiders right now. Voters remain skeptical about the role of government, another negative for Democrats. Clinton has tried to alter this widespread mistrust of governmental activism, but he hasn't succeeded."


Larry Sabato, professor of government at the University of Virginia:

"My slogan has always been: 'He who lives by the Crystal Ball ends up eating ground glass.' Nevertheless, it looks like Democrats will be lucky to lose only 24-25 seats in the House and four in the Senate. Much of it hinges on President Clinton's popularity. Many of these elections are turning into a referendum on Bill Clinton, as is usually the case with mid-term elections and the President in power. About a half dozen Senate races will be decided with less than two percent of the vote. So last-minute trends will matter.

(excerpt)

_______________________________________________________

Now obviously, this go work two ways, the GOP could gain more seats the the forecasters say. But, it could also go they other way too and the GOP picks up less seats that predicted. I'm not saying it will happen, but I just wanted to point out that there could be some hope left.

[leveymg]

1. Here's the context: in 1994 Republicans picked up 8 seats in the Senate and 54 seats in the House

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. Yeah, If They Outperform Expectations This Time They Will Win One Hundred Seats

Is that editorial or analysis supposed to comfort us?

[Cognitive_Resonance]

3. I think echoes of 1994 have driven the conventional narrative and polling assumptions this cycle.

No pundit or pollster wants to repeat the mistake of underestimation. The danger is that they are "fighting the previous war". Every election cycle has unique dynamics and undercurrents, this one perhaps much more so than usual. My gut tells me the "pros" may have baked the cake a little too early. GOTV!

edit: spelling

[leveymg]

4. I think they're also driving the stock market. Otherwise, the Dow would be back down to 7000.

The Fat Cats and Old Boyz on the Hill all seem to think this divided government thing is good for business. I'm not so sure . . .

[zbdent]

7. after 4pm, I check a cable money program to see what the stock market does ... and I saw

a probable RWer saying, essentially, "Hey, I'm all for gridlock! Bring it on!" (In other words, he wants everything to come to a halt ... including fixing this country's problems)

When I hear some RWer praying for "shutting down government", I remember Rush Limbaugh, in the middle of the historic "government shutdown" ... he was chortling with glee that, with both the House and Senate doing nothing, other than focusing on whether or not Bill Clinton kept it in his pants ... the economy was, according to Rush, "soaring!".

And a thought struck me ... when the Republicans control the House and Senate, and they do nothing, ... yes ... it helps the economy. When it's the Dems not able to get anything done ... the economy sucks.

Since 1/2007, the Republicans have thrown roadblock after roadblock in front of the Dems ... and the economy has tanked. But when the House, Senate, and Presidency were ruled by the "permanent Republican majority", the economy grudgingly and slowly "grew" (albeit, with few jobs).

(btw, when the Dems were able to get something through the roadblocks and under Bush's pen after 1/2007, most times, it was struck down with something George W. Bush used only once before ... the veto).

[Imajika]

5. The Democrats had held the House for like 50 years...

At that time, I think pundits had a hard time believing that could change.

Good points though. I do think the media may be getting carried away.

This is a different time. Obama's approval ratings are still pretty darn good. Rasmussen has him at 50% just today.

The generic ballot seems to be going strongly against us, but almost half the nations people still approve of our party's President. Also, more people approve of the Democratic party than the Republican party - yet more likely voters claim they are going to vote Republican.

The pundits could be very, very wrong. Unfortunately, with LV numbers like we are seeing from Gallup....well, it could be pretty terrible.

[Dawson Leery]

6. Democrats held the house for 40 years at that time.

The Democrats had some scandals and the people saw Clinton as being ineffective as he could not get much passed.
The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act passed by 1 vote in each house, with Al Gore breaking the tie in the Senate.