The reaction to 1994 was far worse than what happened Tuesday because

[LawnLover]

the Democrats lost BOTH houses of Congress to the Republicans who hadn't had control of Congress for forty years. Clinton was written off as pretty much a lame duck who would never recover from this devastation.

Funny how these things get blown out of proportion.

Two years is a long, long time.

[bluestateguy]

1. It was a bigger deal back then b/c nobody thought Republicans would ever control the House

The Senate, maybe, as they had it for 6 years of the Reagan Administration, but the House was Democratic for 40 years. And that included the Eisenhower landslide of 1956, the Nixon landslide of 1972 and the Reagan-Bush landslides of 1980-1988. The Democratic controlled House survived through all of that.

And in 1994 it was all gone, so in perspective it was a bigger deal, even though they gained more seats (63?) than that night 16 years ago.

[Jennicut]

2. I think some people are lost and don't know what to do.

Just sit back and watch for a few weeks. Repubs are not that smart, the newcomers coming in don't know how to govern well, and the teaparty voters want to see actual action. It will be very interesting.

[LawnLover]

3. I've got my popcorn. nt.

[Ken Burch]

4. Well, one thing a lot of us remember

Is that Clinton basically governed as a Republican the rest of the way.

He didn't even try to get a Democratic Congress back, and there was no excuse for us not swinging the House back in 1996. That should just have been automatic.

[LawnLover]

5. I remember he governed from the center on many issues

but not all. And, as I recall, a lot more of us were in good shape under his Presidency than the next administration. In fact, the only way the Republicans could gain the White House was to steal the vote.

[frazzled]

6. But there were no Intertube outlets for all the histrionics

And less 24/7 cable coverage. We were still two years away from the beginnings of Fox News, and Ed Schultz was barely a twinkle in his mother's eye (just kidding on that one, but there was no MSNBC).

But the Internet is the worst. These boards are like crazy magnets. Everyone needs to take some Valium (do they still make that? I'm sure they did in 1994, which is why people probably weren't going all vapors in the streets). I remember registering for MoveOn.org at the beginning of the impeachment, in maybe 1998. It was like a list-serv or something. There were no blogs. CNN briefly had a politics "chat room": it was slightly less pleasant a place than Bedlam.

I think everyone needs to go out and start cultivating their own garden and stop watching Countdown and listening to obscure radio hosts. We are all becoming armchair political junkies, but I'm not seeing a lot of payback in terms of advancing the discourse or forming coherent political philosophies or cogent policy discussions. Everybody seems to know one thing (Tim Kaine must be fired! Everybody hates teachers! Obama kisses corporate tushy! Cenk Uygur belched and it contained more integrity than Tim Geithner!).

Take up knitting, or start a terrarium, folks. This isn't healthy.

[LawnLover]

10. A-FUCKING-MEN nt.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. In '94...

... the reaction was far worse. You think the infighting is nasty right now? It was ten times worse in '94. It was considered likely that Clinton wouldn't even RUN for reelection And serious pundits - and even Democratic strategists - were seriously talking about the Democratic Party being in terminal decline, or getting replaced by a new party.

Here's a NYT story about how Clinton wouldn't run for reelection. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DE1DB1E31F932A15752C1A962958260&scp=4&sq=clinton&st=nyt&pagewanted=all

In fact, Bill Bradley suggested he shouldn't run, Dick Gephardt flirted with a primary campaign, and Paul Tsongas talked about backing a third-party Colin Powell bid. Bob Casey Sr. even declared he was a candidate but withdrew a few months later.

Examples: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/11/weekinreview/the-nation-democrats-find-out-things-can-get-worse.html

[Jennicut]

9. Oh how soon we forget. I was 18 years old and was really hopeful about Clinton.

Such a depressing time but he bounced back. Let us see what Obama can do.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. The losses in '94, iirc, were mostly congressional.

While only one house is lost this time... look at the smaller state and local governments. Smaller governments have a more direct impact on our daily lives. This past election saw a swing deep into the local elections. Especially the governers, mayors and even councils.

So I think this round, while federally not as deep cutting, will affect lives MUCH more negatively. Not to mention the fact that in '94 we were having a decent/rising economy and now we are in the depths of a recession.

[LawnLover]

11. Mostly red states/districts going back from blue

that swept in two year and four years ago.

This too shall pass.

[Pirate Smile]

12. "How can the Dems stop the Republican agenda when they only control the Senate and White House?"

I love Josh Marshall's tweet tonight:

@joshtpm How can the Dems stop the Republican agenda when they only control the Senate and White House?

[KeyserSoze87]

13. Thanks to the Teatard candidates...

we still have the senate. Obama is going to be kicking ass in 2012.

[w4rma]

14. DLC: Democrats Lose Congress, everytime. (nt)