Will 2006 be a re-run of 1994?
Will 2006 be a re-run of 1994? Many Democrats think so. After all, we have a president with plummeting popularity, a prosecutor probing and indicting White House officials, ethics investigations on Capitol Hill, and a strong showing by Democrats in the off-year election. In fact, talking points I received in my in-box this morning from one of the Democratic campaign committees tout the fact that President Bush's unpopularity mirrors Clinton's in 1993 (the implication being that what comes next is a Democratic takeover of Congress).
But not so fast.
1994 was the product of a confluence of unique events in American political history--from changes in campaign finance law to long-term partisan shifts--that are impossible to replicate.
If you want to know why I think Democrats should stop fetishizing 1994 if they want to re-take Congress, check out my new piece over at the New Republic's site.
God, I hope not.
November 14, 2005 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Am I missing something?? Shouldn't the title and first sentence reference 1994 instead of 2004?
November 14, 2005 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Should the title and the first sentence references be to 1994 instead of 2004?
The 2006 elections certainly seem more likely to resemble the 1994 elections rather than the 2004 elections. About the only significant connections between the 2004 and 2006 elections will be Dubya and his failed war, but in contrast to last year, both factors will probably work against most GOP candidates, as they did in this year's election.
November 14, 2005 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not "fetishize" the belief that Democrats can repeat the historic Republican gains of 1994? It creates a narrative that the media can latch onto that is without a doubt positive for Democrats. Even if it's unrealistic... at least it's a postive expectation... and positive things tend to happen when you're optimistic... especially in politics. How is this a bad thing?
If Dems actually don't end up matching the Republican gains of '94... who effing cares? They've been losers since 2000. Reversing the losses will be a gain any way you slice it.
November 14, 2005 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . to those who aren't TNR subscribers.
November 14, 2005 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. If you want to post here, Kenneth, either make the actual argument here or link to something everyone can access. Otherwise the post just looks like a cheap teaser for TNR. Even the structure of the last paragraph is like an ad. ("I have the answer! Want to know what it is? Follow this link! OOPS! You'll have to subscribe to find out!")
November 14, 2005 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
The first reason the Democrats should offer in connection with next year's campaign a clear, simple message and a very small number of specific things a Democratic Congress will do (written in plain English, one sentence) is not because next year resembles 1994.
It is because the voters say they don't know what the Democrats stand for.
Isn't the first rule of organizing that you can't beat something with nothing?
The most relevant potential similarity between next year and 1994 is that there is a great deal of discontent and disgust with the party in power. This is a situation that is ripe for an outlet if the Democrats can provide one.
This possibility does not lead clearly to any one particular conclusion. But it should inform the thinking and strategizing of those whose job that is because it means that House and Senate races that might ordinarily not be considered remotely winnable are at least potentially winnable if Dems run credible candidates, tap into the discontent effectively, and in other ways run good campaigns next year.
Just as in 1980 many Democratic senators were swept out on the anti-Carter sentiment that gave Reagan a big win, it is possible a similar dynamic could take place next year. The point isn't that next year is likely to be like 1994 or 1980. The point is that a tidal wave can emerge in politics which can lead to a sweeping out of the incumbent party--if the opposition party is able to exploit the opportunity.
What does seem to me quite debatable is whether Democratic efforts to try to nationalize the elections by offering consistent themes and program in all parts of the country will have any effect on how people vote in particular races:
*How much, if at all, do voters care whether what they are hearing from their Democratic challenger sounds the same as what candidates in other parts of the country are saying, or not?
*Are voters prepared to believe, at this point anyway, that electing Democratic majorities in Congress would lead to accomplishment of whatever changes Democrats might commit to supporting in a relatively nationalized campaign?
*Commitments some might want our candidates to make would help in some races but hurt our chances in others.
A caveat, as always, is that this is as matters stand now. We all know that six months, let alone a year, in politics is an eternity.
November 14, 2005 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not "fetishize" the belief that Democrats can repeat the historic Republican gains of 1994? It creates a narrative that the media can latch onto that is without a doubt positive for Democrats.
Unrealistic expectations now set up disappointment down the road. There's already a segment of the left that (irrationally) blames Democrats for losses in 2002 and 2004. Setting everyone up for huge gains in 2006 which don't materialize will give that segment more reason to make foolish demands ("Move further to the left!!!"), while making the party look Pollyannaish to the media and mainstream voters. It's tough to sell yourself as a party of competence if you consistently make silly predictions about electoral outcomes.
November 14, 2005 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies. Here's the passthrough: http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=%2Fr%2FD47SS1fP7y5TRNXXfNS%3D%3D
November 14, 2005 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Setting everyone up for huge gains in 2006 which don't materialize will give that segment more reason to make foolish demands ('Move further to the left!!!')"
Considering that, in 2004, we had a candidate who wouldn't change his mind about a war that was based on lies, it'll be pretty hard *not* to move to the left, in 2006.
November 14, 2005 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question seems to be whether there will be a unique confluence of events in 2006 that will influence the result, no? The potential certainly is there.
- Jack Abramoff legal troubles, both civil and criminal.
- Tom Delay legal troubles.
- Whitehouse legal troubles.
- Foreign policy trouble in Iraq.
- Continued dysfunctional Bu$hCo federal bureaucrat cronies.
- Threat of overturn of Roe.
Most of these issues will likely dominate the media over the next 12 months. If the Democrats can continue to succeed in opposing the GOP's failure to rein in the executive branch incompetence and malfeasance, and in timely fashion introduce their own legislative agenda before next November's election, both houses on the hill could well be there for the taking. Then, Mr. Baer, in another eleven years, you'll be able to write about why 2006 was a uniquely unrepeatable event.November 14, 2005 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
American Dreamer -
I take you back to your analysis of the VA Govr race and our discussion of VA exurban voters.
Exurban voter?
Analysis of exurban voters in Monday's NYTimes. The focus is the VA race!
..." Republicans have misinterpreted their past success ...as evidence that these voters endorsed and wanted an anti-government, socially conservative agenda..... In reality, exurban voters are tax-sensitive and concerned about government waste, but not ideologically anti-government. They tend to be religious and family-oriented, but socially moderate in comparison to rural residents. They are not anti-business, but they do hold populist attitudes toward corporate abuse and people who game the system. And they worry as much or more about public education as they do about moral values."
NY Times Op Ed by Ruy Teixiera
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/14/opinion/14texeira.html
November 14, 2005 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent article Mr. Baer, but you left out the slogan that I remember most from 1994, the angry white male. I wonder if the use of emotion and anger couldn't be used to the Dems advantage in 2006? While the Contract with America wasn't a driving force for the takeover, it was the perfect vehicle to focus the anger of many Americans on the broader need for change and reform of the government without being specifically anti-Clinton. While in 2005 many Dems are angry about the war in Iraq, their emotion is too often directed at Bush and dismissed as the hysterical raving of the fringe elements within the party. I would like to see a platform and agenda that can be angrily touted as necessary for the good of all, without creating proposals that are impossible to deliver. For instance, while I agree that the country will be better off with a national healthcare system, any promise to provide one will require a plan for how to pay for it. The debate about how to pay for it will steal the anger and swamp the agenda.
I would like to see an agenda that calls for a new strategy for Iraq, deficit reduction, fair taxation, protections for privacy and civil rights, and energy independence.
November 14, 2005 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't the first rule of organizing that you can't beat something with nothing?
You hit the nail on the head, Dreamer, Howard Dean actually said on Fox News Sunday "...we don't have to be for anything yet...we're trying to stop the Republicans" the big thing the Reps had in 94 was ideas (whether you agree with them or not, they didn't just say the Dems suck, they said the Dems suck and here's what we'll do if you elect us).
November 14, 2005 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
but you left out the slogan that I remember most from 1994, the angry white male.
Remember that was what the Dems "said" was the reason they lost, just like they said they lost 2004 because they didn't get their message out. You'll never understand why you lose if you ask each other, you have to actually listen to the people who voted against you, and address that. Stand up against illegal immagration and pick up the vote you need in Arizona, Arkansas, hold New Mexico, bam you win. Accuse anyone who opposes the status quo with the border sittuation of racism, and you continue to lose. It's not really all that hard.
November 15, 2005 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Irishkg:
Thanks very much for the link.
The number of voters in play in these exurban counties (31,000+ to 27,000+ in Loudoun County and 33,000 + to 32,000 + in Prince William County) is still small relative to larger, closer-in suburbs such as Fairfax County (163,000 + to 103,000 +). But as noted in the article these exurbs happen to be rapidly growing, certainly much more rapidly on a percentage basis although not necessarily on an absolute numeric basis (I haven't looked into that yet), than the larger, closer in Fairfax County.
Re your other comment which I said I would look into, I've not gotten data on it yet.
I did seek the perspective of our precinct Chair, an amazing woman who has been around since the pro-segregation Democratic party days of Harry Byrd. The area has exploded in population growth since then. Her take is that the DC area does receive an influx of "new blood" from other parts of the US on a regular basis. Most of them are well educated in her view and fortunately "know *why* they are Democrats".
She also allowed as to how she knows many people who used to vote Republican but now tend to vote Democratic due to the Republican party's lurch to the hard right.
She did not offer a take on the relative importance of these different phenomenon, numerically speaking, which was your specific and excellent question.
She did not allude, either, to the influx of immigrants into the greater DC area, which also needs to be taken into account.
Suburban Montgomery County, Maryland, just to the north of DC, has, like Fairfax County, VA, close to a million residents. I had read that well over 100 languages are spoken in the homes of its public school students. It is not at all your basic lilly white suburb of lore. Myron Orfield's book as I recall also demonstrates the trends in many American metro areas towards growing non-white populations in close-in, "inner ring" suburbs in particular.
November 15, 2005 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC Wallace:
Just to be clear, I believe many if not most individual Democratic officeholders and candidates at the federal level do know what they believe and stand for.
The national Dem problem here is one of having a weak collective voice and positive identity with many voters at present.
Democrats have a good deal of trouble getting and making effective use of the microphone these days, with some exceptions such as Reid's closed session move on the misuse of intel matter. This is a problem which a party which does not occupy the WH or a majority in either the House or Senate inherently has.
I am not saying that it obviously helped their cause more than it hurt it, but if memory serves Republican officeholders in 1994 tried to deal with this issue by essentially allowing Newt Gingrich to become the public face of the party, long before his name became quite as radioactive as it is today.
The natural Dem spokespersons, one supposes, would be Dean, Pelosi, Reid, or some combination of these. It's unclear to me to what extent they seek to coordinate their actions, and towards what consistent and specific strategic ends.
Because of decades of highly effective Republican efforts to trash the Democratic brand name many voters whose views on the issues are actually more supportive of Dems than Reps have come to accept the propositions that: a) the Democrats stand for nothing b) what the Democrats stand for is horrible, or (!) both.
Which is it with you?
November 15, 2005 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see why we can't get rid of gerrymandering once and for all by having a mathematical formula written BEFORE the census comes out. Then whatever map fit the formula best would be in place for the next 10 years.
It could be simple like this:
One point would be awarded for each district that varied from the exact averge size for the state.
One point would be added for the number of miles for each district from the nothern most point to the southern most point and from the eastern most point to the western most point.
No census tract could be divided between districts.
Now, there IS an optimal map for each state and no one could predict in advance which party this formula would benefit.
We would even get some competitive house races if we followed these guidelines.
November 15, 2005 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The natural Dem spokespersons, one supposes, would be Dean, Pelosi, Reid, or some combination of these.
Dude, y'all better start scouting the second team for some talent, cuz these guys are what we call in the business "Damaged Goods."
Because of decades of highly effective Republican efforts to trash the Democratic brand name many voters whose views on the issues are actually more supportive of Dems than Reps have come to accept the propositions that: a) the Democrats stand for nothing b) what the Democrats stand for is horrible, or (!) both.
Uh, Howard Dean, the leader of your party, said on a national Sunday morning program, "we don't have to be for anything" that's got nothing to do with Republican propaganda.
November 15, 2005 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pelosi and Reid are excellent public servants. If they become Speaker and Senate Majority Leader in January 2007 our country will be well served.
DeLay is corrupt to the core. He sets the ethical bar so low an ant could not crawl beneath it. As the leader of his party in the Senate, Frist has managed to lose the respect of his fellow senators and wreck his own presidential ambitions this year--with six weeks plus yet to go. Quite a feat.
And as leaders of their party selected by their peers, these guys are supposed to be the cream of the crop on the Republican side of the aisle.
Will not comment on the Dean remark as I did not see the show.
November 15, 2005 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I would agree that Democrats probably will do fairly well in the 2006 elections. To be sure, the President's approval ratings are falling and his domestic agenda has stalled. With that being said, Democrats most likely cannot look beyond 2006 at this point for one reason: their likely success next year will NOT be the result of anything they have done, rather, it will simply be voters giving "the other party" a chance. Indeed, Democrats have done little positive in during the Bush II years. In fact, they have done little other than argue his policies. Unless the left comes up with a quanitative plan for Iraq, taxes, trade deficit, etc. look for Republicans to regain the White House in 2008. The left is a reactionary party, meaning they gain seats based on the shortcomings of Republican endeavors. That is not to be commended. True, the Republicans may fail once in a while, but at least they have the initiative to be proactive.
November 16, 2005 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink