And now you find yourself in 82?
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll is stunning. The numbers have only gotten worse for the GOP, and the Democrats' have gotten better.
One month until Election Day, and even this pessimist -- who has had his hopes dashed by the Democrats about as many times as they have been dashed by the Phillies -- is getting caught up in the euphoria of a Democratic takeover of, at least, the House.
My boosterism aside, I still stand by my earlier warnings that 2006 is not 1994. For a variety of reasons -- from the lack of a huge number of open seats to the huge number of vulnerable freshmen and the culmination of an once-in-a-lifetime realignment -- I still believe that 1994 was unique. But looking at the Post's numbers, perhaps 2006 may be more like 1982?
First, the numbers. 54 percent of those polled said they would support the Democratic candidate for Congress (41 percent said the Republican). Looking down the table, one notes that those numbers were 47-42 on November 6, 1994 -- a testament to the importance of turnout. The only period that compares to this spread is the 58 percent to 39 percent reading on October 27, 1982.
Looking at the "right track-wrong track" number, it's 32 percent right versus 66 percent wrong in the latest poll; it was 35-57 in 1982. And approval of Congress was 31 percent today, and 38 percent in 1982. And in the end, Democrats picked up 27 seats -- more than enough in 2006 to flip the House.
Now, of course, this all needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Not only are the comparisons highly selective, but in 1982, Democrats enjoyed the benefit of running against 35 newly-elected Republicans (again, freshmen are uniquely vulnerable). And Dems still enjoyed the majority; a vote for a Democratic candidate was not necessarily seen as one to swing control of the House, an unlikely outcome.
Nevertheless, looking at the Post's numbers, one does see some similarities between 2006 and 1982. And while this year's elections won't bring back the mighty sounds of Asia's debut album, let's hope it brings back similar Democratic gains.
I hope it is not 1982 again, because I remember how that all worked out in the end.
In 1982, people were experiencing some buyers' remorse in choosing Reagan, but, in the end, Reagan became an iconic political hero, not just to the Right, but to a large part of the politically independent (i.e. politically ignorant).
The country is struggling with a political realignment, which may not stick. That political realignment happened in 2004, with the election of George W. Bush to a second term. It is an alignment, which gives total political power to a numerical minority, thru control of news Media, gerrymandering and electoral manipulation, but it is an alignment, which may stick.
I, personally, am horrified at the notion that the Republicans have achieved a presumptive claim on national political power, but I think we have to entertain the idea that they have. They are on the verge of having a solid, reactionary majority on the Supreme Court. They have, over 30 years, shifted the economic structure of the country to the point, where the continuation of Social Security can be an issue. They have near total control of the corporate News Media.
The Republican Party, today, is a radical Party, and, in American politics, radical Parties tend to provoke the other Party into a sturdy, uncompromising moderation. It is paradoxical, I suppose -- that one Party's radicalism doesn't make the other Party equally radical, but just the opposite.
I think the right comparison for 2006 is 1858 or 1894 or 1930. The Party of presumptive Power is on the verge of cracking up the country, and the opposition Party is struggling to gain a toehold on Power.
If the Democrats do gain some measure of Power, the Republicans will do all they can to blame the Democrats for the consequences of Republican Policy failure. Withdraw from Iraq, and the Democrats will be blamed for losing Iraq. Reduce the deficit by raising taxes? Ditto. A very painful recession is on its way; who will be blamed for that?
Republican control of all News Media will not be decided in this election. The dominant narrative of what comes next is in Republican hands.
Democrats have a up-hill fight, to regain access to the Media, to stave off Federalist Society control of the judiciary, and to overcome the gerrymandering and electoral manipulation, which allows the Republicans to claim power with only ~40% popular support.
The hope of the Democrats is to expand their claim on conservatives and westerners -- to expand their geographical and ideological reach, to outflank the Republican gerrymander with geographic reach into the West, and to counter the fervency of true believing Republican radicals with moderate acceptance of secular and rational conservatives.
If 2006 shows progress on expanding the Democratic tent, and, simultaneously, making the Republicans even more radical and narrow in their appeal, then there may be hope. I think the Republicans may lose most of their remaining Northeastern moderates, which will make the Republicans more radical as a Party, which, is, I hope, still a handicap in American politics.
Even if the anticipated "wave" is not quite as broad as some expect nationally, it seems likely that Ohio will have switched from solidly Red Republican to nearly solidly Democratic Blue in a single cycle, which is quite remarkable, and may determine the 2008 Presidential election.
October 10, 2006 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about Indiana? It seems that congessional delegatios is turning blue -- and Indiana was most Republican state in Midwest.
October 10, 2006 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wish people would realize that Joe Lieberman is a Republican. Regardless of what he did in the past or what people thought of him in the past, Lieberman is not a Democrat anymore. He is getting the republican voters support because he has supported Bush and his agenda 100% in every shocking and deplorable thing he wanted to do. Connecticut can do so much better with a better man like Ned Lamont representing them. Lieberman has become everything Democrats can not support.
October 10, 2006 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about 1974 all over again? And then 1976 all over again!
Tom
October 10, 2006 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would agree that Lieberman is not a Democrat anymore. Calling him a Republican is a bit extreme, though. Why not call him what he is listed as on the ballot, an independent?
He does have Republican support, and he has Democratic support, and he has independent support, and that therefore makes him an independent.
Its not the first time its happened, and it won't be the last... I'm not really happy about it, but no need to push him further into the other camp and turn him into a Republican...
October 11, 2006 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was extremely well said...
October 11, 2006 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before you going getting all excited, better to go read Kos's reality check. I'm not even a big Kos fan, but its like a splash of cold water....
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/10/144136/28
October 11, 2006 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best term for him is "Petitioning Candidate."
October 12, 2006 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm always get a kick out of hearing the Great Lakes states to as the Midwest, when the state to the east of Ohio has an Atlantic port. I reckon that Nebraska and several other states of the actual Midwest could give Indiana a run for its money as far as Republicanicity goes.
But, yeah, with the whole Great Lakes hurt by the Republican policies of de-industrialization, even Indiana offers opportunities to the Democratic party that can be parlayed into serious races, thanks to the 50-state strategy.
October 13, 2006 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with kos, but then I have always seen a stronger opportunity to flip the House than to flip the Senate this time. Recall that a year ago, picking up 2 Senate seats would have been an optimistic call. If the Democrats pick up 5 (and don't have to worry about the consequence of stripping Joe of his seniority), I'll be happy. And the 2008 Senate cycle looks like a more level playing field than the 2006 one was.
That is, I'll be happy as long as the Democrats can flip the House. +27 House seats, like in 1982, would suit me down to the ground.
October 13, 2006 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Cleveland, Toledo and Gary are Atlantic ports too. As well as Duluth. MidWest is a western extension of the Atlantic Coast.
October 15, 2006 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was more counting Philadelphia in our eastern neighbour as an Atlantic port ... as the crow flies, we are in the eastern sixth of the country. Ohio was "middle west" some time a long time ago when the western frontier was somewhere in Iowa, and the label has stuck ... possibly due to New Yorkers and Californians being a bit fuzzy on the precise location of all those states in the middle.
October 17, 2006 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not listed on the ballot as an Independent. He's listed as the candidate of the CFL, or "CT4Lie" party.
But, yes, he is neither fish nor fowl nor red meat, so perhaps he should have been listed on the ballot as Red Herring.
October 17, 2006 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think Ohio was in the Old Northwest, as in Northwest Ordinances during the Articles of Confederation days.
Tom
October 19, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink