- MENU
- HOME
- SEARCH
- WORLD
- MAIN
- AFRICA
- ASIA
- BALKANS
- EUROPE
- LATIN AMERICA
- MIDDLE EAST
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Argentina
- Australia
- Austria
- Benelux
- Brazil
- Canada
- China
- France
- Germany
- Greece
- Hungary
- India
- Indonesia
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Japan
- Korea
- Mexico
- New Zealand
- Pakistan
- Philippines
- Poland
- Russia
- South Africa
- Spain
- Taiwan
- Turkey
- USA
- BUSINESS
- WEALTH
- STOCKS
- TECH
- HEALTH
- LIFESTYLE
- ENTERTAINMENT
- SPORTS
- RSS
- iHaveNet.com: Politics
by Robert Schlesinger
Democrats can still hold their majority
The Democratic victory you didn't hear about last week, as it was (rightly) overshadowed by the
Spratt is one of 48 "McCain Democrats," so called because while they were winning their districts last year, so was
Republicans' magic number is 40--they would have to gain a net of 40 seats to wrest control of the House from Democrats. Such a gain would be the biggest by either party since the historic
You remember 1994. Voters were dissatisfied with a young Democratic president who had run as a centrist but governed as too much of a liberal. The electorate was worried about burgeoning deficits and soured on the president's sweeping attempt at healthcare reform.
The parallels are striking, but don't get carried away (as some gleeful conservatives have): There are a number of important differences.
Where, for example, is this year's Newt Gingrich? In 1994, Gingrich was able to steer the good ship
In part that's because the ship remains in a state of partial mutiny. Some would-be leaders, like former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, seem as interested in targeting the
And that is connected with another key difference from 1994: The
Perhaps the biggest reason the 2010 political landscape differs from 1994 is the 1994 elections themselves. That election was a temblor that permanently changed the campaign culture in Washington. Right up until it crumbled, the Democratic majority seemed sturdy and enduring. With control of the House never an issue, the party-level stakes were not high. House members could (and often did) wait until the calendar flipped to an even-numbered year before focusing on their re-election. As former Rep. Martin Frost wrote in Politico recently, "because the Republican tide broke late in the 1994 election cycle, some Democrats never saw it coming."
But 1994 changed that. Each election since has been a pitched battle, with the speaker's gavel as the prize. Both parties work hard to ensure that they won't be taken by surprise and that their potentially vulnerable members are in the best position to run for re-election. "They make it a science now," Democratic pollster Brad Bannon says. "It's much more structured and much more institutionalized than it used to be, especially since '94."
The parties start helping new members with their re-election within days of their arrival in Washington. Each side has specialized incumbent protection programs--the Democrats' is called Frontline and the Republicans' the Patriot Program. In short, picking off incumbents is harder than ever.
The parties are now in the R&R period of the political season--recruiting and retention. The 2010 elections are likely to turn on the outcomes of policies that are already set: healthcare, Afghanistan, and, most important, the economy. But the extent to which each side will be able to ride or resist a wave generated by one of these issues will be decided by how well Democrats and Republicans position themselves now in terms of the candidates they run and the competitive open seats they must defend. Which brings us back to Gordon, Moore, Tanner, and Baird.
The critical question for Democrats is to what extent other swing district members will join them in retirement. The over-under, according to veteran political observers like Charlie Cook, is 15. If competitive Democratic retirements swell past that number, we could see a different ballgame than in 1994 but the same final score.
AMERICAN POLITICS
WORLD | AFRICA | ASIA | EUROPE | LATIN AMERICA | MIDDLE EAST | UNITED STATES | ECONOMICS | EDUCATION | ENVIRONMENT | FOREIGN POLICY | POLITICS
© Tribune Media Services