Could 2006 Be Another 1994?

[Republican Michigander]

There IS an opening for democrats for another 1994, but unless things change, they are blowing it - despite a split republican base between the Bush Republicans, economic conservatives(Spending), and right wing populists (Tom Tancredo). 

But all I've seen from the democrats is a campaign of "Bush sucks."  I have yet to see Jim Marcinkowski's plan.

[Republican Michigander]

I still think he has a point though. Look at the Midwest, defined as PA, MI, IL, OH, IN, IA, MN and WI. Kerry won this region by more than 300 000 votes in total, winning 5 out of 8 states and 3 of the 4 big ones. And Democrats do have 5/8 governors and 9/16 senators. But the House delegation is 60% Republican. The only state with a Dem majority in the House is Illinois, and even that is only 10-9. I mean, Pennsylvania and Michigan both voted Dem in the last 4 elections but both have clear Republican majorities in their House delegations. I know there is a lot of gerrymandering, but Democrats really need to work on all these big deficits in big states that they've run up.

Michigan is a very close state, and a very large majority of the democrats votes are concentrated in a few areas.

1. Most of Wayne County and Detroit (Conyers, Kilpatrick, Dingell Districts)
2. Southeastern Oakland/Southern Macomb Counties (Sander Levin's District) City of Pontiac is also democrat.
3. Flint, Saginaw, Bay City Corridor (All in Kildee's District)
4. Ann Arbor area (Dingell District)
5. Lansing/East Lansing/Okemos (Mike Rogers District - Livingston County outvotes them)

To a lesser extent, Muskegon, Grand Rapids (City), Benton Harbor, Kalamazoo, Jackson(city), Battle Creek(city), Albion(city), and Lake County, but they are outvoted by surrounding areas.

The UP and Alpena area is democrat on the local level, but Bart Stupak's district went for Bush twice. They are similar to West Virginia in politics.

[Republican Michigander]

1994 will never happen again.  Especially not in 2006; the Democrats are positioned to lose a small amount of seats in both houses.

C'mon Boss, we should at least be able to take down Santorum. But then Minnesota and New Jersey come into play, but with luck, their democrat-leanings will come into play and the Dems will be able to retain both.

Although, I will agree that anyone predicting 1994 in reverse is grossly overestimating the political competence and adeptness of the democratic party. We are talking about the party that has lost seven of the last ten presidential elections, you know.

In 1946, the Republicans took back the House after losing five presidential elections in a row. I don't think that presidential races going back decades are much of an indicator. I'll agree that the Dems can be a little weak in "adeptness," but nobody has been less politically competitant than the Republicans of late.

The most important thing is individual candidates. If one party send a sacrificial lamb with no backing for a marginal seat, it takes a miracle to win. It's happened (Jack Brooks), but it's rare.

Lately both parties have been extremely inept. The Republicans are moving to the left on fiscal issues, and the Democrats go even further left. It's driving me (who is almost fiscally libertarian) up the wall.