LA Times: 2010 as 1994? Relax, Democrats

[Writer]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-cohen17-2010jan17,0,5650998.story

Two Democratic senators and one governor announced their retirements earlier this month, and days later, the smart money has Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat falling to the GOP for the first time in nearly 60 years. Suddenly, the Republicans are crowing and Democrats are trembling -- everyone says the Democratic Party is doomed in 2010.

What is the source of this breathless hysteria? Memories of the 1994 Republican midterm landslide. But everyone should take a deep breath: The 2010 midterms will not be a repeat of 1994. Why? Because almost everything we think we know about the 1994 election is wrong.

[WCGreen]

1. I haven't read the story yet because I wanted to throw my 2 cents into the mix...

1994, although two years after the mandatory realignment elections of 1992, was still heavily affected by the redrawing of the districts.

A whole mess of incumbents won re-election by the skin of their teeth in newly districts and there were also dozens of districts that had not been drawn by the deadline due to political squabbling. When the dust finally settled after the 1992 election, a whole mess of democrats either switched parties or decided it was time to get out before suffering an embarrassing defeat.

That is why we should keep on top of state politics because the redrawing process is all conducted at the state level and most are dependent on the political whims of the particular state.

[lazarus]

2. great article

I love it when history isn't what we thought it was.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. The 2010 electorate is not the same as that of 1994.

James Carville pointed out that if the electorate were exactly the same in 2008 as it was in 1992, John McCain would have won the election.

Democrats need to stop acting like it's 1994 and deal with the voters we have now. Which means, STOP being Republican Lite and START channeling FDR.

[old mark]

4. Cohen is correct. The MSM is playing up the fear angle just to have a

"controversy" to liven up their idea of "news" programming. I mean, without the pandering to the GOP and the constant railing on Obama and the Democrats they would have to report on the weather and maybe some fire somewhere. They WANT DRAMA and if there is none, they make it. They are in the business of selling advertising time, and nothing else, which is why all of the "news personalities" have perfect hair and teeth, loud voices and little intelligence.

mark

[Writer]

8. I agree with you about everything except that those on the air have "little intelligence."

I have met and worked with many reporters over the years, both in print and on television, and they are some of those most intelligent, well-read individuals I have met. Television is easy for us to digest, so we make the foolish assumption that it's a "stupid" medium. Those who work in the news media are generally not stupid people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. I've been trying to tell people this for years.

Few want to listen, the myth is just a better story.

I'd also add to the article that there were just way more seats that were coincidentally in play than usual.

[timeforpeace]

6. However, the enormity of a loss tomorrow may equal or exceed all the losses in 1994 with all the

concomitant issues in the balance now.

[high density]

7. The issue seems to be whether or not Democrats will care enough to go to the polls

The generally GOP-lite agenda isn't inspiring.