In general, people may not have a lot of fondness for 1934. It was smack in the middle of the Great Depression, and things were pretty bad. But, as Daniel Gross points out, it was better than in 1930 or 1932, and the economy was growing. So Mr. Roosevelt's party, the Democratic Party, the party of Woodrow Wilson, didn't lose seats in the House and Senate, as conventional wisdom says the president's party must in the off-year. No, the Democrats gained seats, increasing their majorities, and positioning themselves to carry out the "Second New Deal."
Can this happen again? A lot depends upon just exactly how much the numbers move between now and November, but the Republicans should beware of counting their chickens before they are hatched. Of course, it the Republicans are disappointed in the fall, think how unhappy the Tea Party patriots, Fox News, Sarah Palin, and members of various armed militias are going to be!
Glenn A Knight
In my study
Showing posts with label 2010 elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 elections. Show all posts
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Republicans' Chances in 2010
The attached article from Slate's daily news summary will take you to the Wall Street Journal's piece debunking the notion that 2010 might be another 1994. Here's a direct link to the WSJ's web page.
Either way, for the nation's foremost conservative journal (The Spokane Spokesman-Review? I don't think so.) to be so pessimistic about the Republicans' chances at this point in the midterm race indicates that the GOP is in serious trouble. And who among us doubted it?
Two things really struck me in Seib's article. One is that seven of the 40 Senate Republicans, that's 17.5%, are retiring. The other is a great map showing Democratic districts in which McCain took a majority of the Presidential vote. Those districts, by and large, abut Republican areas of the country. If the Republican thinks the Democrats who hold these districts are vulnerable, I'd flip that thought over. Those Democrats ran ahead of President Obama when the Republicans had a relatively attractive candidate. They're supposed to do better with no one leading the ticket? I don't think so.
Either way, for the nation's foremost conservative journal (The Spokane Spokesman-Review? I don't think so.) to be so pessimistic about the Republicans' chances at this point in the midterm race indicates that the GOP is in serious trouble. And who among us doubted it?
Two things really struck me in Seib's article. One is that seven of the 40 Senate Republicans, that's 17.5%, are retiring. The other is a great map showing Democratic districts in which McCain took a majority of the Presidential vote. Those districts, by and large, abut Republican areas of the country. If the Republican thinks the Democrats who hold these districts are vulnerable, I'd flip that thought over. Those Democrats ran ahead of President Obama when the Republicans had a relatively attractive candidate. They're supposed to do better with no one leading the ticket? I don't think so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)