Five reasons why 2010 won’t be like 1994

As pointed out on, the 2010 midterm elections might not have too much similarity with the 1994 “Republican Revolution” that led to Republican control of both the House and the Senate. Here’s the five reasons gives as their reasoning behind why 2010 might not be too similar to 1994:

  1. Michael Steele – For the Democrats, the Republican National Committee chairman is the gift that keeps on giving. Hardly a week goes by without some gaffe or scandal involving Michael Steele. Just last week, Steele and the RNC were mired in a scandal after it was revealed the RNC made a roughly $2,000 disbursement to a staffer for expenses incurred at a lesbian-themed bondage club, and before that it was a mid-winter RNC retreat to Hawaii.

  2. Fundraising – While some polls may show the Republican Party with an edge in voter enthusiasm, the Democratic Party still has an edge in fundraising. The NRCC, which works to elect Republicans to the House of Representatives, has just a shade over $6 million in the bank, which is dwarfed by the nearly $20 million held by the DCCC. Considering the fact that the House remains Republicans’ best chance for regaining a majority, the fact that they’re being outraised by Democrats certainly seems to bode ill for the upcoming elections.

  3. Tea Parties – The presence of “Tea Party” candidates in 2010 could make for some very tough choices for the Republican powers-that-be, as they may be forced to make a decision between supporting candidates that were not their preferred choices or sitting on their hands and risk losing the seats to Democrats. As notes, to see the potential dangers of the Tea Party groundswell, the GOP leadership need look no further than the debacle in New York’s 23rd district — where Democrats won a Republican safe seat after conservative activists put up a third candidate against Dede Scozzafava, a GOP candidate deemed too moderate by Tea Party types.

  4. Who’s the Leader? – In 1994, Republicans retook control of the House and the Senate led by Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, but who’s leading Republicans in 2010? There seems to be no clear-cut leader for Republicans, and what’s more, there seems to be no clear-cut direction for Republicans, who seem perfectly content to continue their role as the “Party of No.”

  5. Legislative Wins – Unlike 1994, when President Bill Clinton’s administration had been dealt a series of legislative setbacks (health care reform being a big one), President Barack Obama has had a series of legislative successes, from the stimulus bill that mitigated the effects of the recession to the health care reform legislation he recently signed into law. While there are some that will say the passage of health care reform will work against Democrats, I’d argue their failure to pass any type of health care reform legislation would have had a much more negative impact on Democrats in these midterm elections.

Related Articles

6 thoughts on “Five reasons why 2010 won’t be like 1994

        1. Zach I tried so hard not to post that, I really did. Couldn’t do it. I’m trying for more willpower next time.

Comments are closed.