2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
In the House, I'd say so. In the Senate, seems not.
Newt Gingrich told The Daily Caller that yesterday's midterm election results were more significant than the GOP's historical takeover of Congress in 1994:
The 2010 midterm elections could be more important historically than the Republican takeover of Congress 16 years ago, said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who led the party’s sweep into power in 1994.
“It’s bigger than 1994,” Gingrich told The Daily Caller shortly after it was projected that the GOP would assume a majority in the House late Tuesday night. “It’s a more decisive repudiation. I think the total number of seats will be bigger. I think the governorships are bigger. I think the state legislature, things like losing North Carolina for the first time since 1898. That has to be seen as historic.”
Republicans won 54 seats in the 1994 election, a record the party is projected to break after all votes are counted.
The New York Times reports that yesterday, "Republicans won at least 58 seats, not including those from some Western states where ballots were still being counted, surpassing the 52 seats the party won in the sweep of 1994."
As for the Senate, the numbers seem to fall short of 1994. In 1994, Republicans took control of the Senate after picking up eight seats. This year, Republicans have picked up at least 6 seats, but will not gain a majority. Jay Cost at The Weekly Standard provides this analysis:
For the Republicans, tonight represents not so much a new governing majority but an opportunity to build a majority. Republicans should look very carefully at their problems in the Senate races, where gains of upwards of 9 look to have been reduced to just 6 or 7. Republicans need to recognize that while conservative principles can win in America, they require candidates with broad appeal. Clearly, Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and Christine O'Donnell are not these kinds of candidates.The goal of the Republican party in the next two years should be to articulate the conservative case with an eye to persuading as many voters as possible. After all, that is how change really happens in the United States -- it comes through building a broad political coalition that stretches all across the country.
Cost concludes, "Conservative principles have won such broad mandates before -- in 1896 and 1900, in 1924, in 1980 and 1984 -- and that should be the goal of the Republican party moving forward."
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
My prediction is that the next two years will see plenty of drama, lots of grist for the talk shows. It's important that the new House majority hold the line against any new initiatives from the White House. This will include attempts to legislate through executive fiat. EPA needs to be stopped before the bureaucrats can start regulating CO2 emissions. Other legislation like a bill to repeal the incandescent light bulb ban and rolling back Obamacare will likely be symbolic if the president chooses to use his veto pen. But symbolism can sometimes be important. Much depends now on whether Obama decides to remain an ideologue, or whether he wants a second term. I'm betting on the former.
May '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Can someone please give me something that appears to be a final headcount? I think all the news organizations have done a pitiful job reporting last night's results. Point in fact: A wire service story on the Colorado Senate race reports it is going to a recount, and I scoured the article for a current vote total - bupkes. Not one site can seem to give a decent number on pickups in the House, Senate and states. The GOP started the night with 41 seats and picked up 6, but every site has the GOP currently holding 46 seats - not 47; like Peter, I am a bear of little brain, so someone needs to explain that math to me.
Same goes for the governors and House. Across the various sites, I see garbled numbers on pickups, wins, toss-ups, etc. None of the counts on these sites even seem to add up to 435 in the House or 50 for the governors. I have stopped reading the sites because I feel the intelligence being sucked from my skull, and I don't have much of it to spare.
Oct '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
I don't see how you can credibly spin this as anything other than a huge Republican win. I don't really care whether it was better or worse than 1994 especially considering how the 1994 "revolution" flopped which ultimately gave us Obama.
I was disappointed to see that California is beyond the point of no return. If someone disputes that, I have to ask: If not last night, when?
The Angle and O'Donnell loses don't surprise me and it's a good lesson going forward when it comes to candidate recruitment. As we saw last night, you can certainly win big with Tea Party style candidates, but they need to have a certain level of credibility with a broad spectrum of voters.
As I write this, Joe Miller's fate looks poor and that's the most surprising and disappointing outcome of the night (Et tu, Alaska?). However, I'm very happy that Toomey will be taking a Senate seat.
And the Duke of Dingle will retain his ancestral House seat. Not surprising, but also disappointing.
I am (less than) secretly happy that Linda McMahon lost. There. I said it.
May '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Your not going to get one for several weeks. County election boards usually do not certify their final vote tallies until two weeks after the election and then report those results to their Secretary of State. Recounts make that timetable even longer.
Jul '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
In the big picture, from state level to federal, it's bigger than 1994. Solely from the federal level though it isn't. We failed to capitalize on opportunities to take the Senate and knock off a vulnerable majority leader. Hopefully that keeps momentum going to take back more seats in two years and not get complacent. Overall, a very good night for the GOP and for America.
Edited on Nov 3, 2010 at 7:17amJul '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
There's a bigger forest than that Emily. For example, more State Legislatures are under Republican control than have been in over 80 years. It's quite important for conservative principles to be instituted in the states, as fiscal sanity may return to many of them. It is also important to retain those governorships because of the possibility of nullification of Obamacare should it come to that. The Senate gains are not as bad because the Dem supermajority is effectively over, and having the possibility of a filibuster (even with RINO defections) is important procedurally in the upper house.
Publius: I was disappointed to see that California is beyond the point of no return. If someone disputes that, I have to ask: If not last night, when?
The Angle and O'Donnell loses don't surprise me and it's a good lesson going forward when it comes to candidate recruitment.
I don't think you could have won with any conservative in Delaware. Urquhart lost by the same amount, and 60% of the voters in Delaware think Obama is doing a good job.
California is the biggest disappointment by far. By FAR.
Oct '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
The Republicans could have taken that Connecticut seat if they had nominated a better candidate. I bet if they could have talked Larry Kudlow into running, he would have won it. Why the Republicans thought that McMahon was a good candidate eludes me.
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Michael Tee: There's a bigger forest than that Emily. For example, more State Legislatures are under Republican control than have been in over 80 years. It's quite important for conservative principles to be instituted in the states, as fiscal sanity may return to many of them. It is also important to retain those governorships because of the possibility of nullification of Obamacare should it come to that. The Senate gains are not as bad because the Dem supermajority is effectively over, and having the possibility of a filibuster (even with RINO defections) is important procedurally in the upper house.
I don't think you could have won with any conservative in Delaware. Urquhart lost by the same amount, and 60% of the voters in Delaware think Obama is doing a good job.
California is the biggest disappointment by far. By FAR. · Nov 3 at 7:18a
Good point about the bigger forest.
And I agree that California was the biggest tragedy of the night.
May '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Whiskey Sam: In the big picture, from state level to federal, it's bigger than 1994. Solely from the federal level though it isn't. We failed to capitalize on opportunities to take the Senate and knock off a vulnerable majority leader. Hopefully that keeps momentum going to take back more seats in two years and not get complacent. Overall, a very good night for the GOP and for America. · Nov 3 at 7:16am
Edited on Nov 03 at 07:17 am
I think the disappointment regarding the Senate is more about over-exaggerating our expectations than anything else. Nevada was a disappointment, but hardly surprising. I think it's easier to say we would have won some of these deep blue states with "better candidates" than to actually achieve it.
I think what this election proves is that the "Red state" - "Blue State" divide is still the story of national electoral politics, and, I would argue, probably becoming even more stark than during the Bush years.
Oct '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Kofola
I think it's easier to say we would have won some of these deep blue states with "better candidates" than to actually achieve it.
While I don't think it would have been an easy race, a candidate like Larry Kudlow would have been much better and more competitive in Connecticut than Linda McMahon ever would have been. At a minimum, Larry would not have had the loathsome WWE albatross hanging around his neck.
Oct '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
It's going to be interesting to see how some of the more right-leaning Democrats still left in the Senate (Nelson, etc) will respond to last night. If the party still votes in lockstep, there won't be any bills making it to Obama's desk for him to veto, will there?
And even if they don't vote in lockstep, the Democrats that are left could still filibuster anything coming out of the Senate that even smells of repeal, certainly? (Won't there be some great optics if the majority party has to resort to filibustering?)
I'm not an expert, but I see a lot of fighting coming up in the next two years and not a lot of big stuff getting through, for the President to either veto *or* sign.
Jun '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
David Roy
It's going to be interesting to see how some of the more right-leaning Democrats still left in the Senate (Nelson, etc) will respond to last night. If the party still votes in lockstep, there won't be any bills making it to Obama's desk for him to veto, will there?
Manchin in WV has to run again in 2 years. He might be a DINO. Nelson and Lieberman might swing Republican on certain issues. Murkowski? Who knows. Conservatives might be able to squeeze out a bare majority on some legislation in the Senate. Not filibuster proof, of course, but the face of the filibuster will be none other than Harry Reid.
May '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Publius
Kofola
I think it's easier to say we would have won some of these deep blue states with "better candidates" than to actually achieve it.
While I don't think it would have been an easy race, a candidate like Larry Kudlow would have been much better and more competitive in Connecticut than Linda McMahon ever would have been. At a minimum, Larry would not have had the loathsome WWE albatross hanging around his neck. · Nov 3 at 7:51am
I agree fully that most of these candidates stunk, but I think it's harder to get good candidates for these deep-blue states, simply because potential Republican candidates don't want to spend lots of time and money on something they're more than likely to lose regardless of their strong qualifications. (see: Meg Whitman). Kudlow surely would have been a better candidate, but he also has a nice job that I'm sure he's happy with. Why would he give that up? He might if he ran in say, Texas, where he'd probably win easily.
Jul '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Kofola
I think the disappointment regarding the Senate is more about over-exaggerating our expectations than anything else. Nevada was a disappointment, but hardly surprising. I think it's easier to say we would have won some of these deep blue states with "better candidates" than to actually achieve it.
I think what this election proves is that the "Red state" - "Blue State" divide is still the story of national electoral politics, and, I would argue, probably becoming even more stark than during the Bush years. · Nov 3 at 7:46am
How is it exaggerating expectations when the Senate could be tied if CO, WA and AK end up in our column? Even without those you're looking at 52-46 where O'Donnell, Angle, and McMahon's races with better candidates potentially would have made it 49-49. The opportunity was there, and we failed to capitalize on it. If we can't honestly assess their performances we can't begin to come up with better candidates next time. That said, it was a huge night in the House, and perhaps more importantly for the long-term, a big night at the state level for the GOP.
May '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
I usually don't advocate secession from the Union, but is there any way to vote California out?
Lost in the shuffle of the elections yesterday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (an apt name) voted to outlaw Happy Meals.
Said the Eric Mar, the sponsor of the law, “We’re part of a movement that is moving forward an agenda of food justice.”
Food justice?
May '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
There will be at least 64 new House members, maybe 67. The Senate was a matter of excessive expectations, particularly when winnable races were tossed away through unforced errors (Nevada, Delaware, probably Colorado).
But the secret story, drowned out by the Senate blather is the state house situation. We probably elected an undistinguished, trust-fund baby alcoholic depressive as governor in Minnesota, but took both houses of the state legislature for the first time since I was in high school. And that was repeated in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc.
Matthew, Townhall has the best results tracker:
http://election.townhall.com/election-2010/
May '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
My point is that 8-9 is a solid number that we should be happy with and shouldn't buy into a narrative of disappointment by deluding ourselves that some of these races were really that winnable. Did we have a punchers chance of retaking the Senate? Yes. Was there a high likelihood? Not really.
If there were so many great Republican candidates in all of these deep blue states, why didn't they step forward? This would have been their best opportunity in a long time to win. Toomey was as good a candidate as any for his location, and barely squeaked out a win. NV was probably the only realistic loss that could have been a win (so far), but even then, should we really be surprised that the Harry Reid urban political machine pulled through?
The problems for Republicans in most of these states are much deeper than simply the candidates they're choosing. Where the margin of victory was in the 0-5% range, you might fairly make the "flawed candidate" argument, but not where it was in double digits.
Edited on Nov 3, 2010 at 9:09amAug '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Line of the Day nomination.
Jul '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Kofola
The problems for Republicans in most of these states are much deeper than simply the candidates they're choosing. Where the margin of victory was in the 0-5% range, you might fairly make the "flawed candidate" argument, but not where it was in double digits. · Nov 3 at 9:03am
Edited on Nov 03 at 09:09 am
Except that A) Castle was supposedly a shoe-in in DE and B) the more voluble Tea Partiers kept telling us O'Donnell had a chance to win in what turned out to be a rout. I'm hearing too many people who kept telling us O'Donnell was the right choice now acting like that seat was never winnable in the first place. That's an awfully convenient argument when you've been proven catastrophically wrong.
Jul '10
Re: 2010 GOP Victory is "Bigger than 1994"?
Whiskey Sam
Kofola Where the margin of victory was in the 0-5% range, you might fairly make the "flawed candidate" argument, but not where it was in double digits.
The more voluble Tea Partiers kept telling us O'Donnell had a chance to win in what turned out to be a rout. I'm hearing too many people who kept telling us O'Donnell was the right choice now acting like that seat was never winnable in the first place.
She had a chance to win if
A. Castle endorsed her instead of being a typical RINO sore loser
B. She had the support of the DE GOP
C. She had more than a nod from the NRSC
D. The establishment didn't do their best to destroy her in the primary.
E. She spent some money. She raised a lot of money and still has a lot of cash on hand. I think she saw the early polls and decided to keep her powder dry.
Compared to Coons, who raised a lot less money and had the full support of the DSC, she ran nearly no commercials and tried to rely on virality for her "Witch video."