Friday, October 27, 2006

Here's the big difference between 1994 and 2006:

Yes, the polls are indicating greater dissatisfaction with the party in control of Congress this year than twelve years before. So, does that mean a similar shift in seats held? Some say it'll be less of a swing now because incumbents have gotten better at Gerrymandering. That's probably true. But the big difference between now and then is that two years earlier, in 1992, there were a lot of people that were dissatisfied with whoever was in power and they voted for Ross Perot. It was a big percentage of the electorate. They almost certainly went Republican in 1994. But there was nothing like that in 2004, nor a similar populist movement today. Maybe they are hiding in those Bush-disapproval poll numbers, but maybe they simply aren't there. Maybe they've left the political process (i.e. they became non-voters). And perhaps they were supplanted over the last 12 years by Christian conservatives.

All this is a long-winded way of saying that the poll numbers might not translate into a mirror image of 1994 because of the differences in the political landscape.

That's not to say the Democrats won't take the House, only that a big blow-out might not happen, as desirable as that may be.


Voting is so last year now that we have Diebold to decide.

By Blogger Annie, at 10/28/2006 8:37 PM  

Annie is so ahead of the game. When the Democrats lose dozens of house seats and a handful of Senate seats in the wake of the rigged democratic polls and miserable Democratic turnout, the democrats are going to "blame it on Diebold."

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10/29/2006 5:51 AM  

Post a Comment