I believe the reason Democrats took a huge thumping in in 1994 was because Health Care was not passe

[Winterblues]

I feel the exact same thing will happen in 2010 if it still doesn't pass. Clinton ran on that issue as did Obama. If Health Care is not passed in short order, I believe Democrats will pay a big price..

[county worker]

1. The Dems lost in 94 because the repub convinced everyone that we were going to get

big and costly new programs and that our taxes would rise. That time the big government low taxes meme worked.

I see very little similarity between 1994 and today. Now people can see the con the right puts out and they trust the Dems more.

[Uzybone]

3. OP is incorrect...you are correct

people seem to have very short memories around here. Dems got thumped because of "big government" in 1994.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. I worked that election. I know why Dems lost. It was because dems ran as Repos.

The Dems who ran as Dems won in 1994.

Look at the voter turnout. The same number of Repos turned out to vote in 1994 as in 1990. (the last mid term year)

Significantly less Dems turned out to vote in 1994 than did in 1990.


So it's obvious that the election in 1994 was determined by a suppressed liberal turnout and not because the Repos did any better than they did in 1990, when they lost.

i would contend that the Dems have far more ability to turn out their own voters than the Repos have means to make Dems stay home.

[county worker]

20. A suppressed Dem turnout not necessarily a suppressed liberal turnout.

So many here make the mistake thinking that Dem = Liberal. It doesn't!

[Echo In Light]

23. True, that

[John Q. Citizen]

28. Except that it was the liberals who were most upset at Clinton for passing Repo bills. Like NAFTA

and so called Welfare Reform.

liberals were also pissed off at how Clinton squandered the opportunity for healthcare reform. Many groups and organizations who had worked the longest and hardest for healthcare reform were entirely shut out of the Clinton secret task force.

or do you assume that rightwing Dems stayed home because they were upset at NAFTA and Welfare Reform?

[county worker]

31. I remember listening to KPFK Pacifica radio and hearing how mad liberals were with Clinton.

I can't remember why so many Dems didn't vote in '94. I do remember the contract on America and the day after the election telling some ditto heads that they won because we didn't bother to vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

33. either you can attract people to vote for you or you can't. Many liberals don't trust the Clintons

because they have been burned by them enough to warrant suspicion.

You can blame the voters if you want, but I blame the politicians. It's their job description to rally their voters to the polls. If they can't do that, what good are they. Time to switch professions.

That was what sunk Hillary last year. More liberals backed Obama.

When Obama didn't get folded on Super Tues, he came back with a beautifully organized set of nationwide victories and mathematically put the the contest to bed as long as the rules didn't get changed.

It was extremely tiresome being a liberal during the Clinton administration. I was forced to constantly defend Clinton from a bunch of manufactured bull shit, while at the same time a lot of the issues I cared about never got discussed or debated. The things I didn't like about Clinton were what the Repos loved about him.

[county worker]

36. IMHO "liberals" were a minority in the Democratic party in 1994.

From what I am reading more Dems in 1994 were DLC types than liberal types. That has since changed with the economic times I think. I would venture a guess that if the economy was doing well there would still be more DLC type Dems than liberal Dems.

That is something that is lost on so many DUers. Democratic does not mean liberal!

[John Q. Citizen]

38. Absolutly, but a large minority, and in fact a plurality because we are also the

grassroots movers and shakers, and have been for a long time.

What you have to understand is that most Dems don't sit around and do analysis or knock on doors and organize their neighbors for campaigns. but the left does do that, both through the Union movement and through citizen non-profit groups.

Obama did what everyone has dreamed about for years. He organized a shitload of data and turned it into on the ground votes all across the country.

So while the Dems drifted right as a party in 1994, their base wasn't all that happy with that. And that hurt the Dems. I'd say the base is considerably happier with the party right now. Howard Dean deserves credit there, and so does Obama.


"If wishes were fishes, we'd have a fish fry," as my friend''s mom used to say. The economy is bad because capitalism doesn't work. It always ends up right here, in the end. The definition of insanity is doinhg the same thing over again and expecting a different result.

That's something that is lost on people who use the phrase "That's something that is lost on so many...,"

Fortunately, Obama says were are going to ditch the ideology and stick with what works. That tells me were are going to move leftword to a mixed economy. One where we have a healthier blend of socialism and capitalism. Because neither work by themselves. But together, they actually work pretty well.

[county worker]

41. I won't argue with that. I feel that my wife represents most voters.

She hates the cable shows I watch on MSMBC. She is registered independent because she does not want to be labeled with a party label. She is opinionated but does not talk about it. She become politically active the minute before she votes. Her vote is based on how she feels the issue will effect her life not on any liberal or conservative ideology.

Now if I am right and 21% consider themselves repubs or conservatives, that means liberals are a very small minority of the total voting public since they are a minority of Democrats.

[WI_DEM]

44. liberals are a minority in the democratic party even today. If you look at polls.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. but not if you look at polls of peoples stance on issues. Only if you look at labels

For years, PEW research has shown that people consistently prefer liberals solutions to msot issues.

But they don't like the label of 'liberal.'

[county worker]

34. I found this:

Certainly the 1994 elections -- which gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in 40 years -- served as a wake-up call for the Democrats, who-lost 10 governorships and control of several state legislatures. No one is more awake to this than the president. Clinton is leading the pack away from the losing-party line; his "triangulation" strategy (separating himself both from Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats) was emphasized in his remarkably centrist State of the Union address, mirroring a technique conservative critics of President Dwight D. Eisenhower once dubbed "me-tooism."

"The speech pointed the country -- and the Democratic Party -- toward a new political era," says Al From, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, or DLC, in a recent newspaper column. "The New Deal's approach to both politics and policy no longer works."

A November 1994 study conducted by the DLC showed a nationwide trend toward the "me-too" New Democrats. Within the party, 75 percent said they thought of themselves as a New Political activists include organized labor on the side of the Democratic Party and the Christian Coalition with the GOP Democrat (one who believes government should help equip people to solve their own problems) as opposed to 20 percent who said they thought more like a traditional Democrat (one who believes government can solve problems and protect people from adversity). Fifty-six percent of the electorate described Clinton as a New Democrat while 37 percent thought he was a traditional Democrat.

The president now enters an uncontested primary season -- the first Democratic president to do so since Roosevelt. Political consultant David Doak says that's a sign of how well the party is adjusting to Clinton's shift to the right. "There aren't as many liberals around in this town anymore," he says. It's really sort of a changing generation."

Clinton learned "me-tooism" while serving as governor of Arkansas. He started his political career as a liberal but reworked that image when he realized what it took to be elected as a Southern Democrat. Such Democrats usually stand for more-moderate economic policies while clinging to conservative social issues, Doak explains. "It takes the same thing to get elected president as a Democrat. So it's natural for him."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n9_v12/ai_18047709/

[John Q. Citizen]

40. Yep, and it cost Dems nationwide for years.

[county worker]

42. I think it says the Dems became DLCers because they lost in 1994.

The party turned right as a result of the loss.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. ha, that funny. Dennis Kucinich was the only Dem to win a Repo seat in 1994. He's not DLC

NAFTA was started by bush I.

It was passed before the 1994 election.

So what gives?

[quiller4]

26. I worked that election, too. The most progressive Ds

in my state, with few exceptions, were soundly defeated. The moderates won. In suburban districts Democratic turnout was down and moderate Rs won. In more rural areas gun rights and state-imposed hunting restrictions were big issues and enlarged the margin of Republican victories.

I doorbelled and phoned for the party and for campaigns in three different districts. I never had a voter mention health care as a major concern.

[John Q. Citizen]

32. Dem Mike Lowerey won the governorship in WA that year, running on healthcare reform.

In fact, I met him through Washington Citizen Action in 1992, when I was working in Tacoma with Citizen Action on health care reform.

So I'm not sure where you were or why the statewide election of a Dem to Governor who ran on healthcare wouldn't peak your memory, but it is curious.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. And those pushing the 'big government' butter were the health insurance

and pharmaceutical industries. They were yelling about how the government would keep you from choosing your own doctor - while shoving everybody into HMOs which KEEP YOU FROM CHOOSING YOUR OWN DOCTOR.

[Orsino]

15. Then there was Democratic complacency and corruption.

That was back in the day when lobbyists couldn't buy enough Dem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Oh, yeah, I remember THOSE scandals - about how some senators

kept running tabs in the congressional cafeteria for as much as six months! Scandalous!

The actual corruption investigations came up with virtually nothing - and a fraction of a percentage of what the GOP would be found guilty of.

[Orsino]

25. The scandal is rarely about what's *illegal*.

The majority party is simply targeted more heavily by corporate lobbyists.

[Democrats_win]

2. Dems are going "gently into that good night" without a fight and accomplishing nothing.

They are not listening to the words from Robin Williams in "Dead Poets Society." He recites a poem about taking advantage of the opportunities you have. ("To the Virgins To Make Much of Time"). This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The Dems are failing. Enjoy it now because soon all we will hear about are Republicans demanding a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage while corporate America demands more tax cuts and more subsidies.

[w4rma]

4. Clinton's support of NAFTA and 'free' trade is the biggest reason, imho. (nt)

[leftynyc]

5. No

the whole healthcare debate was completely mishandled by the Clinton administration. Trying to have it secret was the same as the energy meeting crap with Cheney.

[Echo In Light]

6. All going according to plan....heh. Look for a new Contract ON America

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. And here we are 15 !@#$ing years later with the same issue only worse! nt

[Deep13]

8. I agree Ds have to deliver on this.

I think the tax hike in '93 (even though I agreed with it) and the way the RW media was allowed to spin it and gun control cost us the majorities.

[jmg257]

10. And all along I heard it was due to "guns" - the AWB, etc. n/t

[GodDamLiberal]

11. Yeah well

It wasn't so much that health care didn't pass but that it turned into a fiasco.
That made both clintons look incompetent and weak and gave the gop an opening
on a lot of other issues.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. Off Topic, But I Found It Funny That You Didn't Have Room For The 'D' In Passed, But Didn't Realize

that you put 'in' in the sentence twice lol.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Uh, yes, but not for the reason you think.

1994 was a backlash in large part against Clinton's overreaching. He didn't bother trying to get an overwhelming public majority on health care reform in Congress or among the American people. He just tried to ram it through like DUers demand Obama do. And it failed, and failed miserably, giving the Republicans all the momentum they would need to bedevil the entire Clinton Presidency.

[TheWraith]

14. It was three things, really. Healthcare, guns, and distractions.

Healthcare reform was turned into a massive disaster and propaganda moment for the right.

The Assault Weapons Ban "banned" (not really) some scary looking guns, convincing tens of millions of gun owners that the Dems really did want to ban guns.

And Clinton got off on a rocky start with a lot of things that distracted from the actual business of governing, mostly with the Republicans help.

[Rambis]

16. Health-Care Reform Could Kill the GOP

they killed it in 1993 will they be able to do it again?



Can policy be both wise and aggressively partisan? Ask any Republican worth his salt and the answer will be an unequivocal yes. Ask a Democrat of the respectable Beltway variety and he will twist himself into a pretzel denying it.

For decades Republicans have made policy with a higher purpose in mind: to solidify the GOP base or to damage the institutions and movements aligned with the other side. One of their fondest slogans is "Defund the Left," and under that banner they have attacked labor unions and trial lawyers and tried to sever the links between the lobbying industry and the Democratic Party. Consider as well their long-cherished dreams of privatizing Social Security, which would make Wall Street, instead of Washington, the protector of our beloved seniors. Or their larger effort to demonstrate, by means of egregious misrule, that government is incapable of delivering the most basic services.

That these were all disastrous policies made no difference: The goal was to use state power to achieve lasting victory for the ideas of the right.

On the other side of the political fence, strategic moves of this kind are fairly rare. Instead, for most of my lifetime, prominent Democratic leaders have been chucking liberalism itself for the sake of immediate tactical gain.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122826686559774533.html

[dflprincess]

17. It could kill the Democrats as well

if they don't give us actual reform. So far everything they're allowing to be discussed sounds more like a plan to protect health insurance companies. I'm sure those companies are pleased that the bribes they've been sending to "our" representatives are paying off.

[Rambis]

22. Agree

but if Clinton would have gotten her plan passed the GOP would have been toast!

[Johonny]

18. Dems lost in 1994 because the DINO finally just voted Republican

Basically the solid south finally melted away for good and the dixicrats now found themselves in actual election battles with people that often were better aligned with their voters priorities. Also America was stuck in a prolonged economic down turn that started in the last years of Reagan's presidency and never really restarted under Bush. Many voters felt they had changed the face of the presidency and that hadn't worked economically and now were more willing to switch Congress to see if that helped. It's not clear that the 1994 mid-terms were about healthcare at all but the continuation of longer trends.

[dem629]

24. They lost for the same reason a party usually loses power:

The other side was able to convince the majority of voters that the party in power was going too far in one direction.

The vast majority of American voters aren't beholden to either of these parties; they don't live their daily life fretting over pet issues held dear by the partisans of either party.

Elections are won in the middle, and if you can convince the majority of the middle that the other side is going too far, you're likely to win.

[county worker]

37. Right on! You are one of the few here that gets it.

I think that a lot of DUers think that because the Dems are in power that the country has turned sharply left. It hasn't and never will. To think that it has is to be as delusional as the freepers are that we are a center right country.

[dem629]

39. Yep. Not a center-right or center-left country.

It's a center (centrist, I guess) country.

The only people who are shocked when their party loses power are those who don't recognize the fact that the majority of people in this country aren't really all that political. This is also why so few people watch those awful 24-hour cable political-babble TV channels.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. I wasn't shocked when the Dems lost the mid terms in 1994. It seemed the consequence of liberals

being disgusted with the guy they elected abandoning them.

Like i said up thread, the same amount of Repos voted in 1994 as in 1990.

The Dems were who stayed home, since fewer Dems voted in 1994 than had voted in 1990.

How that proves the country is the concept you call "centrist" i don't see. perhaps you can explain.


Where do "centrists" stand on the issues?

do they believe that half of the women who want an abortion should get one, and half who want one can't? Thanks for shedding some light on this.

[anonymous171]

27. I thought it had more to do with gun control (AWB.)

[LAGC]

49. It did.

Even Clinton admitted it. If it wasn't for the NRA focusing all of its intense lobbying efforts against all those who voted for the "Assault Weapon" Ban, it wouldn't have been a Republican landslide in 1994. We have to face it: gun control is a LOSING issue.

Imagine: No Newt Gingrich Speaker. No Contract With (on) America! What a different world it would have been...

[Soylent Brice]

29. scary point, and i respectfully hope you're wrong,

as i'm afraid you may be right.

[deaniac21]

30. Let's see, they were unhappy so they elected the very people

that stopped it. That sounds logical!

[AndyTiedye]

35. Threat of Universal Health Care Caused the Industry to Pump Million$ Into the Mighty Slime Machine

and we had no way to counter that.

Will the organization Obama put together be able to do so this time?

[WI_DEM]

43. Nope in '94 the GOP convinced the country thru those ads with Harry and whoever

that the Democrats were going to take away your choice of doctor and where you can go and so on...

[depakid]

45. Dems lost because Clinton became a Republican

and the Democratic voters activists responded by staying home.

The Obama administration is risking the same thing.

[tom_paine]

46. The OP and replies are too nuanced and thoughtful to be relevant in the Real World.

Think media. Think marketing principles, which are about the only principles adhrered to in America anymore.

It was White "OJ Rage", plain and simple.

Now, when massive social movements culminate in such a way, one wonders what was the thing which the most people had in common during that time.

Not a few, not some people, but MOST or ALL people.

The one and only thing, as crazily common as those who watched 9/11 replays on TV, were those who watched the OJ Trial.

I know it sounds oversimple and stupid, but isn't the entire edifice of public relations and marketing, backed up by success after successs after success, is that collectively, the American Subject Populace, IS (at least when it comes to resisting marketing, PR, and Bushiganda) oversimple and stupid?

EVERYONE knew about the basics of the OJ trial, even those of us who strove mightily to ignore it.

Everyone was talking about it at all times. Undoubtedly it is a huge milestone in the degradation of the Corporate Media and the American Mind.

And yes, I think it was just as simple as that, at least with that election.

Like it or not, the reality is that 90% of African-Americans are Democrats, and thus I could easily see millions of people casting votes out of spite and a stronger than usual buying into the Bushiganda because of White "OJ Rage".

I ask myself, what did everyone, at least 99.9% of the American Subject Populace, have in common in 1994?

Being informed, whether we wanted to be or not, about America's Finest Media Whore Klown Klatch, at least up until then...the OJ Trial. There was no escaping it. Friends, relatives, co-workers. Non stop Media Whore jibber-jabber coming from every mouth, it seemed, even mine occasionally.

I think there was no one event or happening or thing that was such a blanket media saturation that saturated the entire American Populace besides the OJ Trial. Nothing. OJ was as media saturated into our consciousness as The Moon Landing, make no mistake.

I know it sounds oversimple and stupid. But I think it most definitely played a part, maybe the biggest part, in the big 1994 Rushpublic triumph.