The Democrats new that they’d rule the world forever and got complacent. The old factions that formed the coalition from the new deal were shifting, some becoming far less important then previously without necessarily losing their importance within the party. (The Republican southern strategy complemented the process but was not the sole factor) The party lacked inspiring ideas or a coherent message (more of the same, regardless of the competence behind it, lacks punch). They ran Congress as though they owned it. It took roughly 40-45 to reach this point. It took another 10-15 for the process to turn the
Meanwhile the Republicans organized and put out big ideas and stayed relentlessly on message, became a disciplined opposition operating in lockstep. They finally took control of the legislature as you noted, in the early 90’s. In the subsequent decade or so it seems that the GOP has reached that same tipping point in only a quarter of the time it took the democrats.
It must be said, however, that the MPAA post ended up going to a Democrat, Dan Glickman, making this particular case a bad example.
I actually wrote out a list of every Dem House seat that went Rep in 1994, and have included some commentary.
The list:
AZ-1: Fluke incumbent Sam Coppersmith (who in 1992 became the only Dem to represent that district since 1952) ran for Senate.
AZ-6
CA-1: The one-term incumbent (Dan Hamburg) had a reputation as an ultra-liberal (he ended up becoming a Green a few years later), and had been strongly challenged in his primary by prior Congressman Doug Bosco
CA-19: Redistricting made this a Republican district, and Richard Lehman won re-election in 1992 by less than a percentage point.
CA-49: Traditionally Republican district (north San Diego) that went Dem in 1992 when the incumbent retired.
FL-1: Heavily Republican Panhandle district, represented by the very conservative Dem Earl Hutto, who didn’t run for re-election.
FL-15: Incumbent Jim Bacchus didn’t run for re-election.
GA-7
GA-8: Incumbent Roy Rowland didn’t run for re-election.
GA-10
ID-1
IL-5: Dan Rostenkowski was under federal indictment. Anyone with a pulse would have beaten him, regardless of the political climate.
IL-11: Incumbent George Sangmeister didn’t run for re-election.
IN-2: Incumbetn Phillip Sharp didn’t run for re-election.
IN-4
IN-8: Incumbent Frank McCloskey had kept winning re-election by rather narrow margins.
IO-4
KS-2: Incumbent Jim Slattery ran for Senate.
KS-4
KY-1: The incumbent, Tom Barlow, had a reputation (still does, actually) as a crank, and only was elected in the first place due to the previous incumbent’s ethical troubles.
KY-2: THis actually elected a Rep in a 1994 special election after the elderly incumbent died in office.
ME-1: Incumbent Tom Andrews ran for Senate.
MI-8: Incumbent Bob Carr ran for Senate.
MN-1: Incumbent Tim Penny (the only Dem to win his district in 70 years, and who had a maverick reputation) didn’t run for re-election.
MS-1: Incumbent Jamie Whitten didn’t run for re-election.
NB-2: This district (Omaha) is a traditionally Republican district.
NV-1
NH-2: Dick Sweat was the only Dem since the 1910’s to win this, so it’s no surprise that he ultimately lost.
NJ-2: Incumbent Dick Hughes didn’t run for re-election, and New Jersey as a whole swung heavily to the Reps in the early 1990’s on a state level, due to Jim Florio
NJ-8: Incumbent Herb Klein was a one-termer who had won because his challenger ran a bad campaign- and still received only 47%!
NY-1: A traditionally Republican district (for years, one of the most Republican on the Eastern seaboard) which inexplicably tends to elect Dems to Congress.
NC-2: Incumbent Tim Valentine didn’t run for re-election.
NC-3
NC-4
NC-5: Incumbent Stephen L Neal didn’t run for re-election.
OH-1: Incumbent David Mann was a one-termer who had won largely because no Republican candidate had filed in 1992.
OH-6: Incumbent Ted Strickland was a first-termer in a district that had even gone Rep during the Depression. It’s more amazing that he’s held it for 10 of the last 12 years than that he lost once.
OH-18: Incumbent Douglass Applegate didn’t run for re-election.
OH-19
OK-2: Incumbent Mike Synar lost the Dem primary to an obscure opponent.
OK-4: Incumbent Dave McCurdy ran for Senate.
OK-6
OR-5: Incumbent Mike Kopetski didn’t run for re-election.
PA-13: THis district had gone Dem in 1992 for the first time since 1922.
SC-3: Incumbent Butler Derrick didn’t run for re-election.
TN-3: Incumbent Marilyn Lloyd (who had won the seat in 1974 after 12 years of Republican control) didn’t run for re-election.
TN-4: Incumbent Jim Cooper ran for Seante.
TX-9
TX-13
UT-2: This is a House seat in Utah (albeit centered around Salt Lake City) How did you think it would go sooner or later?
VA-11
WA-1: Traditional Republican district (in fact, for many years the only Republican House seat in Washington) that had gone Dem in 1992.
WA-2: Incumbent Al Swift didn’t run for re-election.
WA-3
WA-4
WA-5
WA-9
WI-1: This had gone Dem in a 1993 special election by only a couple of points.
The K Street Project is the only thing “my” senator, Rick Santorum, is doing that I approve of. Am I the only one who suspects the interests are cutting their own throats by allowing the Republicans to vet the new lobbyists that are hired? People can’t vote against the lobbyists now because they have infected both parties but if they openly favor the GOP the Democrats might actually turn on them. It would be a powerful political tool if enough Democratic politicians were willing to do without all the corporate perks they have grown accustomed to.
By exploiting the general disgust for the corruption in Washington. If one party stops taking perks and help from the interests they are in a position to demonize such bribery. And the help is not just money. Lobbyists provide money and information. The money is countered by organizing. Thousands of bright eyed true believers, properly organized, are a more potent force than paid staff and person to person campaigning is more potent than political commercials though much more labor intensive. The information is countered by exposing it for what it is: an excuse to do what the lobby has paid the politician to do. Once the Dems poison the well anyone continuing to use the talking points will be tainted. As an added bonus that applies to media pundits as well as politicians.
The most difficult part, as I see it, is convincing the Dems to stop taking the perks. Why rock the boat when you can count on a nice cushy job after the ride is over? Well, the K Street Project is solving that dilemma for us by denying Dems their comfortable retirement.
At least, that’s how I see it from outside the beltway. Anyone have reason to think I’m being naive?