Could the "Republican Revolution" that happened in 1994 happen earlier?

dw93 · Jan 9, 2016

The Republican revolution happened during the mid term elections of November 1994. The GOP won 54 house seats and took the House majority for the first time since 1954. They also won 8 Senate seats, retaking the majority there for the first time since 1986 and picked up 10 governorships.

Is it possible that this "revolution" could've happened earlier, and if so when? What would the POD be for this to happen? What would the long term impact be?

dw93 · Jan 10, 2016

Bump. Bump.

Derek Jackson · Jan 10, 2016

Reagan's Alzheimer's earlier. Disaster at debate. Carter re-elected. As I recall economy had not recovered by November 82

dw93 · Jan 10, 2016

Could Dukakis winning in '88 cause it to happen in 1990? Or could Mondale, by some miracle winning in 1984 cause a massive republican sweep in '86?

jesseewiak · Jan 10, 2016

You need a Democratic president, an aggressive Republican opposition (ie. no Bob Michel in charge), and talk radio getting enough traction in Southern Blue Dog districts to link the local politicians to the national liberal party.

So, I think it really can't happen until the late 80s or early 90s. I'm not saying the GOP can't win the House before then, but I'm saying it wouldn't be the shift that would see the slow death of the DNC in the South outside of urban 'n' black areas until then, simply because most voters wouldn't know what their own representatives were doing.

Indicus · Jan 10, 2016

dw93 said:
Could Dukakis winning in '88 cause it to happen in 1990? Or could Mondale, by some miracle winning in 1984 cause a massive republican sweep in '86?

If Volcker was not appointed by Carter, then the economy will see an Obama-style slow recovery. Reagan may be beaten in 1984 if recovery is too slow.

Pericles · Jan 10, 2016

Maybe if a Democrat is elected in 1988 and raises taxes like Bush Sr and the economy slumps it's possible. Maybe Democrats suffer heavy losses in 1990 and in 1992 a conservative wave sweeps to state, congressional and federal power.

Plumber · Jan 10, 2016

Elect a black president in the '80s.

David T · Jan 10, 2016

Actually, you could argue that an earlier "Republican revolution" did occur--in 1980, when the GOP won the presidency by ten points, gained four governorships (even though there weren't many gubernatorial elections), won control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and gained 35 seats in the House (on top of the fifteen they had gained in 1978). Yes, the Democrats retained nominal control of the House, but in practice an alliance of Republicans and conservative southern Democrats controlled that body.

dw93 · Jan 11, 2016

David T said:
Actually, you could argue that an earlier "Republican revolution" did occur--in 1980, when the GOP won the presidency by ten points, gained four governorships (even though there weren't many gubernatorial elections), won control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and gained 35 seats in the House (on top of the fifteen they had gained in 1978). Yes, the Democrats retained nominal control of the House, but in practice an alliance of Republicans and conservative southern Democrats controlled that body.

Good Point. Could the GOP actually take the majority in the house (on paper) before 1994 though?

David T · Jan 11, 2016

dw93 said:
Good Point. Could the GOP actually take the majority in the house (on paper) before 1994 though?

What makes that hard is that so many southerners who voted Republican for president were willing to vote to re-elect conservative Democrats to the House. Gradually, this obstacle crumbled as conservative Democrats in the House retired or in some cases switched to the GOP. It could have happened before 1994 but probably not too much before--e.g., if a Democrat is elected president in 1988 and is very unpopular in 1990 and 1992. (Even if the GOP does not win the House outright in 1990 in such a scenario, it may win enough governorships and state legislatures to draw favorable lines for 1992...)

troosvelt_68 · Jan 11, 2016

Actually part of the issue was a form of gerrymandering by southern Democrats during the 70s and 80s.

Knowing they had a solid base in the AA vote they drew districts to split up that vote to provide a foundation in as many House districts as possible. With that a Democrat could win a district with under 40% of the white vote.

Understandably AA leaders were upset at having their people split up like that so they pressured legislative leaders to draw majority minority districts in 1990 redistricting (courts also pushed for this in various rulings).

That was a big factor in weakening a lot of long time incumbents in southern districts and if you look at 1992 many had close races (which is why a fair number retired in 1994).

Elect a Democrat in 1988 and have them lose in 1992 and you could have a complete GOP sweep in 1992 (since the 1986 Senate class would also be up and it was top heavy Democratic).

Statesman · Jan 11, 2016

dw93 said:
Good Point. Could the GOP actually take the majority in the house (on paper) before 1994 though?

If Iran-Contra is never found out, could 1988 turn out to be a sufficiently strong enough Republican year to be the year of the "Republican Revolution"?

Maybe helped if Rumsfeld is tapped instead of Bush to be Vice President under Reagan, meaning perhaps a better play to conservatives and the South in 1988?

David T · Jan 11, 2016

Statesman said:
If Iran-Contra is never found out, could 1988 turn out to be a sufficiently strong enough Republican year to be the year of the "Republican Revolution"?

The problem is that 1988 was a "status quo" election--voters were satisfied with the economy and the state of the world, so they decided to retain both Republican control of the White House *and* Democratic control of Congress. Indeed, the Democrats actually *gained* a net of two seats in the House. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1988 This left them with 258 seats--so they would have to lose forty-one of them to be in a minority. This is very unlikely unless perhaps the Democrats nominated Jesse Jackson for president, and that in turn is extremely improbable.

Gonzo · Jan 11, 2016

Statesman said:
If Iran-Contra is never found out, could 1988 turn out to be a sufficiently strong enough Republican year to be the year of the "Republican Revolution"?

Maybe helped if Rumsfeld is tapped instead of Bush to be Vice President under Reagan, meaning perhaps a better play to conservatives and the South in 1988?

I fail to see how Rumsfeld is any more or less conservative than Bush. His Congressional voting record and later career shows a moderate NeoCon - not a full blooded hard-right conservative. He'll do just as well - if not worse than Bush in the South IMHO.