GHWB squeezes in a win in 92, impact on 94 midterms?

Dems are going to do better in 1994 than they did, but remember that the House bank scandal still will be out there. Since many of those involved were Democrats, that's going to tamp down some of the gains that otherwise might be seen. But still a good chance of Speaker Gephardt in 1995 when the new Congress opens.

The House bank scandal broke in early 1992. Whatever damage it did (to incumbents of both parties) it did in the 1992 election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_banking_scandal
 
By barely winning, do you mean outright, instead of, say, after a contingent election following a deadlocked Electoral College?

What would the situation in the mid-terms look like there, especially if Bush still finished second in terms of PVs and EVs?
 
By barely winning, do you mean outright, instead of, say, after a contingent election following a deadlocked Electoral College?

What would the situation in the mid-terms look like there, especially if Bush still finished second in terms of PVs and EVs?

Bush wins EC barely but still loses the popular vote
 
You're not going to see generational turnover in favour of the party that has held the White House for 14 years. In the absence of a Democratic President for Republicans to mobilise against, they are not going anywhere.

Most of the gains were turnover in the South, which had been trending GOP since about the 1920s and was picking up steam after 1980. With the advent of things like talk radio and such, it had become impossible for Southern Democrats to "Talk Conservative, Vote Liberal" in Washington anymore, which was also a factor.
 
Most of the gains were turnover in the South, which had been trending GOP since about the 1920s and was picking up steam after 1980. With the advent of things like talk radio and such, it had become impossible for Southern Democrats to "Talk Conservative, Vote Liberal" in Washington anymore, which was also a factor.

(1) It is not true that "most" of the GOP gains in 1994 were in the South. The Democrats lost 54 seats in the House in 1994. Of these, 16 (less than 30 percent) were from the eleven ex-Confederate states: 2 in FL, 3 in GA, 1 in MS, 4 in NC, 1 in SC, 2 in TN, 2 in TX, 1 in VA (if you can call the DC suburban VA-11 "southern"). The Democrats lost more seats (6) in WA than in any southern state. They lost as many seats in OH (4) as they did in any southern state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994

(Even if you count as "southern" the GOP's two seats gained in OK and the seat it gained in KY, still only 35 percent of its House gains were from the South.)

(2) Conservative talk radio played a role, but it was around in 1992 as well. Why didn't it produce big gains for the GOP then? (The Republicans did gain nine seats in 1992 but that was largely the result of reapportionment and the House Bank scandal.) The obvious difference is that in 1994 right-wing talk radio had an easy target to mobilize against--the Clinton administration.

(3) No doubt even without Clinton in the White House southern districts that voted Republican in presidential elections would have *eventually* come around to electing Republican congressmen as well. But it would have been a *much* more gradual process. (Incidentally, of the sixteen seats the GOP won in the South, only eight involved Democratic incumbents being defeated--the other eight were retirements. I suspect that some of the Democrats who retired in 1994 would have run and in some cases won if not for the unpopularity of the Clinton administration--and that is true in the rest of the country as well.)

(4) Economic dissatisfaction played an important role in the 1994 results. To the standard Gallup question, "Thinking about the economy, how would you rate economic conditions in this country today -- excellent, good, only fair, or poor?" in early November 1994, only 30 percent thought it was good or excellent and 69 percent thought it was "only fair" or "poor." http://news.gallup.com/poll/4306/american-perceptions-economic-conditions-crime-reach-new-highs.aspx (This may seem odd, since the economy was clearly improving, but it generally takes time before voters can be convinced an economic recovery is real.) I doubt that the voters would have been any more satisfied with the economy if GHW Bush were president in 1994. And all experience shows that when voters are dissatisfied with the economy, they take it out on the party controlling the White House, not the party controlling Congress.
(At least Clinton had the excuse that the economy was recovering from the "Bush recession"; Bush would have had no such excuse.)

So I continue to believe that the Democrats would have done well in 1994 if Bush controlled the White House. The only midterm elections where they have done really poorly were those when they controlled the White House. (1946, 1950, 1966, to some extent 1978, 1994, 2010, 2014.) Just as the only midterm elections where the Republicans did very poorly were when the GOP controlled the White House (1958, 1974, 1982, 2006). In an exceptionally good midterm year for the party controlling the White House, it may hold its own or even gain a handful of seats, but that is all--and I see no reason in any event why 1994 would be an exceptionally good year for the Bush administration.
 
Would a Bush re-election where he loses the popular vote to Clinton maybe lead to the left creating a liberal talk radio culture?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Would a Bush re-election where he loses the popular vote to Clinton maybe lead to the left creating a liberal talk radio culture?

Maybe Clinton would have been one of its leading personalities.

Or done a TV show part political part "Donohue" and part "Dr. Phil".
 
In the House, practically any close Republican victory could be flipped. Just in Washington state, the Democrats could have kept six districts that they lost (all by less than 9.5 points and three by less than three points). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1994

In the Senate, at the very least I would expect Harris Wofford to defeat Rick Santorum in PA. I also doubt that the Republicans would have won in in MI and MN. The Democrats might well have defeated Jeffords in VT. And Sasser might have been able to hold his seat in TN.

Democratic governors who might have been re-elected include Jim Folsom of AL, Mario Cuomo of NY and Anne Richards of TX. Mark Singel (D) might well have defeated Tom Ridge (R) in PA. The Democrats would also have a good chance of wining the gubernatorial races in RI and SC.

Also, some Republicans who won easily in OTL because they did not face any serious Democratic challenge--the Democrats being too busy defending their own vulnerable incumbents--might face such a challenge here.


Didn't Folsom inherit the governor's mansion because the governor went to prison? He might still lose due to the scandal.
 
Didn't Folsom inherit the governor's mansion because the governor went to prison? He might still lose due to the scandal.

"Alabama is one of only five states in which the governor and lieutenant governor are elected separately and thus may be from different parties."
https://ballotpedia.org/Lieutenant_Governor_of_Alabama This is what happened in 1990: voters elected Republican H. Guy Hunt for Governor and Folsom for Lieutenant Governor. So the scandal that caused Hunt's resignation did not implicate Folsom or the Democrats.

Of course the unpopularity of Clinton in Alabama was not the only reason for Folsom's defeat: "In 1994, he ran for a full four-year term in his own right. Although some regarded Folsom as a popular Governor, he was primaried by three candidates, the most serious being Paul Hubbert, the executive secretary of the Alabama Education Association and nominee for governor in 1990. Folsom after a fierce and sometimes nasty primary, fended off Hubbert's challenge with 54% of the vote. But Hubbert's primary challenge damaged Folsom, who in the General Election, was narrowly defeated by former Democratic Governor Fob James, who was running as a Republican. Even though 1994 was a tough year for Democrats and that Folsom was facing a popular former governor in James and had spent a lot of money to win his primary against Hubbert, the result was narrow. In fact, Folsom lost by less than 10,000 votes or 49.7%-50.3% to James.[6] Compared to other prominent Democratic incumbent Governors who lost that year such as Ann Richards in Texas, Bruce King in New Mexico, and Mario Cuomo in New York, Folsom ran much more strongly they did. He also ran stronger than Democratic nominees in other Southern states with key governor's races, such as Phil Bredesen in Tennessee (who eventually was elected there in 2002), Jack Mildren in Oklahoma, and Nick Theodore in South Carolina.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Folsom_Jr.

Given the extreme narrowness of Folsom's defeat, I think it is reasonable to suggest that he would have won if Clinton had not been so unpopular in Alabama in 1994.
 
"Alabama is one of only five states in which the governor and lieutenant governor are elected separately and thus may be from different parties."
https://ballotpedia.org/Lieutenant_Governor_of_Alabama This is what happened in 1990: voters elected Republican H. Guy Hunt for Governor and Folsom for Lieutenant Governor. So the scandal that caused Hunt's resignation did not implicate Folsom or the Democrats.

Of course the unpopularity of Clinton in Alabama was not the only reason for Folsom's defeat: "In 1994, he ran for a full four-year term in his own right. Although some regarded Folsom as a popular Governor, he was primaried by three candidates, the most serious being Paul Hubbert, the executive secretary of the Alabama Education Association and nominee for governor in 1990. Folsom after a fierce and sometimes nasty primary, fended off Hubbert's challenge with 54% of the vote. But Hubbert's primary challenge damaged Folsom, who in the General Election, was narrowly defeated by former Democratic Governor Fob James, who was running as a Republican. Even though 1994 was a tough year for Democrats and that Folsom was facing a popular former governor in James and had spent a lot of money to win his primary against Hubbert, the result was narrow. In fact, Folsom lost by less than 10,000 votes or 49.7%-50.3% to James.[6] Compared to other prominent Democratic incumbent Governors who lost that year such as Ann Richards in Texas, Bruce King in New Mexico, and Mario Cuomo in New York, Folsom ran much more strongly they did. He also ran stronger than Democratic nominees in other Southern states with key governor's races, such as Phil Bredesen in Tennessee (who eventually was elected there in 2002), Jack Mildren in Oklahoma, and Nick Theodore in South Carolina.[7]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Folsom_Jr.

Given the extreme narrowness of Folsom's defeat, I think it is reasonable to suggest that he would have won if Clinton had not been so unpopular in Alabama in 1994.


Thanks. Didn't know it was a split ticket in AL.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Dems are going to do better in 1994 than they did, but remember that the House bank scandal still will be out there. Since many of those involved were Democrats, that's going to tamp down some of the gains that otherwise might be seen. But still a good chance of Speaker Gephardt in 1995 when the new Congress opens.
there wouldn't have being, the president's party does not gain seats in the house in midterm except special circumstances like 9/11: scandal or no scandal
 
Top