WI: Democratic Landslide in 1994

What happens if the Democratic Party wins a massive amount of seats in Congress in 1994, let's say 356 seats? Bill Clinton probably accomplishes a lot more. Your thoughts?
 
What happens if the Democratic Party wins a massive amount of seats in Congress in 1994, let's say 356 seats? Bill Clinton probably accomplishes a lot more. Your thoughts?

I think for a Democratic Landslide to happen in 1994, Clinton's first two years have to be drastically different than they were. The economy would've had to grow at a much faster pace than it did in '93-94 OTL, Somalia has to go much better than it did, Clinton would have to hold off on health care reform as well.

The other way to do it, and probably the most likely way to give the Democrats a landslide in '94 is to give Bush Sr. a second term and have it go badly. Even if it doesn't go bad the Dems are still gonna pick up seats as the 6th year mid term almost always goes bad for the sitting President's party.
 
This is ASB territory. The only times the party controlling the White House has not lost seats in a midterm in the past centurt were 1934, 1998, and 2002. They all represented unusual circumstances unlikely to be present in 1994: partial recovery from the depths of the Great Depression in 1934; the GOP's unpopular drive to impeach Clinton in 1998; and 9/11 in 2002. Moreover, even in these years the party in the White House just gained a few additional seats. (Even in 1962, with the Cuban Missile Crisis boosting JFK's popularity immensely the Democrats did lose ground in the House, though only very slightly.) Even if there were a "9/11" in 1993-4 and Clinton's popularity soared, all that would probably mean is that the Democrats would not *lose* nearly as many seats as they did in OTL.

For this reason, when I saw your subject, I assumed you meant (as you evidently did not, given your reference to Clinton accomplishing a lot more) what if Bush had won in 1992 and there had been a Democratic landslide in 1994. Even then, however, 356 seats for the Democrats is just preposterous. There are just *way* too many safe seats--even in "wave" years--for either party to have a majority like that in modern times.
 
What happens if the Democratic Party wins a massive amount of seats in Congress in 1994, let's say 356 seats? Bill Clinton probably accomplishes a lot more. Your thoughts?


Who are the Democratic who make these swing victories?

- If they're Blue Dogs to Moderates, nothing, I don't see much changing. It was the conservative and moderate Democrat's who stopped/held up his first appointments, killed Health Care Reform, belatedly and complaining the whole time (uncutting the victories) voted for NAFTA, the budget and tax increases. It's likely Clinton limps into1996, still beats Dole (but closer, a repeat of the 92 numbers, Perot does better), and loses Congress or at least the Republicans get close enough to take it 98.

- If it's a liberal sweep, almost ASB, Demographics are running against the Democratic Party as it existed from FDR to 1992. Rise of the Middle class (especially the upper and mid) as the main national wage earners, decline of unions (especially the ability to muster the votes on election day), passing of those who voted for FDR's party, and fewer party-line voters.

But if by some miracle liberal's sweep in and makeup those huge majorities, likely overreach. The lesson's learned of the first two years, are forgotten (we won again!), and this is big, there is no Speaker Ginrich (likely isn't even in leadership) to run against, and to work with to get compromise (and popular with the middle/independents) legislation passed. Dole now has a chance!
 
In '92, Clinton defeated an incumbent president by running on a populist economic ticket.

I think it is a real question, what if Clinton had been able to do more on the economy?

* PS But it is hard to know what to do regarding the economy, even with the method of medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback. The loss of middle class jobs is a really big issue.
 
In '92, Clinton defeated an incumbent president by running on a populist economic ticket.

I think it is a real question, what if Clinton had been able to do more on the economy?

* PS But it is hard to know what to do regarding the economy, even with the method of medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback. The loss of middle class jobs is a really big issue.
That it is.
 
What happens if the Democratic Party wins a massive amount of seats in Congress in 1994, let's say 356 seats? Bill Clinton probably accomplishes a lot more. Your thoughts?

The Democrats had held onto the house for almost three decades, and a lot of people were looking for change, so they looked to the Republican Party. There is a reason why states like New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had their governor's seats picked up by Republicans.

Heck, even New York City, Los Angeles, and Jersey City elected Republican mayors. So, honestly, I'd say it would be in ASB territory. Even if Newt Gingrich wasn't the leader of the Republicans, I'd still say that the Republicans would take over the House and Senate.

Truth is, people wanted change, so they decided to vote for the opposition.
 
this belongs in ASB

Dems retaining the house in '94? just about possible, no Gingrich, no Clinton impeachment as Dems would likely gain a couple of seats in '96, and might even go on to gain a couple in the '98 mid terms
 
Oddly enough, barely retaining control of both houses of Congress--which is the *best* showing the Democrats could realistically have hoped for in 1994--might have harmed Clinton's re-election chances. Republicans combined with conservative Democrats would be strong enough to kill any legislation proposed by Clinton that they didn't like; yet because the Democrats would retain nominal control of Congress, Clinton could not use the unpopularity of Gingrich and the Republican Congress as he did in 1996 in OTL. (I think Clinton would still be re-elected but it would be a bit harder than in OTL.)
 
In '92, Clinton defeated an incumbent president by running on a populist economic ticket.

I think it is a real question, what if Clinton had been able to do more on the economy?

* PS But it is hard to know what to do regarding the economy, even with the method of medium step, feedback, medium step, feedback. The loss of middle class jobs is a really big issue.

The economy was not that bad in 1994. Unemployment, which was at 7.4 percent when Clinton was elected in November 1992, was down to 5.6 percent by November 1994. http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt "

"It was in the spring of 1994 that the U.S. economy finally reached 'escape velocity': GDP growth surged and the number of jobs created (3.85 million) set a record that has yet to be surpassed as of 2015." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s_United_States_boom

"The U. S. economy in 1994 went gangbusters. Real gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all final goods and services produced in the U. S. adjusted for inflation, grew at an annual rate of 4.1 percent, which represents the highest growth rate of real GDP since 1984. As Figure 1 shows, real GDP grew at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the first quarter, increased to 4.1 percent and 4.0 percent in the second and third quarters, and jumped to a whopping 5.1 percent in the fourth quarter...the monthly index of industrial production rose considerably in 1994, at a 6.1 percent rate." http://cber.uky.edu/Downloads/usecon96.htm
 
A health care program passes in 1995.

If there is (against all historical precedents) such a huge landslide (giving the Democrats more seats than they won in 1936 or 1964!) presumably Clinton was (somehow) much, much more popular in 1994 than in OTL, which would probably mean a healthcare bill had already passed in 1994.
 

Jasen777

Donor
There has to be a reason why election results would change that greatly. Reason(s) which could produce very different results depending on what they are.
 
Newt Gingrich gets caught two weeks before election day having an orgy and smoking crack with the entire Republican caucus in both the House and the Senate?
 
And this is the U-3 unemployment rate which counts on the employed side of the ledger people who are working part-time, even if they're seeking full-time.

And more broadly, this particular statistic may not catch what Clinton talked about in his '92 campaign: that we're working longer hours for less, that people who play by the rules do not seem to be getting ahead, etc.

. . . or the '94 mid-term was just regression to the mean. And admittedly, this is the more likely possibility.
 
Top