The Republican Revolution

[erpowers]

I know this could be considered a rather late discussion of this topic, but I wanted to ask a question about the supposed Republican Revolution in 1994. Should 1994 really be considered a Republican Revolution considering the circumstances? It can be argued that the results of 1994 had less to do with anger at Democrats and more to do with the fact that Democrats did not work hard at a get out the vote strategy. A few years ago I had heard about the fact that voter turnout in 1994 was at a record low. Recently, I read about David Price from the Fourth District North Carolina. Price stated that a number of people in his district did vote thinking others would vote and Price would get reelected. So, considering the Republicans gained control of the House in an election year when voter turnout was low can what happened be called a revolution?

[bryant69]

1. Well i don't know

I mean you have to look at what they were trying to achieve and what they actually achieved - they did get welfare reform, for example, and Clinton abandoned healthcare at that point. So while it's tricky pretending that 1994 was some kind of great grassroots changing of the guard, it is significant in how the elites started talking for a few years.

"The Era of Big Government is over."

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[meegbear]

2. The hype is what made it such ...

Here are two example links discussing the 1994 and 2006 elections. There were more wins in 2006, yet they are not hyped as such.

http://triumphofconservativephilanthropy.blogspot.com/2007/10/tale-of-two-routs.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/19/the-straight-and-not-narrow/

[John Q. Citizen]

3. Republican turnout was almost identical in 1990 and 1994. The difference was that

Democratic turnout was way down in 1994.