The Difference Between 1994 And 2010

Back in 1994 the Democrats went into the November election with 258 House seats. That election turned out to be a disaster for the Democrats. They lost 54 of those seats and the Republicans became the majority party in the House of Representatives with 230 seats in that body.

The Republican Party is claiming that the same conditions exist in for another huge party shift in the House like the one in 1994. To do this they must pick up at least 39 seats across the country (179 current + 39 new = 218 seats -- a one-vote majority). But do the same conditions exist as did in 1994?

I submit that it is not the same as the conditions that existed in 1994. As you can see from the above chart (from FiveThirtyEight blog), the distribution of Representatives is not the same geographically. In 1994, the distribution was pretty much the same for Democrats in all areas of the country -- from 58.0% to 59.9%.

The South, one of the most Republican areas in America, is vastly different in 2010. The Republicans picked up a lot of seats in the South in 1994 and there were a lot of Democratic seats there to be had -- 59.9% or 82 Democratic seats to 55 Republican seats. But the Republicans have probably taken all the seats in this solidly red part of the country they are capable of taking. They currently hold 81 seats to 61 seats for Democrats (only 43%).

The remaining seats for Democrats in the South are in areas dominated by minorities and will be next to impossible to switch (areas like South Texas, south Dallas, Houston's 4th Ward, etc.). So if the Republicans cannot squeeze more seats out of the South, where will they find those 39 seats?

How about the West, since they have 62 Democratic seats (63.3%) to only 36 Republican seats. That sounds like a rich hunting ground until you realize that the huge bulk of those Democratic seats are in New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington and parts of Colorado -- all the other states are pretty solidly Republican (and have few seats due to lack of population). It's going to be very hard to make many inroads in New Mexico or the Pacific Coast.

That leaves the Northeast and the Midwest. The Northeast is by far the most liberal area of the United States. They may give up a few seats to the Republicans but it won't be many, and they'll prove very hard to get. The Northeast is still angry over the excesses of the Bush administration which affected them very negatively and they're not likely to want to repeat that anytime soon.

The Midwest is the most likely place where Republicans can pick up seats. The Plains states are out because, like much of the West, they have few seats and most of them are already Republican. But the Rust Belt is different. They have been hit the hardest by the recession and could be ripe for change. The problem is, are there enough Democratic seats in areas not dominated by minorities to give Republicans the majority they need? I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Republicans will pick up some seats in the next election. It would be very unusual if the party out of power didn't do that in an off-year election. I just don't think they'll get enough to seize control of the House of Representatives. I expect them to pick up between 10 and 20 seats and that will still leave them 19 to 29 seats short of what they need.

I also think the Republicans are counting on the teabaggers to swing the election. But what they have yet to come to terms with is the fact that these teabaggers have always been Republican (and voted that way in the Republican disaster of 2008). The teabaggers will have little to no effect on the November election, since they are nothing more than an angry wing of the Republican Party and not the independents the Republicans wish they were.

It will still be determined by turnout, but if the Democrats can just get their regular voters to the polls they should be able to retain their majority, and I think they'll do that.