The Lessons of 1982
Why Democrats need not fear the ghosts of 1994.
It's a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will lose seats in November. It's not just that the luck of 2006 and 2008—when they gained 30 and 23 seats, respectively—has run out. Conditions have changed. Sure, Democrats control both chambers of Congress and the White House. But President Obama's approval rating is hovering at an anemic 45 percent. The economy isn't seeing the kind of recovery a party in power wants before an election. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is doing her best to stir up angry voters who might otherwise stay home during an off-year contest.
So speculation is running rampant, particularly in the media and especially among Republicans (and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs), that 2010 could be a replay of the Democrats' lowest political moment in the last half-century: the 1994 midterms, when Republicans seized 52 seats in the House and eight in the Senate, taking control of Congress for the first time in 40 years. But the similarities between 2010 and 1994 are superficial. The more relevant election—the one that gives a better gauge of the magnitude of losses the Democrats may see—is the 1982 midterms. Although some political scientists were predicting that the Democrats would gain as many as 50 seats, on Election Day they took only 26 seats from the Republicans.
What happened? And could their disappointment of 28 years ago offer reasons for Democrats to hope this year? After all, they're in the same position now—stronger, actually, since they control both houses of Congress—as the Republicans were in 1982. A quick look at three of the most important factors in any midterm election show why 2010 may be for Democrats what 1982 was for Republicans: not great, certainly, but not nearly as bad as it could have been.
The economy. In many respects, today's economic conditions are identical to those in 1982. The yearly change in real disposable income per capita is a key factor in predicting midterm outcomes: When their wallets are fuller, people are more likely to send their representatives back to Washington. And right now this number is almost the same as it was at this point in 1982. For the third quarter of 2010, Moody's Economy.com is predicting a 0.4 percent increase in real disposable income per capita from last year—a fairly stagnant number that does not show much economic growth for the average citizen. In the third quarter of 1982, the change in real disposable income per capita was 0.5 percent—also fairly flat. The unemployment rate is also eerily familiar; it's now pushing 10 percent, while in 1982 it was 9.7 percent. In 1994, meanwhile, the economy was in better shape than it is now or was in 1982, with a 6.1 percent unemployment rate and 2.3 percent increase in personal disposable income from the third quarter of 1993.
Campaign spending. In 1982, one of the ways Republicans were able to fend off the Democratic attack was by achieving parity on campaign spending for challengers—both parties spent an average of $141,000. (You can find these data on JSTOR; login required.) It's true that, as a group, Democratic challengers did better than Republican challengers (attributed to the fact that they often ran in Democratic-leaning districts). But if Republicans had skimped on those races, Democrats probably would have come closer to their predicted 40- to 50-seat pickup. Meanwhile, in 1994, Republican challengers outspent Democratic challengers by an average of $244,042 to $152,659 and by a margin of $40,000 on open seats (data again from JSTOR).
This year, although the National Republican Congressional Committee outspent the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in May, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee outspent their Republican counterparts. The DNC and DCCC also had more cash on hand at the end of the month, which will help them later in the election. Without outspending the Democrats, it is unlikely the Republicans will be able to achieve all the pickups they are hoping for.
Messaging. Perhaps the most compelling reason why 2010 won't be another 1994 is the current state of the Republican Party.With the economy the major focus of this election—as it was in 1982—the sitting president has much more power to present a unified voice on behalf of the party. This is something that both Reagan did and Obama has done well.
Photograph of Nancy Pelosi by Alex Wong/Getty Images.