“At a time when Republicans should be celebrating their momentum, Steele is stealing headlines — and not in a good way.In my opinion, this will not have much of an effect. While it's fun to kick Steele and the RNC around, I don't think that their shenanigans will do much to affect the vote. Republicans aren't going to vote Democratic because of it. Although, it could affect the motivation of Republicans when they consider whether or not to vote at all in midterm elections.
“By the end of February, the National Republican Campaign Committee, which works to elect Republicans to the House, had slightly more than $6 million in the bank, compared with the nearly $20 million held by its Democratic counterpart.This may very well impact the midterms, but the gap is not enormous. And, since the SCOTUS ruled that corporations can now spend as much as they like on political campaigns, it is likely that more money will be spent by corporations in service of defeating Democrats.
“While a lot of money is going directly to Republican candidates, they're not always the candidates the GOP would prefer to field. In Kentucky, for example, insurgent Tea Party darling Rand Paul has raked in nearly $2 million, outraising the establishment candidate, Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, by more than $100,000. In Florida, conservative insurgent Marco Rubio has raised more than $3.4 million and is leading Governor Charlie Crist, the presumptive Republican candidate, in the polls. To see the potential dangers of the Tea Party groundswell, the GOP leadership need look no further than the debacle in New York's 23rd district — where Democrats won a Republican safe seat after conservative activists put up a third candidate against Dede Scozzafava, a GOP candidate deemed too moderate by Tea Party types.A good point, and one that could potentially have a major impact on midterms.
“In 1994, the GOP had Gingrich, an outsize personality whose Contract with America manifesto gave congressional Republicans a simple and accessible platform around which to rally voter discontent. This time, there's no clear-cut, dynamic leader to spearhead the charge and challenge Obama the way Gingrich challenged Clinton.Another good point, but this time Republicans have Pelosi and Reid as big targets, whereas, as Time noted, in 1994, no one even knew who the Democratic House Speaker, and the Democratic Senate majority leader were. It helps to have targets out in front, obviously.
“By November 1994, the Democratic presidency had been enfeebled by a series of disastrous setbacks. By contrast, Obama has managed to pass the stimulus; is working on a bipartisan solution to DADT, which looks set to pass with relatively little controversy; and passed health care reform after a yearlong struggle. Whatever the bill's faults, health care is a big win.Clinton was certainly a lame duck by November 1994, and given Obama's legislative successes in 2009 and 2010, this could be another good reason why Dems will not suffer a similar defeat at the polls in 2010.