2006 Dynamic Echoes 1994

Terry Madonna, co-author of this piece, has spoken to our group on several occasions. The article makes the case that although most mid-term elections revolve around more local issues, this one, like 1994, is national in focus.

Something to bear in mind as we speak to the voters these last two weeks.

The tale begins in 1994, the last time the mid-term elections were largely nationalized in American politics; we can say the 1994 elections were nationalized because voters were primarily motivated by their judgments about federal issues and national politics.

The “nationalization” of congressional elections is infrequent in mid-term elections. In the more typical or “normal” mid-term, voters cast their ballots on the basis of how well their own local member of Congress is performing or on the basis of some state issue--rather than on the basis of some overriding national or international issue. This is what Tip O’Neil’s maxim really means; most of the time, voters tend to vote nationally but think locally.

But when an election becomes nationalized, it has profound significance for both national and state politics. The old rules and trite formulations no longer apply in trying to understand or analyze the election.

As historians are well aware, parallels with the past are never perfect, but sometimes they provide important clues to future events. And nowhere is this truer than with the current parallels being drawn between the 1994 midterm elections and the one currently underway. In both situations, presidents had low approval ratings, scandals were attached to the congressional majority, and nagging national issues made the voters ripe for change.

Link