A newly elected Democratic president sweeps into Washington with a mandate and approval ratings to die for. The opposing party is written off as a goner. But slowly, over the president's first year in office, the sheen wears away and voters cool on his agenda, setting up a political comeback for the party out of power.No, this isn't Barack Obama's Washington, but rather 1993, a year that has increasingly become a guiding light for many Republicans as they plot their return to the majority after consecutive elections in which the party suffered major losses, first control of Congress and then the White House. Tuesday's election results—including Bob McDonnell's double-digit victory over Democrat Creigh Deeds in Virginia's gubernatorial race and Christopher Christie's win over incumbent democratic Gov. Jon Corzine—is being interpreted by many in the party as a sign the tide may finally be turning for Republicans, not unlike it did ahead of the party's historic 1994 landslide, in which they took control of Congress after more than 40 years in the minority. It's a historical comparison that has come up again and again as Republicans have become increasingly confident about their chances ahead of next year's 2010 midterm elections—especially in the House. "In terms of candidate recruitment, fund-raising and issue development, we are far ahead of where we were at this point in 1993—and you remember what happened in 1994," Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas lawmaker who heads the National Republican Congressional Committee, recently wrote in a fundraising message to supporters.With a year to go before Election Day 2010, Democrats and Republicans admit the political landscape looks more favorable for the GOP than it did just six months ago, with both sides conceding the GOP will likely pick up seats. After all, history is on their side: over the past 50 years, the party out of power in the White House has picked up seats in 10 of the last 12 midterm elections. That rule especially applies to the first midterm of a president's first term in office, when the election is generally viewed as a referendum on the party in power. But are Republicans really on the verge of a '94-type political tsunami?Veteran election watchers, including Charlie Cook, have predicted in recent months that House Democrats could lose at least 20 seats next year—a decent number, though not enough to give the Republicans the 40 seats they need to retake majority control. Still, for Republicans, it's all about focusing on the positive. "It's going to be tough, but we think we can get within striking distance," a NRCC official, who declined to be named when discussing internal party strategy, told NEWSWEEK.Polls confirm that the Republican brand, at least, is slowly making gains. According the most recent Gallup survey, the two parties are neck and neck in a generic ballot ahead of next year's campaign: 46 percent of likely registered voters said they would choose a Democratic candidate, while 44 percent said they'd vote GOP—a five point gain for Republicans since January. The biggest news for the GOP: self-described independent voters, a swing voting bloc that was crucial to Obama's win in 2008, increasingly say they will vote Republican in 2010. According to Gallup, Republicans lead Democrats among independents 45 percent to 36 percent—numbers that were precisely the opposite a year ago. As many Republicans like to note, this poll isn't much different than one taken back in the fall of 1993, ahead of the GOP comeback.Yet, here's where the 1994 analogy gets tricky: Republicans enter 2010 with a lot more political baggage than they did 16 years ago. Back in 1993, voters focused much of their anger at Democrats, holding Republicans in much higher esteem. That's not the case today. Recent polls show the disapproval rating for congressional Republicans on average exceeds 60 percent—the party's worst numbers in more than a decade. Democrats in Congress aren't in much better shape, but their numbers are slightly better—a recent Pew Research poll found their disapproval rating at 53 percent. "The Republican brand is at an all-time low," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat in charge of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said last week. But GOP pollster Glen Bolger counters that Republicans are in a better position to save face with voters than Democrats are. "It's a lot easier for the GOP to fix our fading problems than it is for the Dems to fix their growing problems," Bolger says.Still, the GOP has been plagued by its struggle to find a national leader and messy infighting over the path forward—a problem that even Rush Limbaugh complained about in an interview with Fox News last Sunday. "Right now there's no central Republican leader to turn to, and there's no central Republican message," the conservative radio host said. "The Republican message is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it's opposition to Obama."Not unlike 1994, GOP officials have struggled with the question over whether to simply run as the "party of no" or whether they need a united message along the lines of the Contract for America, a platform Republicans unveiled in the final weeks of the '94 campaign. Heading into 2010, both House and Senate Republican candidates have been encouraged by party strategists to stay away from divisive social issues and focus on things they feel will haunt Democrats in 2010: the bad economy and what they describe as out-of-control federal spending. But there is an internal party divide over how far the party should go to win.Case in point: the kerfuffle over New York's 23rd congressional district seat. In the race, two potential 2012 presidential hopefuls, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Doug Hoffmann, a third-party conservative, over the GOP candidate, moderate Dede Scozzafava, who subsequently dropped out and endorsed the Democrat in the race, Bill Owens. Republicans quickly tried to do damage control, arguing that Scozzafava's nomination hadn't been open enough (she was chosen by GOP county chairman instead of through an open primary) and that she had been a flawed candidate. But a House GOP strategist acknowledged the "bad optics" of the situation, admitting it could throw a wrench into the party's efforts to run more moderate candidates in the Northeast and Midwest, where they are looking to win back seats it lost in '06 and '08.The biggest problem for the GOP's 1994 dreams: the Democrats are ready this time. "This will not be another 1994," Van Hollen says. Back then, the GOP wave came as a surprise to the Democrats. But heading into 2010, the committees charged with re-electing House and Senate Democrats are quickly assembling the money and the manpower to fight back. In the House, the DCCC has raised nearly $44 million this year, compared to the NRCC's $27 million. In the Senate, the money chase is much closer: Democrats have raised $33 million, compared to the GOP's $30 million. And Democrats, particularly in the House, have kept their flank together, keeping retirements to an all-time low—offering the GOP fewer opportunities to make pick-up open seats, something that contributed to their '94 wave.Republicans have also had mixed results on the recruiting front. In the House, many of the challengers they have signed up—including former Rep. Steve Chabot, who is running for his old seat in Ohio's 1st congressional district—are well-known names with experienced fundraising and campaign operations. But, at the same time, they have struggled to field candidates against obviously vulnerable Democrats, including freshman Rep. Alan Grayson, whose out-of-control rhetoric (he described as the GOP's health-care plan as "die quickly" and called a female aide to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke a "K Street whore") has been frowned upon by fellow Dems.In the Senate, Republicans repeatedly tried and failed to recruit a top-tier candidate to field against Harry Reid, whose poll numbers have tanked in Nevada. One of their top potential candidates, former Rep. Jon Porter, turned them down, leaving a field of largely untested candidates. Still, political analysts acknowledge the GOP's prospects in the Senate look much better than earlier this year, in part because they have recruited good candidates in Illinois and Connecticut—two areas once considered heavily Democratic territory. "Nine months ago (the Senate) looked like a lost cause for Republicans," Stu Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, tells NEWSWEEK. Still, Rothenberg's not willing to call it a '94 year—at least not yet. "It's a real stretch," he says.

When the so called "change" happens to be change that was too secret to have been let's say "transparent" about, and furthermore is so inept at accomplishing the supposed goal, the perpetrator looks at least stupid and at worst corrupt and anti-democratic!

One term and done for Obama unless he realizes that majority rule is the definition of democracy and that the people are actually watching this time!

One other thing that should be in the back of the dems' minds, when change is extreme and, as is the case so far, painfull and scary the resulting reaction to that emotional experience is a far more agressive cycle back the exact opposite direction (repubs loss of power to the dems, and a cycle back of complete house cleaning of the dems as a result of the complete betrayal of the American people)!

Strange that the evolution of a political group that actually clings to the name "democratic party" would include the loss of memory that might include the fact that democracy means majority rule, and niether party has made a single bill that represented that in any manner for at least 40 years!

Next elections, vote Indepenent on all races no matter who, once the majority is Independent, an immediate vote to limit terms to just two and remove the evil, corruption and self serving nature that is evidently part and parcel of being carreer polititians!

Nary. No! Not a GOP comeback, but, a clear smack at the current DNC Chairman, Kaine. If Howard Dean was the chairman, we would have had a different result. Kaine should get serious, stop his tail wagging, and return to gutter-politics. The Republicans don't play and are a bunch of extremist, hence, there is no middle-ground to talk about. So stop that we-shall-overcome kumbaya tail wagging and insight the liberal fellowship. They have the numbers - still a silent majority!

The GOP is dead in the water unless Bush stops saying stupid *** like "I'll be long gone before any smart person figures out what happened in this Oval Office".

Me, I just want to know why he said that.

Are you kidding me? There have been more liberals than conservatives for decades now. We're just too lazy to vote, usually.

George Porgie, Pudding and Pie, fixed that up for you all good. Now you face a committed, passionate, dedicated liberal electorate that will be getting to the *** polls from now on. I saw a shirt with Bush on it once that said "I bet you'll vote next time hippie!" I nearly laughed my ass off.

Oh, wait, you said "they".

Man, these party wars have gotten ugly.

There are millions more liberals than conservatives. They're just young and lazy. I didn't get my voter registration card in on time in 2000, I've been kicking myself in the ass ever since. After the Bush Presidency, the GOP might never win another one as long as I and others can keep helping get out the youth vote.

The Republican leadership is obviously not interested in negotiating. They are not interested in compromise; they are not interested in finding solutions in the best interests of the majority; they are literally belligerent, obnoxious, stubborn and even arrogant in irresponsibly seeking to block/obstruct everything/anything while offering only bazaar, exaggerated and emotional appeals to discredit, while aggressively trying to manipulate public opinion and justify returning to 'more of the same', the same that cost us so much over the last eight years. It really isn't about conservative or liberal as that is just hyped up for effect. Our representatives, regardless of political party, are suppose to honestly and conscientiously negotiate and come to compromises in the best interests of the people, without selling out to the Special Interests who strongly support them. We really need not to forget the Republicans' concentrated focus and total commitment when strongly supporting Bush-Cheney and recognize that it just hasn't changed. Special Interests are still their task-masters. What we should be doing is concentrating on giving them the message that they really do need to change! Otherwise ... very possibly 'more of the same' is the likely result. Personally, even as an ex-long-term Republican now Independent, I am disgusted and offended that they seek to sway us with their insulting subterfuge and that they literally just take us for granted. We need a strong Republican Party that sincerely strives to serve the American people and not only the powerful, influential and wealthy few. To see them regain that focus we must reject what they have become. We surely need fine-tuning of the current proposals but even more, we need conscience driven representatives that can sincerely put the people's interests first.

You want proof that The Republican Party currently could care less about the majority, only seeking to control public opinion with subterfuge, and are concentrated on serving Special Interests and a select few, then look at what they are doing with Sarah Palin. So much for Obama books and publicity, that would seem justified, but how about Palin's book and the aggressive marketing of her? You can find many faults with Sarah Palin; she is arrogant, self-centered, egotistic, grossly dishonest, can be pompous and obnoxious, and is literally sociopathic without any conscience, to name just an obvious few. What is more disturbing is that she is another, like George W Bush, 'puppet'; a puppet for Special Interests and the influential, powerful and wealthy few who will satisfy her desires while she does their bidding, just as Bush-Cheney did. Currently they are busy working on building her support within the Party and next they will focus on selling her to the public. If ever they are successful, we can literally be fearful of being stuck with 'more of the same' that got us into so much trouble. If they ever succeed with a ticket like Palin-Kyl, we really could end up thinking that maybe Bush-Cheney wasn't so bad.

This country desperately needs to take money out of politics as that is the only way we will ever accomplish real political reform; it is the only way to take control away from the lobbyists and the powerful, influential and wealthy few. How can that ever be accomplished? The only way is when the people give the politicians the message that it is absolutely necessary, like when they became a force, elected Obama and in that said they had had enough. Elections shouldn't be determined just by which candidate has the most financial support and the best overt and covert activity to manipulate public opinion. As we have vividly seen, that doesn't result in the best representatives for the people. Neither should the Party be the major factor. It should be the quality and the focus of the individual, uncluttered with hype and subterfuge, with the best man/woman who sincerely represents his constituents winning each race. The only way that will ever become the standard is when it doesn't cost a candidate, in money and subordination, so much that they can't be driven by their own conscience. Take money out of politics and you will see more and better candidates unencumbered by required loyalty to the Party, to heavy contributors, to supporting organizations and instead being focused on serving the people, motivated by their altruistic nature and not the affluent striving.

After the Bush Presidency, the GOP might never win another one as long as I and others can keep helping get out the youth vote.


Although I hope NIETHER of the bickering children parties wins another Presidental election, you are fooling yourself if you don't believe that last nights' ass whipping in almost all of those elections was unrelated to voter feeling about both parties!

If the Obama Presidency ends up as it seems obvious to do, (which would be complete failure on healthcare and the continued refusal to recognize majority rule) I believe that the dems will be destroyed as far as any meaningfull population in congress and either the Independent or gop candidate will win the next Presidency (2012)easily!

It is time to divest ourselves of "team favorites" in favor of the American people, vote Independent, whoever, for whatever position to end the party wars, assign term limits/end carreer politics and actually get back to accomplish the goals of the voters not the gop or dems!

The Democrats real problem here has been their inability to take advantage of their majorities in the house and senate and push comprehensive health care reform through the legislative process. As someone who worked very hard during the presidential election, I feel cheated by the current state of affairs. The so-called Blue Dog Democrats who have obstructed the reform at every turn are especially rancorous. The Republicans followed their agenda in lockstep during the Bush years. They handed their president victory after victory on virtually all political issues. Torture? Check! Iraq War? Check. Tax cuts for the wealthy? Check Check Check!!! And now, when so many have fought so hard to get to this moment where we can finally redress these wrongs, they wave the olive branch of bi-partisan cooperation. The Democrats exchange cronies in the defense and financial industry for new ones in banking, medicine, finance and insurance!

I have not renounced my membership in the Democratic party, but so help me, if the year 2009 does not close with the presidential signature on a real health care reform bill with a government plan, then the next candidate I vote for is just liable to be an independent. So get together you important people. Try to do something really important. And if you don't give me and those like me what we want, come the next congressional election cycle we'll wipe you out, as a child wipes a slate!!!

There is and always will be a counter swing to the electorate when power changes. While we may not control what government does in their ivory towers the voters control who fills the seats in the ivory tower. The electorate truly has a layperson's understanding how to balance political power. It is the rising up of the electorate against the previous administration and party which presents us with a new leadership. What the current leadership must get their arms around is the expectations and change promised must be delivered "yesterday" to a electorate impatient with promises of future benefits. Afterall, the current power has had 8 years to plan on how to do it differently...unless the current power relies on doing the same thing expecting a different result. Yeah right!

I actually think that in 2012 a vote for an Independent/or new party will be VERY POPULAR given the left and gop extremes of Obumble and Bush by then. Wow, I can just imagine how things will get heated up if (when) Sarah Palin signs on board to run for POTUS as her own party. I can really see that happening....not a far-fetched projection. It is feasible. I believe she could pull it off with this country being so polarized under the governing of the BO administration.

GOP won against the lamest of Democratic candidates and call this the ascendance of the party.

Give me a break. The party actually lost a district that they held for 125 years and continue to be a Conservative enclave.

GOP is actually deluding themselves that Americans will have a collective amnesia forgetting Republican pattern of history of economic mismanagement, incompetence and buffoonery. Hey, bring in Palin in 2012. Let's have another comedic presidential election.

I cant wait for middle America to vote against their own interests again. I wonder what the GOP will use as their fear hammer this time?