Talk:Republican Revolution

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: History Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an image or photograph of Republican Revolution be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in the United States may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Redirect proposal

There's not much here. The title is too vague anyways. "Republican revolution" is not limited to China. Redirect to History of the Republic of China? --Jiang

Propose Merge

I think this article should be merged with U.S. House election, 1994. There isn't much there, but there's a lot less here, and the topics are not really independent. Republican Revolution is just a POV title forthe same thing. --Mm35173 20:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreasonable, but isn't part of the "revolution" that the Republicans gained control of the Senate as well? (even though their last majority there was only 8 yrs prior, not the 40 as in the House).

Kaisershatner 15:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a good candidate for expansion, rather than merger. It would be more complete if it included some reference to the platform and agenda of the 'revolutionaries', and some analysis of the progress, or lack thereof, that has followed. --Dschor 20:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be merged, but rather expanded because it is now part of: my american history chronology {{this url can no longer be found}}

The article must NOT be merged. The "Republican Revolution" is a subject into itself, separate from the House Elections of 1994 because it involves not just the House, but the Senate and the governorships as well. Therefore it deserves its own page. -- Judson 01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article absolutely should not be merged. The "Republican Revolution" was really a clean sweep - they went from being in the minority in the Senate, House, and governorships to being in the majority in all three. It was a sweeping party victory which has not been seen since and is rarely seen on such a scale. It can't be merged also because there's no one article to merge it into. Can we take down the merge box now? - RPIRED 21:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this article's purpose. It doesn't once mention WHY the Democrats lost so much power of how the platforms were different/ It didn't once even mention the Assault Weapons Ban. - Interslice

This should be a separate article, but it should be clear that this is a partisan term, as let's face it, it wasn't a revolution. Just as the 2006 victory for the Democrats wasn't a revolution. It should be about the term, with a brief election background. Wikipediatoperfection 05:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say what you don't know. We don't know the long term impact of 2006 elections. Don't say it's over until the fat lady sings. And yes, I mean hillary clinton. 199.120.31.20 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy section

One reason the article feels incomplete is that there are no discussion of policy changes like welfare reform and national security. Each Congress session could have its own subsection where notable policies are highlighted. Infernalfox 10:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The place to put such discussions would be in articles like 105th United States Congress, not in this article. This article might have a quick (as in, two sentence) summary and link, but this article is not the place that someone would look to find out the policy changes implemented by, say, the 105th U.S. Congress. John Broughton | Talk 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the Republican Revolution of 1994 produced a critical and history-defining political shift, from a relatively moderate “conservative coalition” to a far-right Republican Party against a centrist Democratic Party almost exclusively based in urban areas. The Republican Revolution coincided with – indeed is firmly related to – the growth of radical anti-government extremist movements, witnessed in Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing a few months subsequently, and also to the growth of radical right news media, like Fox News. I myself began to observe this when I read Peter Kreeft in the late 1990s. The effects of the shift has been seen in – despite an increase in Democratic presidential popular vote shares – policies much more favourable to the extremely rich and opposed to the poor and nonwhites than observed even during the Reagan era. Before the Republican Revolution, even GOP congressmen supported the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance reform, but the new generation of Republican congressmen and state legislators – like, critically, the immense majority of rural white Americans ever since 1964 – wanted to gut all civil rights and voting rights legislation, and all public support for nonwhite welfare. Luokehao | Talk 08:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Content :(

This article does not really have a lot of content or, as noted above, history or explanation in it. Probably not unlike the Democrats winning in 2006, the Republicans win in 1994 was largely a rejection of how the Democratic party was handling Congress -- i.e. The house banking scandal, the house post office scandal, missing money, high crime rate, closed doors during national health care discussions, national sales tax proposals, tax hikes, etc. 67.149.220.91 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for Deletion

I think this article should be removed, as it has no unique content to offer whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.199.200 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose, the article describes a sociopolitical phenomenon in the United States in the 1990s and 2000s, when neo-conservatism has won the house, senate, presidency (the George W. Bush administration) and hearts of millions of American voters. It owuld be nice to discuss what brought on the "Republican Revolution" from the end of the Cold war to the early 1990s recession to the L.A. Riots in '92, has moved a sizable majority of Americans into the side of conservatives and Republicans on fiscal and social issues.+ 71.102.7.77 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government Shutdown

Shouldn't we at least mention the 1995 government shutdown? --Bertrc (talk) 19:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republican Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528191435/http://www.llsdc.org/sourcebook/docs/CRS-RS20723.pdf to http://www.llsdc.org/sourcebook/docs/CRS-RS20723.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the 1994 assault weapons ban in this?

Seems like a big omission.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rja13ww33 (talk • contribs)

I am more than a little surprised by that too. The passage of AWB94, as part of the crime bill, was certainly a factor in the midterms.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 22:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]