UVa. political guru Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball publishes an analysis by Wall Street Journal columnist Rhodes Cook comparing the political landscapes in 1994 (when Republican landslides flipped the majorities in the House and the Senate) and 2010.

Based on presidential votes in the elections leading up to both midterms, Cook says Democrats are in a lot better shape this year than they were in ’94.

Defining a “red” district as one that voted Republican in the previous two presidential elections, a “blue” district as one that voted Democrat, and a “purple” as one that split the vote, Cook finds fewer Democratic seats at risk. He says:

the playing field looks much friendlier for House Democrats in 2010 than it did 16 years ago. The number of ?Blue? districts they hold has risen by 43, from 128 in 1994 to 171 today, while the number of ?Purple? districts they must defend has dropped by 39 (from 77 to 38). Meanwhile, the total of ?Red? districts occupied by House Democrats is down this year by four from 1994 (from 51 to 47).

That’s relevant, but I’m not ready to buy it. For one thing, the economy in 1994 was in much better shape than it is today.

A few numbers: The U.S. unemployment rate in May 1994: 6.1 percent (and falling; it was down to 5.5 percent by year’s end). Today: 9.8 percent, and likely to rise when census workers lose their temporary jobs. And while I haven’t taken the time to sort out the unemployment rate in red and purple districts represented by Dems, it hardly would surprise me if quite a few of them are experiencing double-digit joblessness. (Nevada, home of Senate Majority Leader, now has the nation’s highest unemployment rate. And potentially two vulnerable Democratic House members in a state that gave Barack Obama a 12-point win in 2008 and barely backed Bush in 2004.)

Economic growth in the first quarter of 1994: 4.0 percent; 1Q 2010: 3.0 percent.

Budget deficit/debt: FY 1994: $203 billion/$3.4 trillion
FY 2010: $1.42 trillion/$14 trillion (not inflation-adjusted, but still …)

In other words, there’s more to the landscape than Cook suggests. Also, Cook ignores the Perot phenomenon, which jumbled the presidential vote in 1992.

So I hardly think it’s party time for the GOP, still, if Dems use Cook’s analysis as an excuse for complacency, they’re probably mistaken.