Presidential Results vs. Senatorial Results, 2004

[Nym90]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

[Nym90]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

A more relevant statistic is that they also won the combined 2000+2002+2004 Senate popular vote despite having only 44 Senators to the Republican's 55. For obvious reasons Jeffords wasn't counted in the calculation.

True, and even counting Jeffords as a Republican, the Democrats still won the 2000 Senate popular vote.

It does help illustrate the disadvantage the Democrats have in the Senate. The same thing is true in the House of course as well due to Democratic votes being more concentrated, but not to as strong of a degree as the Senate.

[Nym90]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

A more relevant statistic is that they also won the combined 2000+2002+2004 Senate popular vote despite having only 44 Senators to the Republican's 55. For obvious reasons Jeffords wasn't counted in the calculation.

True, and even counting Jeffords as a Republican, the Democrats still won the 2000 Senate popular vote.

It does help illustrate the disadvantage the Democrats have in the Senate. The same thing is true in the House of course as well due to Democratic votes being more concentrated, but not to as strong of a degree as the Senate.

The situation in the House isn't as extreme, but yes, thanks to gerrymandering, in 1996, the Democrats won the popular vote, and ended up with 22 fewer Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1996

I don't think you can blame gerrymandering in 1996 necessarily, as Democrats still had the majority of Governorships and state Legislatures under their control when most of those lines were redrawn in 1991/1992.

However, the problem Democrats have in the House is that our voters are more concentrated, so a first past the post election system hurts us. There are more overwhelmingly Democratic districts than there are overwhelmingly Republican ones, and those extra votes essentially go to waste.

I would assume the Democrats probably won the popular vote for the House in at least 2000 as well (when we came closest to taking back the House since losing it last), and perhaps in some other recent elections too?