NATIONAL SENATE/HOUSE RESULTS THREAD (LATE RESULTS/POSTMORTEM)

[ag]

Toomey won.  He got 35% in Phili.  That one is over.

Where did you get that? On the NYT site it is saying 21.6%.

[ag]

CNN is showing Toomey got 22% in Phila; that is up a bit, IIRC, than Bush's numbers.  In 1994, Ridge won with 25% in Phila, which I think is the best showing of a statewide Republican since I've lived here.

W/ 29% of Philly vote reporting, according to NYT, Toomey has just dropped to a bit under 20%.

[ag]

Toomey pulled it off. 99% career ACU rating from Pennsylvania will be sweet.

For one term.

By 2016, President Palin will disenfranchise all liberals in America.

Given what's happening in Alaska, it might be a legit question if she gets her own state's delegates in the Republican convention )

[ag]

So, assuming CA-11 and NY-1 stay w/ Dems, we can summarize the results by region as follows (only for races run this time):

Pacific West (CA, WA, OR, HI, AK):

Senate
4 D (no change)
1 I-R (+1, I am using a liebermanian-style moniker for Murkowski)
0 R (-1)

House
D 45 (no change from pre-election, -1 from 2008)
R 26 (no change from pre-election, +1 from 2008)

Governors (for completeness)
D 3 (+2)
R 1 (-2)

The Pacific West was a place onto its own )) Dems didn't loose anything

[ag]

Mountain West (ID, MT, NV, CO, UT, AZ, NM, WY):

Senate:
3 R (no change)
2 D (no change)

House
18 R (+6)
10 D (-6)

Governorships
6 R (+2)
1 D (-2)

[ag]

"Western Midwest", including Plains (ND, SD, NE, KS, MN, IA, MO):

Senate:
5 R (+1)
0 D (-1)

House
21 R (+5)
9 D (-5)

Governorships
4 R (no change, assuming Dayton wins)
1 R (no change, assuming Dayton wins)

[ag]

"Eastern Midwest" (MI, WI, IL, IN, OH)

Senate
5 R (+3)
0 D (-3)

House
44 R (+16)
25 D (-16)
 
Governorships
3 R (+3)
1 D (-3)

[ag]

"Broad Northeast" (New England, NY, NJ, PA, WV, MD, DE)

Senate
7 D (-1)
2 R (+1)

House
63 D (-15)
32 R (+15)

Governorships:
6 D (no change)
2 R (-1)
1 I (+1)

Including New England (MA, CT, RI, ME, NH, VT)

Senate
2 D (no change)
1 R (no change)

House
20 D (-2)
2 R (+2)

Governorships
4 D (+1)
1 R (-2)
1 I (+1)

Big losses for Dems in broader region, but, still, overwelming dominance in most places. Interestingly, Northeastern Dem losses are comparable to the Midwestern losses in the House. But the overall dominance ensures that nothing similar happened at the state-wide elections.

[ag]

"Outer South" (which I shall, somewhat voluntaristically define as TX, OK, AR, KY, TN, VA, NC, VA and FL)

Senate
5 R (+1)
0 D (-1)

House
74 R (+16)
31 D (-16)

Governorships
4 R (+3 compared w/ pre-election, +2 compared w/ last election)
1 D (-2)
0 I (-1 compared w/ pre-election, no change compared w/ last election)

[ag]

Inner South (SC, GA, MS, AL, LA)

Senate
4 R (no change)

House
28 R (+5)
9 D (-5)

Governorships
3 R (no change)

Not much is left that Republicans can additionally squeeze here even in a good year. In fact, other than in Georgia Dems are everywhere down to the required "black" district.

[ag]

I'd need to check the numbers, but overall the picture is clear. There has been no change in the Pacific West. Mountain West and the Midwest are swing areas. Northeast still gives Republicans a chance in a good year (though not much chance in New England). Broad South is finishing its transformation, and nothing's left to transform in the Core South.

[ag]

Adding IA, MN and MO, what would be the numbers (I call that the "Heartland").

Senate
2 R (no change in seats contested this time)

House
12 R (+2)
9 D (-2)

Governorships
1 D (assuming Dayton holds in MN, a Dem pick-up)
1 R (a Rep pick-up in IA)

Not much change, in fact: Dems lost a seat in MN and another in MO, and an exchange of governorships, but nothing more serious.

[ag]

Dems now hold majorities in House delegations from WA, OR, CA, HI, NM, IA, NC, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, RI, VT, ME.  DE was previously R, HI was tied

MN is a tie (was D)

The rest are majority R. NV, AZ, CO, ND, SD, WI, IL, OH, MI, IN, PA, VA, WV, AR used to be majority D, ID and TN used to be tied.

Single-party house delegations:

All-Dem - 7 states: MA (10), CT (5), ME (2), RI (2), HI (2), VT (1), DE (1).
All-GOP - 8 states: KS (4), NE (3), NH (2), ID (2), MT (1), AK (1), ND (1), WY (1). 

[ag]

So California experienced a wave election and 0 seats changed hands?

Dems actually picked up the governorship and a seat in the state legislature, I believe, but that's pretty much it )) Simply put: California didn't experience a wave election.

[ag]

So California experienced a wave election and 0 seats changed hands?

Dems actually picked up the governorship and a seat in the state legislature, I believe, but that's pretty much it )) Simply put: California didn't experience a wave election.

Just FYI, in the national races (Senate and House), the swing was roughly 1/2 to 2/3rds (more towards the 1/2 level) of the national swing from 2008 to 2010.  That's not enough to change much based on the prior margins.  Same thing occurred in New England (outside NH, where swings were greater than the national swing)

I know, I know )) But it's not a wave - and it's not enough to shift anything in areas so dominated by the Dems.

[ag]

California just doesn't have enough blue collar Catholic Anglos. They were the group that swung, and swung hard, against the Dems this year. Joe Biden was chatting about that. As someone noted in a post, the candidate the Dems fear most is Christie.

Which is why Republicans were swept into unprecedented victories here in Massachusetts.

(Granted, that did happen in the Senate special, but certainly not in the general).

Aren't most Catholics in MA Irish? Though I don't know where there are that many blue-collar Catholic Anglos. Probably more of a swing among Catholics of German descent in the midwest.

For a Hispanic a German is an Anglo.

[ag]

California just doesn't have enough blue collar Catholic Anglos. They were the group that swung, and swung hard, against the Dems this year. Joe Biden was chatting about that. As someone noted in a post, the candidate the Dems fear most is Christie.

Which is why Republicans were swept into unprecedented victories here in Massachusetts.

(Granted, that did happen in the Senate special, but certainly not in the general).

Aren't most Catholics in MA Irish? Though I don't know where there are that many blue-collar Catholic Anglos. Probably more of a swing among Catholics of German descent in the midwest.

For better or worse, we here in CA at least, use the term "Anglo" to refer to those who are not Hispanic, Asian or black. And that is how I use the term - and for no other purpose.  I guess part of it is to use the term "white," in the context of excluding Hispanics, just rubs me the wrong way. Indeed, I find it almost offensive for some reason. Thus I embraced the term.

Well, I didn't comment before, but most white Catholics (i.e. Italians and especially the Irish) would be far more offended by your calling them "Anglo" than Hispanics would by your calling non-Hispanic Caucasians "white."

Nevertheless, from the standpoint of their Hispanic neighbors they are all Anglo, even if they are Greek ))

[ag]

A very clear judgement. Miller's done.