Republican Congressional Majorites the highest they've been in 60 years

[A18]

Anyone know where I can the number of Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate by year (1992, 1994, 1996, etc.)?

Senate - highest number of GOP seats since the 1928 elections

House - highest number of GOP seats since the 1946 elections

Also, Bush's % of the vote beats every Democrat since Lyndon Johnson  :-)

[DaleC76]

http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Congressional_History/index.html

[A18]

Thanks! Is there something similar for the Senate?

[DaleC76]

Oops, I meant to include the Senate.

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

[A18]

Looks like we're doing pretty well :-)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't really follow the Senate, but I can point out that in between the 1994 and 1996 House elections the GOP Majority was actually bigger than it is now (and, to be honest with ya it isn't very big) due to defections and Special Election gains.

Oh I should also let you know that notionally speaking the GOP actually lost House seats this year (treating those TX seats as GOP seats, which they in effect were. Not a lot of use for power and stuff, but electorally speaking, more accurate)

[A18]

I mean due to election.

Those TX seats are being treated as GOP seats. What's your point?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I mean due to election.

Those TX seats are being treated as GOP seats. What's your point?

I mean the seats the GOP "gained" in Texas. They cannot and should not be treated as Democratic seats if you are being intellectually honest when comparing election results.

I've not worked out notional results for 2000 on 2002 lines yet, BTW

[A18]

Why not?

[rbt48]

I mean due to election.

Those TX seats are being treated as GOP seats. What's your point?

I mean the seats the GOP "gained" in Texas. They cannot and should not be treated as Democratic seats if you are being intellectually honest when comparing election results.

I've not worked out notional results for 2000 on 2002 lines yet, BTW

Why not?

I think he is saying the GOP gains there were not really gains in as much as the electorate was just as Republican in 2002 as in 2004 (like if you add up the raw total of votes in all the Texas CDs).  The districts were simply drawn to pool Republican votes into a smaller number of districts (Gerrymandered).  Now with the redistricting that was in force for this year, there is a more representative allocation of congressional seats by party.  As evidence, compare the 19R to 12D Texas State Senate with the 21R to 11D House of Representatives line-up.  So, the GOP gain was really there before this election, it just wasn't allocated accurately.

[JNB]

Anyone know where I can the number of Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate by year (1992, 1994, 1996, etc.)?

Senate - highest number of GOP seats since the 1928 elections

House - highest number of GOP seats since the 1946 elections

Also, Bush's % of the vote beats every Democrat since Lyndon Johnson  :-)

   
   Actually the GOP had 55 seats in 83-84 and from 96-00, and in 96 the GOP had 236 seats, but there is one pretty big difference between the 230 seats the GOP had after the immediate results of the 94 mid term and the 231 they have today is the GOPs territory is far more secure.

  The GOP no longer represents such oddball districts as the NW side of Chicago, Madison WI or the Triangle Research park in NC. They no longer hold unrealistic majorities such as the 7-2 majority they held in the state of Washington, and the GOP lost the 6 swing districts they held in California, not to mention how they used to represent all 4 Long Island districts.

  In fact, using the 230 district baseline from 94, if the Dems held on to the districts they had after the 94 election and gained the districts they took from the GOP since the 94 election, and that would be 11 on the West Coast, 10 in the Northeast Corridor + Maine, plus the solidly Democratic districts that the GOP held outside of these two areas(5 districts), the dems would have back back to the 225-230 seat range. But of course all these districts the GOP lost were basically replaced by conservative districts that Democrats held, and with this, the GOP majority in the house for the time being is a bit more solid.

[A18]

I said it's the highest we've had since 1928. I didn't say it was higher than any other election since then.

And again, I said as the result of an election. Party flips in between elections don't count.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I said it's the highest we've had since 1928. I didn't say it was higher than any other election since then.

And again, I said as the result of an election. Party flips in between elections don't count.

Quit spinning

[The Vorlon]

Like all things... it depends how you want to look at it.

The GOP currently has a modest upper hand, but certainly no where near the level of dominance the Dems had in the 60s and 70s..

The GOP has had a 10 year run with a modest advantage in the House.

Compared to the previous 40 years when the Dems sometimes had crushing advantages, this is certainly a step forward for the GOP.  The House is also so massively Gerrymanderd to protect incumbants it would actually take a fairly titanic shift to undo the GOP Majority.

The Senate is I suspect trending a bit towards the GOP.  Prior to 1980 the Dems had huge advantages, but since then the GOP has tended to have a modest advantage as the "solid south" has realligned to the GOP in name as well as in fact.

The Presidency has no real pattern.  Both parties, depending on the Candidate have a decent shot.

The Democratic Prez vote has been amazingly stable for 3 elections in a row.

These are the 50 year trend lines for the House, Senate, Prez, and average of the three...

[JNB]

   One thing that one has to keep in mind when talking about the Democratic congressional majority, especially in the house before the Democratic Study Group led by the late Phil Burton of San Francisco was that the bulk of Democrats from the south were very conservative, not just on social issues, but economic issues as well. After 1974, comittie assignmnets were no longer based on senority, but by a vote in the Democratic house membership, so party discipline amoung southren Democrats increased.

   Even then, up though the late 80s, there were about 30 or so conservative Democratic house members from the south who voted the conservative position on a majority of issues. Of course there were also a contingent of liberal Republicans from the Northeast was well, but they were less numerous.

[zorkpolitics]

   One thing that one has to keep in mind when talking about the Democratic congressional majority, especially in the house before the Democratic Study Group led by the late Phil Burton of San Francisco was that the bulk of Democrats from the south were very conservative, not just on social issues, but economic issues as well. After 1974, comittie assignmnets were no longer based on senority, but by a vote in the Democratic house membership, so party discipline amoung southren Democrats increased.

   Even then, up though the late 80s, there were about 30 or so conservative Democratic house members from the south who voted the conservative position on a majority of issues. Of course there were also a contingent of liberal Republicans from the Northeast was well, but they were less numerous.

And the group of 30 were pretty much wiped out in the 1994 Gingrich Republican revolution when the Republicans picked up 54 seats.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The GOP has had a 10 year run with a modest advantage in the House.

Yes... it's strange isn't it? A reasonably long time controlling a Lower House but never with a large majority and with no real prospect of every getting one.
Only a seriously gerrymandered Lower House could produce something like that... oh... right... I see...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would take a big shift in a lot of marginal districts (mostly held on the strength of incumbency), but with the right candidates it's possible.
With good local candidates almost anything is possible (being called Matheson in Utah is a good example)

Ditching Pelosi (is having a leader who has to ham up her liberal-ness to fend off a potential primary challenge *really* what the Democrats need right now?) would be a good start...

This is an interesting topic. More soon I hope.

[The Vorlon]

The GOP has had a 10 year run with a modest advantage in the House.

Yes... it's strange isn't it? A reasonably long time controlling a Lower House but never with a large majority and with no real prospect of every getting one.
Only a seriously gerrymandered Lower House could produce something like that... oh... right... I see...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It would take a big shift in a lot of marginal districts (mostly held on the strength of incumbency), but with the right candidates it's possible.
With good local candidates almost anything is possible (being called Matheson in Utah is a good example)

Ditching Pelosi (is having a leader who has to ham up her liberal-ness to fend off a potential primary challenge *really* what the Democrats need right now?) would be a good start...

This is an interesting topic. More soon I hope.

At the local level, in one or two ridings, almost anything IS possible.

But the degree to which the House has been Gerrymandered to protect Incumbants IS rather astonishing.

BTW, this is bi-partisan gerrymandering - both sides have gone <<nudge nudge, wink wink>> on this.

Out of 435 seats in the house, the elections 3 weeks ago produced 10% or greater margins in an astonishing 417 seats.

There were 9 (not 9%, but NINE) races in the entire nation decided by less than 5%.

Gerrymandered doesn't seem like a strong enough word actually...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

At the local level, in one or two ridings, almost anything IS possible.

Something that Phil Crane found out this year

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True: most of the big states were gerrymandered to protect incumbents. When there are more potentially competetive districts in Kentucky than California it's obvious that something has gone badly wrong somewhere.

Letting State Legislatures draw the lines is like giving a monkey the key to a banana plantation...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In fairness a lot of districts could become competetive with a strong candidate (and the habit of both parties running no-namers (and sometimes NO ONE AT ALL) in competetive districts has really got to end...) but it's still a disgrace

[A18]

Has any activist court ever tried ruling that Representatives have to be elected by equal population districts?

[muon2]

Only a federal law equivalent to the single member district rule would significantly change the districting process. That rule is a precedent for setting broad requirements for districts. The easiest rule that might pass is one that says that CDs may not be drawn so as to divide Census Tracts. That wouldn't fix everything, but most of the worst CDs could not exist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Has any activist court ever tried ruling that Representatives have to be elected by equal population districts?

Equal Population Districts are part of the problem. It makes it so much easier to add weird little corridors here, a strange blob there and a weird hole in the district about there.

A quota system would be much, much saner.

[A18]

A federal rule is unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court wouldn't care.

[ATFFL]

Gerrymandered doesn't seem like a strong enough word actually...

I suggest "DeLayed" for the future.

[A18]

Well, it's not as if the Democrats have never DeLayed a state.