Why Did the Democrats Basically Have a Monopoly on Congress from 1930-1994?

[Free Bird]

With very few interruptions, even as Republicans won titanic Electoral College victories? I’m guessing it has something to do with their stranglehold on the South at the time combined with their scattered seats outside that region.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The Great Depression.

[Oryxslayer]

Excusing the partisan comments above me, it was the Solid South, and the fact that political realignments take time to transfer from the executive downwards.

[Nyvin]

The South had a deep distrust of big corporations, which were both northern overall and deeply tied to the Republican Party ever since the Reconstruction.   

When the South and Labor Unions were joined together like this, it was pretty much unbeatable for Republican corporatists.

[publicunofficial]

New Deal generation growing up and dying out AKA the people who said "This social security thing is awesome, I think I'll vote vote for the party that gave me this"

[KingSweden]

New Deal generation growing up and dying out AKA the people who said "This social security thing is awesome, I think I'll vote vote for the party that gave me this"

[darklordoftech]

The solid south, and later the blue dogs.

[pbrower2a]

The Republicans did not get well organized in the South until the 1990s. The Dixiecrats and Southern blacks could agree for about a quarter century on economics and basically share power. The Dixiecrats lost their fear and distrust of Big Business as the South became less-strictly agrarian.

[Blue3]

My grandparents' generation, that grew up with Roosevelt and loved the New Deal.

[Dr. MB]

Solid South and New Deal effects.

Excusing the partisan comments above me, it was the Solid South, and the fact that political realignments take time to transfer from the executive downwards.

Yep. It started in the 1960s/70s with POTUS, then in the 70s-2000s for congress, and 90s-present with state legislatures and local offices.

[Torrain]

Solid South and New Deal effects.

Excusing the partisan comments above me, it was the Solid South, and the fact that political realignments take time to transfer from the executive downwards.

Yep. It started in the 1960s/70s with POTUS, then in the 70s-2000s for congress, and 90s-present with state legislatures and local offices.

^This. Trickle-down from the Exectutive to the State Legislature. Consider that Alabama had a Blue Dog Democratic-held State House and Senate until 2010, and the prevalence of Democratic County officials in places like PA-18, who’ll likely lose office in a GOP wave a decade from now.

[YE]

New Deal generation growing up and dying out AKA the people who said "This social security thing is awesome, I think I'll vote vote for the party that gave me this"

This, and the fact that the Dem tent was big enough - largely since the Dems were a fiscally conservative party in the 1920s and at the presidential level turned left fast due to the fact the Great Depression was caused (oversimplifying a bit) largely by the GOP.

[Crumpets]

Simple answer: nobody had a monopoly on the Democrats

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dixiecrats in the South like Robert C Byrd were alliegate to the Democrats. Once 1994 happened with the Brady Bill with Civil Rights, their alliegance was gone and flip to the GOP. 

[Indy Texas]

The mid-late 20th century preference for Republican presidents and Democratic control of Congress suggests there may be something to the whole "Tory men and Whig measures" thing.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Mainly because of the Solid South, but this doesnt mean liberals controlled the House all but 4 years during this same period.


The Conservative Coalition(The Vast Majority of Republicans+ Conservative Southern Democrats) controlled the House from: 1938-1948, 1952-1958, 1966-1970, and 1980-1986.


So in that 64 year period, Conservatives Controlled the House for 26 years during that period or around 40.6% of the time during that period.


The Reason not much Conservative Economic Policies got through during that period was from 1938-1948 , and 1966-1968 you had a Liberal Democratic President to veto much of their agenda(though they got one big win with Taft-Hartley), a Moderate or Arguably even a Liberal Republican President controlling the agenda in the 1950s, and Liberal Democrats Controlling the Senate from 1968-1970.


1980-1986 was the exception due to having a Conservative Republican Driving the Agenda, and Republicans controlling the Senate.

[Orser67]

In the fourth party system (1896-1930), Democrats dominated the South, while Republicans generally were the stronger party everywhere else (with the exception of Missouri and a few western states). This map of the 63rd Congress shows how, even when Democrats were at their apogee for the period, their (short-term) dominance was driven by the South.

The Hoover and FDR administrations saw a massive realignment outside of the South that favored Democrats. In the fifth party system (1932-1970ish...1968 or 1980 are both reasonable end dates) Democrats continued to dominate the South at the congressional level, were stronger in the West, and were competitive in the Midwest and Northeast. If you look at a map of the 88th Congress, you can see how the South drove Democratic majorities.

Beginning in the 1960's, the Democrats started to lose control of the South, and while they grew stronger in the Northeast and Midwest, it eventually wasn't enough to offset the end of what had basically been a one-party system. But they retained control of Congress into the 90's in large part because of the delayed realignment in the South. Even after Reagan's landslide, Southern Democrats helped ensure Democrats controlled the House in the 97th Congress. When Republicans finally took control of the House in the 104th Congress, it was because much of the South finally flipped.

[Bojack Horseman]

I’d also say redistricting. The Democrats had a chance to secure their House majority for another 10 years in 1990 but they did such a horrid job that the House could have actually flipped in 1992 if Bush had won re-election.

[RINO Tom]

Mainly because of the Solid South, but this doesnt mean liberals controlled the House all but 4 years during this same period.


The Conservative Coalition(The Vast Majority of Republicans+ Conservative Southern Democrats) controlled the House from: 1938-1948, 1952-1958, 1966-1970, and 1980-1986.


So in that 64 year period, Conservatives Controlled the House for 26 years during that period or around 40.6% of the time during that period.


The Reason not much Conservative Economic Policies got through during that period was from 1938-1948 , and 1966-1968 you had a Liberal Democratic President to veto much of their agenda(though they got one big win with Taft-Hartley), a Moderate or Arguably even a Liberal Republican President controlling the agenda in the 1950s, and Liberal Democrats Controlling the Senate from 1968-1970.


1980-1986 was the exception due to having a Conservative Republican Driving the Agenda, and Republicans controlling the Senate.

Eisenhower was not a liberal in any way, shape or form.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Mainly because of the Solid South, but this doesnt mean liberals controlled the House all but 4 years during this same period.


The Conservative Coalition(The Vast Majority of Republicans+ Conservative Southern Democrats) controlled the House from: 1938-1948, 1952-1958, 1966-1970, and 1980-1986.


So in that 64 year period, Conservatives Controlled the House for 26 years during that period or around 40.6% of the time during that period.


The Reason not much Conservative Economic Policies got through during that period was from 1938-1948 , and 1966-1968 you had a Liberal Democratic President to veto much of their agenda(though they got one big win with Taft-Hartley), a Moderate or Arguably even a Liberal Republican President controlling the agenda in the 1950s, and Liberal Democrats Controlling the Senate from 1968-1970.


1980-1986 was the exception due to having a Conservative Republican Driving the Agenda, and Republicans controlling the Senate.

Eisenhower was not a liberal in any way, shape or form.

Ok lets just say Moderate

But would you agree with the rest of what I said

[Chief Justice Keef]

The loss of the Solid South and the rightward shift from New Deal policies.

[RINO Tom]

Mainly because of the Solid South, but this doesnt mean liberals controlled the House all but 4 years during this same period.


The Conservative Coalition(The Vast Majority of Republicans+ Conservative Southern Democrats) controlled the House from: 1938-1948, 1952-1958, 1966-1970, and 1980-1986.


So in that 64 year period, Conservatives Controlled the House for 26 years during that period or around 40.6% of the time during that period.


The Reason not much Conservative Economic Policies got through during that period was from 1938-1948 , and 1966-1968 you had a Liberal Democratic President to veto much of their agenda(though they got one big win with Taft-Hartley), a Moderate or Arguably even a Liberal Republican President controlling the agenda in the 1950s, and Liberal Democrats Controlling the Senate from 1968-1970.


1980-1986 was the exception due to having a Conservative Republican Driving the Agenda, and Republicans controlling the Senate.

Eisenhower was not a liberal in any way, shape or form.

Ok lets just say Moderate

But would you agree with the rest of what I said

I think you're oversimplifying the Conservative Coalition and certainly the number of years it held that much power.

[IndustrialJustice]

The loss of the Solid South and the rightward shift from New Deal policies.

This.

Unions, Social Security, and a heavy dose of Jim Crow.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Mainly because of the Solid South, but this doesnt mean liberals controlled the House all but 4 years during this same period.


The Conservative Coalition(The Vast Majority of Republicans+ Conservative Southern Democrats) controlled the House from: 1938-1948, 1952-1958, 1966-1970, and 1980-1986.


So in that 64 year period, Conservatives Controlled the House for 26 years during that period or around 40.6% of the time during that period.


The Reason not much Conservative Economic Policies got through during that period was from 1938-1948 , and 1966-1968 you had a Liberal Democratic President to veto much of their agenda(though they got one big win with Taft-Hartley), a Moderate or Arguably even a Liberal Republican President controlling the agenda in the 1950s, and Liberal Democrats Controlling the Senate from 1968-1970.


1980-1986 was the exception due to having a Conservative Republican Driving the Agenda, and Republicans controlling the Senate.

Eisenhower was not a liberal in any way, shape or form.

Ok lets just say Moderate

But would you agree with the rest of what I said

I think you're oversimplifying the Conservative Coalition and certainly the number of years it held that much power.

Well even then Liberals still controlled Congress for nearly 60% of that period so that era in the House was still a liberal era but nowhere near as much as 60/64 years Democrats controlled it.


The reason it didnt hold that much power is that much of its time was when either Liberal Democrats Held the White House or Controlled the Senate(1938-1948, 1954-1958 , 1966-1970)


So basically 1952-1954, and 1980-1986 was when they had any meaningful power.


For Liberals that certainly wasn't the case cause they had the trifecta from  1932-1948 , 1948-1952 , 1960-1966 , 1976-1980 , 1992-1994(Clinton of the first two years was way more liberal than he was from 1994-2000)

[RINO Tom]

Great Depression + Southern Democrats voting for House Democrats until 1994 (they never realigned properly).

There's no "proper way to realign."  They elected House Democrats because they liked them better than the Republicans running against them in that period...