under a future dem president
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:19:37 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Gubernatorial/State Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  under a future dem president
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: under a future dem president  (Read 1636 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 12, 2019, 02:01:53 AM »

how many seats should the party expect to lose in state legislatures? I've always hated it when people (such as krazen) would talk about how the republicans are at there highest position in 90 years and what not. My hope is that it won't be as bad as the 900 or so seats lost under Obama. I feel like the dems lost a lot of seats that were time bombs and made us look worse than we actually did.

Otoh, the dems lost "only" 500 seats under Clinton so it was thought that under Obama we didn't have as much to lose. And it ended up being worse.
Logged
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2019, 02:28:45 AM »

Yeah a lot of the Obama losses were in places that really strongly voted against him. Same thing with the 2010 congressional map. Delaying those losses really would have just prolonged the inevitable.

I don't think many seats would flip under the next Dem president, just because there aren't too many there to flip.
Logged
lfromnj
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,217


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2019, 03:13:04 AM »

Its hillarious considering D's could gain 1 state senate seat in California and lose 100 state house seats and yet D's represent more people now.
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2019, 05:51:19 AM »

Under Obama in 2010, Dems were still very over represented in white southern districts.  For instance, Dems still held majorities in both Alabama chambers and the Kentucky state house.  They held supermajorities in both Arkansas and West Virginia chambers and were tied in the Tennessee state house.

Another factor that contributes to the swing is the size of the New Hampshire house, where over 100 seats alone can swing in a given election.  . 
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2019, 01:05:46 PM »

The Obama midterm (particularly 2010) Dem losses were an exceptional case because Bush's wins were both so narrow that they still walked away holding a ton of Bush seats in the South and in rural areas with New Deal history in general that then turned into McCain +15 seats.  All of these McCain +15 Dem seats had not seen an environment with a large GOP national PV margin since 1994, and they were hopeless for Dems to hold in the modern, polarized era once that materialized.  It really was a unique situation, combined with the much stranger history of a massive number of rural seats staying in Dem hands straight through the Nixon and Reagan landslides. 

I suppose something similar could happen down the line in e.g. Texas in the next Republican midterm if a Dem narrowly wins in 2020, but there are fewer holdover seats in general today. 

Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,769
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2019, 06:18:50 PM »

The reason why Obama lost seats was due to 10% unemployment rate. 2020-2024, the Gov races, whom Dems arent term limited,  will hold Dems losses down in a midterm. A Dem prez will get something done, aside from Trump who only wanted entitlement cuts, Dems will pursue a pro growth agenda
Logged
Annatar
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 976
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 12, 2019, 07:27:05 PM »

A dem president over 2 terms will probably lose 600 seats, the average loss in a 1st midterm alone is 420 legislative seats for the party that controls the WH, the GOP only lost 295 in 2018 because they were able to outperform historical trends and minimise their losses owing to Trump's strength outside urban areas, in many states they basically lost almost no seats, in WI they had a net gain of 1 legislative seat and in Iowa the net loss was only 2 legislative seats.

I think the 1st midterm for a dem president will be closer to the average loss of 420 unless they can expand their base outside urban areas, there are still hundreds of dems in legislative seats in areas that are trending Republican that will be wiped out the next time there is a midterm under a democratic president.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018


Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 12, 2019, 09:08:18 PM »

A dem president over 2 terms will probably lose 600 seats, the average loss in a 1st midterm alone is 420 legislative seats for the party that controls the WH, the GOP only lost 295 in 2018 because they were able to outperform historical trends and minimise their losses owing to Trump's strength outside urban areas, in many states they basically lost almost no seats, in WI they had a net gain of 1 legislative seat and in Iowa the net loss was only 2 legislative seats.

I think the 1st midterm for a dem president will be closer to the average loss of 420 unless they can expand their base outside urban areas, there are still hundreds of dems in legislative seats in areas that are trending Republican that will be wiped out the next time there is a midterm under a democratic president.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018




No way it would be 600 seats.  Dems are still like 200 seats away from a majority and do not hold the level of rural GOP double digit PVI districts that they held in 2010.  What would likely happen is that they lose around 300 (which is about what happened in 2014, when Dems were far less overexposed than 2010)
Logged
Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,769
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2019, 12:40:23 AM »

The GOP had Walker and Kasich in WI and OH popular Govs in 2010 and 2014, that wont be there next time in 2022.

Dems will likely lose seats but Dems are rebuilding their state legislators
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2019, 02:05:07 AM »

A dem president over 2 terms will probably lose 600 seats, the average loss in a 1st midterm alone is 420 legislative seats for the party that controls the WH, the GOP only lost 295 in 2018 because they were able to outperform historical trends and minimise their losses owing to Trump's strength outside urban areas, in many states they basically lost almost no seats, in WI they had a net gain of 1 legislative seat and in Iowa the net loss was only 2 legislative seats.

I think the 1st midterm for a dem president will be closer to the average loss of 420 unless they can expand their base outside urban areas, there are still hundreds of dems in legislative seats in areas that are trending Republican that will be wiped out the next time there is a midterm under a democratic president.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018




No way it would be 600 seats.  Dems are still like 200 seats away from a majority and do not hold the level of rural GOP double digit PVI districts that they held in 2010.  What would likely happen is that they lose around 300 (which is about what happened in 2014, when Dems were far less overexposed than 2010)

if they lost 300 seats - wouldn't that put them at there 2017-2018 numbers? Which is to say there lowest point since the 1920s?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2019, 06:47:20 AM »

A dem president over 2 terms will probably lose 600 seats, the average loss in a 1st midterm alone is 420 legislative seats for the party that controls the WH, the GOP only lost 295 in 2018 because they were able to outperform historical trends and minimise their losses owing to Trump's strength outside urban areas, in many states they basically lost almost no seats, in WI they had a net gain of 1 legislative seat and in Iowa the net loss was only 2 legislative seats.

I think the 1st midterm for a dem president will be closer to the average loss of 420 unless they can expand their base outside urban areas, there are still hundreds of dems in legislative seats in areas that are trending Republican that will be wiped out the next time there is a midterm under a democratic president.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018




No way it would be 600 seats.  Dems are still like 200 seats away from a majority and do not hold the level of rural GOP double digit PVI districts that they held in 2010.  What would likely happen is that they lose around 300 (which is about what happened in 2014, when Dems were far less overexposed than 2010)

if they lost 300 seats - wouldn't that put them at there 2017-2018 numbers? Which is to say there lowest point since the 1920s?

Yes.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2019, 09:57:56 PM »

A dem president over 2 terms will probably lose 600 seats, the average loss in a 1st midterm alone is 420 legislative seats for the party that controls the WH, the GOP only lost 295 in 2018 because they were able to outperform historical trends and minimise their losses owing to Trump's strength outside urban areas, in many states they basically lost almost no seats, in WI they had a net gain of 1 legislative seat and in Iowa the net loss was only 2 legislative seats.

I think the 1st midterm for a dem president will be closer to the average loss of 420 unless they can expand their base outside urban areas, there are still hundreds of dems in legislative seats in areas that are trending Republican that will be wiped out the next time there is a midterm under a democratic president.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018




No way it would be 600 seats.  Dems are still like 200 seats away from a majority and do not hold the level of rural GOP double digit PVI districts that they held in 2010.  What would likely happen is that they lose around 300 (which is about what happened in 2014, when Dems were far less overexposed than 2010)

if they lost 300 seats - wouldn't that put them at there 2017-2018 numbers? Which is to say there lowest point since the 1920s?

Yes.

well at what point does the wind finally get to be at the democrats' back? Like if you look at state legislative losses under Eisenhower and Nixon/Ford, they lost 800 seats under each while the dems only lost 400/500 seats under Kennedy/Johnson. By the time of the Reagan/Bush years, the GOP on net actually gained a seat or two. I would have thought that by 2017, the dems are where the republicans were circa mid 1970s but I guess you're saying they still have negative headwinds.

Whatever happened to the Emerging Democratic Majority?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2019, 03:57:44 PM »

A dem president over 2 terms will probably lose 600 seats, the average loss in a 1st midterm alone is 420 legislative seats for the party that controls the WH, the GOP only lost 295 in 2018 because they were able to outperform historical trends and minimise their losses owing to Trump's strength outside urban areas, in many states they basically lost almost no seats, in WI they had a net gain of 1 legislative seat and in Iowa the net loss was only 2 legislative seats.

I think the 1st midterm for a dem president will be closer to the average loss of 420 unless they can expand their base outside urban areas, there are still hundreds of dems in legislative seats in areas that are trending Republican that will be wiped out the next time there is a midterm under a democratic president.

https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2018




No way it would be 600 seats.  Dems are still like 200 seats away from a majority and do not hold the level of rural GOP double digit PVI districts that they held in 2010.  What would likely happen is that they lose around 300 (which is about what happened in 2014, when Dems were far less overexposed than 2010)

if they lost 300 seats - wouldn't that put them at there 2017-2018 numbers? Which is to say there lowest point since the 1920s?

Yes.

well at what point does the wind finally get to be at the democrats' back? Like if you look at state legislative losses under Eisenhower and Nixon/Ford, they lost 800 seats under each while the dems only lost 400/500 seats under Kennedy/Johnson. By the time of the Reagan/Bush years, the GOP on net actually gained a seat or two. I would have thought that by 2017, the dems are where the republicans were circa mid 1970s but I guess you're saying they still have negative headwinds.

Whatever happened to the Emerging Democratic Majority?

The Emerging Democratic Majority tends to go into hibernation once a Democrat becomes President and doesn’t come out until after a Republican comes back in.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 16, 2019, 04:53:19 PM »

Total number of seats isn't a good metric to go by anyway.   A state house seat in Wyoming isn't on the same level as a state senate seat in California.  Also chamber size is an issue,  like having only 80 house seats in NJ while having 400 in New Hampshire.

It'd be better to go by percentages of the population represented by each party or something.
Logged
TrendsareUsuallyReal
TrendsareReal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 16, 2019, 11:42:20 PM »

As mentioned in this thread, most of the Obama losses came from predominantly white rural seats in the south that Democrats had no business representing and hadn’t won at the Presidential level since either Clinton or even as far back as Carter.

As for the suggestion upthread that Texas Democrats are set for an outsized proportion of bleeding under a Democratic President: most of the seats Dems gained in the legislature in 2018 were seats that Clinton won and even the Trumo seats that Democrats gained are probably gone for the GOP for the near future (Hays County, looking at you).
Logged
Non Swing Voter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,181


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 17, 2019, 12:08:43 AM »

They probably wouldn't suffer catastrophic losses under any conceivable scenario as the parties have almost now fully realigned and democrats represent places they should (inner suburbs, etc.).  But if it's a President Warren or Sanders they could probably bleed a significant amount of suburban legislative districts on the edges of metro areas.  Under President Biden they'd probably lose very few if any. 
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 17, 2019, 04:28:58 PM »

Total number of seats isn't a good metric to go by anyway.   A state house seat in Wyoming isn't on the same level as a state senate seat in California.  Also chamber size is an issue,  like having only 80 house seats in NJ while having 400 in New Hampshire.

It'd be better to go by percentages of the population represented by each party or something.

well yes but its all about optics. I hated it when guys like krazen would always harp about all the losses under Obama. Even guys who are not bad faith actors like Sean Trende would mention it. If a future dem president only loses 200 or so state legislative seats - then maybe we won't have to hear the talk about how the dems are in disarray from those people.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 24, 2019, 12:40:13 PM »

The massive losses in legislatures that have occurred since 1994 have been mostly due to a combination of realignment and reapportionment driven by the GOP gains.  That part is done now.  The realignment that has been ocurring in those D to R areas is largely done, and reapportionment probably could not get any more extreme than it is now.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 26, 2019, 11:35:38 AM »

The massive losses in legislatures that have occurred since 1994 have been mostly due to a combination of realignment and reapportionment driven by the GOP gains.  That part is done now.  The realignment that has been ocurring in those D to R areas is largely done, and reapportionment probably could not get any more extreme than it is now.


Reapportionment or redistricting? Reapportionment is not partisan driven, it's simply done by population. And when I look at party control of state governments, after the 2000 census it was still fairly balanced, even if the southern states were being run by blue dog DINOsaurs.

State government control:

1994:



2000:



After 2010, that's when you really see the shenanigans ramp up.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 27, 2019, 06:08:54 PM »
« Edited: December 27, 2019, 06:43:01 PM by Skill and Chance »

Most of this can be explained by 1994 being basically the only Republican wave at the downballot level since 1946.  A bunch of these seats hadn't voted Democratic for president since Carter.  They were massively overextended and 2010 was just when it finally broke down.  As others have illustrated, the 2010 pickups had little to do with map drawing.  Most of those gains came in 2014. 

As of now I expect Trump to win reelection, but if the next Dem midterm is 2022, they could actually have a net gain of state legislative seats from getting to unwind a bunch of GOP gerrymanders that year and basically not having any Trump 2020 seats left to lose.  Would be similar to the 2018 Senate races.



 
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2020, 03:18:52 PM »

Most of this can be explained by 1994 being basically the only Republican wave at the downballot level since 1946. 

not 1966?
Logged
Mr.Phips
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2020, 05:02:50 PM »

Most of this can be explained by 1994 being basically the only Republican wave at the downballot level since 1946. 

not 1966?

Dems didn’t come close to losing the House or their state legislative majorities in 1966.  They basically just had their 1964 gains reversed.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 11 queries.