One-party states

[Gustaf]

This discussion came up a while back and I thought it might be interesting to renew it. Here are the states where the same party holds a majority of both state chambers, US senate and House delegations, the Governorship and won in the last presidential election. Any changes in the future?

[minionofmidas]

Odd map, includes a couple of not-so-lopsided states.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Washington could well elect a Republican Governor if Rossi runs again in 2008. If Gregoire wins re-election I think it would almost certainly elect a Republican in 2012.

In Utah, I think Matheson could make a run for the Governorship in 2012 or run for the Senate at some point the future.

Idaho doesn't really have a state Democratic party does it?

New Jersey is the state which has the highest likelihood of electing a Republican to some office soon; i.e. Tom Kean for the Senate?  I also think that even if Kean is defeated by Menendez he will run again in 2008 and probably win.

Texas' GOP trend seems to continue, illogically, for the time being.

[ag]

Mass. is nearly certain to go red on this map this year (they only have the Gov'nor, and otherwise they are the reddest of the red).  There is also some probability of NY doing the same, though this might have to wait another 2-4 years (the state Senate could be tricky).  The same is likely in CA (depending on the Gov'nor's success) Rhode Island, Vermont and Hawaii are going to stick for a while with popular Rep governors as well, but if and when those are gone these will also be colored the same shade (of course, assuming Sanders gets classfied as a Dem).  In contrast, Alabama and Mississipi are only biding their time before turning blue.

On the other hand, Jersey and Ohio are flukes - though some flukes must always be on such a map by the laws of probability.

[riceowl]

Yeah, it's kinda crazy that Ohio is a 100% blue state...

[Sam Spade]

Yeah, it's kinda crazy that Ohio is a 100% blue state...

The Ohio GOP has basically run the state since William McKinley.  Maybe the Dems can turn it around this year, maybe not, who knows.

Texas has always had major inclinations towards being a one-party state (Democrat), if you look at its history.  The sad state of the Democratic party there now has led to the present map. 

And until the Democratic party there learns to tell the Austin liberals to shut up, the state of the party is pretty much dead.  Republicans may even start to gain a majority of the Hispanic vote if the idiocy continues.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

CA is flipping red next year.
NY may flip red too (depends on the State Senate).

[Dave from Michigan]

Michigan will stay split, even if the democrats take back the state house (which is possible) and state senate (unlikely), the republicans won't lose a majority  the congressional seats.

[Blerpiez]

As the Democrats have +85% majorities in both houses of the MA legislature, as well as every congressman, senator, and constitutional officer we're pretty much a one-party state here.

[Gustaf]

What about Kentucky? I think the State House (possibly State Senate, can't quite remember) was the only Democrat-controlled part there.

Does anyone know a site which has state legislature results easily available? I've been having trouble finding that.

As a comment, Ohio and Missouri are pretty weird on that map. As AG points out, there will always be a few oddities, but it's more likely to be lean states than swing states.

[Sarnstrom]

Does anyone know a site which has state legislature results easily available? I've been having trouble finding that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_legislatures_in_the_United_States

[Gustaf]

Does anyone know a site which has state legislature results easily available? I've been having trouble finding that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state_legislatures_in_the_United_States

Ah, thank you!

As a side thought, if Burns loses Montana would actually come very close to a one-party state...for Democrats.

[minionofmidas]

...all they'd have to do is take out Dennis Rehberg, have Jesus (our Jesus, of course) build them a time machine, and change the result of the 2004 presidential elections.

[bgwah]

I made a more detailed map a while ago, and seeing as how NJ and VA didn't change, it should still be accurate...



IIRC it took into account
-party of governor
-who controlled state's upper house
-who controlled state's lower house
-who the state voted for for 2004 Pres
-House representatives
-Senators

Basically, each is worth one point. And for example, if the state has one dem sen and one rep sen, then it counted as .5 points Dem and .5 Points Rep...

I then added up the total and so on to get the percentages.

[Q]

And, although the majority of US House seats are currently held by Democrats (which means nothing unless the electorial college is tied), there were more total votes for Republican house canidades then total votes for Democrats in 2004.

I think it was just the opposite on all counts, wasn't it?

[Beet]

According to my data, Republican House candidates received 1,514,784 votes in NJ 2004, and Democratic candidates received 1,721,392, for a 7-6 Democratic majority in the House delegation (for a one-party state, it is amazingly ungerrymandered).

In 2004, the total nationwide House Congressional vote by major party was:

Republican: 54,423,174 (49.6%)
Democratic: 51,021,395 (46.5%)
Total: 109,754,649

Seat Share

Republican: 232 (53.3%)
Democratic: 202 (46.4%)
Total: 435

The Republican vote share by region was
Northeast (37.6%), Midwest (50.3%), West (47.0%), South (58.2%)

Once you exclude uncontested races (races where either a Democrat or Republican did not appear on the ticket), the results change to-

Republican: 48,907,068 (48.8%)
Democratic: 48,048,567 (47.9%)
Total: 100,247,816

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

As the Democrats have +85% majorities in both houses of the MA legislature, as well as every congressman, senator, and constitutional officer we're pretty much a one-party state here.

Good point, perhaps a 2/3rds majority in both houses should cancel that out, making MA, HI, and MD be 1 party Democrat, and WY be 1 party Republican.

[ag]

Seems like Bloomberg might decide to aid Dems in making New York a one-party state: he seems to want a Democratic majority in the State Senate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/nyregion/05bloomberg.html

A great and loyal Republican he is, isn't he?

[Smash255]

Seems like Bloomberg might decide to aid Dems in making New York a one-party state: he seems to want a Democratic majority in the State Senate:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/nyregion/05bloomberg.html

A great and loyal Republican he is, isn't he?

Really doesn't suprise me.  Afterall the only reason Bloomberg decided to become a Republican was the Primary was easier thats it

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is the NY Times article wrong? I thought the split for the NY Senate was 35-27 Republican. If the Democrats gain 4 seats and the Lt. Governorship, they get to break ties.

[ag]

Is the NY Times article wrong? I thought the split for the NY Senate was 35-27 Republican. If the Democrats gain 4 seats and the Lt. Governorship, they get to break ties.

Perhaps there is a vacancy now? Though, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures website, as of 1/25/06 the ballance was, indeed, 35:27, so the vacancy, if it is it, must have been fairly recent.