2002 Midterms without 9/11

[BigVic]

If the midterms took place in the economy before the 9/11 how will it pan out. Of course the early 2000s dot-com recession and Bush Tax Cuts will be the big issues of the day.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Republicans probably lose around a dozen or so seats in the house(redistricting happening right before the midterms keeps them from bigger losses) so that gives Democrats around a 226-209 majority in the house.

In the Senate the GOP does not pick up MO and MN meaning Dems have a 51-49 majority but LA actually could be more in play here in OTL. Reason is going into the Runoff in OTL the GOP had a 51-48 majority so the GOP didnt have much reasons to turnout as much , while here control of the senate would hinge on the LA senate race so the GOP could pick it up and still win control of the senate.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Republicans probably lose around a dozen or so seats in the house(redistricting happening right before the midterms keeps them from bigger losses) so that gives Democrats around a 226-209 majority in the house.

In the Senate the GOP does not pick up MO and MN meaning Dems have a 51-49 majority but LA actually could be more in play here in OTL. Reason is going into the Runoff in OTL the GOP had a 51-48 majority so the GOP didnt have much reasons to turnout as much , while here control of the senate would hinge on the LA senate race so the GOP could pick it up and still win control of the senate.

It's entirely possible Landrieu wins outright, since she was only 4% from doing that OTL.

I personally think Chambliss ends up short of the 50% needed for victory, but we don't know how that would turn out.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Republicans probably lose around a dozen or so seats in the house(redistricting happening right before the midterms keeps them from bigger losses) so that gives Democrats around a 226-209 majority in the house.

In the Senate the GOP does not pick up MO and MN meaning Dems have a 51-49 majority but LA actually could be more in play here in OTL. Reason is going into the Runoff in OTL the GOP had a 51-48 majority so the GOP didnt have much reasons to turnout as much , while here control of the senate would hinge on the LA senate race so the GOP could pick it up and still win control of the senate.

It's entirely possible Landrieu wins outright, since she was only 4% from doing that OTL.

I personally think Chambliss ends up short of the 50% needed for victory, but we don't know how that would turn out.

Well Georgia actually had reduced the % needed to 45% in the mid 90s but then republicans raised that number back to an outright majority once they got a trifecta there .

Keep in mind Clelend won with 48.9% in 1996:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia

[Mr.Phips]

Republicans probably lose around a dozen or so seats in the house(redistricting happening right before the midterms keeps them from bigger losses) so that gives Democrats around a 226-209 majority in the house.

In the Senate the GOP does not pick up MO and MN meaning Dems have a 51-49 majority but LA actually could be more in play here in OTL. Reason is going into the Runoff in OTL the GOP had a 51-48 majority so the GOP didnt have much reasons to turnout as much , while here control of the senate would hinge on the LA senate race so the GOP could pick it up and still win control of the senate.

I ran the numbers on what would have happened had there been a 10 point swing in favor of Dems (Dems winning the House popular vote by five rather than Republicans) and the result would have been Dems winning a 223-212 majority in the House.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Without the "rally around the flag" effect, it would be a Dem midterm, though not quite a wave. It would have been a difficult election year for both parties, all things considered - Republicans would have to defend the record of a first-term president who was never quite that popular (except for the post-9/11 popularity boost, which of course never happened in this timeline), and congressional Democrats were in an electorally difficult time, where the south was continuing to solidify for the Republicans, but college-educated whites hadn't quite made enough of a leftward transition to make up for that loss. That said, Bush was a controversial president from day 1. While Republicans would push hard on social issues to drive up evangelical turnout, and this would limit their losses in the south, it would have the opposite effect in the northeast, where the lack of 9/11 and the emphasis on social issues would really weaken the Republicans' appeal.

House:
Dems: 225-230
GOP: 205-210

Senate:
Dems: 52+Jeffords
GOP: 47

In the Senate, I think the Democrats would have held on to Georgia and Missouri, and made gains in Colorado, Minnesota and New Hampshire, giving them a slight majority. Overall, Bush would have to moderate his domestic agenda given the Democratic majorities in both chambers, but since both majorities were pretty small and there were quite a few blue dogs at the time, he would still be able to get a few wins for conservatives.