Lowest Point for the Democratic Party since WW2

[OSR stands with Israel]

If you think it’s 2002 or 2014 then just vote 2004 or 2016 as those are meant to be together .


Id say 2004 given the democrats were weak across the board in 2004 and the electoral college math seemed to be getting worse for them and not better .

[Skill and Chance]

1994- they just caved to the GOP on several of the era's most important issues to finally get a president elected by a plurality after 12 years and they still lost both chambers of Congress in a blowout after only 2 years.

2004 was pretty impressive getting that close to unseating the incumbent in what was fundamentally a war election.  Going by 20th century standards, you would have expected Bush by 5-10 in the PV.

[Mr.Phips]

1994- they just caved to the GOP on several of the era's most important issues to finally get a president elected by a plurality after 12 years and they still lost both chambers of Congress in a blowout after only 2 years.

Worse yet, they still couldn’t regain the House in 1996 even with Clinton winning easily and winning like 280 House seats.

[The Mikado]

The GOP held the House for 12 years 1995-2007 (and the Senate for all but a year and a half of that) and another 8 2011-2019 (and the Senate for the last four years of that). That's following a period during which they'd controlled the House for only 4 out of the last 62 years. There's a 20 year period of GOP dominance that's just punctured in the middle by absolutely horrendous years for the GOP in 2006 and 2008 in which the Democrats built up gigantic, titanic majorities with feet of clay that collapsed into nothingness the second the GOP's scandals and Bush's failures weren't on their minds anymore.

I think the GOP's natural advantage in the House lasted 22 years 1994-2016 and it took absolute, catastrophic Democratic landslides in 2006 and 2008 to briefly overcome that natural advantage. Now the GOP just barely holds the House (thinner than any R House majority of that period other than 01-02) after an election in which they won the popular House vote by 2%. We're in a very different era where a neutral House election would probably favor a Dem House, which is crazy to think about.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

The GOP held the House for 12 years 1995-2007 (and the Senate for all but a year and a half of that) and another 8 2011-2019 (and the Senate for the last four years of that). That's following a period during which they'd controlled the House for only 4 out of the last 62 years. There's a 20 year period of GOP dominance that's just punctured in the middle by absolutely horrendous years for the GOP in 2006 and 2008 in which the Democrats built up gigantic, titanic majorities with feet of clay that collapsed into nothingness the second the GOP's scandals and Bush's failures weren't on their minds anymore.

I think the GOP's natural advantage in the House lasted 22 years 1994-2016 and it took absolute, catastrophic Democratic landslides in 2006 and 2008 to briefly overcome that natural advantage. Now the GOP just barely holds the House (thinner than any R House majority of that period other than 01-02) after an election in which they won the popular House vote by 2%. We're in a very different era where a neutral House election would probably favor a Dem House, which is crazy to think about.

I think that is mostly attributable to the massive perpetual "get out the vote" operation that the Democrats have been doing since 2016. The midterms in 2018 and 2022 saw much higher turnout than any non-presidential years since decades before.

[Republican Party Stalwart]

It's definitely not 1952. The GOP was only able to win the Presidential and Senatorial elections that year because the American public (especially the middle class) had become so bored with the status quo of perpetual Democratic rule since 1932 that they were willing to give Republicans a brief shot at the presidency and even in congress, and furthermore they were only willing to give them a shot because the GOP promised not to substantially reverse any of the changes brought to the American way of life by the New Deal and World War II (other than those which had already been reversed before the moment of the 1952 election).

[Republican Party Stalwart]

2004 was pretty impressive getting that close to unseating the incumbent in what was fundamentally a war election.  Going by 20th century standards, you would have expected Bush by 5-10 in the PV.

That actually WAS the case - indeed, more than the case - among white voters, who were the virtual entirety of the electorate before c.1965 and who voted for Bush in 2004 by a 58-41 margin.

[Pericles]

Both 1984 and 1994 were crushing ideological defeats for the left, and in both elections, there was a conservative majority in Congress (though admittedly the post-1994 Congress was more conservative). The Presidency is the most powerful office though, so that would give it to 1984 alone. Furthermore, Reagan won by so much, and Democrats went on to lose 1988 to entrench the rightward shift of US politics.

[Agonized-Statism]

The '80s were demoralizing, but it was the ascension of the Third Way in the '90s especially that showed how much the Republicans and their fiscal conservative ideas had triumphed. 1994 was probably the most crushing defeat, and then "the era of big government is over" and getting Clinton reelected without either chamber of congress were pretty jarring too. The '00s not so much: Democrats kept it close most of the time in spite of the unfavorable post-9/11 atmosphere, and the 2000 election was actually pretty motivating in that they came out looking like the party of the majority. After 2000, going into the '10s, the idea was that history would ultimately be on their side, that every defeat was an aberration, and that Republicans could only win with shenanigans. 2016 was a reckoning, but the direction to take was clear and sure enough they've come back stronger.

[Mr.Phips]

Both 1984 and 1994 were crushing ideological defeats for the left, and in both elections, there was a conservative majority in Congress (though admittedly the post-1994 Congress was more conservative). The Presidency is the most powerful office though, so that would give it to 1984 alone. Furthermore, Reagan won by so much, and Democrats went on to lose 1988 to entrench the rightward shift of US politics.

1994 yes, but 1984 was less crushing for Dems than 1980.  Dems actually gained senate seats (but didn’t win back the majority) and still held around 255 House seats in 1984.  1984 was more like 1972 in that it was a personal victory at the presidential level.  The only difference between 1984 and 1972 was that Republicans made some important little noticed state legislative gains (they gained like 350 seats nationally) and won the Michigan and Ohio senates, which they held continuously until 2022 in Michigan and still hold to this day in Ohio. 

[President Johnson]

1984 of these, though 1988 could also be a contender. Latter was the third consecutive landslide loss.

[Mr.Phips]

1984 of these, though 1988 could also be a contender. Latter was the third consecutive landslide loss.

Oh come on!! In 1988 Democrats came out with 60% of House seats, 55 senate seats, and around 62% of state legislative seats.  The only place they lost were at the presidential level.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

1994.....the liberals were dynamited at virtually all levels.

[Podgy the Bear]

IMO, it was 2004.  Bush actually won the majority of the PV (only time for the Republicans since 1988), and the Democrats were slipping significantly at the House/Senate levels.

Give credit to Howard Dean--who became head of the DNC and pushed a 50 state strategy with the Blue Dog coalition in 2005/2006.  And with 2008 and the Obama coalition, it all looked great for the Democrats for a while.

[Mr.Phips]

IMO, it was 2004.  Bush actually won the majority of the PV (only time for the Republicans since 1988), and the Democrats were slipping significantly at the House/Senate levels.

Give credit to Howard Dean--who became head of the DNC and pushed a 50 state strategy with the Blue Dog coalition in 2005/2006.  And with 2008 and the Obama coalition, it all looked great for the Democrats for a while.

2004 or 2016.  1984 and 1988 were basically presidential race only losses, like 1956 and 1972.

[RINO Tom]

I'd need to look at it more closely and read up a bit, but I'm inclined to say 1984 over 1994.  While many liberals in the Democratic Party were probably frustrated with "conservative Southern Democrats," most primary sources indicate that they felt they could at least kind of rely on them when there was a Democrat in the White House.  Clinton was still in the Oval Office in 1994 ... I feel like a crushing defeat like 1984 would have been more demoralizing.

[dw93]

I still maintain it was 2004. None of the Republican landslides of 1956, 72, 80, 84, or 88 produced Republican trifectas. Even in 2000, the Senate Split after being in Republican hands for 5 years. 2004 was the first election since 1952 to produce a Republican trifecta and a genuinely conservative and meaningfully unified one at that.

[Orser67]

I lean towards 1994. Democrats lost the House for the first time in 40 years (and wouldn't control it for another 12 years), and while it would be an exaggeration to say that they "squandered" a trifecta, I think there was/is a lot of disappointment about what Democrats had accomplished with it (the failure of healthcare reform being the biggest thing). It was also a huge year for Republicans at the state level; Republicans had a total of 30 gubernatorial seats after the election and according to the Wikipedia article this represented the first time since 1969 that Republicans held a majority of gubernatorial seats. IIRC they also had a big year in state legislative elections.

[Jim Crow]

1952- An anomaly with a small majority followed by 40 more years of control.
1984- Democrats had a sizable majority in the House.
1994- Bill Clinton handled the Republicans well.
2004- Awful time for Democrats. 
2016- Quickly recovered and were often seen as more favorable than Republicans.

2002- Very strong disadvantage for Democrats. 
2014- Obama was still president for 2 more years.

[Mr. Smith]

The results of 1984 are exactly why the party decided to sell its soul in the first place and ultimately move to the right of Nixon and Rockefeller.

[politicallefty]

I would say 2016. The Democratic Party was literally at its worst point in nearly a century. The Presidency was gone. The Senate was gone. Democrats were under 200 seats in the House. Democrats also only controlled 15 governorships. State legislatures were a mess as well.

[Skill and Chance]

Both 1984 and 1994 were crushing ideological defeats for the left, and in both elections, there was a conservative majority in Congress (though admittedly the post-1994 Congress was more conservative). The Presidency is the most powerful office though, so that would give it to 1984 alone. Furthermore, Reagan won by so much, and Democrats went on to lose 1988 to entrench the rightward shift of US politics.

1994 yes, but 1984 was less crushing for Dems than 1980.  Dems actually gained senate seats (but didn’t win back the majority) and still held around 255 House seats in 1984.  1984 was more like 1972 in that it was a personal victory at the presidential level.  The only difference between 1984 and 1972 was that Republicans made some important little noticed state legislative gains (they gained like 350 seats nationally) and won the Michigan and Ohio senates, which they held continuously until 2022 in Michigan and still hold to this day in Ohio. 

That period was just really weird in general.  4 R wins bigger than Obama's win in 2008 between 1956 and 1988 and yet they never flipped the House or even made meaningful progress in the state legislatures.   I don't know how to explain it.  The 1920's R landslides all carried downballot, and so did the 1930's and 1964 D landslides. 

[Ferguson97]

Write-in: 1988.

Their 5th loss out of the past 6 elections, and one that they went into with an advantage and should have won.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Write-in: 1988.

Their 5th loss out of the past 6 elections, and one that they went into with an advantage and should have won.

Not really , given the Dems gained house and senate seats and I disagree they had the advantage. The economy was considered to be doing really well by most voters, things had gotten much better globally and this was a time when voters cared about foreign policy and the Republicans nominated an incumbent Vice President who didnt run away from a popular President like Gore did.

1988 was definitely an election in which the GOP had the advantage in terms of fundamentals and while that didnt produce wins for the GOP in 1960 or Dems in 2000, all 3 of those elections should have been wins for the incumbent party imo.

[Mr.Phips]

Write-in: 1988.

Their 5th loss out of the past 6 elections, and one that they went into with an advantage and should have won.

Not really , given the Dems gained house and senate seats and I disagree they had the advantage. The economy was considered to be doing really well by most voters, things had gotten much better globally and this was a time when voters cared about foreign policy and the Republicans nominated an incumbent Vice President who didnt run away from a popular President like Gore did.

1988 was definitely an election in which the GOP had the advantage in terms of fundamentals and while that didnt produce wins for the GOP in 1960 or Dems in 2000, all 3 of those elections should have been wins for the incumbent party imo.

You can argue about 1960.  There was a recession in the latter part of that year that hurt Nixon somewhat.