Democratic Senators Represent 91,175,000 People. Republican Senators Represent 81,354,000 People

I wrote:

One way to look at last night's election is that the implicit gerrymandering of the Senate and the in-the-tank-ness of the press corps are keeping people from realizing how big the blowout was. Consider this: it looks like 32,100 thousand Americans voted for Democratic Senatorial candidates, and only 24,524 thousand Americans voted for Republican Senatorial candidates. That's a 13.4% margin of Democratic victory.

Hoisted from comments are Mo:

Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal: Fair and Balanced Almost Every Day: 32,100,000 vs. 24,524,000: Here are the totals for the complete Senate, using Brad's numbers for last night:

Dem/Rep:
21,428,784 18,665,605 02
37,645,909 38,164,089 04
32,100,000 24,524,000 06

Total:
91,174,693 81,353,694

Call it a ten-million seat majority.

Posted by: Mo | November 08, 2006 at 08:21 AM

And Neil':

The lack of emphasis on actual numbers of votes comes mostly from two strains: It's partly the SCLM's corporate slant on minimizing populist ways of interpreting what happens, and also the ingrained "republican government" obsession with the States as such being the unit of political expression, not (ironically, coming from "individualists") the individual voter.

Posted by: Neil' | November 08, 2006 at 08:39 AM

Comments

[Bupa]

Happy Rummy is leaving but does anyone else find it strange that Robert Gates (of Iran/Contra fame)and Daniel Ortega should be coming back to power at the same time?

[Christopher Ball]

What's the matter with VA & MD?Has anyone taken a gander at vote share by family income in the exit polls for these states?

Webb and Cardin have monotonic declines in vote share as income rises up to the $75-100k range. But then their vote share _rises_ as income rises. They get half the $100-150k share, 56% of the $150-200k share, and 55% of the $200k+. This is the oppositie of McCaskill and Kerry in 2004, who have monotonic or near monotonic declines as income rises.

Menendez and Casey have more erratic patterns and there is not enough data on Tester beyond 100K.

[sglover]

I'd like to see a similar tally for all the House races, though. That'd be a finer-grained and broader count. Anybody got any ideas about where those stats might be available, for somebody like me who's too lazy to root them out and add them up himself?

[Mitch]

Does this count include Lieberman in CT.? He should be counted as a Republican or the entire race should be thrown out of the figures.

Somehow I think you cooked the numbers here.

[Bupa]

Mitch raises a good point. Where does Smiling Joe fit into the numbers?

[dan'l]

Christopher Bell writes:
Webb and Cardin have monotonic declines in vote share as income rises up to the $75-100k range. But then their vote share _rises_ as income rises. They get half the $100-150k share, 56% of the $150-200k share, and 55% of the $200k+.

My guess (only a guess) is that the DC suburbs, with their large contingent of well-paid professionals tied in various ways to the federal gov't, go against the general trend of increasing GOP support as income rises.

[Anie One]

Regardless of the percentage breakdown, it must not be forgotten that there are approximately 24.5 million voters out there who shouldn't be permitted sharp objects or allowed out of doors without adult supervision. These people will continue to pose severe problems for good governance until they can be deprogrammed or jerrymandered into irrelevance.

[Robert Waldmann]

Way to go Mo

I was going to suggest your calculation to Brad.

Hey Brad, if you have the numbers on a spread sheet, could you calculate votes for women and for men for senator on Tuesday ?
With Feinstein, Clinton and Hutchison winning big in big states, might have been more for women than for men. also note 8/32 elected senators are women almost 25 % (in whole senate it is 16).

By the way Brad, I think the headline should be "were elected by # votes." Senators are supposed to represent people who vote for the other candidate and even people who don't bother to vote too.

and

[wmmbb]

Brad:
These figures are a corrective, because I am bound to read the conviction: "see the system works". In practice, while I appreciate there are a number of offices to vote for and ballot questions, the system does not provide an effective choice beyond Democrat or Republican.

I happened to overhear in a supermarket the principle expounded that the range of brands increases sales. The same principle might apply to politics, or in that context adds to the democratic plurality and energy of interest aggregation, even if small parties may have more limited life cycles.

But then, I understand that changing a voting system is like pushing water uphill, which is not to say it cannot be done.

[Ian Maitland]

Brad,
You persist in portraying this election as a victory for Democrats. Your euphoria is understandable, but you shouldn't let it blind you to the fact that Democrats had nothing to do with the result of the election. It was a national referendum on President Bush.
Democratic candidates did nothing to earn the votes they got. They were simply the accidental beneficiaries of the public's protest vote over Bush's bungling in Iraq (and elsewhere). That, and a bad case of six year itch.
Tellingly, on the issues, the same electorate that spanked Bush backed many conservative positions.
The Republicans are still the natural party of government. That will remain the case so long as the Democrats don't stand for anything other than not being Bush.
The votes you counted up don't belong to the Democrats. They are just on loan for two years.

[Laertes]

"It was a national referendum on President Bush."

Translation: You don't matter. It's all about us!

"The Republicans are still the natural party of government."

The Republicans are the natural party of corruption, child sex predation, runaway deficits, and catastrophic wars of choice.

"Tellingly, on the issues, the same electorate that spanked Bush backed many conservative positions."

Such as South Dakota's abortion ban and California's parental notification law, I suppose.

Your guys lost, and lost as badly as it was possible to lose. If you want to tell yourself that it was because your incumbents were such hateful swine that the voters would have voted for absolutely any alternative at all, go ahead. Why you find that to be any consolation is a mystery, though.

[Steve H.]

As much as I like the concept, it seems like these numbers are misleading for a couple of reasons.

First, as someone upthread pointed out, a Senators "represents" everyone from his or her state, or at least half the people from that state, regardless of who voted for him or her. I think this is an important difference and actually matters substantively, particularly when it comes to issues like whether it is right for the "minority" to filibuster to block bad judicial appointees. To me, that the "minority" actually happens to represent the majority of Americans is a substantively relevant point regarding the legitimacy of a filibuster in that situation.

The second point is that if you are just going to talk about votes, fine, but I think we all know that if the system were to change so that the aggregate number of votes mattered, the Republicans probably wouldn't have walked away from the Senate races in the two most populous states in the US.

[bigTom]

Even though we don't like his conclusion, I think Ian has a real point. The 06 mid-term represented serious voter indigestion of one party. Now if enough bad things come up from the investigations that will soon start -perhaps that can carry over into the 08 election. I doubt the effect will be longer lasting than that. So the Democrats have perhaps a two to four year window to get their act together, or risk becoming the minority party once again.
A few suggestions:
(1) Voter participation by younger voters is still abysmally low, although the trend seems to be upward. Generally younger voters tend to be more liberal, so recruitment of new voters in this age group should be a priority.
(2) The 800 pound gorrilla in US politics the past quarter century has been abortion. Perhaps some sort of compromise -say unrestricted for early term, but serious restriction for late term, would be in order. Anything to take the steam out of this issue would be a great improvement. For this issue has lead directly to the religious political nexus, that seems to be so threatening to our democracy. I'd sure like to get the issue (substantially) behind us.

[bemop]

The Royal family dismisses the servant that alowed himself to become inconvenient and replaces him with another loyal retainer. Gates in particular is a really dark and evil one.

[Vadranor]

What is amazing about the aggregate senatorial votes of the two parties is that Richard Lugar in Indiana did not have a Democratic opponent this year. The Republicans thus began with a more that one million vote head start.

[Doctor Jay]

Personally, I see this election as the end of the Reagan coalition, which has been showing signs of its age. The religious right is about to be marginalized for a variety of reasons: teaching of evolution, stem cell research, global warming, animosity to science. This means that abortion will lose its potency.

Which brings me to the point about VA, which I lived in and taught in for 6 years. The truly rich in VA aren't religious right, that's for the lower classes, though they do go to church.

They are nothing so much as genteel and polite in public. Always. All the stuff about racism and good ol' boy ugliness has turned them against him, since he has made them look bad.

Combine this with the total fiscal irresponsibility and corruption of the current Republicans. This doesn't appeal to the wealthy, once they have decided that they can't be rid of Social Security, no matter what.

[anne]

Here then is the vision:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html?ex=1271476800&en=9f23787f95925a8f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

April 18, 2005

A Radical in the White House
By BOB HERBERT

Last week - April 12, to be exact - was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. "I have a terrific headache," he said, before collapsing at the Little White House in Warm Springs, Ga. He died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage on the 83rd day of his fourth term as president. His hold on the nation was such that most Americans, stunned by the announcement of his death that spring afternoon, reacted as though they had lost a close relative.

That more wasn't made of this anniversary is not just a matter of time; it's a measure of the distance the U.S. has traveled from the egalitarian ideals championed by F.D.R. His goal was "to make a country in which no one is left out." That kind of thinking has long since been consigned to the political dumpster. We're now in the age of Bush, Cheney and DeLay, small men committed to the concentration of big bucks in the hands of the fortunate few.

To get a sense of just how radical Roosevelt was (compared with the politics of today), consider the State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944. He was already in declining health and, suffering from a cold, he gave the speech over the radio in the form of a fireside chat.

After talking about the war, which was still being fought on two fronts, the president offered what should have been recognized immediately for what it was, nothing less than a blueprint for the future of the United States. It was the clearest statement I've ever seen of the kind of nation the U.S. could have become in the years between the end of World War II and now. Roosevelt referred to his proposals in that speech as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed."

Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that."

Roosevelt's vision gave conservatives in both parties apoplexy in 1944 and it would still drive them crazy today....

[anne]

There is the vision; try. Push and push to leave Iraq, immediately, and try.

[anne]

Yes; I understand, if radical Republicans had not been in the White House and in the Senate and in the House and in Statehouses and state legislatures, then Democrats would not have won this or won that. But, the point is Republican office holders have been radicals, the sort of radicals who have driven us by deception and fear to self-defeating policy after policy and fortunately Democrats are being elected who can begin to stop Republican lunacy.

[anne]

George Bush is what radical Republicanism is all about. George Bush has been the conservative's conservative, with the only complaints from Republicans coming when George Bush was not radical enough. Now that Republican policy is being turned away from, suddenly George Bush becomes the problem for radical Republicans. No; the problem is "you." "You" were the folks who could not drive us to war in Iraq fast enough and "you" are the folks who would keep us in Iraq forever however tragic and lunatic the occupation of Iraq has been and is. The problem is radical Republicans, and "you" is them.

[Mike the Mad Biologist]

On a related note, I've posted the national Congressional tally here:

http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2006/11/
democrats_win_national_congres.php

(split into two lines so the whole url fits)

[jimBOB]

Layman's question:

I understand that total U.S. population is just over 300 million. Brad's number add up to less than 173 million. What happened to the other 127 million? Are there no senators representing them? They aren't all being represented by Sanders and Lieberman.

[dan'l]

bigTom writes:
The 800 pound gorrilla in US politics the past quarter century has been abortion. Perhaps some sort of compromise -say unrestricted for early term, but serious restriction for late term, would be in order. Anything to take the steam out of this issue would be a great improvement.
--That's what we have today (if you're lucky enough to live near a provider). Unfortunately, it is not enough for pro-life fundamentalists. There may be specific compromises that appeal to the less strident ones, but what seems just as effective is to make the electorate understand what the fanatics really want. That just happened in S. Dakota, with good results.

[andres]

jimBob: The other 127 million either were not able to vote (underage, not citizens, or not registered to vote), or did not vote during their Senate elections.

Either that, or they were on a bogus list of felons purged from the rolls of registered voters. Take your pick.

[plb]

When one party has been in power for an extended period, then of course the election will be primarily a referendum. There is no great insight in saying that, and there is no great problem for Dems in that reality. In this referendum, Bush *and* everything the Republican party has become under Bush has been rejected.

Yes, the largely centrist block that carried the Dems here is on loan for now. But if the Dems don't blow it, it could metastasize 'D'. The Dems need only be everything that Bush and the Republicans were not: civil, bipartisan, fiscally responsible, competent, uncorrupt, and concerned about the people's business before politics. That sure doesn't seem like it's asking too much.

Personally, I imagine that the country will now breathe a collective sigh of relief at the notion that, finally, the war in Iraq (as we now find it) and the issue of national security belongs to all of us, not just to the partisan Republicans. You can't fight a war with just half the country, with Rove's 51% philosophy.

The idea that a President would get up and equate opposition victory with a victory for the terrorists is just breathtaking, and that mentality has been shared all along by the Republican congress. Repubs have gone along with Bush every step of the way, right down to the outrageous, "keep fear alive" rhetoric. In light of behavior like that, there are few statements Bush made during the campaign of 2000 that are more ironic than the idea that he (and Rove) would restore dignity to the White House.

[andres]

Again to usurp anne's prerogative, Ezra Klein's article on the American Prospect does a good job in countering the points that Ian Maitland made above:

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12194

By Ezra Klein
Web Exclusive: 11.08.06

Print Friendly | Email Article

They’ll spin you right round, baby, right round. After last night’s decisive refutation of the GOP’s governing philosophy, the punditocracy is assuring us that the electorate delivered a strong message favoring … conservatism?

A week ago, The New York Times kicked off the spin by suggesting that wins by Heath Shuler and other so-called centrist Democrats “could come at a political price, which may include tensions in the party between its new centrists and its more liberal political base.” And last night, Larry Kudlow deployed it. “Look at blue dog conservative Dem victories,” wrote Kudlow, “and look at Northeast liberal GOP defeats. The changeover in the House may well be a conservative victory, not a liberal one.”

That’s one way to explode “the myth of the rational voter” -- suggest that when they mean to elect conservatives, they vote Democratic. Give the right its due, though; that’s a smart response. By immediately spinning the election as an affirmation of conservative values, they gave Democrats already seeking a way to prove their lack of liberalism an easy out. (Rahm Emanuel, bless his ruthless little heart, has already promised to lock liberals out of the halls of power. With leaders like these, Democrats hardly need opponents.)

But the conservative election meme is a myth. Hard-right ballot initiatives, from the abortion ban in South Dakota to the gay marriage ban in Arizona, went down to defeat. It's the first time that’s happened to an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative. Meanwhile, the stem cell initiative in Missouri passed.

More tellingly, every Democrat elected supports raising the minimum wage. They all support stem cell research. Only nine describe themselves as pro-life. And the most conservative Democrats, mainly those running in the South, largely went down to defeat. In Tennessee, Harold Ford, whose campaign focused on his church-going ways and conservative values, lost. Jim Webb is up by a few thousand votes. Meanwhile, unabashed progressives like Sherrod Brown, Ben Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, and former socialist Bernie Sanders cruised to victory. As Tom Schaller has noted, the flip-rate in the South was a meager five percent. The real transformations came in the liberal Northeast, where a slew of not-quite-left-enough Republicans were felled by a phalanx of progressive candidates, and the Rust Belt, where economic populists took out a series of traditional conservatives.

So from whence comes the spin? As is often the case, the press has simply become infatuated with a single candidate and blown his appeal into some sort of definitional philosophy. This year’s lucky posterboy is Heath Shuler, running in North Carolina’s 11th. Shuler’s a pro-life, God-fearing, family-loving, former Redskins quarterback who won’t publicly commit himself to voting for Nancy Pelosi as speaker. But is Shuler actually … conservative?

On social issues, sure. But on economics, Shuler is a full-throated populist. A bit later today, he’ll be joining arch-liberal Sherrod Brown and the United Steelworkers to give a press conference on how he turned opposition to NAFTA into a winning campaign issue. That’s a much leftier, and these days, rarer position than opposition to abortion. Shuler’s attacking the elite consensus and center-right mainstream on economics, and we’re supposed to buy that as conservative?

Maybe the oddest element of this election is the recalibration of the ideological spectrum. Economic leftism -- distinct even from economic liberalism -- didn’t get anyone tagged as too liberal. Indeed, such opinions were entirely ignored, replaced by a focus on whether the candidate in question professed belief in God and faith in fetuses. Given that a Democratic Congress isn’t likely to bring too many anti-abortion or gay marriage bills to the floor, they’ll have precious little opportunity to exercise their social conservatism. Their economic beliefs, however, will get much more play in a Congress aching to, at long last, turn its attention to health care, jobs, inequality, corporate regulation, and all the other domestic issues Democrats so love to address.

In fact, the right may have painted itself into a corner here. They sought to limit Democratic movement by forcing them to embrace the label of conservatism. But by defining it solely on cultural grounds and naming populists like Shuler as the so-called “Good Democrats,” they’ve shifted the acceptable center on the economic issues likely to occupy the Congress sharply to the left. Someone should’ve told them: If you spin yourself far enough right, eventually you end up on the left.

[andres]

Hmm. Posting long, scrolldrag articles can start to become an addiction. Now I know where anne gets it from, I think.

[jimBOB]

I should have looked a little closer at the top of the post. Since the numbers are from total votes cast for all senators, anyone who voted in both senator's elections is "represented" twice. If they split their votes between Republican and Democratic senators, they are represented on both sides.

It'd probably be better to label the number as "Democratic vs. Republican senatorial votes cast" than "people."

[wjd123]

Ian writes,

"The Republicans are still the natural party of government. That will remain the case so long as the Democrats don't stand for anything other than not being Bush.
The votes you counted up don't belong to the Democrats. They are just on loan for two years."

Ian, the Republicans are not the natural party of government. If anything they are anti-government.

Republicans want small government. This makes no sense to me. I don't see small or big government as the issue. The issue is how much government is necessary for it to do its duties effectively.

Small government isn't something that is inherently good for society. For instance, I want the Security and Exchange Commission to do its job efficiently. I also want it to be able to keep a watchful eye on the activity of hedge funds. If that means further growth in government, so be it. Whether we have too much or too little oversight is a question of how much we believe society needs protecting and our ability to pay for it, not small or large.

Republicans tend to shy away from oversight or tend to underfund watchdog organizations so they can't perform their duties efficiently. I see this as anti-government behavior.

Republican actions promote anti-government feelings. Take the Bush Administrations inability to run the executive department efficiently or to keep its ideological finger prints off of those departments that are run according to sound management practices--who the IRS will audit--this isn't government failure per se, but a Bush Administration failure.

Government can either work well or poorly. Bush doesn't believe in government. He can't or won't run government efficiently. His own failings feed Republican anti-government sentiment. It's a nice circular way of operating. It reminds me of the old ditty:

Grandfather he makes prophylactics;
He punctures them all with a pin,
Grandmother gets rich on abortion;
Gee how the money rolls in.

I'm surprised that the Democrats didn't point out that the Agricultural Department isn't doing a very good job in protection our food supply--another Bush Administration failure that is costing consumers and the farmers dearly.

BTW, No one has mentioned that the Green Party in Virginia almost cost the Democratic Party its control of the Senate. This is a political party that bad policy,free-trade-without-standards, help to build.

Look at what is happening throughout Central and South America, the poor are rejecting one free trade government after another because they don't see any improvement in their lives. That's a problem government will have to solve. In my opinion with international government. A whole new layer of government to make sure that international rules and regulations are enforced internationally.

I just don't see the Republican Party as the natural party of government. That's not to say that the Democratic Party is, only that, it is more amendable to government intervention.

I don't know what a natural party of government would be. One that is efficient and fulfills the ideals of the people that belong to it. That would be a two edged sword: the fascist made the trains run on time, but they also killed people in pursuit of their ideal of racial purity.

I'll stick with our messy government with its checks and balances which help safeguard out civil rights and the rights of minorities. A healthy distrust of two much power in the hands of any branch of government is what I want--not a big or small government but a checked government.

Considering what a disaster the Bush Administration has been at running the government and enforcing the law, what a disaster a Republican Congress has been, at fiscal responsibility and at preserving the constitutional powers of the separate branches of government, I doubt that Republicans are on loan and anxious to go home.

Let's go back to the Republican Party's notion of small government. Besides being quaint, its dishonest. It's an attempt to conflate a healthy American distrust of governmental power with less government. The two aren't the same. Checks and balances limit the power of government, while smallness limits the government from carrying out its duties. Recall what happened in the Savings and Loan industry when the government increased the amount of savings it would insure but not the amount of bank examiners.

[wkwillis]

What strikes me about Virginia is that despite all the 200,000$ per year military industrial complex workfare jobs that Bush has provided, the rest of the upper income people still voted against him.
Maybe it's because they've actually met all the Republican lobbyist exlegislators? Northern Virginia is where former politicians go to cash in after they retire. These people must not be very attractive and persuasive if they can't get their new neighbors to vote their way.
Otherwise my bet is that first the Republicans will pass large financial grants to their favorite causes before the next congress takes over in January.
Then in January Pelosi's congress will pass one hundred liberal bills and have them all vetoed by Bush. What's his worry? He doesn't have to care about pissing off the voters because he won't be there for the next election.

[dread]

Democratic Senators Represent 91,175,000 People. Republican Senators Represent 81,354,000 People...

and the other 100,000,000+ people aren't represented at all.

I think that sounds about right.

[shander]

If you view the government as primarily acting to protect peoples life and property rather than a determenent of how we live, the notion of Super Majorities really isn't "anti democratic".

Unfortunately folks on the "conservative" side seem willing to use the minority right to reach into local affairs just like those on the liberal side did. Its one thing for a national body to step into local affairs when it is contrary to the national law..but the national laws really ought to be limmitted to things that supermajorites AND dispersed super majorities can agree on.

Without the notion of "local control" and "states rights".... without the notion that local decisions are made locally, the institution of the senate is unfair.

When school policy is set at a federal level the mix of the senate becomes important in school policy. If schools were small entities where policy where set at a neighborhood level based on convitions of the community supporting them...the compostion of the senate is mostly irrelvant.

[spencer]

andres you may have been long but it was a very good post.

[kharris]

When the business cycle gets some age on it, inflation picks up, productivity gains slow, the jobless rate hits its peak, wage gains rise – and the business press goes nuts acting like cyclical changes are secular.

There is also a political cycle. To be honest, we need to acknowledge it. To be honest, we need to do so even-handedly. When Republicans held their seats at the first Bush II mid-term election, they strutted around saying it was an unprecedented event, evidence they were the popular kids now. Nonsense. Bush had failed to pull weaker candidates into office with him so there were few natural washouts. Tack on catastrophe, and all that strutting was pretty dishonest. Those who want to put this week's Democratic win down to the 6-year itch need to be just as willing to acknowledge manifestations of the political cycle not favorable to their views. Or we can recognize them as liars and ignore them.

Let's not kid ourselves (or lie, or whatever) - the extent of the swing was big. More seats than in 1994? Don't know. Not a sport in which I care to tabulate stats. However, the progress in jiggering congressional districts since 1994 (some normal, some in Texas) has made it harder to pry Republicans out of their seats, and lots got pried out. Democrats did well. Six-year itch seems too easy. Claiming Democrats had "nothing" to do with their own win is just hyperbolic garbage. These are match races, and the racers have to run hard and stay on the race course to win.

Odds are, Count Chocula's district and other like it will be vulnerable to swinging back to the GOP in the next cycle, because they are naturally GOP districts. Bush and Foley had negative coattails this time around. On the other hand, the swing in state house and governor seats to the Democrats means that the next jiggering of House district lines will spill a few percent of the unnecessary Democrats in the average 69% Democrat district into contested districts, making for more 58% Democrat districts. I expect we'll begin hearing about that once them political smarty-pants figure it out.

The Ians of the world may not want to believe this. The "conservatives won" types may not want us to realize it. But that's the way it is.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/us/politics/31legis.html?ex=1319950800&en=ceade1fb92cce266&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

October 31, 2006

Democrats Are Seen to Gain in Statehouse Races
By KIRK JOHNSON

DES MOINES — More than 6,000 state legislative seats in 46 states are on the Nov. 7 ballot, and like the seismic state elections in 1994 and 1974 the cumulative impact of the outcomes could be immense, with Democrats possibly gaining control of a majority of state capitols for the first time in a decade.

While the nation's attention has been fixed on the question of which party will control Congress, another campaign season has been unfolding in the shadows — upstaged and overlooked but more likely to affect the day-to-day life of voters than the big-money Congressional races.

Most significantly, the groundwork for redrawing Congressional districts after the 2010 census will be done under the 50 capitol domes, and the party in power will set the table for those discussions in ways favorable to its interests. Gains made this year, analysts say, will help give incumbents a leg up in the final elections leading up to the redistricting.

If the Democrats take control of a majority of the legislatures, which polls indicate could happen, women could also attain leadership positions in greater numbers, since Democratic women in state capitals outnumber Republican women by nearly two to one. The next generation of national political leaders, by tradition, is nurtured in the state legislatures....

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09statehouse.html

November 9, 2006

In Statehouses, Too, Democrats Post Sizable Gains
By KIRK JOHNSON

CHICAGO — Democratic gains in Congress and governorships were matched on Tuesday by a surge involving state legislatures, where more than 275 seats and nine chambers switched from Republican to Democratic hands.

The victories, combined with the six new Democratic governors, have given the Democrats one-party government in 15 states, including New Hampshire for the first time since 1874, and Colorado for the first time since 1960.

No party has totally controlled as many as 15 states since the Republicans achieved that level after the 1994 election.

What is equally remarkable, said Tim Storey, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures, is that the gains occurred across the country, even in the South, where Democrats had lost ground in every statehouse election since 1982.

The Southern gains were tiny, about 21 legislative seats across 14 states, but the direction, Mr. Storey said, was the important factor....

[Don]

I think there are several causes for the Democratic pickup. Some Democratic districts finally ditched their moderate Republican reps, these districts are probably reasonably safe Democrat seats. There are some Republican districts that conservative Democrats won (Ezra pins the number at 9 I think), these might switch back in 08, but I would imagine some of them will last until the conservative Democrat screws up or retires. Some Rust Belt seats that are Republican seats were taken by "non-conservative" Democrats. These are reactions to the economic pain in the area. I'm not sure on these. One theory would be if things get better they will stay Democratic. Another theory would be once the fear is gone they would revert to Republican control.

Also the Republicans have more Senate seats up in 08 than the Democrats, so if the 08 candidate has coattails the Senate majority might grow then.

[thom]

the senate is designed to give power disproportionately to the smaller states. the "implicit gerrymandering" is written in the constitution. sorry.