Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms, 1855-present

[Statistikhengst]

Stat,


As usual very good information. One could almost infer from your data that American's like divided Government. My personal bias is that in the current political environment, whichever party is in the White House, there needs to be the check and balance of some opposition in Congress.

This is an excellent article from Larry Sabato, Ph.D who is one of the foremost political experts in the U.S. It largely agrees with your data. You might find it interesting.

Republicans Really Could Win It All This Year - Larry J. Sabato - POLITICO Magazine


Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball

Yes, one could almost infer that, and I would not disagree with it. I myself have voted split-ticket in Presidential elections, but only after carefully studying the candidates and their positions. In Ohio, judges are elected but their bios are usually pretty scarce, you really have to dig to find out what they are about, and some real crazy nuts have gone on the ballot for that job. But most Americans just see a bunch of names that they don't recognize (other than Prez/VP, a Senator, maybe a Governor, maybe, just maybe, their Rep) and start checking or marking in boxes....

BTW, I have had some very lively internet conversations with Larry Sabato, and if you notice, I mentioned his book "Toward a more perfect Union" in the large thread over electioneering. He's a pretty decent guy and writes some solid stuff.

Historically, this should be a GOP year. And the sparse early polling is showing that to some degree. But, as with any year, we need to see how the whole thing plays out. Twice in a row now, the GOP had a real chance to take the Senate and twice in a row, it blew it's chances. Plus, the GOP is wobbling in two states, depending on which candidate wins the primaries. But no matter how you slice it, it's advantage GOP in the Senate.

And in the House, my gut tells me we will see record numbers of Reps announcing retirement - from both parties - which should make the field more fun and somewhat more competitive, but here again, it will be a much heavier lift for the DEMS than for the GOP, that is clear. As the table (if you linked to it, if not, please do) shows, we one saw swings of 80 or more Reps each cycle a whole lot in the past. This also meant that Reps' careers were considerably more short-lived than today.

Historically, the opposition party is by far more energized than the incumbent party in the White House. Wait and see.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Stat,


As usual very good information. One could almost infer from your data that American's like divided Government. My personal bias is that in the current political environment, whichever party is in the White House, there needs to be the check and balance of some opposition in Congress.

This is an excellent article from Larry Sabato, Ph.D who is one of the foremost political experts in the U.S. It largely agrees with your data. You might find it interesting.

Republicans Really Could Win It All This Year - Larry J. Sabato - POLITICO Magazine


Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball

Yes, one could almost infer that, and I would not disagree with it. I myself have voted split-ticket in Presidential elections, but only after carefully studying the candidates and their positions. In Ohio, judges are elected but their bios are usually pretty scarce, you really have to dig to find out what they are about, and some real crazy nuts have gone on the ballot for that job. But most Americans just see a bunch of names that they don't recognize (other than Prez/VP, a Senator, maybe a Governor, maybe, just maybe, their Rep) and start checking or marking in boxes....

BTW, I have had some very lively internet conversations with Larry Sabato, and if you notice, I mentioned his book "Toward a more perfect Union" in the large thread over electioneering. He's a pretty decent guy and writes some solid stuff.

Historically, this should be a GOP year. And the sparse early polling is showing that to some degree. But, as with any year, we need to see how the whole thing plays out. Twice in a row now, the GOP had a real chance to take the Senate and twice in a row, it blew it's chances. Plus, the GOP is wobbling in two states, depending on which candidate wins the primaries. But no matter how you slice it, it's advantage GOP in the Senate.

And in the House, my gut tells me we will see record numbers of Reps announcing retirement - from both parties - which should make the field more fun and somewhat more competitive, but here again, it will be a much heavier lift for the DEMS than for the GOP, that is clear. As the table (if you linked to it, if not, please do) shows, we one saw swings of 80 or more Reps each cycle a whole lot in the past. This also meant that Reps' careers were considerably more short-lived than today.

Historically, the opposition party is by far more energized than the incumbent party in the White House. Wait and see.

I agree with your conclusions. I did not know you had debated Larry Sabato. I agree, he is a good guy. He has been on local television in my home town since the 1970's. For some strange reason I got an invite from the UVA Policy Center to attend a series of lectures prior to the 2012 elections. There were pundits from Fox (Juan Williams) CBS, Politico, NPR, AP etc. Most of them ended up being wrong....Larry was dead right.

Btw...Larry plays it very straight, but he is a Democrat to his core. He cut his teeth as an undergrad working as an operative on local Democrat campaigns here in Virginia. I do not think his political affiliation colors his analysis. He generally is very fair.

Thanks again for the thread. Very good information.


***EDIT*** Stat, could you provide a link to the other thread you mentioned? I couldn't find it and I would like to read. Thanks.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Figures someone would claim that a majority needs 60 Senators to control the Senate. Yet during the supposed republican control of Bush they never had more then 51.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stat,


As usual very good information. One could almost infer from your data that American's like divided Government. My personal bias is that in the current political environment, whichever party is in the White House, there needs to be the check and balance of some opposition in Congress.

This is an excellent article from Larry Sabato, Ph.D who is one of the foremost political experts in the U.S. It largely agrees with your data. You might find it interesting.

Republicans Really Could Win It All This Year - Larry J. Sabato - POLITICO Magazine


Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball

Yes, one could almost infer that, and I would not disagree with it. I myself have voted split-ticket in Presidential elections, but only after carefully studying the candidates and their positions. In Ohio, judges are elected but their bios are usually pretty scarce, you really have to dig to find out what they are about, and some real crazy nuts have gone on the ballot for that job. But most Americans just see a bunch of names that they don't recognize (other than Prez/VP, a Senator, maybe a Governor, maybe, just maybe, their Rep) and start checking or marking in boxes....

BTW, I have had some very lively internet conversations with Larry Sabato, and if you notice, I mentioned his book "Toward a more perfect Union" in the large thread over electioneering. He's a pretty decent guy and writes some solid stuff.

Historically, this should be a GOP year. And the sparse early polling is showing that to some degree. But, as with any year, we need to see how the whole thing plays out. Twice in a row now, the GOP had a real chance to take the Senate and twice in a row, it blew it's chances. Plus, the GOP is wobbling in two states, depending on which candidate wins the primaries. But no matter how you slice it, it's advantage GOP in the Senate.

And in the House, my gut tells me we will see record numbers of Reps announcing retirement - from both parties - which should make the field more fun and somewhat more competitive, but here again, it will be a much heavier lift for the DEMS than for the GOP, that is clear. As the table (if you linked to it, if not, please do) shows, we one saw swings of 80 or more Reps each cycle a whole lot in the past. This also meant that Reps' careers were considerably more short-lived than today.

Historically, the opposition party is by far more energized than the incumbent party in the White House. Wait and see.

I agree with your conclusions. I did not know you had debated Larry Sabato. I agree, he is a good guy. He has been on local television in my home town since the 1970's. For some strange reason I got an invite from the UVA Policy Center to attend a series of lectures prior to the 2012 elections. There were pundits from Fox (Juan Williams) CBS, Politico, NPR, AP etc. Most of them ended up being wrong....Larry was dead right.

Btw...Larry plays it very straight, but he is a Democrat to his core. He cut his teeth as an undergrad working as an operative on local Democrat campaigns here in Virginia. I do not think his political affiliation colors his analysis. He generally is very fair.

Thanks again for the thread. Very good information.


***EDIT*** Stat, could you provide a link to the other thread you mentioned? I couldn't find it and I would like to read. Thanks.

I haven't debated him, I have talked with him per email, over a number of statistic projects. He and David Leip sometimes do stuff together and I have often helped David Leip at uselectionatlas.org with the numbers upkeep.

I thought you already were on my electioneering thread, it is MASSIVE, so bring a cup of coffee with you:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/333884-electioneering.html

As far as Sabato - he may be a Democrat, but he is about as centrist as they come. Actually, he and I share many views. And, like me, he is accurate but impassionate about the numbers, which is why it costs me no energy or pain or nerves to write immediately that 2014 should be a big GOP year, in spite of I myself being a Democrat. History is what it is, numbers, when there are enough of them, tell a story of their own, and human nature simply does not change all that much within 2 or 4 years. We are indeed creatures of habit.

As always, a true pleasure to hear from you. I like your style, I like your approach, I like the respectful and inquisitive tone in which you write, while at the same time fighting for what you believe is right.

Bravo.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Figures someone would claim that a majority needs 60 Senators to control the Senate. Yet during the supposed republican control of Bush they never had more then 51.

Exactly whom do you mean? And are you aware that a distinction was made between a majority and a "filibuster-proof majority"? Perhaps you might want to read again.

 

[Statistikhengst]

*well deserved bump*

 

[Statistikhengst]

*another bump*

 

[Statistikhengst]

*another bump*

 

[Statistikhengst]

*worthy bump*

 

[Statistikhengst]

**bump**

 

[Statistikhengst]

**bump**

 

[Statistikhengst]

friendly *bump*

Will be used for discussion this week.

 

[Statistikhengst]

pre-midterm election *bump*

 

[Statistikhengst]

With the switch to the new system, I think I can now port tables, even large ones. Let's see if this works:

Years	Total	Dems	Reps	Others	Vacant	Margin	Swing	Swing %
1855–1857	62	42	15	5	—	D +27	---
1859–1861	66	38	26	2	—	D +12	R +15	22,73%
1863–1865	51	12	39	—	—	R +27	R +39	76,47%
1867–1869	53	11	42	—	—	R +31	R +4	7,55%
1871–1873	74	17	57	—	—	R +40	R +9	12,16%
1875–1877	76	29	46	—	1	R +17	D +23	30,26%
1879–1881	76	43	33	—	—	D +10	D +27	35,53%
1883–1885	76	36	40	—	—	R +4	R +14	18,42%
1887–1889	76	37	39	—	—	R +2	D +2	2,63%
1891–1893	88	39	47	2	—	R +8	R +6	6,82%
1895–1897	88	39	44	5	—	R +5	D +3	3,41%
1899–1901	90	26	53	11	—	R +27	R +22	24,44%
1903–1905	90	32	58	—	—	R +26	D +1	1,11%
1907–1909	92	29	61	—	2	R +32	R +6	6,52%
1911–1913	92	42	49	—	1	R +7	D +25	27,17%
1915–1917	96	56	39	1	—	D +17	D +24	25,00%
1919–1921	96	47	48	1	—	R +1	R +25	26,04%
1923–1925	96	43	51	2	—	R +8	R +7	7,29%
1927–1929	96	47	48	1	—	R +1	D +7	7,29%
1931–1933	96	47	48	1	—	R +1	unchanged	0,00%
1935–1937	96	69	25	2	—	D +44	D +45	46,88%
1939–1941	96	69	23	4	—	D +46	D +2	2,08%
1943–1945	96	57	38	1	—	D +19	R +27	28,13%
1947–1949	96	45	51	—	—	R +6	R +27	28,13%
1951–1953	96	48	47	1	—	D +1	D +7	7,29%
1955–1957	96	48	47	1	—	D +1	unchanged	0,00%
1959–1961	98	64	34	—	—	D +30	D +29	29,59%
1963–1965	100	67	33	—	—	D +34	D +4	4,00%
1967–1969	100	64	36	—	—	D +28	R +6	6,00%
1971–1973	100	54	44	2	—	D +10	R +18	18,00%
1975–1977	100	61	37	2	—	D +24	D +14	14,00%
1979–1981	100	58	41	1	—	D +17	R +7	7,00%
1983–1985	100	46	54	—	—	R +9	R +2	2,00%
1987–1989	100	55	45	—	—	D +10	D +16	16,00%
1991–1993	100	56	44	—	—	D +12	D +2	2,00%
1995–1997	100	48	52	—	—	R +4	R +18	18,00%
1999–2001	100	45	55	—	—	R +10	unchanged	0,00%
2003–2005	100	48	51	1	—	R +3	R +3	3,00%
2007–2009	100	49	49	2	—	Tie	D +7	7,00%
2011–2013	100	51	47	2	—	D +4	R +12	12,00%
2015-2017	100	??	??

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

What doesn't port over is the color coding...

 

[Nyvin]

Figures someone would claim that a majority needs 60 Senators to control the Senate. Yet during the supposed republican control of Bush they never had more then 51.

The GOP had 55 Senate seats after the 2004 elections. Mostly by winning in the southeast part of the country (and SD). All the seat pickups in the southeast were open seats from retirements.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Pre 2014 mid-term bump **

 

[Statistikhengst]

Necessary bump *

 

[Statistikhengst]

*another necessary bump*