Republicans Exceed Expectations in 2010 State Legislative Elections

[ProSense]

Republicans Exceed Expectations in 2010 State Legislative Elections

The 2010 election will shape the national political landscape for at least the next 10 years.

Tuesday night’s GOP power sweep exceeded expectations, giving the party its largest number of seats since the Great Depression.

Republicans now hold about 3,890, or 53 percent, of the total state legislative seats in America, the most seats in the GOP column since 1928. The GOP will now control at least 54 of the 99 state legislative chambers, its highest number since 1952. As a result, state legislatures will likely reflect a more conservative political agenda when they convene in 2011.
“2010 will go down as a defining political election that will shape the national political landscape for at least the next 10 years,” said Tim Storey, elections specialist with the National Conference of State Legislatures. “The GOP, in dramatic fashion, finds itself now in the best position for both congressional and state legislative line drawing than it has enjoyed in the modern era of redistricting.”

With their gains in state legislatures, Republicans now have a decided advantage in shaping congressional and state legislative districts when legislatures start the redistricting process next year. The GOP will have unilateral control of about 190 U.S. House districts. Storey says this is the best position for the GOP in redistricting since the landmark Supreme Court decision, Baker vs. Carr, in 1962, which established the “one-person, one-vote” rule that requires districts to be redrawn every 10 years.

The night marked a 20-year march by Republicans across the South. In 1990, the GOP held no legislative chambers and only 26 percent of legislative seats in the region. With Tuesday’s results, the GOP now controls 18 legislative chambers and 54 percent of the seats. The Midwest, traditionally a Democratic stronghold, now has just 38 percent Democrat members, the lowest percentage there since 1956.

Storey said Democrats were overwhelmed by an “enthusiasm gap.” Of the roughly 11,000 candidates running for the 6,115 legislative seats up this year, the GOP had 822 more Republicans running for office than in 2008. Democrats actually had 50 fewer candidates than two years ago.

Based on unofficial, preliminary returns, legislative chambers that have switched so far are:

• Alabama House and Senate
  
• Indiana House
  
• Iowa House
  
• Maine House and Senate
  
• Michigan House
  
• Minnesota House and Senate
  
• Montana House
  
• New Hampshire House and Senate
  
• North Carolina House and Senate
  
• Ohio House
  
• Pennsylvania House
  
• Wisconsin Assembly and Senate

Undecided chambers that could still switch are the Colorado Senate and House; the New York Senate; the Oregon House; and the Washington Senate.

Other key observations from this year’s election include:

• Republicans gained at least 680 seats on Tuesday, the largest gain by either party since 1966, surpassing Democratic gains in the post-Watergate election of 1974.
  
• The North Carolina Senate is now in Republican control for the first time since 1870.
  
• The Minnesota Senate, which held nonpartisan elections until 1974, is under Republican control for the first time.
  
• The Alabama legislature is under Republican control for the first time since Reconstruction.

The leaders of America’s state legislatures will change dramatically as a result of Tuesday’s elections. Eleven sitting Democratic leaders lost their reelection bids on Tuesday, including one speaker, one lieutenant governor, two Senate President Pro Tems, six majority leaders and one Senate minority leader.

There will be significant turnover in House and Senate leadership when legislatures convene next year. Currently, 32 House Speakers are Democrats and 17 are Republican. Next year, this will change to 30 Republicans and 15 Democrats. Chambers in Colorado, Oregon and Washington remain undecided and Nebraska is nonpartisan. In terms of Senate presidents, in January 30 Senate chambers will be led by Republicans and 17 by Democrats. Currently, there are 26 Democrats and 24 Republicans. Chambers in New York, Oregon and Washington remain undecided.

There is absolutely no reason for optimism. What next?

[FBaggins]

1. No reason for optimism?

Wow... you change horses fast, don't you?

The biggest reason for optimism is that 2012 is two years away and the battleground will be entirely different.

Here's Charlie Cook's 2010 predictions from just after the 2008 election.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/senate/raceratings_2008-11-14_09-22-07.php

Things change.


As for the state legislative races and the impact they'll have on redistricting for the next decade... you're right. I am coming to the conclusion that these results were the worst news of the night... and are likely to get worse. I think that we'll see a couple more fall to party switching in the coming weeks.

[ProSense]

2. "Wow... you change horses fast, don't you?"

No, it was a statement based on the information.

I am a perpetual optimist.

[FBaggins]

4. Optimism is forward-looking.

I would agree if you had said that there was no reason to think there was any good news in those state races. We got clobbered, but good. The worst election of our lifetimes (hopefully).

And the redistricting impact will make winning the House back in '12 that much more difficult.

[ProSense]

9. "And the redistricting impact will make winning the House back in '12 that much more difficult."

That was the point of saying there is no reason for optimism.

It will be difficult, but not impossible.

[FBaggins]

12. Yep - I keep reminding people that 1946 was followed by 1948

From wikipedia "Truman had campaigned against a 'do-nothing' Republican Party Congress that had opposed his initiatives and was seen as counterproductive. The voters responded by giving his Democratic Party a net additional 75 seats, giving them a large new majority and surprisingly giving the president a new term in Washington."

[SharonAnn]

16. We elected a Hooters girl to be state rep. . Our Dem incumbent lost to her.

WTF?

She had a baby at 13, gave it up for adoption.

Had another at 15, kept it.

She worked at Hooters when she was finally old enough.

She is a former "model" with interesting pictures to prove it.

She's 28 and has little education and no accomplishments.

She's a "family values" conservative who's going to "bring jobs back".

[ananda]

3. Sad.

Too bad the Dems weren't able to provide people with clear choices.

Except for Grayson and Feingold, of course.

Now then. Why aren't liberals and greens voting? Why aren't the
majority of the people more activist and participatory in making
change?

That is the real problem and the questions are most disturbing.

[ProSense]

5. Perfect storms

There were a bunch of blue dogs that some Democrats wanted to see lose. In fact, likely nothing could have saved them.

Typical mid-term turnout for Democrats, with a slightly higher traditional turnout for Republicans.

That was the formula for Republican wins across the political spectrum.

[FBaggins]

6. Typical turnout for Democrats?

Hmmm... what does that tell you about out enthusiasm gap conversation? ;-)

[ProSense]

7. Typical in terms of percentage,

not identical. The problem was motivation. For example, here in NJ, there were only local races, no statewide races. I can see that affecting the under 30 vote, people who are not all that tuned into local politics. Seniors are more likely to be.

[FBaggins]

8. I believe my point was...

that the enthusiasm gap wasn't on our side. It wasn't a case of democrats being disinterested in voting. We showed up in roughly the numbers that we have in prior mid-terms (with slightly different demographics), while republicans (and republican-leaning independents) outperformed their normal midterm turnout.

3/4 of the "enthusiasm gap" was that they were much more enthusiastic... not that democrats were depressed over (fill in the blank... "too liberal"/"not liberal enough") actions by the President.

[ProSense]

10. Snapshot

from Michigan.

Despite a gain in registered voters, the number of those who cast ballots in Tuesday’s election in Jackson County fell by almost 10 percentage points from four years ago.
Of the county’s 113,524 registered voters — almost 3,000 more than 2006 — 42.5 percent cast ballots.

In 2006, almost 52 percent of the county’s 110,594 voters cast ballots in the gubernatorial election that gave Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm a second term in office.

link

A nearly 10 percent drop is a lot.

[FBaggins]

11. There's going to be variation like that all over the country.

Individual races make a difference as well.

There's also no question that the MIX of WHICH democrats showed up changed as well... and that the balance was different in different areas. I understand that turnout was WAY down in Philly and that it hurt Sestak greatly.

But I was talking about the national level. I'm pretty sure that when the numbers all come in we'll see roughly the same number of democrats as in normal mid-term elections (though possibly lower than 2006), but dramatically higher participation among Rs and Is.

[Mass]

13. I'm confused. How do you get this was a typical turnout from the thread you linked?

You may be right, but I dont see the connection with the graph in the OP.

Also, I remember all the threads that said the GOP was finished in 2008. Two years is a lifetime in politics.

[ProSense]

15. Typical for a mid-term

The chart compares 2010 to 2008, which was a Presidential election.

[FBaggins]

14. An interesting update

I just read that the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee spent about $20 million dollars supporting state legislative candidates. The RSLC spent $30 million.

I've been rubbishing many claims that the lack of a 50-state strategy hurt us badly... but there's certainly evidence of it here.