A lot has been made about the increase in electoral votes earned by Barack Obama from John Kerry’s totals. Obama’s number while a significant increase is slightly lower than what Bill Clinton won in both 1992 (370 EV) and 1996 (379 EV). Clinton started from a far lower base (Michael Dukakis’ losing total in 1988). The real improvement for the Democratic Party came in the House and Senate results. In 1992, Clinton may have won big but Democrats won 9 fewer House seats than in 1990 and 2 fewer than in 1988; Senate seats increased by 1 over the few year time slot.
By contrast, the final number of Democratic House seats is likely to be 258 or 259 (per Chris Bowers). The Senate total ios likely to be 58 or 59. That’s a gain of 56 or 57 House seats and 14 or 15 Senate seats from 2004 totals.
Regional and statewide totals tell the story best.
The Northeast is the most Democratic part of the country. Both John Kerry and Barack Obama won all 117 electoral votes from this region. In the interim, however, the Republicans moved from an important minority at the federal level to an insignificant one. In 2004, House seats ran 56 D,35R, and 1 Democratic leaning indy (Bernie Sanders). Republicans lost nearly a third of their seats in 2006 falling to 24 and repeated the feat by falling to 17 in 2008. Over the two cycles, they lost more than half of their House seats in the region (18 seats). Or if you prefer percentages, the GOP dropped from 38% to 18.5% of Northeast House seats. That included a loss of 6 seats in NY, 5 in PA, all 3 GOP in CT and all 2 GOP in NH. At leasat half of the remaining GOP seat are still vulnerable. Senate seats fell from 7 of 22 to 4 of 22 (also 18%). Two of the four are up in 2010 and one will be represented by an 80 year old probably facing a stiff primary challenge. The other (Judd Gregg, NH) is also on the chopping block.
The Great Lakes states are six industrial (and to a lesser extent farm) states that all touch on the Great Lakes. Four of the six went to both Kerry and Gore. Obama added IN and OH to win all 89 electoral votes. Over the four years, the region became substantially more Democratic at the House level going from a 32-45 Republican edge to a 45-32 Democratic edge (if MaryJo Kilroy wins OH-15). Democrats picked up one Senate seat in MO on 2006 and may pick up another in MN in 2008.
Gerrrymanders in Il, OH, and MI were overcome to and Democrats now lead IL 12-7, OH 10-8 (or 9-9) and MI 8-7. Both WI and MN went from 4-4 splits to a 5-3 D lead and IN zoomed from 2-7 to 5-4.
The Mountain region went from a Republican 20-8 lead in 2004 to a solid 17-11 D edge. Democrats picked up 2 seats in CO, 3 in AZ, 2 in NMand single seats in Nevada and Idaho. They also gained Senate seats in MT (2006) and CO aand NM (2008).
The south didn’t turn blue but it did become considerably less red. Here three seats are still listed as unsettled but VA-5 seems clearly ours and LA-2 (New Orleans, Dollar Bill Jefferson) is also pretty clear. LA-4 (Carmouche) is an open seat where two conflicting polls would seem to indicate that (overall we have a single digit lead. If it’s ours, the 52-88 chasm of 2004 is down to 65-75 with the bulk of the problem being Texas (20-12 in favor of the GOP). VA and NC not only voted for Obama but elected majority D House delegations (6-5 in VA; 8-5 in NC). FL went from an awful 18-7 GOP edge to a respectable 15-10. Remember when we used to wish for a delegation that reflected the state (13-12 or 14-11 at worst). Well, barring Mahoney’s stupidity we would have had 14-11. Democrats also picked up 3 Senate seats here with two in VA and one in NC. At the least, three GOPers look endangered as the Senate cycle ends in 2010: Jim Bunning in KY, Richard Burr in NC, and Mel Martinez in FL.
Obama won 3 southern states compared to 6 for Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 and none for Gore and Kerry.
That leaves two regions that went pretty much unchanged. Democrats picked up only one seat in 2006 and probably none in 2008 in the Pacific (CA, OR, WA, AK, HI)Pretty bad They did add 2 Senate seats this year (OR, AK). CA Republicans scored under 60% in 11 of 19 wins in 2008 (I’m giving them CA-4).
The Plains remains a Republican stronghold but it;s tiny and not gtowing. Democrats gained two House seats in Iowa and one in Kansas in 2006 but gave back the Kansas seat this year and fell by 8,000 votes in MO-9 and 12,000 in NE-2 (carried by Obama by 3,000 votes so there must be at least 15,000 Obama-Terry voters). They gained only one Senate seat in MO in 2006.
The edge in the House is still a hefty 11-17 rather than the 9-19 margin of 2004.
Excellent analysis… don’t forget, the Democrats added a Senate seat in OH in 2006 (Brown def. DeWine). The other Ohio Senate seat (Voinovich) could be competitive in 2010.
I did all of this on my own a few weeks back. lol It was 2am, and I was still on a Starbucks high. lol I came to roughly the same conclusions. Thanks for writing it down though!
Thanks for the analysis — very interesting and informative to look at these regional trends.
I think you’re over-estimating the number of Obama/Terry voters in NE-2 — using the vote difference in the races doesn’t necessarily add up to the number of ticket-splitters — the results suggest that the number of Obama/Terry voters is probably much smaller.
In the Presidential race, the results were:
Obama 138,892
McCain 135,567
________________
Total – 274,459
In the House race, it was:
Esch (D) 127,716
Terry (R) 139,641
_______________
Total 267,357
There is a drop-off of more than 7,000 votes from the Presidential to the Congressional race. That is actually pretty impressive – more than 97% of the Presidential voters also voted for Congress — a pretty small number.
That means that Terry won only 4,074 more votes than McCain. Of course he doubtless got more Obama voters than that — I’m sure some small number of McCain voters voted for Esch, or didn’t vote for Congress at all. And I’m also not accounting for 3rd party candidates or voters who may have voted for Congress but not President – small as that may be.
I’d suspect that this means that Terry probably got around 7-8,000 votes from folks who also voted for Obama… but it obviously could be a bit higher or lower than that.
Jim Esch drew about 11,000 votes less than Obama — his total probably suffered from some drop-off from first time and irregular voters who were drawn out to vote for Obama, but who didn’t finish going down the ballot — it seems safe to say that since Obama was more likely to draw out new voters, these voters were probably less likely than Republican voters to go down the entire ballot. (It would be interesting to look at Congressional undervote numbers from different precincts in the district to see if those numbers were higher in strong Obama areas).