Daily Kos

A National Party No More

Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:10:04 AM PDT

Yeah, I'm talking about the Republicans, and it does my heart good to know that Zell Miller is still around to see his new friends in the GOP take it in the neck.

At any rate, one of the most notable aspects of the midterm elections is that the Republicans lost a lot of seats in what we might call the Old North: the states that made up the Union during the Civil War.  It isn't obvious looking at the usual maps, because a lot of those districts are too small to see clearly.  So, as an aid to clarity, I've created a series of charts showing what really happened on Election Day 2006.

(charts and analysis below the fold)

The first sequence shows the Northeast: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and the six New England states.  Between them, they've got 83 House seats.  In the 109th Congress, the seats looked like this (and I'm counting Bernie Sanders of Vermont as a Democrat, since he caucuses with them):

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Here's the breakdown of House seats per state:

Party    D    R    Total
ME    2    0    2
NH    0    2    2
VT    1    0    1
MA    10    0    10
RI    2    0    2
CT    2    3    5
NY    20    9    29
PA    7    12    19
NJ    7    6    13
Total    51    32    83

The Dems have a 3 to 2 edge over the GOP.

Election Day 2006 sees a stunning 11 seats shift from the Republicans to the Democrats, and an even more stunning zero seats shift from the Democrats to the Republicans, the first time that's happened in . . . well, a gosh darned long time, anyway:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Which leaves the Northeast looking like this in the upcoming 110th Congress:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Here's the new breakdown of House seats per state:

Party    D    R    Total
ME    2    0    2
NH    2    0    2
VT    1    0    1
MA    10    0    10
RI    2    0    2
CT    4    1    5
NY    23    6    29
PA    11    8    19
NJ    7    6    13
Total    62    21    83

Yes, that's right, the Democrats now outnumber the Republicans by nearly three to one.  Also, a glance at the state delegations reveals a startling fact: before, the Dems outnumbered the GOP in six of the nine state delegations.  Now they outnumber them in all nine!  The Democrats thoroughly dominate the Northeast.

Now we look at the Midwest: Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa.  Between them, they've got 82 House seats.  Here's how things looked in the 109th Congress:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
Party    D    R    Total
OH    6    12    18
MI    6    9    15
IN    2    7    9
IL    10    9    19
WI    4    4    8
MN    4    4    8
IA    1    4    5
Total    33    49    82

Now, it's the GOP that outnumbers the Dems by roughly 3 to 2.

Election Day 2006 sees 8 seats shift from the Republicans to the Democrats, and, again, an amazing zero seats shift from the Democrats to the Republicans:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Which leaves the Midwest looking like this in the upcoming 110th Congress:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Here's the new breakdown of House seats per state:

Party    D    R    Total
OH    7    11    18
MI    6    9    15
IN    5    4    9
IL    10    9    19
WI    5    3    8
MN    5    3    8
IA    3    2    5
Total    41    41    82

Yup, the Dems have erased the GOP's 3 to 2 edge, and brought the numbers exactly even.  A look at the relative numbers in the state delegations is even more startling: before, the GOP had a majority in four of the seven states, and parity in two more, with the Dems having a majority in only one.  Now, the Dems have a majority in five of the seven state delegations.  The Democrats now dominate the Midwest too.

The reason for the GOP's fall isn't hard to see.  Nixon's Southern Strategy of attracting Dixiecrats to the GOP was going full blast in the '80s and '90s, giving the GOP a temporary majority in Congress.  The trouble with the Dixiecrats, though, is that they don't like to share.  Any party that includes the Dixiecrats is going to be dominated by the Dixiecrats.  As the Dixiecrats have flooded into the GOP, the GOP has swerved to the right, and now it is paying the price as voters outside the South abandon their party for the Democrats.

A final thought to ponder: the Abramoff investigation is still ongoing, along with the Foley investigation, and who knows how many other investigations.  The GOP is thoroughly corrupt, and we can expect more revelations, more investigations, more indictments, more convictions, more resignations, and more special elections.  The makeup of the 110th Congress is likely to remain in flux for the next year at least, and the changes are almost certainly going to go in the Democrats' favor.  The GOP is in retreat, and it's going to remain in retreat for the foreseeable future.  In the end, the GOP is going to find that Nixon's Southern Strategy was a poison pill, and they're going to find themselves reduced to a regional party, confined to the South, and in a state of permanent minority.

Tags: 2006 Elections, House, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 37 comments

  •  What I find amazing is that Illinois, one of the (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    seby1689, Harkov311, SoCalLiberal, kraant

    deepest blue states has an equal number of republican and democratic US house reps.  A testament to gerrymandering ...

    This space for rent.

    by bherner on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:16:04 AM PDT

    •  Ilinois is not blue (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      seby1689, kraant

      Illinois is and historically has been a stright down the middle state.  It's only the historic incompetence of the national and state Republican party that have brought them so low.

      For something like 100 years, Ilinois was THE state that voted for the winner of the presidnetial election, whomever that was.

      "When the President does it, it's not illegal" - Richard Nixon, 1974; US Congress, 2008

      by nightsweat on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:23:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not that way any more (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        seby1689, station wagon

        Since '94, the people of Illinois have been revolted by the Gingrich/Delay Republicans.  It's solid blue.

        Illinois is so freaking gerrymandered you wouldn't believe it.  Just a BIT of tweaking in the districts would turn the delegation from 10-9 Democrat to 14-5 Democrat.  It could be done by probably moving only 200k voters around.  

        Hastert's district is BARELY Republican leaning.  Kirk just needs a well funded challenge (Dan Seals did great with not nearly enough money - had he gotten 1/4 of what Emanuel gave Duckworth, he'd be in).  Weller's district could be turned 55-45 Dem relatively easily.  And it would be trifling to turn IL-6 (which Duckworth failed to capture) into a true blue district.  Of course, Rahn would have to make his 80-20 district into a 70-30 district.  That may be too much sacrifice for him.

        •  By the way (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Ed in Montana, bherner

          The reasons for NOT redistricting Illinois (see article here have gone away.

          Can anyone get Emanuel to reconsider?

          I think I might diary this.

        •  Michigan has the same dilemma (0+ / 0-)

          MI is not as blue as IL but geez, Granholm and Stabenow won with 57% and 58% of the votes of the state in 06. All incumbents won in the US House, but it was surprisingly close in MI 07 where moderate Joe Schwartz(R) was booted out in the primary to a wingnut Tim Wahlberg, who only won by 3% in the general election. The races where the GOP won was much closer than the Dem candidates, they protect their majorities very slightly. The lowest percentage I think was Bart Stupak with 64% for any Democractic candidates. Dingell, Conyers and Kilpatrick ran unapposed for the most part and the dems took over the state house and should have won the senate if it wasn't for those Greenies in a couple of races.

          If the districts really represented the voting patterns of the acutal electorate, the dems should take some of the seats with a little redistricting in 2010.

        •  In California (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          ybruti

          The legislature passed an incumbent protection act instead of going after Republican seats in the last redistricting. 11 California Democrats won with at least 70% of the vote. 6 more won with at least 80% of the vote. 3 more were unopposed because the Republicans didn't think they could pull 20% in some of those districts. The California legislature could erase 5 Republicans with little trouble, while still guaranteeing 20-25% margins of victory for 2/3 of the Democratic caucus. You could eliminate Doolittle, Dreier, Bono and Bilbray easily. Strengthen McNerney's seat. And put enough Democrats into the districts of Ken Calvert, and Dan Lungren to make them work real damn hard to keep their seats.

          •  California 2002 (0+ / 0-)

            Going into the 2002 redistricting in California:

            1. The state gained a district, going from 52 to 53 seats.

            2. Democrats unseated four GOP congressmen in the 2000 elections.

            3. Rep. Gary Condit, who had a district safe for him but vulnerable for any other Democrat, was imploding.

            In the 2002 redistricting:

            1. The new district was placed in Latino neighborhoods of L.A., where a Domocrat, Linda Sanchez, won it.

            2. Safe seats were created for the four freshmen Democrats.

            3. The Condit seat was strengthened so that another Democrat, Dennis Cardoza, won it.

            Considering everything, I'm pleased by the result.

            •  It's hard to be pleased by a result (0+ / 0-)

              that could have yielded 5 more seats then it did. This was a point of contention at the time of the redistricting. Repubicans agreed to go along with the deal no questions asked because they feared much larger losses in a state trending away from them in a big way, so they wanted to lock in what seats they had left by going along with the creation of super-Republican and super-Democratic districts. There just isn't an excuse for 17 Democrats winning their seats with at least 70% of the vote. Republicans aim for a 60% margin when redistricting, that's the sweet spot, it allows them to create more favorable districts while at the same time guaranteeing perpetual reelection for the seats they already control. If you have a built-in advantage of 10%, no Democratic incumbent in California would ever be defeated.

              The state is trending more and more Democratic, which is how Pombo lost, because his district was getting bluer from an influx of Bay Area residents. Chop 10% off of the winning margins of those 17 Democrats that command at least 70% of the vote, you then have 17 Democrats that win with 60-70% of the vote in their respective districts, while at the same time turning five GOP incumbents into five strong Democratic incumbents, and dumping enough Democrats into the districts of at least three others Republicans to make the GOP spend millions just to hold the seats.  

      •  Historically that's correct (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, bherner

        However, the suburbs of Cook County are now blue, and DuPage, Lake and Will have become steadily purple. (Just look at the IL Senate seats the Democrats picked up in the suburbs.)

        The reason why the Congressional map is the way that it is, is because the Democrats drew an imcumbent preservation, and the least senior member of the congressional delegation (Democrat David Phelps from Downstate) was sacrificed. The reason why they did this is because Dennis hastert as speaker of the house had leverage. Now that he is no longer the speaker, there is no reason not to tear up the map. We could easily create 2-3 new Democratic seats in the Chicago area and one downstate.

        I anticipate the map will reflect this reality in 2010 if not sooner.

        "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." -Mark Twain

        by walter mitty on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:46:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think this is a result of Republican weakness (0+ / 0-)

          If they had a new Jim Thompson or a Jim Edgar the Dems would have had a much harder time in the state.

          We would do well to not sit on our laurels and to continue to consolidate our gains as much as possible right now because the pendulum will swing back once the Republicans find an attractive moderate.

          And thank GOD for Judy Topinka.

          "When the President does it, it's not illegal" - Richard Nixon, 1974; US Congress, 2008

          by nightsweat on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 09:40:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree but (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            nightsweat

            the moderates keep fighting with the conservatives. Remember, this is the group of people who went out and CHOSE to run Alan Keyes. The Republicans will have to swing very much to the middle, and that will not be easy for them to do.

            "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." -Mark Twain

            by walter mitty on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 10:40:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I hope it takes them a loooong time (0+ / 0-)

              They had a potentially strong candidate in Birkett except for that minor problem with trying repeatedly to execute an innocent man in the Nicarico case.

              Thank Eric Zorn for the great work he did in the press on that one.

              "When the President does it, it's not illegal" - Richard Nixon, 1974; US Congress, 2008

              by nightsweat on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 11:45:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Is It Blue Outside the Big Cities? (3+ / 0-)

      I lived in OH for many years. Outside the major NE cities it was always very red, and though I left 6 years ago, I can't conceive of most of the rest of the state ever becoming progressive.

      I think much of the blue pickup is replacement of the incredibly corrupt Republicans, which is easily reversible in the future. This is a sizeable population with no patience at all for concepts like shared responsibility and the public "commons," and no chance of serious economic improvements like those that made Americans temporarily so generous in the mid 20th century.

      I may be wrong about their future voting but I'm not wrong about their values.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:25:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is assuming (3+ / 0-)

        that the Republicans cease being corrupt in the future.  It won't be as easy now that they're out of power, but I'm sure they'll find a way.  As they've amply demonstrated in the last twelve years, the Republicans aren't serious about government.

        The fact is, the GOP's governing philosophy invites corruption.  They don't believe the government should have the money in the first place, so they figure they're doing the taxpayers a favor by stealing it.

        •  Congratulations (0+ / 0-)

          On the best use of maps (cartograms really) for political anlysis that I have seen in quite a while! As a professional cartographer/GIS analyst, I see lots of lame maps with no analysis whatsoever. But this diary's handling of the cartograms is excellent!

          Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

          by Ed in Montana on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:08:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks (0+ / 0-)

            I assure you, it was a labor of love.  I'm fascinated by maps (and, as you say, cartograms), and I couldn't resist making myself a nice clear graphical representation of the midterm elections.

            I've actually got cartograms for all 435 districts, divided into 7 regions.  If you'd like to see 'em, drop me a line.

      •  There is a large component of big-city vs. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        tikkun

        small-town/rural in this.  That's true in a lot of states (Michigan, New York etc.).

        After the 2000 census, though, both parties colluded to make 'safe' seats for the incumbents.  This meant some serious gerrymandering to put all the red votes in some districts and all the blue in others.  It's going to be very hard to crack open the remaining red districts.  Happened in mine though (IL-08) with Melissa Bean defeating Phil Crane two years ago.  That was more a response to Crane's incompetance than any huge move to the left here ...

        This space for rent.

        by bherner on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:41:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The city vote versus suburban and rural vote (0+ / 0-)

          Paradigm is true almost evereywhere in the United States, even in Montana. Jon Tester won because he rolled up large majorities in urban counties (or stayed nearly even with Burns in two urban counties) while losing the rural and suburban counties.

          People vote different once you get outside of cities, no matter what the size of those cities are.

          Who will stop this war of lies? Keith Olbermann May 23rd, 2007

          by Ed in Montana on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 05:11:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  in 2012 (8+ / 0-)

    we will be commenting on here how in the heck did the republicans ever come close to having a majority.

    in 2008, we will be close to 56 seats in the Senate.

    in 2010, we have a very realistic chance to pick up 6 more seats to go to 62.  yes, 62.

    2008 pickup potential: Alexander TN, Allard CO, Coleman MN, Dole NC, Smith OR, Stevens AK, Sununu NH, Warner VA  (this could get us to 57 or 58)

    2010 pickup potential: Bunning KY, Gregg NH, McCain AZ, Martinez FL, Specter PA, Voinovich OH (this could get us to 63 or 64)

    and in 2012 JOEMENTUM TIME

    Republicans are not a national party anymore.

    by jalapeno on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:21:17 AM PDT

  •  Good work n/t (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, davybaby, kraant

    We shall overcome, someday. Yes we can.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:24:18 AM PDT

  •  Hope Zell likes his new friends (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    seby1689, slangist, Philoguy, RickE, Montague

    They're further from the mainstream of American politics every day.  And it gives me no joy to say that, the GOP used to be more sane.  Guess they just couldn't resist the siren call of Dixie.

    When are people gonna learn?  You can't have a majority in the northeast and the south at the same time.

    All your vote are belong to us.

    by Harkov311 on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:31:07 AM PDT

    •  Hope Zell rots in hell (5+ / 0-)

      He is a totally craven, disgusting slime, let him join his buddies Bush and Rummy in an early retirement, long past time for Zell to crawl into a cave and shut his face forever.

      If only his crony Lieberman was also off the stage, he and Zell could form a party of two, the spitball and the kisser.

    •  solid no more (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      seby1689, ybruti, liberal atheist

      The Republican South is less solid than you think.
      Many people who couldn't imagine voting for Democrats are beginning to re-evaluate that position. Some folks down here are beginning to administer the sniff test, and they're finding the Rs to be pretty stinky.

      There is opportunity for Dems down here. People are worried about health care, jobs, as well as Iraq.

      There was a huge difference in the Dem presence down here, compared to 2004. This time Dems were part of the dialogue, not just whipping boys for Rush and the Repub right. If we show up and try to contest some of these races, we'll win some of them.

      Don't write off a whole region--if the Dems want to be a national party, we too need to walk the talk.

      •  Just Saying No (0+ / 0-)

        I personally believe that it's very important for the Demos to say NO to racism, NO to authoritarianism, NO to theocracy, NO to militarism and NO to bigotry.  Can we really win in the South if we hew to those ideals?  If so, fine.  But I don't think it's going to happen very frequently, because the majority of the people in the South are, in fact, racist, authoritarian, theocratic, militaristic bigots.  At least, from the perspective of NY it appears that way.  We should encourage people like that to join the Republi-cons, where they'll feel right at home, and where they'll help the 'Cons to reach a sort of apotheosis of evil.

        •  you're wrong (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          liberal atheist

          People in the south are NOT racist, authoritarian, theocratic, militaristic bigots.

          Some are. But many are not.

          The worst people have been the loudest, and they have been very well-organized. THUS, the need for Democrats (and other non-extremists) to organize themselves, rather than just abandoning the field.

          Certain attitudes--especially about race and homosexuality--differ widely between generations. People in their 70s and 80s (who always vote!) still freak out about inter-racial sex. Most young people don't care. Older people can't imagine accepting gays--younger people are likely to have gay friends.
          Unfortunately, younger people are more casual about voting than the elderly.

          The south is also getting HUGE internal migration from northern states, because it is cheap to live here & the weather is mild. And lots of immigrants settle here, for the same reason.  Sons of the Confederacy are a smaller portion of the population than 40 years ago. Things are changing fast here.

          Leave that East Coast bubble sometime.

          •  Nobody is saying we should abandon the South (0+ / 0-)

            In fact, the essence of the 50 State Strategy is to build up Democratic Party organizations everywhere so we can challenge the GOP everywhere.  And when the day comes when all the old Dixiecrats die out and toleration becomes the majority opinion, the Democratic Party will be waiting to reclaim the South.

            In the meantime . . .

        •  ask brad miller or mel watt. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          liberal atheist

          i believe they are elected in the south.

  •  Iowa is a blue-leaning state (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    tikkun, VolvoDrivingLiberal

    So for years, while it had FOUR Repugs in the House and only ONE Democrat - that was a very skewed look at Iowa.  The urban areas are the blue ones and they are growing.  Sadly, because the population isn't growing enough, I think we'll lose a seat in the next census.  We hope to make sure a Repug loses the seat.

  •  We just have to finish the process... (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    tikkun, slangist, jfadden, esquimaux

    Northeast, West Coast...
    Midwest, Mountain West, Southwest...

    The scary, nasty, insane, racist, Southern GOP has to be wrapped around every Repube who even poses as a common-sense conservative (oxymoron, in any case).

    The libertarian right (over-represented by gasbag radio hosts--who, curiously, are "libertarian" only when it comes to economic issues) is already complaining that the alliance with the snake-handlers was a deal with the devil. They're right.

    Let's drive a stake through the heart of the demented, hybrid mutant creature that the modern Republicking party has become.

  •  Ouch. That's gotta hurt. (7+ / 0-)

    Yeh, Miller somehow thought that, in the long run, a GOP based on (1) lies, (2) corruption, (3) race-baiting, (4) gay-baiting, (5) xenophobia, (6) sucking at the teat of the National Treasury, (7) and costly (in terms of lives, money, and national stature) , unnecessary wars would "rule the roost" for decades to come.  Sure, all those things are attractive to the more knuckle-dragging elements of American society, but it's not a long-run strategy in the long run.  Not in a democracy.  Which, of course, is why the GOP and Rove, Inc. have been working overtime to dismantle our democracy (see Patriot Act, voter fraud, voter intimidation, etc.).

    BenGoshi
    ____________________________________________________

    "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

    by BenGoshi on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 07:43:34 AM PDT

  •  These charts are very (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    davybaby, liberal atheist

    cool

    I like the idea of making each cd a square.

    Good work!

  •  Well, we are about to get to work (0+ / 0-)

    And make some gains in the South as well. I'm in TN, an African American having serious conversations with everyday guys that consider themselves "rednecks" and once they realize that I don't think I know everything and that my Starbucks is simply to get a caffeine high, we have 'real talk' where they send me to get the info and report back. Dean, I'm coming for a job (and I'm learning Spanish too).

    The devolution will be reality show televised, commercialized and trivialized.

    by niteskolar on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:23:19 AM PDT

  •  Deep south *plus* plains state (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    liberal atheist

    The other element of the newly regionalized Republican party is a vertical swath of the great plains states.  

    While the GOP will remain competitive in the midwest and the Rockies and the border states, the Democrats now play entirely in what has been Republican territory in recent years.

Permalink | 37 comments