2010 NATIONAL VOTE

[Lephead]

Here is a chart I have made with statewide vote totals for most partisan elections.  I have been doing this to see what the swing was toward the Republicans and loss by the Democrats.  It appears at this time that the average in 2008 was 52% Dem 46% Rep, and in 2006 it was 51% Dem and 45% Rep.  workin on 2004.  So I think there was a considerable swing away from Democrats in 2010, probably 6 points.
I also have a page that has links to every states website information.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44304962/2010-Average-Vote-by-State

[tmthforu94]

Republicans won it 48-46 this year. Surprised it wasn't more, actually.

[redcommander]

Republicans won it 48-46 this year. Surprised it wasn't more, actually.

Well the Republican nominee in New York was a nutjob and let Cuomo win in a landslide, and Whitman collapsed in September. If either or both states had gone Republican, the margin of victory for Republicans would have increased significantly.

[Lief 🗽]

Republican pick-ups were also inflated by wins in a lot of small states and narrow victories in larger states (like OH and FL).

[Dgov]

Well in the House, (which is the closet thing to a truly national election that we have) Republicans won it 51.6%-44.8%.  That's a 17.5% Switch since 2008, where the Democrats won 53.2% to 45.6%.  Senate and Gubernatorial elections are both irregular, staggered, and far more dependent on personalities, which makes them much less effective in measuring national swings.  Consider that New Yorkers got to vote 4 times (House, both Senators and Governor) while Texans only got to vote twice (House and Governor).

Something worth noting though is that the Republicans only dropped about 7 Million votes from 2008, while the Democrats dropped 26 Million.

[California8429]

Republicans won it 48-46 this year. Surprised it wasn't more, actually.

1) We had nuts
2) We had a LOT of conservative third party candidates (we lost sooo many seats in colorado because of libertarians and tancredo's crap that effected down ballot races)

[redcommander]

Republicans won it 48-46 this year. Surprised it wasn't more, actually.

1) We had nuts
2) We had a LOT of conservative third party candidates (we lost sooo many seats in colorado because of libertarians and tancredo's crap that effected down ballot races)

It wasn't so much Tancredo's fault, but the Republican big-wigs' fault for allowing Maes and McInnis to be unvetted, and basically forcing out Penry out of the primary. I mean if Tancredo mounts a third party run you know that Maes was that bad of a candidate.

[The Economist]

I think the GOP won similar margins and vote percentages in 1994 and 2010, as a point of interest.

In 1994: 51.5-44.7% Republican
In 2010: 51.6-44.8% Republican.

I should note 2010 had a stronger shift towards the GOP than 1994.

[tmthforu94]

I think the GOP won similar margins and vote percentages in 1994 and 2010, as a point of interest.

In 1994: 51.5-44.7% Republican
In 2010: 51.6-44.8% Republican.

I should note 2010 had a stronger shift towards the GOP than 1994.

Are you referring to the House? This specific board is geared towards Gubernatorial elections. But thanks for sharing that, I didn't know Republicans actually did better in 2010.

[California8429]

Republicans won it 48-46 this year. Surprised it wasn't more, actually.

1) We had nuts
2) We had a LOT of conservative third party candidates (we lost sooo many seats in colorado because of libertarians and tancredo's crap that effected down ballot races)

It wasn't so much Tancredo's fault, but the Republican big-wigs' fault for allowing Maes and McInnis to be unvetted, and basically forcing out Penry out of the primary. I mean if Tancredo mounts a third party run you know that Maes was that bad of a candidate.

True to an extent, though trust me, if Penry was our nominee, it would have been as worse as Maes. I like the guy, but the reasons he dropped out will remain hidden from public view