Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 28, 2015, 07:26:25 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Congressional Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  Congressional Wave Years
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Congressional Wave Years  (Read 582 times)
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9120
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.97, S: -7.65

P P
View Profile
« on: February 25, 2015, 09:23:20 pm »
Ignore

From the beginning of the 20th century until now

Republicans:

2014 (+9 S, +13 H)
2010 (+6 S, +64 H)
1994 (+9 S, +54 H)
1980 (+12 S, +34 H)
1966 (+3 S, +47 H)
1950 (+5 S, +28 H)
1946 (+12 S, +55 H)
1942 (+9 S, +47 H)
1938 (+7 S, +81 H)
1928 (+8 S, +32 H)
1924 (+4 S, +22 H)
1920 (+10 S, +62 H)
1918 (+5 S, +25 H)
1914 (-4 S, +63 H)
1904 (+3 S, +39 H)

Democrats:


2008 (+8 S, +24 H)
2006 (+6* S, +31 H)
1986 (+8 S, +5 H)
1974 (+4 S, +49 H)
1964 (+2 S, +37 H)
1958 (+15 S, +49 H)
1948 (+9 S, +75 H)
1936 (+5 S, +12 H)
1934 (+9 S, +9 H)
1932 (+12 S, +97 H)
1930 (+8 S, +52 H)
1926 (+7 S, +11 H)
1922 (+6 S, +76 H)
1912 (+5 S, +61 H**)
1910 (+12 S, +57 H)
1902 (+5 S, +25 H**)

*Counting Joe Lieberman as an essential Democrat
**The size of the house massively increased in these years, so those numbers may be a bit misleading

This does not count independents that are elected and caucus with one party (with the exception of Lieberman). Let me know on what you think are wave years. There are some years (like 1978 for Republicans and 1982 for Democrats) that I would say are good years for either parties, but don't qualify as a wave. Its also important to consider the outside circumstances, the reasons why years like 2014 and 1936 are wave years is because the respective party was already close to the ceiling in the House. I think the House better represents the country than the Senate so I based more of my choosing on that.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2015, 09:25:25 pm by ElectionsGuy »Logged
Pacific Speaker Türkisblau
H_Wallace
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 874
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.81, S: 1.48

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2015, 12:54:40 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.
Logged

smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1159
Russian Federation
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2015, 01:13:35 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...
Logged

Raging moderate. Big fan of "mavericks" (in all parties) and big non-lover of "reliable foot soldiers" (in all parties as well). Very much "anti-tea party". Political Matrix - E: -0.26, S: -3.48. Like to collect bans on partisan sites (4-5 on DKE (+ SSP) and on RRH).
Pacific Speaker Türkisblau
H_Wallace
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 874
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.81, S: 1.48

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2015, 03:29:26 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

When you increase your majority in the Senate enough to lock out the other party for 20 years it's a bigger deal.
Logged

smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1159
Russian Federation
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2015, 03:37:57 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

When you increase your majority in the Senate enough to lock out the other party for 20 years it's a bigger deal.

I didn't say it wasn't. Still 2014 rout was sensitive enough to be called a really big deal. And for now i don't see Democratic chances to lock it for 20 years either. Too much (almost all) lost in the South. I don't see anyone to lock Senate for 20 years, but of two Republicans have better chances to do that.
Logged

Raging moderate. Big fan of "mavericks" (in all parties) and big non-lover of "reliable foot soldiers" (in all parties as well). Very much "anti-tea party". Political Matrix - E: -0.26, S: -3.48. Like to collect bans on partisan sites (4-5 on DKE (+ SSP) and on RRH).
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9883
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

P P
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2015, 03:51:21 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes
Logged

Pacific Speaker Türkisblau
H_Wallace
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 874
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.81, S: 1.48

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2015, 03:53:59 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

When you increase your majority in the Senate enough to lock out the other party for 20 years it's a bigger deal.

I didn't say it wasn't. Still 2014 rout was sensitive enough to be called a really big deal. And for now i don't see Democratic chances to lock it for 20 years either. Too much (almost all) lost in the South. I don't see anyone to lock Senate for 20 years, but of two Republicans have better chances to do that.

I meant not a big deal in comparison to 1958, not that it wasn't a big deal.
Logged

smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1159
Russian Federation
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2015, 05:53:03 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.
Logged

Raging moderate. Big fan of "mavericks" (in all parties) and big non-lover of "reliable foot soldiers" (in all parties as well). Very much "anti-tea party". Political Matrix - E: -0.26, S: -3.48. Like to collect bans on partisan sites (4-5 on DKE (+ SSP) and on RRH).
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5038


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2015, 10:12:35 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

You forgot Toomey.  Gaining three seats will be relatively easy if dems win the white house.  Its the fourth that will be tough.
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32431
France


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2015, 10:24:47 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

Indeed. It's too bad waves like that don't happen anymore.
Logged

smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1159
Russian Federation
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2015, 01:47:53 pm »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

You forgot Toomey.  Gaining three seats will be relatively easy if dems win the white house.  Its the fourth that will be tough.

I didn't really forgot Toomey. He is rather smart - a solid conservative who doesn't irritate too many people. And Sestak has a lot of baggage too. In addition - western (Appalachian) Pennsylvania (except, may be, Pittsburg and Erie) took hard right turn recently, as most of other Appalachian regions did. So it will not bee so easy in Pennsylvania.
Logged

Raging moderate. Big fan of "mavericks" (in all parties) and big non-lover of "reliable foot soldiers" (in all parties as well). Very much "anti-tea party". Political Matrix - E: -0.26, S: -3.48. Like to collect bans on partisan sites (4-5 on DKE (+ SSP) and on RRH).
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5038


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2015, 02:19:28 pm »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

You forgot Toomey.  Gaining three seats will be relatively easy if dems win the white house.  Its the fourth that will be tough.

I didn't really forgot Toomey. He is rather smart - a solid conservative who doesn't irritate too many people. And Sestak has a lot of baggage too. In addition - western (Appalachian) Pennsylvania (except, may be, Pittsburg and Erie) took hard right turn recently, as most of other Appalachian regions did. So it will not bee so easy in Pennsylvania.

If Hillary is carrying PA solidly, its hard to see Toomey winning.  That kind of ticket splitting rarely exists anymore.
Logged
IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9883
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

P P
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2015, 03:44:16 pm »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

There's no reason to think PA and NH aren't vulnerable seats. OH may be in that category too now that Strickland is running, but it's hard to tell since there's been no polls.
Logged

smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1159
Russian Federation
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2015, 11:08:42 pm »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

There's no reason to think PA and NH aren't vulnerable seats. OH may be in that category too now that Strickland is running, but it's hard to tell since there's been no polls.

Democrats were rather optimistic 2 month before last November - and what happened?  And while turnout in 2016 will surely be higher, Hillary is not as good turnout motivator as Obama among core Democratic constituency - minorities. She may attract some whites, who voted Republican recently, or at least - reduce their willingness to go Republican, but that's all...
Logged

Raging moderate. Big fan of "mavericks" (in all parties) and big non-lover of "reliable foot soldiers" (in all parties as well). Very much "anti-tea party". Political Matrix - E: -0.26, S: -3.48. Like to collect bans on partisan sites (4-5 on DKE (+ SSP) and on RRH).
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32826


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2015, 01:25:14 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

When you increase your majority in the Senate enough to lock out the other party for 20 years it's a bigger deal.

Regardless, 2014 was the worst year for Democrats since 1928.
Logged
Speaker of the South Maxwell
mah519
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15464
Germany


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -7.57

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2015, 01:34:26 am »
Ignore

1914 is pretty amazing.
Logged

Computer09
Computer89
Full Member
***
Posts: 169


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2015, 02:16:08 am »
Ignore

From the beginning of the 20th century until now

Republicans:

2014 (+9 S, +13 H)
2010 (+6 S, +64 H)
1994 (+9 S, +54 H)
1980 (+12 S, +34 H)
1966 (+3 S, +47 H)
1950 (+5 S, +28 H)
1946 (+12 S, +55 H)
1942 (+9 S, +47 H)
1938 (+7 S, +81 H)
1928 (+8 S, +32 H)
1924 (+4 S, +22 H)
1920 (+10 S, +62 H)
1918 (+5 S, +25 H)
1914 (-4 S, +63 H)
1904 (+3 S, +39 H)

Democrats:


2008 (+8 S, +24 H)
2006 (+6* S, +31 H)
1986 (+8 S, +5 H)
1974 (+4 S, +49 H)
1964 (+2 S, +37 H)
1958 (+15 S, +49 H)
1948 (+9 S, +75 H)
1936 (+5 S, +12 H)
1934 (+9 S, +9 H)
1932 (+12 S, +97 H)
1930 (+8 S, +52 H)
1926 (+7 S, +11 H)
1922 (+6 S, +76 H)
1912 (+5 S, +61 H**)
1910 (+12 S, +57 H)
1902 (+5 S, +25 H**)

*Counting Joe Lieberman as an essential Democrat
**The size of the house massively increased in these years, so those numbers may be a bit misleading

This does not count independents that are elected and caucus with one party (with the exception of Lieberman). Let me know on what you think are wave years. There are some years (like 1978 for Republicans and 1982 for Democrats) that I would say are good years for either parties, but don't qualify as a wave. Its also important to consider the outside circumstances, the reasons why years like 2014 and 1936 are wave years is because the respective party was already close to the ceiling in the House. I think the House better represents the country than the Senate so I based more of my choosing on that.



I would rank worst congressional defeats since 20th century

1. 1932
2. 1958
3. 1994
Logged
IndyRep
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 287
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: February 27, 2015, 05:42:32 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

There's no reason to think PA and NH aren't vulnerable seats. OH may be in that category too now that Strickland is running, but it's hard to tell since there's been no polls.

Democrats were rather optimistic 2 month before last November - and what happened?  And while turnout in 2016 will surely be higher, Hillary is not as good turnout motivator as Obama among core Democratic constituency - minorities. She may attract some whites, who voted Republican recently, or at least - reduce their willingness to go Republican, but that's all...
Logged

My current 2016 endorsement (Since there are so many great GOP candidates, my endorsements will probably change before Nov. 2016.)

Kasich/Walker 2016!
tara gilesbie
Full Member
***
Posts: 110
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: February 27, 2015, 04:58:17 pm »
Ignore

From the beginning of the 20th century until now

Republicans:

2014 (+9 S, +13 H)
2010 (+6 S, +64 H)
1994 (+9 S, +54 H)
1980 (+12 S, +34 H)
1966 (+3 S, +47 H)
1950 (+5 S, +28 H)
1946 (+12 S, +55 H)
1942 (+9 S, +47 H)
1938 (+7 S, +81 H)
1928 (+8 S, +32 H)
1924 (+4 S, +22 H)
1920 (+10 S, +62 H)
1918 (+5 S, +25 H)
1914 (-4 S, +63 H)
1904 (+3 S, +39 H)

Democrats:


2008 (+8 S, +24 H)
2006 (+6* S, +31 H)
1986 (+8 S, +5 H)
1974 (+4 S, +49 H)
1964 (+2 S, +37 H)
1958 (+15 S, +49 H)
1948 (+9 S, +75 H)
1936 (+5 S, +12 H)
1934 (+9 S, +9 H)
1932 (+12 S, +97 H)
1930 (+8 S, +52 H)
1926 (+7 S, +11 H)
1922 (+6 S, +76 H)
1912 (+5 S, +61 H**)
1910 (+12 S, +57 H)
1902 (+5 S, +25 H**)

*Counting Joe Lieberman as an essential Democrat
**The size of the house massively increased in these years, so those numbers may be a bit misleading

This does not count independents that are elected and caucus with one party (with the exception of Lieberman). Let me know on what you think are wave years. There are some years (like 1978 for Republicans and 1982 for Democrats) that I would say are good years for either parties, but don't qualify as a wave. Its also important to consider the outside circumstances, the reasons why years like 2014 and 1936 are wave years is because the respective party was already close to the ceiling in the House. I think the House better represents the country than the Senate so I based more of my choosing on that.



I would rank worst congressional defeats since 20th century

1. 1932
2. 1958
3. 1994

I agree with this.
Logged

IceSpear
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9883
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -6.09

P P
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: Today at 02:04:48 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

There's no reason to think PA and NH aren't vulnerable seats. OH may be in that category too now that Strickland is running, but it's hard to tell since there's been no polls.

Democrats were rather optimistic 2 month before last November - and what happened?  And while turnout in 2016 will surely be higher, Hillary is not as good turnout motivator as Obama among core Democratic constituency - minorities. She may attract some whites, who voted Republican recently, or at least - reduce their willingness to go Republican, but that's all...

Not really. Most people knew that Dems were going to lose the Senate. The only unexpected part was the size of the wave.
Logged

smoltchanov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1159
Russian Federation
View Profile
« Reply #20 on: Today at 05:23:01 am »
Ignore

Gotta love 1958. And people act like losing 9 seats is a big deal.

When you lose a majority in Senate (and most chances to regain it until 2020-2022) - it's a BIG deal...

Because gaining 4 seats is so implausible. Roll Eyes

In present political climate it will be difficult, Besides Johnson, Kirk and (IF he runs for President AND stays in that race) Rubio's seat i don't see really top-tier targets right now.  And no, i don't list Ayotte's seat or McCain's (it's Arizona after all) among them so far. If a big Democratic wave materializes - then yes.

There's no reason to think PA and NH aren't vulnerable seats. OH may be in that category too now that Strickland is running, but it's hard to tell since there's been no polls.

Democrats were rather optimistic 2 month before last November - and what happened?  And while turnout in 2016 will surely be higher, Hillary is not as good turnout motivator as Obama among core Democratic constituency - minorities. She may attract some whites, who voted Republican recently, or at least - reduce their willingness to go Republican, but that's all...

Not really. Most people knew that Dems were going to lose the Senate. The only unexpected part was the size of the wave.

Please, read DKE archives. Until early September there was almost an ironclad confidence in holding the Senate. Only Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota were considered lost then. Nobody expected Iowa and Colorado to flip, most were optimistic on Alaska and Louisiana (i will not even mention North Carolina here). May be only an Arkansas too... And Democrats expected to win Kansas and something else.
Logged

Raging moderate. Big fan of "mavericks" (in all parties) and big non-lover of "reliable foot soldiers" (in all parties as well). Very much "anti-tea party". Political Matrix - E: -0.26, S: -3.48. Like to collect bans on partisan sites (4-5 on DKE (+ SSP) and on RRH).
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines