States under total party dominance

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The colored states are ones where one party controls the Governorship, both houses of the legislature, a majority of the Congressional delegation and both Senate seats. So note whatever you wish:

Vermont and Rhode Island are lighter because it's kind of debatable to as if Chafee and Sanders should count. New York is because of the ambiguous State Senate situation where a majority of those elected were elected as Democrats.

[Frodo]

The Washington State Senate is currently controlled by minority Republicans and two renegade 'Democrats', FYI.  

[Brittain33]

Chafee was elected as an I but has officially reregistered as a D.

[muon2]

Why does the US Senate and Congress matter to party control of the state?

[ElectionsGuy]

Why does the US Senate and Congress matter to party control of the state?

This is the map just considering governors and state legislatures. Virginia I'm disregarding republicans control as they will likely elect a democrat for governor next week.

Democratic Governor, Republican Legislature: AR, MO, MT. (VA?)
Republican Governor, Democratic Legislature: ME, NV, NM, NJ
Democratic Governor, Split Legislature: KY, NH (VA?)
Republican Governor, Split Legislature: IA

[publicunofficial]

The colored states are ones where one party controls the Governorship, both houses of the legislature, a majority of the Congressional delegation and both Senate seats. So note whatever you wish:

Vermont and Rhode Island are lighter because it's kind of debatable to as if Chafee and Sanders should count. New York is because of the ambiguous State Senate situation where a majority of those elected were elected as Democrats.

Washington has the same deal as New York when it comes to the State Senate, and Democrats control most of Arizona's congressional delegation (Kirkpatrick, Barber, Grijalva, Pastor, Sinema (5) vs. Gosar, Franks, Schweikert, Salmon (4))

[Associate Justice PiT]

Why does the US Senate and Congress matter to party control of the state?

     It speaks to the party's electoral domination of the state. It's still party control, albeit in a different sense.

[muon2]

Why does the US Senate and Congress matter to party control of the state?

     It speaks to the party's electoral domination of the state. It's still party control, albeit in a different sense.

Party domination would make more sense as the title for the thread rather than than party control.

[Indy Texas]

Can anyone offer some context as to why the Senate Democrats in NY and WA defected to the Republican caucus?

[publicunofficial]

Can anyone offer some context as to why the Senate Democrats in NY and WA defected to the Republican caucus?

In WA, State Senator Rodney Tom (who was a Republican before he ran for office as a Democrat) switched to the Republican side and took State Senator Tim Sheldon (A conservadem) with him. Tom gave some BS about "the balance of power" and Republicans made him Majority Leader.

In short, it was a power grab.

[jimrtex]

You can see that with the exception of Arkansas, Maine, Missouri, Montana, and Nevada, all the states on this table are colored in Electionguy's map.  Also, gerrymandering can affect this.  I'm not sure but I expect a correlation there as well.  Finally, don't forget the binding popular referenda, which always has the effect of direct democracy (Hamilton's nightmare, I suppose.)  

If there is a relationship, it is the opposite one.

5 of the 11 divided control states have term limits (45%).
10 of the 39 single-party control states have term limits (26%).

If there is a causal effect it is that term limits make elections more volatile since there are fewer incumbents.  A strong incumbent can counter partisan trends.  You can see this at a statewide level, where governors and US senators are more likely to be contrary to the overall partisan attitudes of the state.  If you can find a quality candidate, he can run for statewide office and break through party-line votes.  In a legislative race between "Who's He"?  and "Never Heard of Her", voters will vote the party.

But I doubt that there is a particularly strong relationship between term limits and party balance.

[Indy Texas]

Regardless of the relationship, term limits for legislators are a Horrible Idea.

It makes about as much sense as saying, "I don't want that heart surgeon who's been practicing for 30 years operating on me. He has too much experience. I want someone who just graduated from medical school to do my bypass because they'll offer a fresh breath of new ideas and solutions for how to do it!" or "I'd better fire my housekeeper. She's been cleaning my house for 12 years. She's done nothing wrong but she really does need to go. Some young novice will offer a different perspective and prevent Rosa from abusing all the power she has accumulated here."

You think you're getting that hackneyed phrase "accountability" and "citizen-legislator" when all you're doing is preventing institutional knowledge from ever taking hold and ensuring that the only people who can run for office are rich lawyers and business owners who have the option of randomly leaving their career for 6-12 years and then jumping back into it without any trouble.

[angus]

If there is a relationship, it is the opposite one.

5 of the 11 divided control states have term limits (45%).
10 of the 39 single-party control states have term limits (26%).

If there is a causal effect it is that term limits make elections more volatile since there are fewer incumbents.  A strong incumbent can counter partisan trends.  You can see this at a statewide level, where governors and US senators are more likely to be contrary to the overall partisan attitudes of the state.  If you can find a quality candidate, he can run for statewide office and break through party-line votes.  In a legislative race between "Who's He"?  and "Never Heard of Her", voters will vote the party.

But I doubt that there is a particularly strong relationship between term limits and party balance.

Ah, fair enough.  I'm looking at the electionsguy map.  I assume you are as well. 

I at first always think of Daniel Elazar's model when trying to explain voting proclivities, but that one clearly fails to explain the map.  There may be no profound explanation.  It may be fluid.  That's just where we are right now.  In ten years, different states may be colored, and ten years hence still different ones.  Massachusetts, for example, had a string of Republican governors from 1991 till 2007, even as both its chambers were controlled by Democrats.  Texas, for example, has had 18 years of Republican governors even as the Democrats controlled its House for half of that time.  In California, the Governor's office seems to go back and forth:  Democrat now, Republican before that, Democrat before that, Republican before that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I updated the map and changed the title.