Who "won" each cycle?

[Free Bird]

Just curious what others thought. Which party "won" each of the biannual election cycles after, say 1900?

[Panda Express]

Sometimes the Dems won and sometimes the GOP won. Oh and sometimes neither side won.

[Free Bird]

I can only speak for 1980 onward
80: Republicans
82: GOP
84: GOP
86: Dems
88: GOP
90: Dems
92: Dems
94: GOP
96: Dems
98: Stalemate
00: Stalemate
02: GOP
04: GOP
06: Dems
08: Dems
10: GOP
12: Dems

[Maxwell]

I'd say Dems won 1998, but that's just me.

[Antonio the Sixth]

1992: Dem, though underwhelmingly
1994: Obviously GOP
1996: See 1992
1998: Dem
2000: Dem
2002: GOP
2004: GOP
2006: Dem
2008: Dem
2010: GOP underwhelmingly
2012: Dem

[Mr. Morden]

I'd say Dems won 1998, but that's just me.

They definitely beat expectations.  Going into election day, everyone expected the GOP to gain at least some seats in both Houses.

[Person Man]

I'd say Dems won 1998, but that's just me.

They definitely beat expectations.  Going into election day, everyone expected the GOP to gain at least some seats in both Houses.

Beating expectations isn't winning. Then again, I would have been happy in 2006 if we won back all the seats we lost during Bush's presidency plus the seats we lost in 2004. I'd figured that Bush wasn't popular and that we were guaranteed to win Congress in 2008 and if we got to 48 or 49 seats, and that if in 2007, John Paul Stevens croaked, there would be enough moderate Republicans to force Bush to nominate a moderate so that Bush wouldn't get a solid R party-line SCOTUS. 

Now, Ginsburg's justiceship is basically the ultimate prize though I imagine she will outlive this presidency and the next.

[Vosem]

1980: GOP overwhelmingly
1982: Dem barely
1984: GOP
1986: Dem
1988: GOP
1990: Dem barely
1992: Dem
1994: GOP overwhelmingly
1996: Dem
1998: Dem barely
2000: GOP barely
2002: GOP
2004: GOP
2006: Dem overwhelmingly
2008: Dem overwhelmingly
2010: GOP overwhelmingly
2012: Dem

[Person Man]

1980: GOP overwhelmingly
1982: Dem barely
1984: GOP
1986: Dem
1988: GOP
1990: Dem barely
1992: Dem
1994: GOP overwhelmingly
1996: Dem
1998: Dem barely
2000: GOP barely
2002: GOP
2004: GOP
2006: Dem overwhelmingly
2008: Dem overwhelmingly
2010: GOP overwhelmingly
2012: Dem

It seems that neither party has had a monopoly on power as soon as each party gave up its "traditional" "moderate" bases of support.

Do you think that the era uninterrupted one-party (albeit superfluous at times) rule is over?

[pbrower2a]

1980: GOP overwhelmingly
1982: Dem barely
1984: GOP
1986: Dem
1988: GOP
1990: Dem barely
1992: Dem
1994: GOP overwhelmingly
1996: Dem
1998: Dem barely
2000: GOP barely
2002: GOP
2004: GOP
2006: Dem overwhelmingly
2008: Dem overwhelmingly
2010: GOP overwhelmingly
2012: Dem

It seems that neither party has had a monopoly on power as soon as each party gave up its "traditional" "moderate" bases of support.

Do you think that the era uninterrupted one-party (albeit superfluous at times) rule is over?

No -- not if one Party can entrench itself indefinitely through gerrymandering or (if possible) alteration of voting rights to the permanent advantage of the Party that enacts the alteration (yet to happen -- but if employers can control their employees' votes, such ensures one-Party rule indefinitely).

[Nichlemn]

2010: GOP underwhelmingly

What? Is this because the GOP didn't win the Senate? The only reason they didn't was because Dems had a huge majority that had been mainly built up over the past two cycles (which weren't up that year).

[Antonio the Sixth]

2010: GOP underwhelmingly

What? Is this because the GOP didn't win the Senate? The only reason they didn't was because Dems had a huge majority that had been mainly built up over the past two cycles (which weren't up that year).

They could easily have won 9 seats, but blew 3 of them by nominating lunatics. OK, their House performance was definitely not underwhelming, but I was mostly thinking about the Senate. Gaining 6 seats definitely isn't worthy of a "wave year".

[Nichlemn]

2010: GOP underwhelmingly

What? Is this because the GOP didn't win the Senate? The only reason they didn't was because Dems had a huge majority that had been mainly built up over the past two cycles (which weren't up that year).

They could easily have won 9 seats, but blew 3 of them by nominating lunatics.

Sure, but that's a good problem to have, relative to most other cycles.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about Governors? State legislators? What about the fact you've ranked a bunch of other cycles clearly much weaker for the party you've named (e.g. 2000) as not being underwhelming?

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's because I defined the victories are underwhelming based on expectations. An underwhelming victory is when a party that is widely expected to strongly benefit from an election cycle has an OK but not stellar performance. Anyway, I must admit that my rating was probably Senate-focused (the same is true for other years) and that on the broader picture the GOP didn't really underperform in 2010.