2014 US Congressional Election Results

[ElectionsGuy]

House Vote by Region:

Northeast:

Democratic: 8,489,068 (55.5%)
Republican: 6,522,615 (42.7%)

Total Votes: 15,291,808

South:

Republican: 15,041,598 (58.6%)
Democratic: 9,544,530 (37.2%)

Total Votes: 25,659,862

Midwest:

Republican: 10,521,325 (53.2%)
Democratic: 8,813,907 (44.6%)

Total Votes: 19,770,043

West:

Democratic: 8,769,339 (50.7%)
Republican: 8,083,790 (46.7%)

Total Votes: 17,308,545

Note: Louisiana's votes in LA-05 and LA-06 are the ones on election day, not the runoffs

[ElectionsGuy]

A few unimportant but interesting thing I noticed while zooming through the house races.

- Turnout was lowest in states where there was nothing going on (Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, etc)
- In some states (Wisconsin, New Hampshire for instance) the congressional vote literally is the same as the margin in Senate or Governors races
- Republicans now represent a 70% Hispanic seat (TX-23) and a 72% Hispanic seat (CA-21)
- Alaska turnout was actually pretty high, and the results weren't very Republican (Young only winning by 10 points, Parnell being defeated, etc)
- Massachusetts congressional vote literally >80% D. That's what happens when only 3 Republicans (out of 9 districts) even contest the seats.

[Senator Cris]

House Vote by Region:

Northeast:

Democratic: 8,489,068 (55.5%)
Republican: 6,522,615 (42.7%)

Total Votes: 15,291,808

South:

Republican: 15,041,598 (58.6%)
Democratic: 9,544,530 (37.2%)

Total Votes: 25,659,862

Midwest:

Republican: 10,521,325 (53.2%)
Democratic: 8,813,907 (44.6%)

Total Votes: 19,770,043

West:

Democratic: 8,769,339 (50.7%)
Republican: 8,083,790 (46.7%)

Total Votes: 17,308,545

Note: Louisiana's votes in LA-05 and LA-06 are the ones on election day, not the runoffs

It would be interesting making comparisons between 2014 and 2012, 2010, 2008, 2006.

[136or142]

House Vote by Region:

Northeast:

Democratic: 8,489,068 (55.5%)
Republican: 6,522,615 (42.7%)

Total Votes: 15,291,808

South:

Republican: 15,041,598 (58.6%)
Democratic: 9,544,530 (37.2%)

Total Votes: 25,659,862

Midwest:

Republican: 10,521,325 (53.2%)
Democratic: 8,813,907 (44.6%)

Total Votes: 19,770,043

West:

Democratic: 8,769,339 (50.7%)
Republican: 8,083,790 (46.7%)

Total Votes: 17,308,545

Note: Louisiana's votes in LA-05 and LA-06 are the ones on election day, not the runoffs

Which states do you count in which regions? Although most are pretty obvious, there are a number of states that could go into two.

Turnout was also very low in the big states of California, New York and Texas (I believe all 3 were between 30-33%)

Edit: forgive me, I didn't notice the map earlier.  Well, being a Canadian, I barely know which state is which on the map.

[Ebowed]

I thought the number of blank ballots in Macon county, AL was amusing.

Senate
Jeff Sessions (R) - 1,133 (89.92%)
Write-ins - 127 (10.08%)

Governor
Griffith (D) - 4,830 (85.31%)
Bentley (R) - 829 (14.64%)
Write-ins - 3

[136or142]

There were between 300,000 and 400,000 blank ballots for the Senate race in Alabama.  Forgive me please if this site is where I got that information from.

[ElectionsGuy]

Only 5 Senate races this cycle were less Republican than 2008, they are - KS, MN, MS, OR, and TN. In KS, MS, and TN, incumbents had primary vulnerabilities. In MN and OR, its primarily because Franken and Merkley were defeating incumbents in '08.

[Torie]

The below shows just how "good" the "non-partisan" commission's Democratic gerrymander was in AZ:

Arizona: 1,467,617 (9 Districts)
Republican: 817,178 55.7% 5 (8 Candidates)
Democratic: 577,947 39.4% 4 (8 candidates)
Libertarian: 23,767 1.6% (3 candidates)
American Electors: 44,924 (2 candidates)
Independent: 3,496
Write In: 305

It strikes me as the biggest differential of any of the 50 states. I don't think anywhere the minority party got that high a percentage of the CD's with around 40% of the vote. If AZ-02 has swung the other way, it would have been even more spectacular.

[Knives]

The below shows just how "good" the "non-partisan" commission's Democratic gerrymander was in AZ:

Arizona: 1,467,617 (9 Districts)
Republican: 817,178 55.7% 5 (8 Candidates)
Democratic: 577,947 39.4% 4 (8 candidates)
Libertarian: 23,767 1.6% (3 candidates)
American Electors: 44,924 (2 candidates)
Independent: 3,496
Write In: 305

It strikes me as the biggest differential of any of the 50 states. I don't think anywhere the minority party got that high a percentage of the CD's with around 40% of the vote. If AZ-02 has swung the other way, it would have been even more spectacular.

uhhh, the problem isn't the map just that of the 4 competitive districts, the Dems control 3 and these were created on geographical boundaries that reflect the interests of the area rather than packing in like minded voters.

[Miles]

^ Turnout is also much lower in the Democratic seats. Going off my Governor by CD chart, CD6 (Safe D) cast almost three times as many votes as CD7 (Safe D).

[publicunofficial]

Also doesn't help that Trent Franks was unopposed, and the other 3 Republican incumbents blew their competition out of the water, driving up the overall Republican vote share.

Seriously, the fact that Republicans think the Arizona map is such an affront to democracy over any other map is so hypocritical and blind that it blows my mind.

[Vosem]

Seriously, the fact that Republicans think the Arizona map is such an affront to democracy over any other map is so hypocritical and blind that it blows my mind.

What frustrates Republicans about the Arizona map is that it was drawn by an independent commission with a clearly Democratic slant in mind. There are much more virulent Democratic gerrymanders out there (Illinois, Maryland) but those were drawn openly by Democratic legislatures. The Arizona map was intended by the system to be a neutral map, and it is clearly not.

The same is true of the California map, but Republicans are more muted in their criticism there since the alternative is a full Democratic gerrymander and something like 6 Republican seats left in the state.

[Joe Republic]

The below shows just how "good" the "non-partisan" commission's Democratic gerrymander was in AZ:

Arizona: 1,467,617 (9 Districts)
Republican: 817,178 55.7% 5 (8 Candidates)
Democratic: 577,947 39.4% 4 (8 candidates)
Libertarian: 23,767 1.6% (3 candidates)
American Electors: 44,924 (2 candidates)
Independent: 3,496
Write In: 305

It strikes me as the biggest differential of any of the 50 states. I don't think anywhere the minority party got that high a percentage of the CD's with around 40% of the vote. If AZ-02 has swung the other way, it would have been even more spectacular.

40% of the vote equating to 44% of the seats is fairer than 33% of the seats.  Yes, if AZ-2 had stayed Dem you'd have a reason to complain, but as it stands...

[Torie]

The below shows just how "good" the "non-partisan" commission's Democratic gerrymander was in AZ:

Arizona: 1,467,617 (9 Districts)
Republican: 817,178 55.7% 5 (8 Candidates)
Democratic: 577,947 39.4% 4 (8 candidates)
Libertarian: 23,767 1.6% (3 candidates)
American Electors: 44,924 (2 candidates)
Independent: 3,496
Write In: 305

It strikes me as the biggest differential of any of the 50 states. I don't think anywhere the minority party got that high a percentage of the CD's with around 40% of the vote. If AZ-02 has swung the other way, it would have been even more spectacular.

40% of the vote equating to 44% of the seats is fairer than 33% of the seats.  Yes, if AZ-2 had stayed Dem you'd have a reason to complain, but as it stands...

Except as the margin between the parities increases, the seats lost to the party at the short end, is an exponential one in a non partisan line drawing, not linear. That is why a "fair" map in Mass might net the Pubs one seat, two at best, far below the percentage of their vote. AZ was partisan in the sense in did a Dem gerrymander to offset the exponential effect. Make sense? The reason I bitch about the AZ map is that it was supposed to be non partisan. I don't begrudge what the Dems did in MD, effectively, and in Illinois, ineffectively, as it turned out because they got greedy, and ignored the trends.

[justfollowingtheelections]

No one has the right to complain about Arizona's CDs when there's Ohio and Pennsylvania.

[Mr.Phips]

No one has the right to complain about Arizona's CDs when there's Ohio and Pennsylvania.

North Carolina too.

[MarkUterus]

The difference is that AZ is supposed to use a non-partisan commission, and the spoils go to the victor in the NC, OH, and PA (and Dems had just as fair of a chance of winning control of those states' governorships and legislatures in 2010 as Republicans did). The 9th in particular is a joke (Mathis broke municipal boundaries all over the place in AZ-09 in order to twit a Democratic seat out of it; it's only R+1 because of McCain's home state bounce).

[Brittain33]

Republicans won control of the House by a significant margin despite getting 1 million fewer votes than Democrats in 2012. I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Republicans won control of the House by a significant margin despite getting 1 million fewer votes than Democrats in 2012. I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

Should a nonpartisan state redistricting commission be correcting for imbalances in other states?

[Brittain33]

Republicans won control of the House by a significant margin despite getting 1 million fewer votes than Democrats in 2012. I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

Should a nonpartisan state redistricting commission be correcting for imbalances in other states?

I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Republicans won control of the House by a significant margin despite getting 1 million fewer votes than Democrats in 2012. I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

Should a nonpartisan state redistricting commission be correcting for imbalances in other states?

I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

If you don't want to address the question, you are free not to respond.

[Brittain33]

Republicans won control of the House by a significant margin despite getting 1 million fewer votes than Democrats in 2012. I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

Should a nonpartisan state redistricting commission be correcting for imbalances in other states?

I am just not going to get upset about a couple of swing seats in AZ that could have been solid Republican when it's basically impossible for the current Democratic coalition to get control of government through democratic means.

If you don't want to address the question, you are free not to respond.

Thank you!

[MarkUterus]

Oh, how I hope the Massachusetts GOP can cross the necessary threshold in the State House so the State House couldn't override a potentially re-elected Charlie Baker's three wonderful gerrymander vetoes. Your smugness would go away, quickly.

[smoltchanov]

Oh, how I hope the Massachusetts GOP can cross the necessary threshold in the State House so the State House couldn't override a potentially re-elected Charlie Baker's three wonderful gerrymander vetoes. Your smugness would go away, quickly.

Almost impossible. Republicans need to have 14 seats in state Senate or 54 in state House for that. Even after relatively good 2014 they now have 6 and 35.....

[Miles]

I applied a uniform swing to Obama's 2012 performance so that he would have won by the same (two-party) margin as Warner. The southwest clearly was the biggest thing that saved Warner; he did almost 10% better than Obama's baseline in VA-09:



If Warner matched Obama in VA-09, his statewide lead would be cut to just under 6K votes, down from 17K.