40 Interesting Facts about the 2014 Midterms.

[retromike22]

I'll quote a few, the rest are in the link.

http://cookpolitical.com/story/8145?politicalwire

1. There were two magic numbers in 2014: 86 and 1928

    - Democrats now have the lowest number of U.S. House seats they have held in 86 years, or since 1928.

    - Democrats are tied for the lowest number of U.S. Senate seats they have held in 86 years, or since 1928.

    - Democrats now hold fewer state legislative seats than they have in 86 years, or since 1928.

5. The 114th Congress will convene with 53 U.S. Senators who previously served in the U.S. House. This is more than in any Congress dating back to at least 1899.

10. 47 percent of all Democratic general election spots in the Colorado Senate race focused on abortion.

11. The Senate race in which anti-Koch spots accounted for the highest percentage of Democratic spots was Michigan, at 35 percent.

15. Republicans won 57% of all U.S. House districts in 2014, up from 54% in 2012. But measured by land area, House Republicans will represent an astonishing 86% of the nation, up from 80% after 2012.

16. In 2010, House Republicans won 6.61% more votes than House Democrats, and won 33 more seats than Democrats. In 2014, House Republicans won just 5.71% more votes than House Democrats, but won 59 more seats than Democrats. Nationally, we estimate Democrats would have needed to win 9.73% more votes than Republicans in 2014 just to break even in the House.

24. In California, there were eight House races decided by 5% or less. Democrats won all of them. Incredibly, Republicans haven't picked up a House seat in California since 1998, despite two mid-term waves in 2010 and 2014.

26. 18 percent of all Republican general election spots in U.S. House races featured Nancy Pelosi.

32. And because we can’t help ourselves from looking ahead … Democrats would need to pick up 30 Republican-held House seats to take back the chamber in 2016, but only 16 of 247 House Republicans won their elections by less than 10% in 2014. By contrast, in 2010, 42 of 242 House Republicans won by less than 10%.

39. Democrats have majorities in both legislative chambers in just 11 states; the fewest in 150 years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

   - Democrats are tied for the lowest number of U.S. Senate seats they have held in 86 years, or since 1928.

Technically true, but with King and Sanders, it's only the least since after the 2004 elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hilarious that Democrats picked up a House seat in California.

39. Democrats have majorities in both legislative chambers in just 11 states; the fewest in 150 years.

Amazing that the Democrats were in a better position there after the 1894 elections, but they did have the solid south to fall back on. The 1894 House elections were an epic bloodbath for the Democrats, with them losing the majority of their seats, going from 212 to 105.

[The_Doctor]

So - if the Democrats drop to 44 seats (with Sanders and King), it would be the lowest number since 1928? That's interesting, I could have sworn that the Senate Democrats were more decimated after 1998.

Still, a cool goal to have for '16 (if we win the Presidency; winning party tends to pick up Senate seats) or '18 (if Hillary is President).

[Ebowed]

So - if the Democrats drop to 44 seats (with Sanders and King), it would be the lowest number since 1928? That's interesting, I could have sworn that the Senate Democrats were more decimated after 1998.

It was even - GOP 55, Dem 45, with the Dems winning the popular vote and gaining 3 seats (NY, NC, IN) while the GOP gained 3 (IL, KY, OH).

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

So - if the Democrats drop to 44 seats (with Sanders and King), it would be the lowest number since 1928? That's interesting, I could have sworn that the Senate Democrats were more decimated after 1998.

Still, a cool goal to have for '16 (if we win the Presidency; winning party tends to pick up Senate seats) or '18 (if Hillary is President).

I don't think Democrats have controlled less than 45 seats in nearly 100 years.

[Vosem]

I think it can be argued that Democrats were down to 43 seats (fewer than today) for a brief period in the 109th Congress after Joe Lieberman lost his primary. I don't know when he started to sit as an 'Independent Democrat', but you can argue he effectively became one once he ran against Ned Lamont in 2006, in which case the Senate balance was, effectively, 55 Republicans-43 Democrats-2 Independents.

[BaconBacon96]

I think this is terrifying. Democrats seemingly have an advantage in presidential elections but they appear to be in an atrocious position down ballot. I hope this kind of divide doesn't become permanent, although it is sure looking that way.

[retromike22]

I think this is terrifying. Democrats seemingly have an advantage in presidential elections but they appear to be in an atrocious position down ballot. I hope this kind of divide doesn't become permanent, although it is sure looking that way.

I think what has happened is that the Democratic Senate, House, and state legislators are considered "Obama-members" more than "Democratic Party-members."

It's because of the characteristics of the Obama coalition (urban, minority, liberal, etc) which is the first Democratic coalition that doesn't really include a lot of the white blue collar workers. But once the Obama presidency ends, I figure that the Democratic numbers will rise because they won't be associated with him anymore.