Congressional Wave Years

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[Türkisblau]

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

[smoltchanov]

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...

[Türkisblau]

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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

[Türkisblau]

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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

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.

[Mr.Phips]

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.

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

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...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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.

[Maxwell]

1914 is pretty amazing.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

[Sumner 1868]

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.

[IceSpear]

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.

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.

[smoltchanov]

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.

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.

[Mechaman]

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.

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.

Hell, read THIS forum.  There were even several red avatars that were making fun of people who were suggesting that Democrats be cautious last season.  I myself had predicted a very mediocre result for the GOP (they did hold Kansas, Kentucky, and Georgia, but lost NC, LA (I was way too optimistic about the Dem turnout machine down there), and I think even Alaska).  When the results were coming in most of us on the IRC were like "oh sh*t oh sh*t oh sh*t" before we realized ten minutes later that yeah things weren't going to be good for the Democrats anyway.

The polls weren't conclusive either, unlike 2010 where the results were arguably a disappointment compared to the expectations and polls.  Some liberals actually rejoiced that they kept the Senate and that the Democrats "only" lost sixty something seats instead of the like 80 plus that some thought would happen.

[IceSpear]

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.

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.

It wouldn't surprise me if Daily Kos thought that. But if they represented all Democrats, Hillary would be trailing by 50 points rather than leading by 50 points.

[smoltchanov]

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.

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.

It wouldn't surprise me if Daily Kos thought that. But if they represented all Democrats, Hillary would be trailing by 50 points rather than leading by 50 points.

Well, despite being banned 3 or 4 times there, i must say that DKE as a board is MUCH more reasonable then lunatic mainpagers. And it contains a LOT of very interesting and useful information, which is difficult to find elsewhere. But even "DKE gurus" expected Democrats to win about 50 - 51 seats until early September.