State Legislatures 1993-2017

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There really needs to be separate party systems for state and federal elections (like in Canada). It's unsustainable if pretty much every state has its legislature party set in stone/

[Hydera]

There really needs to be separate party systems for state and federal elections (like in Canada). It's unsustainable if pretty much every state has its legislature party set in stone/

Most state parties do operate independently. For example the Non-southern republican branches are more socially liberal. While the democrat parties in the non-coasts are more conservative. However theres no doubt that they have been unable to shakeoff their association with the National parties especially where democratic party policies have been pissing off a lot of rural voters and that bad perception trickles down even to the local branch that tries to distinguish themselves.

[Republican Michigander]

Somewhat interesting that Florida was the first Southern legislature to go Republican, considering that it was the most Democratic at the presidential level in 2000 and 2004.  I guess the influx of Northerners that made it one of the more GOP-friendly Southern states initially would eventually make it one of the more liberal (in presidential elections) in the 1990s and 2000s.

Florida Gulf Coast has a lot of Midwestern transplants who are largely center-right (Tampa area south to Naples).

[Skill and Chance]

It really is interesting how modest Dem gains of state legislative chambers were during 2006-08 vs. GOP gains during 1994, 2002, and 2010.  Downballot Dem problems are significantly older than Obama.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

It really is interesting how modest Dem gains of state legislative chambers were during 2006-08 vs. GOP gains during 1994, 2002, and 2010.  Downballot Dem problems are significantly older than Obama.

I think a lot of the problem is that there's a double standard. Republican candidates with absolutely NO experience with anything in life - politics, public service, law, farming, or anything - are promoted endlessly by The Media, while Democrats and others are shrugged off no matter how accomplished they are.

[hopper]

It really is interesting how modest Dem gains of state legislative chambers were during 2006-08 vs. GOP gains during 1994, 2002, and 2010.  Downballot Dem problems are significantly older than Obama.

I think a lot of the problem is that there's a double standard. Republican candidates with absolutely NO experience with anything in life - politics, public service, law, farming, or anything - are promoted endlessly by The Media, while Democrats and others are shrugged off no matter how accomplished they are.

What media?

Anyways I just think the party out of the White House maybe(it being the Republicans right now) are just viewed differently. In the 1980's yeah sure the Republicans had the White House but the Dems had most of the State Legislatures and Governorships. In the 2010's the situation has flipped. In the 1990 and for most of the 2000's it didn't make a difference though. The GOP did lose some State Legislatures and Governorships in 2006 and 2008 because they were very disliked but not like the Dems have done in the 2010's.

[hopper]

It really is interesting how modest Dem gains of state legislative chambers were during 2006-08 vs. GOP gains during 1994, 2002, and 2010.  Downballot Dem problems are significantly older than Obama.

Well 2002 was different because the GOP President still had solid approval ratings. I think it was harder for Dems to really pick up State Governorships and State Legislatures in 2006 and 2008 because they weren't connected to the Federal Level(i.e. Iraq and Bush W) where the GOP took a beating in both years in US House and US Senate races.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I remember looking at a reference book around 1985 and noticing that most state legislatures were Democratic. But the most Democratic states were also the most conservative states. I think some states in the Deep South had all-Democratic legislatures.

Back then, the most Democratic state that wasn't part of the Confederacy was probably West Virginia.

[Frodo]

Now that it is clear that Kentucky is Republicanizing at the state and local levels now, how soon will it be before Republicans claim the whole legislature, particularly the House?   

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Now that it is clear that Kentucky is Republicanizing at the state and local levels now, how soon will it be before Republicans claim the whole legislature, particularly the House?

I would have said quicker than I thought before, but then I realized Donald Trump is basically the leader of the Republican Party now.

[user12345]

Now that it is clear that Kentucky is Republicanizing at the state and local levels now, how soon will it be before Republicans claim the whole legislature, particularly the House?   

They'll take it next time its up unless Bevin does something too crazy.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

They'll take it next time its up unless Bevin does something too crazy.

He's done enough crazy stuff already, but that doesn't necessarily stop the GOP.

Remember, they've got the media.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Bump.

After 2016

Obviously an ugly picture for Democrats.  Hopefully they're targeting statehouses in addition to governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire(!!!), and Arizona.

(I want to say Florida and Ohio too, but those maps are too far in the Republicans' favor even if Democrats win the governorships in those states next year.)

[RINO Tom]

Bump.

After 2016

Obviously an ugly picture for Democrats.  Hopefully they're targeting statehouses in addition to governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire(!!!), and Arizona.

(I want to say Florida and Ohio too, but those maps are too far in the Republicans' favor even if Democrats win the governorships in those states next year.)

Democrats (and Republicans) should be targeting state houses in WAY more states than that, IMO.  Anywhere where there is friction, swoop in and save the day.  Whether it's Arkansas or Maryland, Democratic policies can be implemented at the local level, even if the state candidates have to barely resemble the national party.  Same thing with Republicans making gains in somewhere like VT.

[_]

Bump.

After 2016

Obviously an ugly picture for Democrats.  Hopefully they're targeting statehouses in addition to governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire(!!!), and Arizona.

(I want to say Florida and Ohio too, but those maps are too far in the Republicans' favor even if Democrats win the governorships in those states next year.)

Democrats (and Republicans) should be targeting state houses in WAY more states than that, IMO.  Anywhere where there is friction, swoop in and save the day.  Whether it's Arkansas or Maryland, Democratic policies can be implemented at the local level, even if the state candidates have to barely resemble the national party.  Same thing with Republicans making gains in somewhere like VT.

*Cough* TARGET IL *Cough*

[Dr. MB]

I wonder how they would fare by running socially moderate to conservative but fiscally progressive candidates such as how the South was run prior to 1970s.

[KingSweden]

I wonder how they would fare by running socially moderate to conservative but fiscally progressive candidates such as how the South was run prior to 1970s.

Only way to win. Q is if they get any DNC support in this day and age, when social issues are much more of a red line for both parties.

[TheLeftwardTide]

This map progression is incredibly depressing.

[smoltchanov]

This map progression is incredibly depressing.

Well, not too surprising at all. Southern legislatures finally followed Presidential and Congressional South - one. Rural areas (less socially liberal, pro-gun and so on) mostly followed - two. Self-packing of Democrats in relatively few districts, where they get 80-90 (and more) percentages of vote, but which doesn't change the final result (number of districts won) even a iota (you could win the same districts with 55% and get the same result) - three. Gerrymandering (yes, in 2010 - mostly Republican) - four. Possibly also VRA, which leads to creation of relatively small number of very reliable minority-majority Democratic districts and very big number of Republican (or, at least, Republican-leaning) majority white districts - five. General ideologization of parties (and there are still more conservatives then liberals) - six. And so on.....

In about 2040, when whites will become a minority in the country, all that will be mostly mitigated by changing demography, but until then - .......

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Bump.

After 2016

Obviously an ugly picture for Democrats.  Hopefully they're targeting statehouses in addition to governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire(!!!), and Arizona.

(I want to say Florida and Ohio too, but those maps are too far in the Republicans' favor even if Democrats win the governorships in those states next year.)

Democrats (and Republicans) should be targeting state houses in WAY more states than that, IMO.  Anywhere where there is friction, swoop in and save the day.  Whether it's Arkansas or Maryland, Democratic policies can be implemented at the local level, even if the state candidates have to barely resemble the national party.  Same thing with Republicans making gains in somewhere like VT.

*Cough* TARGET IL *Cough*

Colorado Dems are literally one seat in the state Senate away from a trifecta there. Assuming they can hold on the governorship and the House, there are 10 Rs up for reelection in the Senate and only 7 Ds. Some of those Rs are in suburban areas where Democrats nationally they've been making gains (Thornton, Golden, etc). Prime pickup opportunity there in 2018.

[Dr. Arch]

Bump.

After 2016

Obviously an ugly picture for Democrats.  Hopefully they're targeting statehouses in addition to governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire(!!!), and Arizona.

(I want to say Florida and Ohio too, but those maps are too far in the Republicans' favor even if Democrats win the governorships in those states next year.)

Democrats have to win close to 70% of the popular vote to get majorities in the WI state congress. It's just that lopsidedly gerrymandered.

[Virginiá]

Democrats have to win close to 70% of the popular vote to get majorities in the WI state congress. It's just that lopsidedly gerrymandered.

That is why the gubernatorial elections are so important. This is going to have to be a multi-cycle effort, and fortunately for Democrats, 2018 leaves Republicans over-extended in Govs offices, with many term-limited. 2020 hopefully will give them an opportunity to build on that in a more limited number of states, such as Indiana, Missouri, etc.

If Democrats do well, they can have a much less painful round of redistricting in 2021-2022.

[Mr.Phips]

Democrats have to win close to 70% of the popular vote to get majorities in the WI state congress. It's just that lopsidedly gerrymandered.

That is why the gubernatorial elections are so important. This is going to have to be a multi-cycle effort, and fortunately for Democrats, 2018 leaves Republicans over-extended in Govs offices, with many term-limited. 2020 hopefully will give them an opportunity to build on that in a more limited number of states, such as Indiana, Missouri, etc.

If Democrats do well, they can have a much less painful round of redistricting in 2021-2022.

Yes, winning governorships in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio will not give Democrats control of redistricting in those states (the legislatures are way too gerrymandered), but it will give them a seat at the redistricting table where they can force fair congressional and legislative maps.  I've long said that fair maps in those states would almost automatically result in Democrats picking up six House seats.

[Virginiá]

Yes, winning governorships in Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Ohio will not give Democrats control of redistricting in those states (the legislatures are way too gerrymandered), but it will give them a seat at the redistricting table where they can force fair congressional and legislative maps.  I've long said that fair maps in those states would almost automatically result in Democrats picking up six House seats.

Funny enough, because Democrats completely swept the state Supreme Court races in 2015, they now have control of the legislative redistricting process due the way PA handles those maps. The commission is bipartisan, but the Supreme Court picks the tie breaker. It's not guaranteed for Democrats, but with a 5-2 majority, it's about as good a shot as they will get. Further, if Governor Wolf holds on, that gives them veto power over anything they don't like, including Congressional maps. It might even be enough to force Republicans to give in to redistricting reform before 2021.

On top of that, there is another Republican-held state Supreme Court seat up in November, and the other one is up for a retention vote. Democrats could deepen their bench further to a 6-1 majority.

And if that wasn't good enough, there is a lawsuit being heard in PA state courts challenging the Congressional map I believe as a partisan gerrymander. It might be possible that the PA Supreme Court starts throwing out gerrymanders as a violation of their constitution. With such a big Democratic majority on the court, I'm feeling relatively good about that.

[Gustaf]

Democrats have to win close to 70% of the popular vote to get majorities in the WI state congress. It's just that lopsidedly gerrymandered.

That is why the gubernatorial elections are so important. This is going to have to be a multi-cycle effort, and fortunately for Democrats, 2018 leaves Republicans over-extended in Govs offices, with many term-limited. 2020 hopefully will give them an opportunity to build on that in a more limited number of states, such as Indiana, Missouri, etc.

If Democrats do well, they can have a much less painful round of redistricting in 2021-2022.

Yeah. Those gubernatorial races in places like Florida, PA, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Virginia will go a long way towards making the chambers and congressional maps much more competitive.

Chambers that Dems should target for takeover prior to redistricting are:
VA Senate (this should be the easiest)
CO Senate
VA House (if they gained about ten seats or so this year it puts them in position for 2019)
FL Senate (Probably heaviest lift on this list. Would probably take good D years in 2018 and 2020)
MI House
MN Senate
NY Senate
NH House
NH Senate
ME Senate
CT Senate
AZ Senate

MN House

Surely Maine and New Hampshire are pretty low priority from a redistricting perspective since they only have 2 CDs each and thus little room for gerrymandering?