State Legislatures 1993-2017

[Skill and Chance]

Thanks for putting this together.  It basically tells us that the McCain Democrats have finally been wiped out.  It's worth noting that much of this trend happened on maps that were influenced by and even outright controlled by Democrats.  As best I can tell, this is what control of redistricting looked like in 2001.  Note that the one Southern chamber where Democrats have managed to hold on reasonably well, the VA state senate, was drawn by Republicans in 2001.  Green is split control or a deal by the party in control, yellow is non-partisan, 60% shading means one-party control due to veto-proof majority or other special circumstances:

Clearly, redistricting isn't everything.  I fully expect that the bottom will fall out for the downballot GOP in a similar manner in the Bush-Obama states the next time Republicans have full federal control.  The realignment just isn't complete quite yet.

[Skill and Chance]

Very depressing. Thanks Obama.

This is the result of the DNC tearing down the 50 state strategy. That 2010 election is going to haunt Democrats for a long time, much like 1958 had affects for Republicans for decades. 

Republicans - and particularly technically non-partisan interest groups that support Republicans - very wisely figured out that the "ROI" on downballot legislative races and on judicial races is much higher than chasing after the presidency and governorships.

That strategy really came into full force in the 1990s, but it originated in a letter that Lewis Powell wrote to the US Chamber of Commerce before being nominated to the SCOTUS. Elect "business-friendly" judges in low-level judicial elections that no one else pays attention to; eventually they will serve as the bench for appointments or elections to higher courts. Elect county commissioners, state legislators, etc, and you've got a pipeline of candidates for higher office who you already know will be "reliable."

Democrats very foolishly let their lower level infrastructure coast along on the assumption that unions would do the heavy lifting in the North and the "good ol' boy" network would continue to hold together in the South.

Now they're in the wilderness, and unlike the Republicans in the mid-20th century, the Democrats do not have an army of well-to-do housewives with nothing better to do and true-believing businessmen with plenty of money and connections to throw at their cause.

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Yes, there is a notable block of Northerners that split their tickets in the opposite way Blue Dog Democrats do.  Just look at the NY state senate and the near 60% Obama state legislative seats in suburban NOVA still held by Republicans.   

[Skill and Chance]

Any background on whether Florida Cubans could/couldn't vote prior to 1965?  Did it depend on the county?

[Skill and Chance]

Any background on whether Florida Cubans could/couldn't vote prior to 1965?  Did it depend on the county?

I don't think race would have prevented most of them from being able to vote.  Most Cuban Americans are white (of unmixed Spanish ancestry).  They could pass as Italians.

I understand that lighter Hispanic people were generally considered white in the Southwest, but I do wonder if that treatment extended to culturally Southern states?  Also, while someone who looked like Marco Rubio may have fared OK, I have to imagine someone who looked like Susana Martinez would have been subject to serious harassment in a majority white area in that era.  Anyone know how Tejanos faired in early 20th century Texas?  Were they generally able or unable to participate politically?

[Skill and Chance]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

[Skill and Chance]

Democrats REALLY p*ssed the South down their leg in the 2000s...

Yes.  That is my impression as well.  It seems to be an axiom that the party that holds the presidency loses out at the State Legislative level.  The data seems to bear this out in the 1992-2014 period.  During 1992-2000 the GOP gained across the board as well as the 2008-2014 period.  Same is true for Dems in 2000-2008 period EXCEPT for the South.  The GOP continued to gain in the South in the 2000-2008 period despite holding the presidency.  That I think is the key ingredient leading to this imbalance today.   

Southern Democrats at the state legislative level were still effectively a populist 3rd party straight through to 2010.  During 2000-2008, they found it particularly difficult to oppose a Southern populist president, even though he was a Republican.  That's not to say that they would be doing the same things as Tea Party Republicans if the still held power, but they largely did not agree with the Obama agenda and would not be passing it at the state level if they were still in control.

[Skill and Chance]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

I think "Evangelicals" should be lumped in with #1; the homeschooling movement is pretty strong in a lot of the South and Midwest, and many of them are Baptist or nondenominational Christian. 

That's true to a degree.  In my experience, the "average" Evangelical wife seems to work part time for <1/2 her husband's pay while raising 2-4 kids, with the very most conservative doing the homeschooling and the 5+ kid families (remember mainstream Evangelical churches do not oppose birth control per se).       

Edit: I should also note #3 includes farming/ranching/agribusiness in my mind.

[Skill and Chance]

Really? I'm pretty sure 35-40% of stay-at-home moms still vote Democratic today.  Back in the mid-20th century, when almost everyone who could afford to do that did, it's likely about half were Democrats.  There seems to be a weird conservative housewife obsession on this board.  In Texas, that demographic may be near unanimously R (even there, what about the Hispanic community?), but that's far from the case nationally.

If you're interested in the topic and you can access it, I'd highly suggest reading “Women, Domesticity, and Postwar Conservatism" by Michelle Nickerson (in the OAH Magazine of History) for an overview of the topic. Very concise and well-written, with suggestions for further reading.

That's a fascinating theory, I'm just not sure how well it works today.  Consider this data from a report in January: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/where-working-women-are-most-common.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1#/5/35.7/-102.5

It bears little relationship to a presidential election map anywhere west of the Appalachians.  Generally, non-working women seem to be in these (not mutually exclusive) categories:

1. Mormons
2. Hispanic people
3. Resource extraction wives
4. Ivy League/Top 25 school wives

#1 and #3 are overwhelmingly Republican, #2 and #4 (as of 2004) are overwhelmingly Democratic.  Of course, #4 is at most a few 100K people in votes, but they are going to be a major force as political activists and donors.  50 years ago, #4 leaned right while #1 and #3 were much less partisan.  There were also a lot more of #3 back then than today.     

I think "Evangelicals" should be lumped in with #1; the homeschooling movement is pretty strong in a lot of the South and Midwest, and many of them are Baptist or nondenominational Christian. 

That's true to a degree.  In my experience, the "average" Evangelical wife seems to work part time for <1/2 her husband's pay while raising 2-4 kids, with the very most conservative doing the homeschooling and the 5+ kid families (remember mainstream Evangelical churches do not oppose birth control per se).       

Edit: I should also note #3 includes farming/ranching/agribusiness in my mind.

OK, that makes more sense.  That being said, I bet most liberal, stay-at-home "Ivy league wives" do at least some paid work outside the house likewise.

The tax code is a major player in this.  If David and Mary Smith have 2 children and David has a normal $50K job and Mary has the ability to make $20K part time, the family will unambiguously be materially better off with Mary doing at least some formal work.

If James and Sarah Williams have 2 children and James makes $200K either from a highly competitive 80 hour/week job or by running an elite small business, after accounting for childcare costs, married filing jointly, housing costs being 2-5X lower 30-50 miles away from the city center and high-paying clients James would lose without "I only see my kids on the weekend" business travel, Sarah is effectively facing a 100% tax rate on any normal range income she earns.  She probably unofficially runs her husband's business, but it makes no sense for her to have any IRS income (assuming she has not signed away property rights in the event of divorce).  This effect can hit surprisingly normal families in cheap housing areas of Middle America.

[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.