Is Congress automatically Republican favored?

[ElectionsGuy]

I think it is -- here's why:

In the house, districts are drawn with equal population. While this is definitely fair, it definitely packs in more overwhelmingly D seats than overwhelmingly R seats. The only way this isn't true is if district drawers draw ridiculous districts that combine different areas of the state to even it out vote wise. America I think is a natural gerrymander in that sense, and Republicans will have favor-ability for that reason for years to come.

In the Senate, smaller states are disproportionately Republican. For example, of those states with less than 10 electoral votes, 17 voted Republican and 12 voted Democratic (including DC) in 2012. Because 2 Senators come from each state no matter what, Republicans should be able to maintain more Senators. And because red state Democrats pretty much had their last straw in 2014, Republicans theoretically should be able to keep the Senate in their favor, so long as Democrats don't win almost every Senate seat in battleground states.

I think we are in a time opposite of the era from the late 60's to the early 90's, where Republicans have favor-ability over Congress and Democrats have favor-ability over the Presidency, and not the other way around.

[publicunofficial]

The fact that liberals will always accumulate in cities while conservatives will stick to mostly rural areas does more to rig the map than anything else. It's only recently that has meant one-party dominance, as Democrats fail to win conservatives while the GOP has purged itself of liberals.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The House; but not the Senate. Senority is a high priority in the House; as the GOP old guards reestablished their dominsnce over cmte chairs when the GOP took over in 2010, again.

In the Senate, which I think will flip again, nxt time around; has a 60 vote point of order, so new makeup, depending on the Senate class, keeps changing.

[Nyvin]

If we see a Republican President, we might see the Democrats winning more congressional seats and state legislatures.   Just like they did during the Bush years.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No; to a Jeb presidency.

[Hydera]

If we see a Republican President, we might see the Democrats winning more congressional seats and state legislatures.   Just like they did during the Bush years.

Hypothetically with a republican winning two terms, 2022 Would probably be worse in performance than 2006.

I mean... hell, the democrats actually had control of both chambers in arkansas, louisiana, mississippi and friggin alabama....

[smoltchanov]

House - sure. Senate is more volatile.

[Torie]

Yes, I think based on the how the lines of CD's and the states are drawn, the relative population of the states, and their political disposition, the Pubs have a playing field in both the House and the Senate that favors them to some extent. Think of the Senate, and the partisan cast of the small states, with 3 or fewer CD seats. The Dems have the advantage in Vermont, RI, Hawaii and Delaware. The Pubs now have the Dakotas, Montana, WV, Neb, Wyoming, Idaho and Alaska favoring them. The trends in Montana and WV and the Dakotas have increased this advantage in the Senate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The bulk of the retirements are gone in the Senate, Vonvich, Harkin, Conrad and Johnson had bipartisan appeal. The senators that replaced are emboldened by Tea Party.

The senate class of 2016 and 2018 wont have to deal with the openess of these seats; whereas Strickland and Feingold will have history on their side, which the states tend to favor their political party.

Remember, the President of senate is the Majority Leader who presides, not chair the chamber, like Speaker does. The senate isnt confined to one party rule.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Then maybe a court needs to step in to guarantee more competitive districts.

[Torie]

Then maybe a court needs to step in to guarantee more competitive districts.

SCOTUS was asked to do that, and just said no, in essence saying gerrymandering is as American as apple pie. Not that ending gerrymandering will eliminate the Pub advantage when it comes to the number of CD's that lean their way vis a vis the popular vote, because it won't, but I digress.

[Nyvin]

Then maybe a court needs to step in to guarantee more competitive districts.

SCOTUS was asked to do that, and just said no, in essence saying gerrymandering is as American as apple pie. Not that ending gerrymandering will eliminate the Pub advantage when it comes to the number of CD's that lean their way vis a vis the popular vote, because it won't, but I digress.

The GOP advantage isn't the popular vote...in 2012 they won fewer overall votes but got significantly more seats.

[Beet]

Nyvin, Torie was referring to the point made by the OP that even without gerrymandering, the compactness issue hurts Democrats.

There's no way out of it without changing the geographical distribution of Democratic votes, and the trends there are in the wrong direction. The only remaining solution is to moderate the party so that it wins a slight super-majority of the popular vote, thus making up for the legislative disadvantage. One forgets that in the 60s to the 90s, the Democrats were a big tent party that had conservatives as well as liberals. It's amazing today some of the people who are considered blue dogs or moderates- back in the day, they would have been solidly in the liberal camp compared to the true conservatives in the Democratic party.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I think it is -- here's why:

In the house, districts are drawn with equal population. While this is definitely fair, it definitely packs in more overwhelmingly D seats than overwhelmingly R seats. The only way this isn't true is if district drawers draw ridiculous districts that combine different areas of the state to even it out vote wise. America I think is a natural gerrymander in that sense, and Republicans will have favor-ability for that reason for years to come.

In the Senate, smaller states are disproportionately Republican. For example, of those states with less than 10 electoral votes, 17 voted Republican and 12 voted Democratic (including DC) in 2012. Because 2 Senators come from each state no matter what, Republicans should be able to maintain more Senators. And because red state Democrats pretty much had their last straw in 2014, Republicans theoretically should be able to keep the Senate in their favor, so long as Democrats don't win almost every Senate seat in battleground states.

I think we are in a time opposite of the era from the late 60's to the early 90's, where Republicans have favor-ability over Congress and Democrats have favor-ability over the Presidency, and not the other way around.

1994 changed congress from democrats hands to republican hands for a long time

[aktheden]

Yes..because democrats tend to be urban dwellers

[Skill and Chance]

House: Yes, even without gerrymandering, I would expect an even election nationally to produce 230 or so R seats with Dems needing to win by at least 3-4% to take control.

Senate: Technically yes, but it's a pretty fair fight.  Obama won 26 states in 2012, 24 of those by more than his national margin, so the expected outcome is probably 52R/48D, To take control, they need only win every seat that Obama won twice, which is a lot more than you can say about the House.  It's hardly insurmountable, particularly if you believe places like CO, NV, NH and VA will drift further left with time.  There's also the matter of upsets being historically more likely in small rural states, which seemed to still hold up in 2012.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

House: 235R-200DYes, even without gerrymandering, I would expect an even election nationally to produce 230 or so R seats with Dems needing to win by at least 3-4% to take control.

Senate: Technically yes, but it's a pretty fair fight.  Obama won 26 states in 2012, 24 of those by more than his national margin, so the expected outcome is probably 52R/48D, To take control, they need only win every seat that Obama won twice, which is a lot more than you can say about the House.  It's hardly insurmountable, particularly if you believe places like CO, NV, NH and VA will drift further left with time.  There's also the matter of upsets being historically more likely in small rural states, which seemed to still hold up in 2012.

CO & NV; IL & WI; NH, OH& Pa for a 4-5 seat pickup in Senate

[Torie]

House: Yes, even without gerrymandering, I would expect an even election nationally to produce 230 or so R seats with Dems needing to win by at least 3-4% to take control.

Senate: Technically yes, but it's a pretty fair fight.  Obama won 26 states in 2012, 24 of those by more than his national margin, so the expected outcome is probably 52R/48D, To take control, they need only win every seat that Obama won twice, which is a lot more than you can say about the House.  It's hardly insurmountable, particularly if you believe places like CO, NV, NH and VA will drift further left with time.  There's also the matter of upsets being historically more likely in small rural states, which seemed to still hold up in 2012.

Interesting. Thanks. Lots of tipping point states, and then the trends. I retract my comment.