An interesting data point re:the Senate, 'minority government', and turnout

[Karpatsky]

Seeing that someone stupidly decided to make '53%' into a slogan in protest of Kavanaugh's nomination, I did some research to find the actual distribution of Senate votes. This based on that vote:

Shelby	2016	1335104		Jones	2017	673896
Sullivan	2014	135445		Murkowski	2016	138149
Flake	2012	1104457		Feinstein	2012	7864624
Kyl	2016	1359267		Harris	2016	7542753
Boozman	2016	661984		Bennet	2016	1370710
Cotton	2014	478819		Blumenthal	2016	1008714
Gardner	2014	983891		Murphy	2012	815077
Rubio	2016	4835191		Carper	2012	265374
Isakson	2016	2135806		Coons	2014	130655
Perdue	2014	1358088		Nelson	2012	4523451
Crapo	2016	449017		Schatz	2016	306604
Risch	2014	285596		Hirono	2012	269489
Young	2016	1423001		Durbin	2014	1929637
Grassley	2016	926007		Duckworth	2016	3012940
Ernst	2014	588575		Donnelly	2012	1281181
Roberts	2014	460350		King	2012	368724
Moran	2016	732376		Cardin	2012	1402092
McConnel	2014	806787		Van Hollen	2016	1483025
Paul	2016	1090177		Warren	2012	1696346
Cassidy	2014	712379		Markey	2014	1289944
Kennedy	2016	536191		Stabenow	2012	2735826
Collins	2014	413495		Peters	2014	1704936
Wicker	2012	709626		Klobuchar	2012	1854595
Hyde-Smith	2014	378481		Smith	2014	1053205
Blunt	2016	1378458		McCaskill	2012	1484683
Daines	2014	210863		Tester	2012	236123
Fischer	2012	455593		Cortez Masto	2016	521994
Sasse	2014	347636		Shaheen	2014	251184
Heller	2012	457656		Hassan	2016	354649
Burr	2016	2395376		Menendez	2012	1987680
Tillis	2014	1423259		Booker	2014	1043866
Hoeven	2016	268788		Udall	2014	286409
Portman	2016	3118567		Heinrich	2012	395717
Inhofe	2014	558166		Schumer	2016	5221945
Lankford	2016	980892		Gillibrand	2012	4822330
Toomey	2012	2951702		Heitkamp	2012	161337
Graham	2014	672942		Brown	2012	2762757
Scott	2016	1241609		Wyden	2016	1105119
Thune	2016	265516		Merkley	2014	814537
Rounds	2014	140741		Casey	2012	3021364
Alexander	2014	849748		Reed	2014	223675
Corker	2012	1506443		Whitehouse	2012	271034
Cornyn	2014	2855068		Leahy	2016	192243
Cruz	2012	4440137		Sanders	2012	207848
Hatch	2012	595972		Warner	2014	1073667
Lee	2016	760241		Kaine	2012	2010067
Manchin	2012	394532		Murray	2016	1913979
Moore Capito	2014	280123		Cantwell	2012	1855493
Johnson	2016	1479471		Baldwin	2012	1547104
Enzi	2014	121554
Barasso	2012	184531
		54235694				78488751
		40.9%				59.1%

Obviously this ignores third parties, but I don't imagine it would change much. I expected there to be some gap, but not quite so significant - while a lot is made about Democrats being a 'coastal elite' party, if the votes from California and New York are completely removed, the vote balance remains almost perfectly tied. Besides making it clear exactly how unrepresentative the Senate is as an institution, while looking into the details of some of these elections, I was surprised at how big a deal off-year turnout is, and how competitive some supposedly solid states could be with unequal turnout. For example, Cory Booker would have lost by a significant margin in 2014 had the Republicans been able to keep their 2012 turnout. Similarly, Nebraska would have gone the same way but been decided by less than 8000 votes had the Democrats done the same. From this perspective, it becomes clearer how Jones achieved his victory in 2017. If anything, this exercise has convinced me that boosting turnout is probably an easier way to achieve an upset in a 'generic' election than trying to appeal to moderates - though this of course depends on the particulars.

[muon2]

Seeing that someone stupidly decided to make '53%' into a slogan in protest of Kavanaugh's nomination, I did some research to find the actual distribution of Senate votes. This based on that vote:

Shelby	2016	1335104		Jones	2017	673896
Sullivan	2014	135445		Murkowski	2016	138149
Flake	2012	1104457		Feinstein	2012	7864624
Kyl	2016	1359267		Harris	2016	7542753
Boozman	2016	661984		Bennet	2016	1370710
Cotton	2014	478819		Blumenthal	2016	1008714
Gardner	2014	983891		Murphy	2012	815077
Rubio	2016	4835191		Carper	2012	265374
Isakson	2016	2135806		Coons	2014	130655
Perdue	2014	1358088		Nelson	2012	4523451
Crapo	2016	449017		Schatz	2016	306604
Risch	2014	285596		Hirono	2012	269489
Young	2016	1423001		Durbin	2014	1929637
Grassley	2016	926007		Duckworth	2016	3012940
Ernst	2014	588575		Donnelly	2012	1281181
Roberts	2014	460350		King	2012	368724
Moran	2016	732376		Cardin	2012	1402092
McConnel	2014	806787		Van Hollen	2016	1483025
Paul	2016	1090177		Warren	2012	1696346
Cassidy	2014	712379		Markey	2014	1289944
Kennedy	2016	536191		Stabenow	2012	2735826
Collins	2014	413495		Peters	2014	1704936
Wicker	2012	709626		Klobuchar	2012	1854595
Hyde-Smith	2014	378481		Smith	2014	1053205
Blunt	2016	1378458		McCaskill	2012	1484683
Daines	2014	210863		Tester	2012	236123
Fischer	2012	455593		Cortez Masto	2016	521994
Sasse	2014	347636		Shaheen	2014	251184
Heller	2012	457656		Hassan	2016	354649
Burr	2016	2395376		Menendez	2012	1987680
Tillis	2014	1423259		Booker	2014	1043866
Hoeven	2016	268788		Udall	2014	286409
Portman	2016	3118567		Heinrich	2012	395717
Inhofe	2014	558166		Schumer	2016	5221945
Lankford	2016	980892		Gillibrand	2012	4822330
Toomey	2012	2951702		Heitkamp	2012	161337
Graham	2014	672942		Brown	2012	2762757
Scott	2016	1241609		Wyden	2016	1105119
Thune	2016	265516		Merkley	2014	814537
Rounds	2014	140741		Casey	2012	3021364
Alexander	2014	849748		Reed	2014	223675
Corker	2012	1506443		Whitehouse	2012	271034
Cornyn	2014	2855068		Leahy	2016	192243
Cruz	2012	4440137		Sanders	2012	207848
Hatch	2012	595972		Warner	2014	1073667
Lee	2016	760241		Kaine	2012	2010067
Manchin	2012	394532		Murray	2016	1913979
Moore Capito	2014	280123		Cantwell	2012	1855493
Johnson	2016	1479471		Baldwin	2012	1547104
Enzi	2014	121554
Barasso	2012	184531
		54235694				78488751
		40.9%				59.1%

Obviously this ignores third parties, but I don't imagine it would change much. I expected there to be some gap, but not quite so significant - while a lot is made about Democrats being a 'coastal elite' party, if the votes from California and New York are completely removed, the vote balance remains almost perfectly tied. Besides making it clear exactly how unrepresentative the Senate is as an institution, while looking into the details of some of these elections, I was surprised at how big a deal off-year turnout is, and how competitive some supposedly solid states could be with unequal turnout. For example, Cory Booker would have lost by a significant margin in 2014 had the Republicans been able to keep their 2012 turnout. Similarly, Nebraska would have gone the same way but been decided by less than 8000 votes had the Democrats done the same. From this perspective, it becomes clearer how Jones achieved his victory in 2017. If anything, this exercise has convinced me that boosting turnout is probably an easier way to achieve an upset in a 'generic' election than trying to appeal to moderates - though this of course depends on the particulars.

Nice chart, but the highlighted text is key, and known to every political operative for years. Ads are designed to boost turnout and depress the opposition, not to debate issues. The public may say they don't like that style, but it works. As long as it keeps working then the public opinion of such turnout-driven strategies will be ignored in favor of results.

[Del Tachi]

I've seen exercises like this before and I think they're rather dumb.  If the Senate is supposed to be a nationally representative institution, then you should also be counting all the votes for losing candidates (i.e., Republicans in California and New York, Democrats in Texas, etc.).  California's jungle primary system also royally messes this up and makes it impossible to tabulate.