State Partisan Control, 2005-2019

[Antonio the Sixth]

Part 5 of a 5-part series of post-election analysis:

Part I: Composition of the House by Region, 1912-2018
Part II: Senate Elections Model - Post-2018 Update
Part III: Assessing 538's performances in 2018
Part IV: 2018 and America's New Political Geography
Part V: State Partisan Control, 2005-2019


Hi all! We have reached the final installment of my deep dive into 2018 election results. As you can see, most of these have been focused on the outcome of Congressional elections. However, State elections are of considerable importance too, and a lot was at stake last November in this respect. With most governors and State legislators up for reelection, Democrats had a chance to make up for their losses throughout Obama's presidency and provide a key counterweight to the T***p administration. Did they succeed? Well... yes and no. The Democrats' gains were real, but put them in a bit of historical perspective makes them fairly underwhelming. Let's look at a few measures and see how they have changed since Bush was reelected.


State Legislatures

Let's start with State Legislatures - the main institution where policy gets done. After the 2018 election, this is the new map of State legislative control, with the number of States and share of the US population (based on the 2010 census) indicated at the bottom. Note that there are two States (Ohio and Alaska) that are ambiguous, since there are signals that their lower house might end up being run by a bipartisan coalition, but I don't think these talks have concretized yet, so they're marked as Republican-controlled until further notice.

Republican: 31 States, 59.0%
Democratic: 18 States, 39.3%
Split: 1 State, 1.7%

As you can see, despite the strong national environment for Democrats, Republicans are still very much in control of lawmaking across the country. Over three fifths of US States, and almost the same share of the US population, still live under a fully Republican-controlled legislature. This map is eerily similar to that of 2016, with all the States that voted for T***p having Republican legislatures (along with Virginia). The implications are stunning: even as Democrats win the popular vote by upwards of 8 points, they still seem unable to break through in T***p country at the legislative level. Of course, a lot of this is the product of gerrymandering. Democrats won the state legislative popular vote in Wisconsin, Michigan and, if my memory serves, several other Republican-controlled states. Still, this points to more structural problems in the Democratic coalition.

How does this compare to other elections in the modern era? To find out, I've collected data on State legislative control since 2005. The following chart plots the percentage of the US population governed by Republican, Democratic and split legislatures over the course of that time (these percentages are always based on 2010 census figures for comparability purposes).



As it turns out, 2018 barely put a dent on Republican-controlled legislatures. To this day, Republicans still hold full legislative control over a greater share of the US population than they did before the 2016 election cycle. And this is, by all accounts, a historically strong position. Even in the Bush years, Republicans only held that amount of power over 45% of the population. It was only in 2010 that the share of the population controlled by a Republican legislature exceeded 50%. From there, it continued to rise steadily until peaking slightly over 60% in the 2017-2018 period. The fact that it has barely budged from this height should be a source of concern for Democrats. If they managed to flip a chamber in Michigan, Pennsylvania or Virginia (which they came tantalizingly close to doing) would go a long way toward bringing back some balance.

Does that mean that 2018 was a waste for Democrats at the State legislative level? Far from it. As you can see from the chart, the share of the population ruled by Democratic legislatures went up substantially, from less than 30% to almost 40%. The most prized conquest was obviously the New York Senate, which had been ruled by a coalition of Republicans and renegade Democrats for most of the past decade. However, Democrats also took over the legislatures in ME, NH, CT and CO. The twist, though, is that all these gains except NH came in States that had split legislatures - in other words, Democrats already controlled one house, and managed to flip the second one to achieve full legislative control. By contrast, only MN's state legislature used to be fully Republican and became split after 2018 (it is, at this point, the only one in the country in this situation). Looking at the chart, we can see a precipitous decline in the number of split legislatures over the past decade. From a peak of 28% of the population in 2008, they have been reduced to less than 2%. It seems likely that this is a byproduct of polarization, with few States being closely divided enough to elect two chambers with opposing majorities.

To see, how much has the state legislative landscape changed in a decade and a half, here's how things looked in the wake of Bush's second term:

It seems amazing to think of now, but just a decade ago most of the Deep South was solidly in Democratic hands at the legislative level, and even in places like Oklahoma (which hasn't voted to the left of the nation since the 50s) Republicans didn't enjoy full control. This all evaporated over the course of Obama's presidency: Alabama and North Carolina fell in 2010, Arkansas in 2012, West Virginia in 2014. In Kentucky's House of Representatives, Democrats valiantly held out even until 2016 before finally falling to the T***pslide. In short, what we have seen in State legislatures this past decade is the third and final act of the post-Civil Rights backlash in the South: after the Presidency (1964-1980) and Congress (1994-2004), Democrats finally lost their grip on Southern State legislatures as well. Outside the South, the main change has been polarization: a bunch of States that had split legislatures broke the gridlock in favor of their preferred party (mostly Democrats). The Midwest, interestingly, looks almost unchanged. Still, that in itself is telling: 2004 was a pretty bad year for Democrats, and still they were in a slightly better position in the Midwest at that time than they are right now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

State Legislative Seats

Before moving on to Governorships, I want to dig a little deeper into the data we have for State Legislatures. Obviously, what matters ultimately for a party is to win a majority in whatever body they're competing for. Holding 51% of the seats is a lot better than holding 49%, as the last year in Senate politics has shown. Still, there is a difference between holding 51% of the seats and holing 80%, and between 49% and 20%. A weak majority can sometimes fail to enact its agenda, while a particularly strong one can not only override gubernatorial vetos, but also pass constitutional amendments.

That being the case, I want to take a look at the share of seats held by parties across State Legislatures in the country. Conveniently, the National Consortium of State Legislatures has detailed seat breakdowns for State Legislatures every year since 2009, and I managed to find a source that adds data for 2006, 2007 and 2008. So I compiled the data and crunched the numbers. When there were ambiguities, I compared these figures with those from Wikipedia and other sources like Ballotpedia, and went with the numbers that struck me as more plausible. The current standings of parties in State legislatures are summarized below, first for State Houses and then for State Senates. In addition to the raw share of seats, I also calculate a "weighted" version that takes into account a State's population relative to the number of seats a house has (so, for example, a seat in the California Senate is worth a lot more than a seat in the NH house of representatives). Nebraska's unicameral legislature is counted on both tallies.

State Houses:

Democrats: 2618 seats, 51.5% weighted
Republicans: 2819 seats, 48.4% weighted
Others: 23 seats, 0.1% weighted

State Senates:

Republicans: 1088 seats, 51.6% weighted
Democrats: 880 seats, 48.3% weighted
Others: 4 seats, 0.1% weighted

So, despite the imbalance in State legislature control, we see that in terms of seats held (once we account for population) there is substantial parity between the two parties. Democrats hold slightly more State House seats, and Republicans hold slightly more State Senate seats. If we average the two weighted measures (which makes sense, since in almost every State the two houses have basically identical powers), we see that, overall, Republicans have a minuscule 0.05-point edge over Democrats (49.98% to 49.93%). In other words, at the State Legislative level the two parties represent roughly half of the population each. The fact that this translates into a 60/40 split at the State level seems to be a product of (say it with me!) a Republican geographic advantage. In a lot of large States like PA, MI, FL, NC, GA and even TX, Republicans hold relatively close majorities. Meanwhile, the three large States controlled by Democrats (CA, NY and IL) all now have commanding Democratic majorities. So, Democrats not only earn a lot of "wasted votes" from those States, they also appear to hold a lot of "wasted seats" there. Although, as I said at the beginning, they might not necessarily entirely wasted. The Democrats' dominance in these States might allow them to pursue bold policies that wouldn't be sustainable with razor-thin majorities.

How does the current breakdown of State Legislative seats compare with those of previous cycles? In the chart below I have plotted my averages of the population-weighted seat breakdowns for State Houses and State Senates (henceforth referred to as SLRI for State Legislative Representation Index) for previous years since 2006 (I don't have data for 2005, but since 2005 and 2006 are part of the same legislative session in most States that isn't too big a deal).



As you can see, we have essentially come full circle over the course of 13 years. In 2006, on the eve of a Democratic landslide that would turn President Bush into a lame duck, Democrats and Republicans were essentially tied in the SLRI, just like they are now in the wake of a new Democratic wave. Of course, this is itself a little disappointing for Democrats: all these gains have only taken us back to a level playing field. Still, the gains look a lot more substantial when we look at them this way than if we look at aggregate State control. In the previous chart, we saw that the difference in the share of the population controlled by each party (20 points), was almost the same as it was in 2011, here we see that Democrats are in a stronger position than they have been at any time since the 2010 Republican landslide. Of course, they still haven't returned to the 2007-2010 golden age, where they held solid majorities, but this has nevertheless undone much of the Republican gains since then. It has often been said that "Democrats lost over 900 State legislative seats under Obama". That figure comports with my data: in 2009, Democrats held 4116 seats, while in 2016 they were reduced to 3148 (a total loss of 968 seats). However, a better way to put it would be that Democrats saw their SLRI collapse from 53.8% to 44.8%. Of this 9-point loss, Democrats have regained 5.1 points, bringing them back to 49.9%. In other words, they have erased more than half of the GOP's gains over the Obama years.

[Skill and Chance]

It is truly amazing how long downballot Dems held out in the more rural Southern states.  And you can't say they were uniformly conservative either.  I wonder if we will see anything equivalent in the future?  For a while, I thought it would be Republican legislative control in Virginia, but it now seems highly likely their time in the majority is up this fall.

[Nyvin]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well. 

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?). 

[Politician]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well. 

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?). 

Ducey is the governor, so it can't flip to a Democratic trifecta.

IMO the Dems have a good shot in 2020 at flipping the AK House, AZ House+Senate, FL Senate (crucial for redistricting), IA House, MI House, MN Senate, NC House+Senate, PA House+Senate, TX House, and WI Senate, and can conceivably break R supermajorities in the OH House and the KS House.

[Skill and Chance]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well. 

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?). 

Ducey is the governor, so it can't flip to a Democratic trifecta.

IMO the Dems have a good shot in 2020 at flipping the AK House, AZ House+Senate, FL Senate (crucial for redistricting), IA House, MI House, MN Senate, NC House+Senate, PA House+Senate, TX House, and WI Senate, and can conceivably break R supermajorities in the OH House and the KS House.

There appears to be no LG tiebreaker in Florida, so they should only have to tie it to get a say in redistricting.  That, along with MN Senate, TX House, and 1/3rd of the KS House (plausible to do this now by getting more suburban R party switchers) should be the top priorities.  NC House and GA House are worth a strong effort as well because a say in redistricting in either state would be so valuable, but the odds of actually flipping control are long.  I wouldn't say chambers where there is both an R governor and an independent redistricting commission are worthy of as much effort. 

[Gass3268]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well. 

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?). 

Ducey is the governor, so it can't flip to a Democratic trifecta.

IMO the Dems have a good shot in 2020 at flipping the AK House, AZ House+Senate, FL Senate (crucial for redistricting), IA House, MI House, MN Senate, NC House+Senate, PA House+Senate, TX House, and WI Senate, and can conceivably break R supermajorities in the OH House and the KS House.

There appears to be no LG tiebreaker in Florida, so they should only have to tie it to get a say in redistricting.  That, along with MN Senate, TX House, and 1/3rd of the KS House (plausible to do this now by getting more suburban R party switchers) should be the top priorities.  NC House and GA House are worth a strong effort as well because a say in redistricting in either state would be so valuable, but the odds of actually flipping control are long.  I wouldn't say chambers where there is both an R governor and an independent redistricting commission are worthy of as much effort. 

North Carolina's Sate Supreme Court is gonna make the help things out there as well.

[Skill and Chance]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well. 

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?). 

Ducey is the governor, so it can't flip to a Democratic trifecta.

IMO the Dems have a good shot in 2020 at flipping the AK House, AZ House+Senate, FL Senate (crucial for redistricting), IA House, MI House, MN Senate, NC House+Senate, PA House+Senate, TX House, and WI Senate, and can conceivably break R supermajorities in the OH House and the KS House.

There appears to be no LG tiebreaker in Florida, so they should only have to tie it to get a say in redistricting.  That, along with MN Senate, TX House, and 1/3rd of the KS House (plausible to do this now by getting more suburban R party switchers) should be the top priorities.  NC House and GA House are worth a strong effort as well because a say in redistricting in either state would be so valuable, but the odds of actually flipping control are long.  I wouldn't say chambers where there is both an R governor and an independent redistricting commission are worthy of as much effort. 

North Carolina's Sate Supreme Court is gonna make the help things out there as well.

Good point.  Georgia House should be a much higher Dem priority in light of that.  It's a long shot, but if they can't do it now they won't get another chance at either chamber until 2032 (unless Roberts and/or Kavanaugh do something really surprising in the partisan gerrymandering cases).

[Antonio the Sixth]

Thanks all for the comments! I think all the state legislative chambers cited are plausible gains for Democrats. However, one thing to keep in mind is that not many legislatures tend to flip in Presidential cycles (you can see in the first chart I posted that the biggest changes tend to happen in Midterm years). Still, if Democrats have a good year in 2020, I'd say maybe one or two out of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania or NC are real shot.

It is truly amazing how long downballot Dems held out in the more rural Southern states.  And you can't say they were uniformly conservative either.  I wonder if we will see anything equivalent in the future?  For a while, I thought it would be Republican legislative control in Virginia, but it now seems highly likely their time in the majority is up this fall.

It's hard to say because of how much State legislative control currently matches a state's partisan lean. I guess I could see a State like Wisconsin continue to elect Republican majorities even if it trends back to Democrats at the Presidential level (unless the gerrymanders are finally struck down). Conversely, the Minnesota Democratic party looks healthy enough that it could stay in control of at least one chamber even if the State keeps trending right. There's also the chance that one of the States that are trending Democratic at the Presidential level remain Republican locally. I could see that being the case in Florida, for example.

[Oryxslayer]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well.  

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?).  

Ducey is the governor, so it can't flip to a Democratic trifecta.

IMO the Dems have a good shot in 2020 at flipping the AK House, AZ House+Senate, FL Senate (crucial for redistricting), IA House, MI House, MN Senate, NC House+Senate, PA House+Senate, TX House, and WI Senate, and can conceivably break R supermajorities in the OH House and the KS House.

I mean, if the Democrats couldn't flip the big midwest chambers in 2018 when they are up by 8% nationally, why would they make some big gains in 2020 when the margin will be closer?

I mean, heres a basic rundown of the chambers:

 Alaska - this ones weird, and politics seems to be less based on Party ID and instead more parochial interests and cross-party pacts to form governing majorities. So I doubt a majority will be formed against the governor, but I admit I know little of AK poltiics.

Arizona - Definitely a dem target in 2020, the state house is probably more tempting then the state sentate.

FL Sen - I mean...how? Dems needed another pickup in 2018 to probably put the chamber in play, just looking at the map. 9 and 39 are the obvious targets, but then Dems need one more to tie (without a breaker), two to take. The route either goes through the pubbish SW with 21/23 or the increasingly Trumpish Treasure coast with 25. Considering how FL consistently bucks national trends, it would require a miracle to flip 3, when the third is going to be a lift.

GA House: More targets, but the ATL suburbs will still be a hard lift, since dems got most of the low hanging fruit in 2018. Chance of flip will be low.

IA house - Definitely a Dem target, but this one feels like a "missed in 2018, can't in 2020." Dems still are defending more trump turf, and pubs could easily go on offense here.

KS - Whats going to make this hard is that the dem targets are mostly moderate R's who would help bust the radical R's control. So, hard to say.

MI House - Really a case of missed in 2018, might not in 2020. Dems even went backwards in the Upper Peninsula. Still available though, but it will require a similar margin to sweep the surburbs for more dem pickups there.

MN Senate - Gimmi.

NC House+Senate - We really have no idea if new maps are happening, if not, Dems can only hope to hold the Pubs below supermajority.

PA: A case of "missed in 2018, so why 2020." Yeah, there are still more suburbs available, but dems still have more seats to lose, like in MI. Dems in the senate for example need 4 for a tied majority and in 2020 there is only one Philly suburb pub, a open seat in Allegheny, and Erie which are easy-ish pickups. But then you need to start guessing at gerryed seats like Lancaster's 13 or Dauphine's 15. Similar to the state house, dems need to punch through more gerryed seats.

They likely need to wait for 2020 redistricting .

TX State House: Easily in the Cards since Beto carried a majority of seats while losing by 48%. Dems could probably get away with 47 or 46% loss to flip, if that 47/46% is distributed efficiently. If you can flip a chamber while losing then that is a prime target.

WI Senate: Dems had good targets in 2018, but failed. They even lost a special election seat. Once again dems need to wait for the fair redistricting.

VA: Gimmi

[Young Conservative]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well. 

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?). 

lol k

[YE]

In the next two years I could see Arizona, Minnesota, and Virginia flipping to Dem trifectas.

Texas House and Florida Senate should both be in play for 2020 as well. 

Other than that I don't see much changing (Not sure about North Carolina's legislative chambers...?). 

lol k

Not sure about FL but TX is within reach.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Governors

There isn't as much to say about governors that hasn't already been talked about at great lengths, but let's still take this opportunity to assess the post-2018 situation in this realm. Here is the new map of Governorships held by each party as of today, again with the breakdown in terms of number of States and share of the population as of 2010.

Democrats: 23 States, 54.0%
Republicans: 27 States, 46.0%

Unlike with legislatures, Democrats' gains among governors were large enough that they now represent a majority of the US population. Of course, their 54% is a far cry from the 60 to 65% that 538's forecast was promising them, but we have already been over 538's predictions. Clearly, several large and historically "swingy" States like Ohio and Florida have withstood the Democratic wave and thus limited the extent of their victory, but regardless, a clear majority of Americans now have Democratic governors.

How clear is that majority, by historical standards? Once again, let's look at how these numbers have evolved since 2005:



Disappointing or not, this is still Democrats' high point in terms of control of Governorships since at least 2004 (and my guess would be that the record goes as far back as 1994). Even at they high point in 2007-2009, they only governed about 53.5% of the US population, a fraction less than they do now. Interestingly, they did control more States at the time (28, compared to 23 today). What happened to explain the discrepancy? Let's look at the map of governors in 2007 to get a sense:

The first answer that's obvious from this map is how much more partisan Gubernatorial elections have become over a decade. While we do still have a Republican Governor in Massachusetts and a Democratic one in Kansas, it's still a far cry from the sheer number of oddities we find back in 2007. Not only Kansas, but Oklahoma and Wyoming had Democratic governors back then. However, the most consequential partisan mismatch, by its sheer demographic weight, is obviously California. Its flipping from Republican to Democrat in 2010 (which seems unlikely to reverse any time soon) was enough to make up for Democrats losing ground in a vast number of States. This alone made the 2010 election a mere blip at the gubernatorial level: Democrats went from governing 48% of the country to 44% of it.

Still, as consequential as California's flip was, it didn't prevent Republicans from amassing control over Governorships throughout the early Bush and late Obama years. In fact, during the recent period, Republican Governors have often held power over over a larger majority of Americans than Democrats ever have. So, while 54% is a historic result on the Democratic side, it pales in comparison to the 61% of the population that Republicans ruled over in the wake of the 2014 midterms. Before the 2006 Democratic wave, the situation was even more lopsided, with Republicans controlling the equivalent of 63% of the country. This might suggest that, while the long-term trends in State Legislative control seem to have favored Republicans, the opposite is true for Governorships. While Democrats' hold on the Governors' mansions is still tenuous, and while they missed some key opportunities in 2018, they seem to have achieved at least a level playing field going into future races.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Overall State Control

And finally, let's wrap up this series by combining what we have seen about Legislatures and Governors into a single measure of partisan control of State governments. The map below shows States where each party holds a trifecta (Governorship and both houses of the legislature) as well as all the other combinations that we see across States.

Democratic Trifecta: 14 States, 34.7%
Dem. Legislature, Rep. Governor: 4 States, 4.6%
Dem. Governor, Split Legislature: 1 State, 1.7%
Rep. Legislature, Dem. Governor: 8 States, 17.6%
Republican Trifecta: 23 States, 41.4%

Of course, even this is an imperfect measure of the power dynamic playing out in State capitols. Not all governors and not all legislatures are created equal: in some apparently "split" States, such as Kansas or Massachusetts, the partisan majorities are large enough to easily override a gubernatorial veto, making them a functional trifecta. Even the strictly constitutional powers that governors enjoy vary considerably from one State to the next. Finally, some States require supermajorities even for some types of regular legislation, making certain trifectas less powerful than they look on paper. I would be very interested in a systematic analysis of these institutional variations, but for the time being I'm going to limit myself to this simpler perspective (and believe me, the data collection for this "simpler" perspective still took me weeks to get through).

So, what do we see here? We see first of all that Republicans still hold full political power over a greater share of Americans than Democrats do. Currently, even after Democrats' significant gains, 2 in 5 Americans live under a Republican trifecta, while only 1 in 3 live under a Democratic one. As usual, the gap looks even bigger when one looks at the number of States (23 to 14), but the fact that this holds true even with respect to population is significant. Republicans are and remain the dominant party both federally and in State government, and changing that will take a realignment that we haven't seen yet.

Of the States that have some form of divided government, the overwhelming majority find themselves with a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature (hardly a surprise considering that we have seen Democrats doing far better with the former). Those include States in every part of the country, but especially the South and Midwest. These States are the most likely to experience gridlock going forward. A few Northeastern States find themselves in the opposite situation, with a Republican governor having to deal with Democratic-held legislatures. As these Republican governors are fairly moderate and legislative Democrats tend to be accommodating, that doesn't seem to portend as many problems. Finally, Minnesota has a Democratic Governor and lower house, but Republicans are hanging on to a precarious 1-seat majority in the State Senate. This puts Democrats clearly in the driver's seat, but still might produce difficulties in legislating.

Let's now look, one last time, at how these patterns have changed over the past 14 years.



As you can see, Republicans' tendency to control more trifectas is nothing new: it has consistently been the case since 2011 (once again a product of the 2010 wave) as well as before 2007. Even by the very end of Bush's presidency, the two parties were essentially tied in the share of the population that they held trifectas over. So, while the current state of affairs might be disappointing for Democrats, it is in line with historical precedent. Overall, the Republican share of trifectas is down to 41% from a peak of barely over 50% in 2013 and 2014 (interestingly, the 2014 Republican wave slightly decreased their number of trifectas, thanks to Tom Wolf's victory in Pennsylvania) and from it's post-2010 level of 45%. It is still up from its mid-Bush-era levels, though, when it only reached 29%.

That being said, the Democratic share of trifectas has skyrocketed. The 35% of the US population currently under full Democratic rule is the highest share of all the years for which I have data (and given historical patterns, my guess is that you'd have to go back to before 1994, or even possibly before 1980, to find a higher figure for them). Even in 2009, at the height of Democratic strength in recent history, Democrats held this degree of power over only 31% of US residents. In other words, the potential to enact progressive policy at the State level is at a historical high. This is a dramatic reversal from just two years ago, where Democratic trifectas held sway over a paltry 14% of the US population (12 of those 14 being Californians).

These strong gains by Democratic trifectas combined with a relative steadiness of Republican ones obviously imply that divided government at the State level has become far less common than it used to be. In 2006, a full 56% of Americans lived under some combination of Democratic and Republican control of various State institutions. Today, this number is just 24%. The single biggest cause of this decline is the one we have already discussed - the increasing rarity of "split" State legislature where one party controls one house and the other another. Until very recently, this scenario combined with a Democratic governor used to be one of the most common ones aside from trifectas - today, only Minnesota remains in this position. However, situations in which one party holds the governorship while the other has full control of the legislature are also on the decline. The "Republican executive, Democratic legislature" model was once experienced by 23% of Americans (half of whom, again, were obviously Californians), while today less than 5% have retained it. The opposite combination (a Democratic governor with Republican legislatures) is actually more common than ever before, with 18% of Americans finding themselves in this situation. This is understandable given the discrepancy between gubernatorial and state legislative election results documented previously. However, it remains to be seen if this is the product of random circumstances or a lasting equilibrium in American politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, this is it for me. That's all I have to show in terms of combing through 2018 election results for interesting tidbits. I hope you all enjoyed this series, and keep the discussion going! I'd especially love it if anyone wants to add their own analysis to my threads.

[adrac]

I don't have much interesting to contribute but I wanted to thank you for the analysis you've been putting out. State legislatures are woefully undercovered and it was very informative to see thing represented this way.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't have much interesting to contribute but I wanted to thank you for the analysis you've been putting out. State legislatures are woefully undercovered and it was very informative to see thing represented this way.

You're welcome! I've also long been curious about State Legislatures, and meaning to examine the historical trends in partisan strength at that level. They are institutions with considerable power (collectively you could argue they're more powerful than Congress), but you rarely ever see a breakdown of them the way you see for Governors or Senators. I'm definitely going to keep closer attention to them in future election cycles.

[smoltchanov]

I recommend site

https://www.ourcampaigns.com/

It contains a lot of info about state legislatures, though most detailed usually limited by last 20-25 years period (though there is some more older). And:

https://americanlegislatures.com/

for ideological analysis (since mid-1990th).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Wow, it's insane how close the state legislatures are to 2016. Especially as the democrats are pretty much certain to pick up the legislature this year, and the DFL would have probably won the Minnesota Senate if it had been up.

[smoltchanov]

Wow, it's insane how close the state legislatures are to 2016. Especially as the democrats are pretty much certain to pick up the legislature this year, and the DFL would have probably won the Minnesota Senate if it had been up.

THIS year it's "Virginia only".... As other legislatures are either solidly Democratic (New Jersey) or solidly Republican (and even with chances of increased Republican majority) -  Louisiana, Mississippi... So - changes are likely, but - not big one...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Wow, it's insane how close the state legislatures are to 2016. Especially as the democrats are pretty much certain to pick up the legislature this year, and the DFL would have probably won the Minnesota Senate if it had been up.

THIS year it's "Virginia only".... As other legislatures are either solidly Democratic (New Jersey) or solidly Republican (and even with chances of increased Republican majority) -  Louisiana, Mississippi... So - changes are likely, but - not big one...

Yeah, I missed out the word "Virginia", sorry.

[Oryxslayer]

An interesting measure might be district errosity over time. For example, is this really partisanship at play? Or did perhaps the 2010 cycle produce a bunch of Pub and Dem local maps that push states towards one unified type of government. I suspect the facts might be somewhere in between, after one examines just a handful of legislatures.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I recommend site

https://www.ourcampaigns.com/

It contains a lot of info about state legislatures, though most detailed usually limited by last 20-25 years period (though there is some more older). And:

https://americanlegislatures.com/

for ideological analysis (since mid-1990th).

These look like great resources, thanks! I'm kinda burned out with this type of analysis right now, but I'm sure I'll come back to it it at some point. Mid-1990s sound like a good place to start, given how big of a game-changer 1994 was.

Wow, it's insane how close the state legislatures are to 2016. Especially as the democrats are pretty much certain to pick up the legislature this year, and the DFL would have probably won the Minnesota Senate if it had been up.

Yeah, I was shocked to actually see that. I knew in general that was the big picture, but I didn't realize just how perfect the match was. It's kind of scary honestly.

[Doimper]

Insane that PA Repubs are still in control of the legislature, even after Casey and Wolf's landslides.

[Virginiá]

Insane that PA Repubs are still in control of the legislature, even after Casey and Wolf's landslides.

Holding the legislature despite losing the popular vote by 10 points is the American Way™