Presidential Results vs. Senatorial Results, 2004

[nclib]

I compiled the differences between the Democratic Senate winner and Kerry in each state and likewise for the Republicans for Bush. For example, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota got 68.3% of the vote and John Kerry got 35.5% in North Dakota for a difference of 32.8%.

Democrats:

Dorgan, ND   32.8
Bayh, IN      22.4
Inouye, HI   21.5
Obama, IL (Open)   15.1
Reid, NV      13.2
Schumer, NY   12.8
Wyden, OR   12.043
Dodd, CT     12.039
Leahy, VT      11.7
Lincoln, AR   11.4
Mikulski, MD   8.9
Feingold, WI   5.7
Salazar, CO (Open)   4.3
Boxer, CA      3.4
Murray, WA    2.2

Republicans:

McCain, AZ    21.9
Grassley, IA   20.3
Gregg, NH   17.3
Voinovich, OH   13.0
Brownback, KS   7.2
Shelby, AL   5.1
Specter, PA    4.2
Bond, MO      2.7
Isakson, GA (Open)   -0.1
Martinez, FL (Open)   -2.7
Bennett, UT   -2.8
DeMint, SC  (Open)   -4.3
Burr, NC  (Open)   -4.4
Vitter, LA    (Open)   -5.7
Bunning, KY   -8.9
Thune, SD  (def. inc.) -9.3
Murkowski, AK   -12.5
Coburn, OK (Open)   -12.8

-----

Looking at this list, it seems that Democratic Senate nominees overperformed Kerry.

Who do you guys think will have the highest percentages in 2006 compared to the Kerry/Bush result of 2004?

[Nym90]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

A more relevant statistic is that they also won the combined 2000+2002+2004 Senate popular vote despite having only 44 Senators to the Republican's 55. For obvious reasons Jeffords wasn't counted in the calculation.

[Nym90]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

A more relevant statistic is that they also won the combined 2000+2002+2004 Senate popular vote despite having only 44 Senators to the Republican's 55. For obvious reasons Jeffords wasn't counted in the calculation.

True, and even counting Jeffords as a Republican, the Democrats still won the 2000 Senate popular vote.

It does help illustrate the disadvantage the Democrats have in the Senate. The same thing is true in the House of course as well due to Democratic votes being more concentrated, but not to as strong of a degree as the Senate.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

A more relevant statistic is that they also won the combined 2000+2002+2004 Senate popular vote despite having only 44 Senators to the Republican's 55. For obvious reasons Jeffords wasn't counted in the calculation.

True, and even counting Jeffords as a Republican, the Democrats still won the 2000 Senate popular vote.

It does help illustrate the disadvantage the Democrats have in the Senate. The same thing is true in the House of course as well due to Democratic votes being more concentrated, but not to as strong of a degree as the Senate.

The situation in the House isn't as extreme, but yes, thanks to gerrymandering, in 1996, the Democrats won the popular vote, and ended up with 22 fewer Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1996

[Nym90]

Interesting. We see that Bush had a large coattail effect that helped the GOP win seats in OK, AK, SD, KY, LA, NC, SC, UT (not that they needed it there), FL, and GA (ditto with UT).

Whereas Kerry had no coattails at all anywhere, as not a single victorious Democrat did worse than Kerry.

But yeah, Democratic Senate candidates having done better than Kerry is no shocker; the Democrats won the popular vote for the Senate in 2004 overall.

A more relevant statistic is that they also won the combined 2000+2002+2004 Senate popular vote despite having only 44 Senators to the Republican's 55. For obvious reasons Jeffords wasn't counted in the calculation.

True, and even counting Jeffords as a Republican, the Democrats still won the 2000 Senate popular vote.

It does help illustrate the disadvantage the Democrats have in the Senate. The same thing is true in the House of course as well due to Democratic votes being more concentrated, but not to as strong of a degree as the Senate.

The situation in the House isn't as extreme, but yes, thanks to gerrymandering, in 1996, the Democrats won the popular vote, and ended up with 22 fewer Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections%2C_1996

I don't think you can blame gerrymandering in 1996 necessarily, as Democrats still had the majority of Governorships and state Legislatures under their control when most of those lines were redrawn in 1991/1992.

However, the problem Democrats have in the House is that our voters are more concentrated, so a first past the post election system hurts us. There are more overwhelmingly Democratic districts than there are overwhelmingly Republican ones, and those extra votes essentially go to waste.

I would assume the Democrats probably won the popular vote for the House in at least 2000 as well (when we came closest to taking back the House since losing it last), and perhaps in some other recent elections too?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't think you can blame gerrymandering in 1996 necessarily, as Democrats still had the majority of Governorships and state Legislatures under their control when most of those lines were redrawn in 1991/1992.

However, the problem Democrats have in the House is that our voters are more concentrated, so a first past the post election system hurts us. There are more overwhelmingly Democratic districts than there are overwhelmingly Republican ones, and those extra votes essentially go to waste.

I would assume the Democrats probably won the popular vote for the House in at least 2000 as well (when we came closest to taking back the House since losing it last), and perhaps in some other recent elections too?

Having packed districts is gerrymadering. Of course it's easy to gerrymander for the Republicans, just keep the west Bronx as a 90-95% Democratic district.

The Republicans won the 2000 House popular vote by 0.3%. If there had been a uniform swing of that much to the Democrats, then yes, it would have probably been like 1996.

[Gustaf]

I think Nym's point here is that one doesn't really have to do much gerrymandering to disadvantage Democrats. Rather, one would have to put some work into it in order to create a more even division of districts.

[nclib]

Who do you guys think will have the highest percentages in 2006 compared to the Kerry/Bush result of 2004?

I compiled the percentages of the 2006 winners with the Kerry/Bush results in 2004. The best Senators compared to their party's 2004 Presidential result in their state were: Conrad, Nelson (NE), Snowe, Byrd, and Bingaman. The only Democratic winners to underperform Kerry were: Whitehouse, Menendez, and Cardin, all of whom were elected for the first time. The only Republican winners to underperform Bush were: Hatch, Corker, and Kyl. The other interesting thing is while 18 Democratic winners outperformed Kerry by 5 points or more, Snowe was the only Republican winner to outperform Bush by 5 points or more.

In addition to the obvious Democratic trend from 2004-2006, this could indicate that 2006 Democratic winners were stronger candiates than Kerry was two years ago.

[© tweed]

Or that statewide races are far less partisan than national races.

[Calthrina950]

In hindsight, many of these Democratic overperformances over Kerry were truly astounding, and as this year demonstrated, would be utterly impossible to replicate today. In North Dakota, Dorgan got 68% of the vote and won every county while Kerry lost the state to Bush by 27% and only won four counties. Bayh got 62% of the vote in Indiana while Kerry lost the state by 20%. Obama crushed Keyes in Illinois by 43% while Kerry won by "only" 11%. Reid won by 26% in Nevada while Bush carried the state by around 2.5%. In Hawaii, Kerry won by "only" 9% while Inouye won by 55%.

Wyden won by 31% in Oregon while Kerry beat Bush by 4%. And Lincoln was reelected by 12% in Arkansas while Kerry lost the state by 10% (the last time the Democrats won a competitive Senate race there). The only Democratic overperformance of 2004 which was replicated since was Chuck Schumer's 71% win-he ran ahead of Kerry by nearly 13% in 2004 and ahead of Clinton by 11% in 2016.