Skip to main content

Last year's general election to the House of Representatives saw Democrats win the popular vote yet only claim 201 seats to Republicans 234. While there is reason to believe that gerrymandering was the determinant factor for this split, the seat total provides us with an interesting data point that can be held up to a previous similar minority. In this diary, I take a look at the seat shifts between 1994 when we held 204 seats and today when we hold 201. Additionally, I'll take a look at our 1992 and 2009 majorities when we held the exact same number of districts at 258 at their peaks. Looking at these two maps, you'll get a strong indication of the regional trends over the last 20 or so years.

1994 to 2012

 photo SeatChanges1994-2012_zps77bcf78e.png
(click for full size)

Through a combination of a variety of factors such as retirements, redistricting and reapportionment, and changing underlying partisanship, the House districts saw a massive shift from the 104th Congress to the 113th despite Democrats holding a similar number of districts. In particular, you can see the utter wipe out Democrats suffered in the South and this was only exacerbated by switching from Democratic drawn maps to aggressive Republican gerrymanders. This is especially striking in the state of Texas which went from a 21D-9R split to a 12D-24R break down. In most of the states in the Deep South Democrats lost every single white majority seat they held, even ones that voted Democratic since Reconstruction such as Arkansas' 1st or Alabama's 5th. Democrats now just hold four white majority seats in the South (GA-12, NC-07, TN-05, WV-03) and only one in the Deep South.

That wasn't the only region where Democrats suffered large losses. The midwst in particular, aside from the Driftless Area where Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa meet, saw Democrats lose a good number of seats. Unlike in the South where the underlying partisanship of the voters was to blame, the shift in the Midwest is largely attributable to gerrymandering as many of these states went from a more neutral map to a Republican gerrymander, such as Ohio and Michigan.

To make up for these large losses in the South and Midwest, demography and partisan shift saw us make very large gains in the West and Southwestern states, which was largely attributable to the gradual growth of the non-white electorate in those states, particularly thanks to Hispanics. This factor should continue to affect the region over the next several decades as the age distribution of whites is heavily skewed towards the elderly and the distribution of minorities is heavily skewed towards the young, relatively speaking. Another region, non-culturally Southern Florida, swung Democratic for this same reason as the Hispanic population in particular grew significantly and older Cuban voters phased out of the electorate to be replaced by younger Cubans who didn't have such staunch Republican foreign policy views.

Next, the Driftless area of the upper Midwest which has been trending Democratic at all levels for quite some time now swung to the Democrats, though I am not quite sure why this is so as the region is largely white and heavily rural.

The final region to see a large scale trend was the northeast, particularly New England and upstate New York, the first of which is entirely Democratic for basically the first time ever (along with 2009). Pennsylvania is the outlier here, but that is almost entirely due to gerrymandering as even formerly staunch Republican southeast Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia has been swinging towards Democrats downballot.

Overall, what this changing House vote dynamic means is that the parties have become much more sorted out ideologically with conservative rural areas electing Republicans and center-left urban and suburban areas voting Democratic. As such, even though we hold a similar number of seats, our House minority is significantly more liberal than it was in 1995 and the Republican majority is significantly more conservative than it was that year, which is a very scary thought. The other result of these regional changes is that our caucus is significantly less white male than it was in 1995 thanks in large part to the extinction of dixiecrats and the rise of more minority heavy districts. Luckily for us though we've largely bottomed out in many of these states whether due to underlying trends in places such as the South or gerrymandering in states in the midwest, so it's unlikely that we can fall much further in those regions. Republicans though have much further to fall in California where I suspect that present day swing districts will become safely Democratic and currently red districts will become swingy over the next decade or two as the state grows less white.

 photo 1992-2008ChangesA_zps52687f6c.png
(ignore the 2004 GA and TX lines, the net effect is the same)

Here we have the changes between our 103rd and 111th Congress majorities. I find it incredibly ironic that our majorities peaked at the same number of 258 both times, yet so much more was accomplished in the 111th Congress, such as Health Care reform, etc. In large part this is due to the same factors that drove the swings in the previous map; conservative Democrats were replaced by conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans by liberal Democrats, leading to a much more liberal Democratic majority.

We can still see some of the same regional trends, though they are somewhat less pronounced. The south still swung away from Democrats though three districts did indeed swing to us and are worth looking at in particular. Arkansas 4th was at the time a Democratic leaning district and we should have held it in 1992 but didn't. Alabama's 2nd saw an incredibly strong candidate eke out a plurality win in a massive Democratic wave year and North Carolina's 11th was a right leaning swing district that fell with the 2006 wave. Elsewhere though, Republicans made massive gains in the south, particularly in states like Texas which again, went from a Dem drawn map to a much more aggressive Republican gerrymander. Even so, Republicans made significant gains in states where redistricting played little role such as Oklahoma.

Democratic gains in the southwest are more pronounced here and somewhat obscured in the West. Democrats picked up seats in the regions which are close to the coast, but lost seats in the more inland heavily white seats in places such as eastern Washington and eastern California. The same factors that drove Democratic gains between 1994 and 2012 were of course at play in this same region. For comparison, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to win California since 1964, but every Democrat has carried it easily since and the state is no longer winnable for Republicans at any level and Oregon and Washington are almost the same way.

What we don't see though is the same swing to Republicans in the Midwest. This is largely because the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 washed over those gerrymanders, particularly in states like Pennsylvania. You still see the same Democratic swing in the Driftless area, but other areas of the midwest such as southern Illinois and northern Missouri still swung Republican which should be unsurprising of heavily white rural areas. Additionally, you don't see the swing to Democrats in southeast Florida as much since our gains there were especially candidate driven in 2012 with Republicans nominating flawed ones, but also because the state is gaining seats due to reapportionment that allowed Democrats to gain more in the state.

Moving on we come to the Northeast where the swing towards Democrats was even more dramatic. Upstate New York in particular saw several seats fall to Democrats as did the remainder of New England when we took all the seats in the region for the first time since before the Civil War. Between our 1992 and 2009 majorities this region saw us gain a whopping 14 seats and lose none to Republicans. This region will form a heavy part of our next House majority as it will likely be very solidly Democratic and around a 4th of our whole caucus by the 2020s or 2030s.

Looking into the future, our next majority will almost certainly have to consist of districts with growing minority populations and those that are urban and suburban. In particular, we're likely to lose our remaining rural districts in the greater South such as GA-12, NC-07, and WV-03 and even IL-12, but if we're to regain the majority this decade we'll need urban districts such as Nebraska's 2nd, suburban districts such as Colorado's 6th, and rural northern districts such as New York's 19th, all of which are attainable when Republicans insist on pursuing the radical agenda that they recently have.

Originally posted to Stephen Wolf on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:13 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.


Overall this diary is

62%43 votes
28%20 votes
8%6 votes

| 69 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not sure we are asking the right questions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge, Sunspots

    I would like to see the effect of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and Republican efforts to inject Citizens United money into key races played off against both the increase in women young and minority voters and the percentage of women young and minority voters who vote so as to show where to invest the most GOTV effort.

    Coming from Maine where we have strong independent candidates I'd like to know how the revelations about NSA spying on Americans are playing with independents.

    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

    by rktect on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 04:39:28 PM PDT

    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

      Voter suppression and Citizens United most likely have very minor effects on races.  Money has diminishing returns, and most of the people disenfranchised by voter ID and stuff weren't going to vote anyway.  In fact, some literature has found voter ID causes more minorities to vote!

      The NSA stuff polls well; about 65% of Americans support what the NSA is doing based on recent polling.  I'd imagine Independents are probably similar.

      20, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (school)
      Socially libertarian, moderate on foreign policy, immigration, and crime, liberal on everything else.
      UC Berkeley; I think I'm in the conservative half of this city. -.4.12, -4.92

      by jncca on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 06:25:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We're not assigning blame correctly either (0+ / 0-)

    I mean, you say "gerrymandering" to apply both to census-dictated reapportionment and the off-year redistricting of Texas because Tom DeLay and the Republicans COULD, never mind if it violated tradition. We're Democrats, so when the state legislature of Illinois ended up as Democratic as Texas's was Republican, did we do the same thing? Of course not.

    All I can say is that if the other party sees politics as a blood sport it behooves us to look at it the same way.

    -7.75, -8.10; . . . Columbine, Tucson, Aurora, Sandy Hook, Boston (h/t Charles Pierce)

    by Dave in Northridge on Wed Jun 12, 2013 at 06:01:44 PM PDT

  •  Driftless region (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sunspots, helpImdrowning

    I didn't know the region was called that, but I did notice (mostly from county-level election maps) that the region around the Mississippi River, north of the Missouri/Iowa border, is getting more Democratic over time.  And this differs from almost any other white rural area in the country, besides New England and New York.  My guess is it's the legacy of land grant universities, making this region well educated, and therefore liberal.  I really don't know what's causing this region to become liberal, but I welcome it.

    •  Beautiful area, too (3+ / 0-)

      Here is my plug for the driftless area and Viroqua, WI in particular. I think the universities are part of the explanation, but it is also a beautiful area that is receiving some urban transplantation. There is a fair amount of small organic farming in the area (Organic Valley is even located here).

      Plus, there are generally fewer mosquitoes due to the run off of water because of the topography. I'm not sure why this would help with political demographics, but it makes the area a bit more appealing if you are an urban refugee.

  •  I dispute this (0+ / 0-)
    As such, even though we hold a similar number of seats, our House minority is significantly more liberal than it was in 1995
    Even since 1995, the entire political discourse has moved significantly to the right in this country. Our House minority may well be more cohesive (which is to say, similar in viewpoints), but it is, on average, probably still more conservative than the average in 1995.
    •  you mean how in 1995 no Dem in the senate (0+ / 0-)

      supported gay marriage, and now all but a few do?

      ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

      by James Allen on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:13:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you for all your hard work on this (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stephen Wolf, Dave from Oregon

    excellent diary. Best wishes.

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy -7.8., -6.6

    by helpImdrowning on Thu Jun 13, 2013 at 05:47:10 PM PDT

  •  Can you give us an index for colors? (0+ / 0-)

    I am not sure I follow which changed to which and what year.

    The Democrats create jobs. The Republicans create recessions.

    by Tuba Les on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 09:10:37 AM PDT

    •  Sure (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tuba Les

      Dark Red and Blue stayed with Republicans and Democrats respectively in both election years. Those in bright Red flipped from D to R between the two years and those in bright Blue did the opposite.

      •  Now I Understand (0+ / 0-)

        The dark red and dark blue showed no change. We gained the bright blue areas and lost the bright red areas.

        When Democrats do well, they expand the territory significantly. When Republicans do well, Democrats now do best in urban areas.

        The Democrats create jobs. The Republicans create recessions.

        by Tuba Les on Fri Jun 14, 2013 at 05:18:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site