Which political party is winning?

[RecycleMichael]

54 of the 100 Senators are republican.
234 of 435 Congressmen are republicans.
32 of the 50 state governors are republican.
36 of the 50 state senates are run by republican majorities
37 of the 50 state houses are run by republican majorities.

Democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections, but have only appointed 4 of the current 8 Supreme Court nominees.

[heironymouspasparagus]

54 of the 100 Senators are republican.
234 of 435 Congressmen are republicans.
32 of the 50 state governors are republican.
36 of the 50 state senates are run by republican majorities
37 of the 50 state houses are run by republican majorities.

Democrats have won four of the last six presidential elections, but have only appointed 4 of the current 8 Supreme Court nominees.

Those are some of the reasons I don't have to go after the Dems as much as I do the Republicontins....  Dems are having a tough time giving us the balance that is so badly needed now. 

[davideinstein]

Democrats because they are consistently pushing an agenda that eventually becomes accepted.

[erfalf]

Those are some of the reasons I don't have to go after the Dems as much as I do the Republicontins....  Dems are having a tough time giving us the balance that is so badly needed now. 

This is an unusual time in history for sure. Democrats have historically had a virtual monopoly on politics in this country. I find it funny that now that there has been some opposition provided (and then some obviously according to this data) that Democrats seem to be the ones always spouting about fairness and equality (fairness doctrine and such). Kind of like when little brother finally grows up and starts putting a beat down on big brother. "Hey, that's not fair".

[AquaMan]

Back to your 3rd grade political analyses I see. There was a world before you came and one that will succeed you. When I was in the third grade (1950's) I was stunned to find out that FDR wasn't elected by voice vote, he was so popular. Then, in the fifties Ike was so popular that Dems nearly faded away. The sixties saw the transformation of the Democratic party and the Goldwater election nearly killed the republican party. The result was the rebirth of a new republican party led by conservatives and Reagan. Each generation began to think that their period of time defined their party. The parties mutate, the strategies change. So, you make erroneous statements and draw meaningless conclusions from them.

The domination of local, state and Congressional positions by evangelicals and conservatives, along with re-districting,  has been a pretty successful attempt to slow that pendulum swing. However, when you see that domination in print, its ludicrous to say liberals and democrats are screwing up the country. The pendulum is about to swing again.

[Hoss]

Back to your 3rd grade political analyses I see. There was a world before you came and one that will succeed you. When I was in the third grade (1950's) I was stunned to find out that FDR wasn't elected by voice vote, he was so popular. Then, in the fifties Ike was so popular that Dems nearly faded away. The sixties saw the transformation of the Democratic party and the Goldwater election nearly killed the republican party. The result was the rebirth of a new republican party led by conservatives and Reagan. Each generation began to think that their period of time defined their party. The parties mutate, the strategies change. So, you make erroneous statements and draw meaningless conclusions from them.

The domination of local, state and Congressional positions by evangelicals and conservatives, along with re-districting,  has been a pretty successful attempt to slow that pendulum swing. However, when you see that domination in print, its ludicrous to say liberals and democrats are screwing up the country. The pendulum is about to swing again.

And since the Republicans are the party of the evangelicals, I expect it.  Millennials are leaving the church in droves, and I can't say that I blame them.  Younger adults have been 'brainwashed' (that's an Inhofe term) by book lernin' and science.

How dare they teach kids that the Earth isn't 6,000 years old!

[erfalf]

Back to your 3rd grade political analyses I see. There was a world before you came and one that will succeed you. When I was in the third grade (1950's) I was stunned to find out that FDR wasn't elected by voice vote, he was so popular. Then, in the fifties Ike was so popular that Dems nearly faded away. The sixties saw the transformation of the Democratic party and the Goldwater election nearly killed the republican party. The result was the rebirth of a new republican party led by conservatives and Reagan. Each generation began to think that their period of time defined their party. The parties mutate, the strategies change. So, you make erroneous statements and draw meaningless conclusions from them.

The domination of local, state and Congressional positions by evangelicals and conservatives, along with re-districting,  has been a pretty successful attempt to slow that pendulum swing. However, when you see that domination in print, its ludicrous to say liberals and democrats are screwing up the country. The pendulum is about to swing again.

Since 51, Republicans have controlled the house for 20 out of 68 years. There were 40 straight years of Dem control from 55 to 95. Senate is pretty similar. While my conclusion may be wrong (argumentative), my understanding of history is just fine. What I said was it is unusual point in time. The last 20 years are unusual in that a majority of it has been under Republican Congress, which in fact is unusual in modern politics.

[erfalf]

A visual. Obviously after the Civil War Republicans held pretty tight control for some time, for obvious reasons.

[AquaMan]

Since 51, Republicans have controlled the house for 20 out of 68 years. There were 40 straight years of Dem control from 55 to 95. Senate is pretty similar. While my conclusion may be wrong (argumentative), my understanding of history is just fine. What I said was it is unusual point in time. The last 20 years are unusual in that a majority of it has been under Republican Congress, which in fact is unusual in modern politics.

See, that's the thing. You're good with numbers but you miss the interpretation. My guess is you do stats for someone else who does that job. It seems you were able to totally bypass my analysis in favor of insisting that Democrats have dominated our history, then chose a specific time period to back up that assertion. That's a partisan tactic. Why didn't you go back to TR, Hoover, Lincoln, or the Whigs? Because you're hung up on parties. Specifically defending your party. Our team! Rah, Rah! That's like saying football is OSU and everyone else is the enemy.

Hoss, Heiro, Conan, Cannon, myself and a lot others around here see a bigger picture. We support our way of governing and the continuation of our country. We differ on details but not that much really. I was a Bernie supporter (an independent in Congress, a socialist by philosophy), though if I had seen more of Bloomberg I might have supported him. Yet, I am a Democrat by political registration.

The south was solid Democrat till Nixon (and by the way, the real divisive president). Reagan was a conservative Republican....for his times. Today he is not. Republicans in the nineties used Kennedy as a reference point for their policies. So, to make point that Democrats have dominated our history and are now merely whiners that the worm has turned is specious and frankly, sophomoric.

[erfalf]

See, that's the thing. You're good with numbers but you miss the interpretation. My guess is you do stats for someone else who does that job. It seems you were able to totally bypass my analysis in favor of insisting that Democrats have dominated our history, then chose a specific time period to back up that assertion. That's a partisan tactic. Why didn't you go back to TR, Hoover, Lincoln, or the Whigs? Because you're hung up on parties. Specifically defending your party. Our team! Rah, Rah! That's like saying football is OSU and everyone else is the enemy.

Hoss, Heiro, Conan, Cannon, myself and a lot others around here see a bigger picture. We support our way of governing and the continuation of our country. We differ on details but not that much really. I was a Bernie supporter (an independent in Congress, a socialist by philosophy), though if I had seen more of Bloomberg I might have supported him. Yet, I am a Democrat by political registration.

The south was solid Democrat till Nixon (and by the way, the real divisive president). Reagan was a conservative Republican....for his times. Today he is not. Republicans in the nineties used Kennedy as a reference point for their policies. So, to make point that Democrats have dominated our history and are now merely whiners that the worm has turned is specious and frankly, sophomoric.

The question was, which party is winning, so yes I am going to discuss parties. Seriously. I'm not rooting for one or the other (no where in those posts did I even insinuate that). But you know my leanings so you attach me based on things I wasn't even arguing.

Your comments above had little to do with the point I was trying to make. Heck my point even flew in the face of the point you were making in that each generation thinks it defines all of time. I made the point that this point in time seems to fly in the face of history.

And I only picked a point in time (1950) for two reason. Because you did, and because it seemed to be a turning point in history (really it was more like 1933 but hey, that would only go to bolster my point more). Now, that being said, 1995 may have been a turning point. Only history (which hasn't happened yet) will be able to show.

Are you really calling my comments talking about the "fresh-manic" (made up word) tactics of politicians "sophomoric". Come on that's rich. They have acted like children for far less.

[heironymouspasparagus]

This is an unusual time in history for sure. Democrats have historically had a virtual monopoly on politics in this country. I find it funny that now that there has been some opposition provided (and then some obviously according to this data) that Democrats seem to be the ones always spouting about fairness and equality (fairness doctrine and such). Kind of like when little brother finally grows up and starts putting a beat down on big brother. "Hey, that's not fair".

True.

See - this is exactly one of those things about a thinking nature (yours) I commented on in the other post!!

[Conan71]

If the OP is referring to the Kleptocratic way of life in Washington, I'd say both parties are winning.  Handsomely.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Since 51, Republicans have controlled the house for 20 out of 68 years. There were 40 straight years of Dem control from 55 to 95. Senate is pretty similar. While my conclusion may be wrong (argumentative), my understanding of history is just fine. What I said was it is unusual point in time. The last 20 years are unusual in that a majority of it has been under Republican Congress, which in fact is unusual in modern politics.

If you look at the overall picture of how the country did as a whole during that time, or ANY of the times in the past, when the Democrats have predominately had controlling numbers, the country has done better both economically and socially - more progress on more fronts for more people.  When Republicans have predominately had controlling numbers, the country has done less both economically and socially. 

[AquaMan]

The question was, which party is winning, so yes I am going to discuss parties. Seriously. I'm not rooting for one or the other (no where in those posts did I even insinuate that). But you know my leanings so you attach me based on things I wasn't even arguing.

Your comments above had little to do with the point I was trying to make. Heck my point even flew in the face of the point you were making in that each generation thinks it defines all of time. I made the point that this point in time seems to fly in the face of history.

And I only picked a point in time (1950) for two reason. Because you did, and because it seemed to be a turning point in history (really it was more like 1933 but hey, that would only go to bolster my point more). Now, that being said, 1995 may have been a turning point. Only history (which hasn't happened yet) will be able to show.

Are you really calling my comments talking about the "fresh-manic" (made up word) tactics of politicians "sophomoric". Come on that's rich. They have acted like children for far less.

This isn't the only thread you're posting on. Your posts clearly show your bias. And its hard not to refer to them here. No problem there but face it. You're no Democrat.

Here is your time frame, "Democrats have historically had a virtual monopoly on politics in this country". Historically would mean since its beginning. Your graph started at 1855. Which is 160 years. The Senate was nearly even with Republicans 82 of those years. The house was less at 72. Either way no real dominance. You chose 1950 (even though I referenced the fifties) because your argument fails if you choose to honor your time frame.

But the real devil is in the details which aren't apparent. A divided executive and legislative branch often is stalemated. Even when all branches are republican or democrat, the process binds up due to regional differences in party personality. Hence, Southern Democrats bolted the party when LBJ pushed through civil rights. Many people still register as Dems who haven't voted that way in decades.

[Hoss]

This isn't the only thread you're posting on. Your posts clearly show your bias. And its hard not to refer to them here. No problem there but face it. You're no Democrat.

Here is your time frame, "Democrats have historically had a virtual monopoly on politics in this country". Historically would mean since its beginning. Your graph started at 1855. Which is 160 years. The Senate was nearly even with Republicans 82 of those years. The house was less at 72. Either way no real dominance. You chose 1950 (even though I referenced the fifties) because your argument fails if you choose to honor your time frame.

But the real devil is in the details which aren't apparent. A divided executive and legislative branch often is stalemated. Even when all branches are republican or democrat, the process binds up due to regional differences in party personality. Hence, Southern Democrats bolted the party when LBJ pushed through civil rights. Many people still register as Dems who haven't voted that way in decades.

A little on topic but deviating...regarding LBJ and the Dixiecrats, HBO's "All The Way" was an excellent docudrama.  Bryan Cranston nailed LBJ, mannerisms and all.  And he wasn't over the top I think.  It got him an Emmy nod.

OK, merging the thread back on topic...