State Government Balance of Power

Looking ahead to the state legislature and Governor elections in 2006, here is how the current balance of power stands:

Governors

Democrats currently control 22 states worth 207 electoral votes, while Republicans control 28 states worth 328 electoral votes. Clearly, Democrats have a lot of room for improvement here, particularly in large states and in New England. For Republicans to control CA, TX, NY, FL, and OH is beyond unacceptable, and arguably worse for the party than our current status in either chamber of the US congress.

State Legislatures

The situation here is noticeably better. While Republicans maintain a slight edge in states where they control both chambers (22 states worth 228 electoral votes versus 19 states worth 213 electoral votes for Democrats), neither party has absolute control of the state legislature situation. This is because nine states, worth 94 electoral votes, have split or non-partisan legislatures. Further, Democrats actually hold a slight edge in total state legislature seats, moving from a deficit of 64 before the 2004 elections to a majority of 14. This was not a huge shift, but considering the gains Republicans actually made in most southern state legislatures, is was an important one.

Total

Overall, Democrats control the trifecta in nine states worth just 88 electoral votes. Republicans control the trifecta in twelve states worth 144 electoral votes, largely due to their control of TX, FL and OH. Of the eight states where Democrats control the trifecta, they control both Senate seats in four: IL, NJ, WA and WV. Since it is also a fairly safe Democratic state in Presidential elections with a strong Democratic majority in its House delegation, Washington comes as close as any state in the country does to Democrats maxing out in potential statewide power. Yet, as anyone in Washington knows, even there our battles are far from over. Considering this, there are, quite obviously, campaigns and elections for Democrats to work on in literally every sate of the union. There is not a single state in the country where Democrats cannot potentially make gains, and where they do not need to make gains.

Update: I think I fixed all the errors now. I think.

Tags: Governor 2005-6 (all tags)

Comments

28 Comments

Changing Trifecta
One thing which would change that ballance of power trifecta quickly would be for the Democrats to pick up New York and California governorships pronto.  New York is only one state senate seat away from swinging away from the Dark Side of the Force and in the last election the decision was decided by a handful of votes.  It is doable and can be made permanent.  In New York state almost all of the population loss has occurred upstate, in heavily Republican districts.  That has not been reflected in changes which have occurred in the changes in the US House seats or the state delegate and senate seats.  Sack Pataki and change that one state senate seat and the Democrats can make New York state's legislative allocation reflect what the state's voters truly believe.
by VizierVic 2005-05-22 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Changing Trifecta
Five state Senate seats in New York tip the balance. Not one, the margin is currently 35-27.
by Andrew C White 2005-05-22 11:46AM | 0 recs
one small mistake in trifecta numbers
New Jersey has a Democratic governor and legislature .
by adamterando 2005-05-22 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: one small mistake in trifecta numbers
Both of NJ's senators are also Dem... Add us to that list--that makes four states where we have everything... Also given the fact that a majority of NJ's congressmen (7 out of 13) are Dem, that pretty much makes it the most Blue state there is in terms of what we control.
by tjhelm 2005-05-23 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: one small mistake in trifecta numbers
No bluer than Illinois - Dem Governor, Dem Legislature, two Dem Senators, 10 out of 19 Congressmen are Dems.
by raginillinoian 2005-05-23 03:44PM | 0 recs
Expect New York
to change to the solid blue shade in 2006 or 2008 at the latest. We'll have a Democratic Governor, Assembly, and at worst a narrow deficit in the state Senate in 2006. We may yet capture the Senate but it will be close. We'll absolutely have the state Senate by 2008.

We'll also retain the Attorney General's job as we have a strong (and long) line up of candidates for that job and whichever one wins it'll be a quality person.

by Andrew C White 2005-05-22 11:44AM | 0 recs
Just so you know
Nebraska's Unicameral is "Officially Non-partisan." But that doesn't really mean much. The Republicans have a big edge there.

phat

by phatass 2005-05-22 11:56AM | 0 recs
We need state level wins
Attorney Generals, and Secretary of States, etc.  These offices are often stepping stones to the governor's races.
by jkfp2004 2005-05-22 12:31PM | 0 recs
Observations from the South.
If there hope in the South, it is North Carolina. NC has always been one of the more progressive southern states, although they remain quite socially conservative. For example, they were once represented in the Senate by Jesse Helms and John Edwards. They have a Democratic trifecta, yet they also have no lottery, somewhat restrictive alcohol laws, and plenty of moral based legistlation on the books, including fornication laws and the famous "homewrecker" law.

If any state is beyond hope, it is South Carolina. Only two Democrats hold statewide office. The congressional delegation is 4-2. Wen John Spratt retires, the congressional delegation will probably be 5-1 and that 1 is the predominantly African-American 6th district.

Georgia went from a Democratic trifecta to a GOP trifecta in only two elections. Georgia is a classic example of the triumph of the backlash narrative combined with a complete collapse of the Democratic Party. Roy Barnes' tactless handling of the flag issue really hurt the Democrats at the polls. Saxby's infamous commercials didn't do Max Cleland in, Zell Miller did with his constant bashing of the Democratic Party. These two events have gutted the party in rural Georgia.

by wayward 2005-05-22 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Observations from the South.
Hi,
We will have a lottery as of this year.  
We will have less restrictive alcohol laws as of this year.
We stand a good chance of winning the U.S. House in 2006 (6-7 Dem-Rep this year).  
Robin Hayes is one Rep we stand a good chance of beating.

Virginia Foxx is new, but a real right-wing nut.  She also has hired former Tom DeLay workers in her office.

We should go at least 7-6 and with a few GOOD candidates could go 8-5.  That would leave us in a good place to defeat Elizabeth Dole in 2008.  I would love to see Governor Easley run for this office and Rep. Price to run for Governor.  But, that is just my own personal bias.

by Robert P 2005-05-23 06:47AM | 0 recs
Arkansas...
has a governor's race in 2006.

Mike Beebe, current attorney general, is our guy.

Here is a good shot to make Arkansas blue in both maps

by v2aggie2 2005-05-22 02:54PM | 0 recs
Florida
is the saddest 'red' on this map.
The Dem state legislatures are so comfortable as to be non-existent and ineffective.

The governorship will have to be taken next time by a guy with better name recognition than "Bush":
Christ
Good fucking luck.

I was politically active up until 1998 and then I took a deep sleep until 04.  When I woke up from that coma, I was stunned, stunned to see how piss poor the democratic party was in this state.
This state, which should have been the ultimate motivation for Dems to retake it after 2000.
But no such luck.

Maybe with a new Dem head of this state will we make ground.  I will do my part, because I really believe FL is not a permanent red state.
Not even the panhandle.

by Sam Loomis 2005-05-22 04:37PM | 0 recs
Quick mistake
In West Virginia Democrats control both Houses, so it should be Blue not Red.
by upstatenydem 2005-05-22 05:12PM | 0 recs
Now that you mention it...
...their governor is Joe Manchin, who is also a Democrat.
by craverguy 2005-05-22 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Now that you mention it...
West Virginia is so strange. It gives 56% to Bush, yet elects Manchin by a huge landslide and yet again gives a stamp of approval to its long-dominant Democratic machine.
by raginillinoian 2005-05-22 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Now that you mention it...
And it rejects Kerry, yet it gave a stampof approval to Mike Dukakis in 1988. Curiouser and curiouser...
by craverguy 2005-05-22 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Now that you mention it...
Yeah. And Carter in '80, who lost nationally even worse than Dukakis. In fact, here's WV's record in recent prez elections:

1948 - Truman (Dem)
1952 - Stevenson (Dem)
1956 - Eisenhower (GOP - HUGE LANDSLIDE YEAR)
1960 - Kennedy (Dem)
1964 - Johnson (Dem - HUGE LANDSLIDE YEAR)
1968 - Humphrey (Dem)
1972 - Nixon (GOP - HUGE LANDSLIDE YEAR)
1976 - Carter (Dem)
1980 - Carter (Dem)
1984 - Reagan (GOP - HUGE LANDSLIDE YEAR)
1988 - Dukakis (Dem)
1992 - Clinton (Dem)
1996 - Clinton (Dem)
2000 - Bush (GOP)
2004 - Bush (GOP)

So, until 2000 West Virginia only went GOP in huge GOP landslides like '56, '72, and '84. I wonder if these trends are only by virtue of Bush, whose religiosity and "shucks" persona would go over well in a rural, socially conservative, heavily religious state like West Virginia. Maybe in '08 it'll go blue again. I mean, in '88 not even states that are solid blue today like California, Connecticut, Maryland, or Illinois went for Dukakis...but West Virginia did. So, perhaps it's Bush, and not Republicans in general, that Mountain Staters like. That would make sense given that they overwhelmingly elected another Dem Governor in '04, overwhelmingly reelected Sen. Rockefeller in '02, and overwhelmingly reelected Byrd in '00.

by raginillinoian 2005-05-22 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Now that you mention it...
The state has absolutely been overtaken by the Backlash narrative and social conservative double talk when it comes to national politics.  It is a real problem for Democrats in the state.  This problem is reduced greately in-state because the Dems in-state are socially moderate, thus eliminating the "moral values" argument advantage Republicans maintain on a national level.  

Rockefeller and Byrd win because of lineage and fame.  The real test for the party will be when we have to replace one or the other with a fresh face.  

by Eric11 2005-05-22 09:47PM | 0 recs
Numbers
The National Conference of State Legislatures has a handy chart with exact partisan composition of each legislature. Here it is.
by abramcf 2005-05-22 06:13PM | 0 recs
Stuff
My guess is we lose VA-Gov this year, giving Repigs complete control of Virginia. But, it's no done deal yet.

So, it seems to me that these are the states where we stand the best chance of takeover (no particular order):

1. Nevada

Open governor race should be competitive. Dems hold solid control of the House and are within two seats of the Senate. Long trending Democratic due to population booming and growth with Latinos and in Vegas. In another few years, should be a blue state.

2. New York

Democrat Eliot Spitzer will take the governor's race in a landslide. The House is so Democratic it's not even funny, and we only need five more Senate seats, which is doable with Spitzer coattails.

3. Michigan

Only need four more seats in the House and four more in the Senate to control each chamber. Only problem is that Dem Governor Granholm is very unpopular. Not as easy potentially as New York or Nevada.

4. Tennessee

True, we lost the Senate in 2004, but that was a bad year overall. We still have the House and a Governor who by all measures is a good bet for reelection. His coattails may bring us at least the single seat we need for Senate control.

5. Colorado

Colorado was very good to us in 2004, handing us a U.S. Senate seat, a U.S. House seat, and control of both chambers of the state legislature. All we need left is the governor's mansion to take absolute control of Colorado. And with a competitive open race expected, I'd say it's very possible.

6. Oregon

True, the Dem Governor is unpopular, just like Davis was in California and Locke in Washington, but Oregonians don't seem to trust many Republicans these days. After giving Gore a razor-thin margin in 2000, the Beaver State gave Kerry a respectable 4-point margin last year, while overwhelmingly reelecting Dem Senator Wyden. Dems are only four seats from taking the House, and have pretty good control of the Senate.

Also, if we can get nonpartisan redistricting on the Florida ballot, we could well see at least one chamber of the currently hideously gerrymandered state legislature go under Dem control, which is crucial to ensure that Republicans don't tighten their grip on Florida during the next redistricting cycle. I wish it were so easy in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, or Virginia.

by raginillinoian 2005-05-22 07:53PM | 0 recs
WV
West Virginia's legislature is overwhelmingly Dem. Blue, not red.

Oh, and BTW, how do you get those nifty maps?

by raginillinoian 2005-05-22 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: WV
Oh, and its governor is blue too.

And, New Jersey is blue, not yellow.

But this doesn't mean much. Several states, including New Jersey and Washington, that are Dem-dominated have nonpartisan redistricting. Others, like Montana, have only at-large congressional districts and therefore don't redistrict. So sad.

So, Illinois, Louisiana, North Carolina, New Mexico, and West Virginia is about all we have.

But, I think we can take control of Nevada, New York, Michigan, Tennessee, Oregon, Arkansas, Colorado, Alabama, Mississippi, and a few others with some good momentum. And yes, I did include four southern states - Tennessee because its Senate just barely went GOP and can be won back with a single seat, Arkansas because it has a competitive open gov race in '06, Alabama because it has a competitive gov race in '06, and Mississippi because its GOP gov is extremely unpopular (that's an '07 race). Virginia this year will be a test of things to come down South. Certainly, not all of Dixie is trending Republican as quickly or as dramatically as Georgia (went from a Dem trifecta in '02 to a GOP trifecta today).

by raginillinoian 2005-05-22 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: WV
Oh, and California. Arnold is most certainly beatable, though it'll be tough.

To me, state control has a direct effect on our chances in the U.S. House (redistricting, obviously, is what I'm referring to). Hence the need for gains. In '01, GOPers pulled off ingenious maps around the country (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida all housed extraordinarily effective GOP gerrymanders, resulting in outrageous majorities in those states' delegations), while Dems were stupid (California, the largest state in the Union, then with a Democratic trifecta, could have been a great gerrymandering opportunity, but instead we agreed to a bipartisan incumbent protection racket; even Georgia, called by many the most awful Dem gerrymander of '01, only resulted in a very reasonable 7-6 GOP majority).

by raginillinoian 2005-05-22 08:12PM | 0 recs
Redistricting
The reason we have so much trouble gaining seats in Congress these days is because of redistricting. In 1996, 1998, and 2000, we gained seats in the House. But since 2002, we've lost seats in the House. Why? Redistricting took effect in 2002.

Quite simply, Republicans did amazing, effective gerrymanders in 2001 that they were never called on and at the same time managed to whine about our less ingenious, less effective maps.

The four largest swing states in the country, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, experienced GOP masterpiece maps. Florida's House delegation is now 72% Republican (yet Florida was split 49-49 in 2000 and only went 52-47 for Bush in 2004). Michigan's is 60% Republican, yet Michigan was won by Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Ohio's is 67% Republican, yet Ohio was won by Clinton, was competitive in 2000, and was the state that decided 2004. And Pennsylvania's is 63% Republican, yet Pennsylvania, like Michigan, has not gone GOP since 1988.

Yet these gerrymanders went unpunished, while we were beaten up because of our only two real gerrymanders, Georgia and Maryland. We were stupid and weak, as usual. Georgia and Maryland, yes, were masterpieces, but their current delegations are actually much more representative of their political climates than those of FL, MI, OH, and PA.

But our stupidest move was out West. California, the biggest and most powerful state in the Union, had a Dem governor in 2001, meaning we had the trifecta there. We could have slaughtered them in California, and perhaps gotten something as much as a 38-15 delegation. Instead, we settled for a bipartisan incumbent deal, handing us only one more seat, for a fairly representative 33-20 Dem delegation. We could have been aggressive in Alabama, Connecticut, and Mississippi, too, if we wanted. Yet Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck (then a D, now an R) of Mississippi endorsed a map hurting Democrat Ronnie Shows, and helping Republican Chip Pickering. So, we lost a seat in Mississippi. North Carolina? We sort of gerrymandered it, but we could have gotten rid of Robin Hayes if we wanted to. West Virginia? No, no efforts to hurt Shelley Moore Capito. Just a nice little incumbent-helping plan. Meanwhile Republicans eked out every seat they could.

So, GOPers won the redistricting battles in 2001 by controlling and effectively mapping the four biggest swing states in the Union. They also had Virginia. We, meanwhile, gave up a chance to gerrymander the most coveted state, and some other states (Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Connecticut...) and instead settled for Georgia, Maryland, and sort of North Carolina. Well, they ended up gaining 8 seats in 2002, almost all as a result of redistricting.

And then, this mid-decade crap. They did Texas. GOP +5. Now Georgia, which could easily net them 1 seat, and MAYBE even 2. There are rumors that Missouri is next.

The problem is they gained a lot on the state level, and we must change that if we don't want them to keep these redistricting battles under their control.

by raginillinoian 2005-05-23 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Redistricting
NC is putting together a nonpartisan, independent council to redistrict next year.  That is great and all, except the quote following it is "this should make all the state seats more competitive as they are currently districted to make life easier on Democrats."

Why do we fall for this shit?  Do we really believe that Republicans would be so kind?

by Robert P 2005-05-23 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Redistricting
Oh great. We get to lose yet another Dem state in the next redistricting cycle, yet FL, MI, OH, PA remain GOP  gerrymanders.

Go to www.committeeforfairelections.com to sign the petition to get nonpartisan redistricting on the Florida ballot in 2006. No state is as gerrymandered and as rigged as Florida.

by raginillinoian 2005-05-23 07:37AM | 0 recs
Ohio
After 16 years of Republican governors, Ohio is ripe to elect a Democrat.  Congressman Strickland and Columbus Mayor Michael Coleman are both running.

The legislature will remain republican until Dems control the State Apportionment Board.

by FrankMartin 2005-05-23 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Ohio
16 years? Wow.

So Voinovich was the first in that cycle? Yeah, that makes sense.

George Voinovich - 1991-1999
Bob Taft - 1999-2007

Taft's approval rating stands at 19%, the worst of any governor in America. Hopefully his negative coattails will bring down Ken Blackwell and elect Strickland or Coleman. We can't let them gerrymander Ohio again in 2011. Even if we can't win back Texas, or Georgia (though the Georgia governor race should be tight if Cathy Cox is the Dem nominee), we can win back the gov mansions in Ohio and Florida. We MUST.

Nevada and New York stand a very good chance of going deep blue in '06. Tennessee could easily as well, and Oregon, Michigan, Colorado, California, Arkansas, Alabama, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, etc. etc. etc.

by raginillinoian 2005-05-23 08:53AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------