U.S House Popular vote total

Bumped--Chris

This is a total based on the CNN website.  This total is obviously both unofficial and incomplete.  However, since I had some time today and since official returns aren't posted on SOS websites until mid December, I thought I would compile this.

CNN did not compile the votes of candidates who did not face a competitor.  In most states, these votes actually are compiled.  There were 34 candidates who were reelected without an opponent, 30 Democrats and 4 Republicans.  Obviously removing so many more Democrats than Republicans makes the national total closer than it would be otherwise.  That said, the aggregate vote total does suggest that the Republicans did close somewhat in the final days.

Total votes: 72,959,590 401 districts
Democrats: 37,384,882 51.2% 203 districts won
Republicans: 33,937,956 46.5% 198 districts won
Libertarians 600,715
Green 209,383
Others/Independents 826,654

Note: the 203 districts 'won' by the Democrats includes Texas 23 (22?) as the Democratic combined vote total exceeds the vote Republican Henry Bonilla received.

Recalculated numbers:
72,959,590/401 = approx 180,000 votes per district

If we assume in the 34 uncontested districts that 180,000 people also would have voted, and we assume that the winner would have received 130,000 votes and the loser 50,000 (I'm making these numbers up out of whole cloth, but we need some numbers)

we have an additional 4,100,000 votes for the Democrats and an additional 2,020,000 votes for the Republicans.

Total Votes: 79,079,590 435 districts
Democrats: 41,484,882 52.5% 233 districts
Republicans 35,957,956 45.5% 202 districts

Clearly, a 7% aggregate Congressional vote win was towards the lower end of the polls.

The following is the state by state totals (using only the numbers provided by CNN, not adding in my theoretical 'made up' numbers.)  There are about 10 other districts where the Republicans did not field a candidate and 6 other districts where the Democrats did not field a candidate.

Alabama 690,953 (3 uncontested districts (2D 1R))
Dem 224,350 32.5%
Rep 463,207 67.0%

Alaska 202,706
Dem 81,408 40.2%
Rep 115,062 56.8%

Arizona 1,132,596
Dem 481,258 42.5%
Rep 578,769 51.1%

Arkansas 750,101
Dem 449,568 59.9%
Rep 300,533 40.1%

California 6,541,706 (4 uncontested districts, 3D 1R)
Dem 3,695,593 56.5%
Rep 2,627,925 40.0%

Colorado 1,370,490
Dem 727,914 53.1%
Rep 571,699 41.7%

Connecticut 1,078,907
Dem 651,825 60.4%
Rep 420,995 39.0%

Delaware 254,213
Dem 98,350 38.7%
Rep 145,526 57.2%

Florida 3,727,239 (6 uncontested districts, all Dem)
Dem 1,496,686 40.2%
Rep 2,162,356 58.0%

Georgia 1,917,997 (1 uncontested district, Dem)
Dem 799,308 41.7%
Rep 1,118,689 58.3%

Hawaii 337,663
Dem 219,588 65.0%
Rep 118,075 35.0%

Idaho 443,800
Dem 176,757 39.8%
Rep 247,237 55.7%

Illinois 3,182,204 (1 uncontested district, Dem)
Dem 1,768,853 55.6%
Rep 1,399,427 44.0%

Indiana 1,645,452
Dem 802,751 48.8%
Rep 820,573 49.9%

Iowa 1,026,933
Dem 489,508 47.7%
Rep 519,796 50.6%

Kansas 826,117
Dem 360,356 43.6%
Rep 449,548 54.4%

Kentucky 1,244,535
Dem 596,402 47.9%
Rep 608,771 48.9%

Louisiana 900,642
Dem 294,100 32.7%
Rep 579,514 64.3%

Maine 529,679
Dem 345,296 65.2%
Rep 161,633 30.5%

Maryland 1,407,137 (1 uncontested district, Dem)
Dem 859,014 61.0%
Rep 503,595 35.8%

Massachusetts 1,067,292 (5 uncontested districts, Dem)
Dem 792,619 74.3%
Rep 197,722 18.5%

Michigan 3,516,993 (1 uncontested district, Dem)
Dem 1,793,200 51.0%
Rep 1,626,459 46.2%

Minnesota 2,178,617
Dem 1,153,624 53.0%
Rep 925,500 42.5%

Mississippi 582,527
Dem 251,415 43.2%
Rep 295,968 50.8%

Missouri 2,083,253
Dem 984,336 47.2%
Rep 1,043,683 50.1%

Montana 403,277
Dem 157,499 39.1%
Rep 238,031 59.0%

Nebraska 586,217
Dem 257,214 43.9%
Rep 329,003 56.1%

Nevada 572,533
Dem 286,761 50.1%
Rep 259,237 45.3%

New Hampshire 401,975
Dem 209,424 52.1%
Rep 188,774 47.0%

New Jersey 1,858,817 (2 uncontested districts, Dem)
Dem 948,740 51.0%
Rep 885,007 47.6%

New Mexico 550,639
Dem 306,865 55.7%
Rep 243,774 44.3%

New York 3,561,955 (4 uncontested districts, Dem)
Dem 2,285,296 64.2%
Rep 1,268,408 35.6%

North Carolina 1,842,726 (1 uncontested district, Dem)
Dem 935,490 50.8%
Rep 907,236 49.2%

North Dakota 216,485
Dem 142,121 65.6%
Rep 74,364 34.4%

Ohio 3,763,163
Dem 1,970,118 52.4%
Rep 1,784,993 47.4%

Oklahoma 905,048
Dem 372,822 41.2%
Rep 517,948 57.2%

Oregon 1,260,848
Dem 713,441 56.6%
Rep 522,846 41.5%

Pennsylvania 3,815,353 (1 uncontested district, Dem)
Dem 2,060,969 54.0%
Rep 1,705,435 44.7%

Rhode Island 372,030
Dem 264,101 71.0%
Rep 94,327 25.4%

South Carolina 1,072,364
Dem 466,473 43.5%
Rep 592,639 55.3%

South Dakota 333,576
Dem 230,473 69.1%
Rep 97,868 29.3%

Tennessee 1,712,426
Dem 860,025 50.2%
Rep 797,431 46.6%

Texas 3,995,661 (2 uncontested districts, 1D 1R)
Dem 1,783,791 44.6%
Rep 2,069,479 51.8%

Utah 548,161
Dem 234,024 42.7%
Rep 282,554 51.5%

Vermont 262,361
Dem 139,585 53.2%
Rep 117,221 44.7%

Virginia 2,148,308 (1 uncontested district, Dem)
Dem 810,365 37.7%
Rep 1,220,073 56.8%

Washington 1,644,074
Dem 1,003,287 61.0%
Rep 631,900 38.4%

West Virginia 446,333
Dem 258,438 57.9%
Rep 187,895 42.1%

Wisconsin 1,852,619 (1 uncontested district, Rep)
Dem 1,001,254 54.0%
Rep 836,054 45.1%

Wyoming 192,889
Dem 92,227 47.8%
Rep 93,197 48.3%

Although I haven't done it here, it's interesting to compare the state congressional totals with the Governor and Senate races.  I think, for instance, in Tennessee, though without knowing anything about the campaign run by Bob Corker, it's sadly difficult to conclude anything other than had the Democrats run a strong 'white' candidate, they would have won.  

Tags: 2006 election (all tags)

Comments

25 Comments

Re: U.S House Popular vote total

53-46? Looks like Gallup nailed it.

by conspiracy 2006-11-18 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

Yes,
So, it seems the last minute 'swing' to the Republicans was genuine.  

I can't say as I'm surprised.  For all the talk of the Republican coalition coming upart, they always seem to come back together at the last minute.

My final prediction was 53%D 44%R.

The good news in all this though is that it means the Democrats have such a huge high they are likely to come down from in 2 years time, and the Republicans don't have as many 'low hanging' voters to win back as they likely think they do.  So, this means that knocking off most of the new Democratic Representatives won't be easy for the Republicans.

by Adam T 2006-11-18 05:23AM | 0 recs
The GOP base poured out

...but we still beat them.

We beat the Rs while they were using their best ground game with a highly motivated base. That makes me feel pretty good about our operation.

And for those who say: Well you only won because of independents! I respond: Well how do you think you win elections?

by MNPundit 2006-11-18 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

I had predicted 53-47 for the two-party vote. According to your numbers that looks like it was about 53.5 D to 46.5 R. Will take that! I think holding the House in '08 is going to come down alot to Presidential coattails.

by conspiracy 2006-11-18 05:44AM | 0 recs
What if the 15-18 generic ballot margin held?

A 60 seat lead rout, perhaps.

I was expecting an 8 to 10 point lead for Dems. I'm surprised it was lower than that.

IMO, Kerry's gaffe did hurt the Dems, as it seems to have swung 10% of Dem support among Independents and energized the GOP base (and may have flipped the military vote back to the GOP; this needs to checked, if the data is available). At the very least, it stemmed a possible tide, I think.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-11-18 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: What if the 15-18 generic ballot margin held?

Really, really impossible to say. I would tend to blame already-conservative Repubs and independents coming home in the last week or two, which would tend to happen regardless of anything else.

by Mullibok 2006-11-18 09:21AM | 0 recs
I think the Kerry gaffe gave'em a reason to pause

before voting Democratic. There is evidence to support this:


Pre midterms Pew Poll Summary

by NuevoLiberal 2006-11-18 09:52AM | 0 recs
the 18% Independents

that became doubtful may have played an important role in bringing the margin down.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-11-18 09:55AM | 0 recs
No It Didn't

See my post below--18% of independents would be a minimum number of indies that would regularly vote repub anyway. Kerry's comment had no effect or at the very least a minuscule one.

by Davidsfr 2006-11-18 11:28AM | 0 recs
that assumes dishonesty on their part

when they answered the question that had the option: "Not a serious consideration", i.e. if they were already planning to vote for GOP, why would they not pick this option?

Not all of them should be assumed to be dishonest.

Suppose for the sake of calculation that 2/3rd of them were being honest, then we get 2/3x18% = 12% that were being honest. That translates into a 4% net for the overall vote.

In addition, I do think that a larged share then usual GOP was considering voting for the Democrats this because many of them were PISSED with their party. The incident had potential to make them think twice.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-11-18 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

For a study published yesterday concerning the
4 percent discrepancy between the exit polls and the vote totals, see--
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

Exit polls in 2006 were readjusted to match vote totals, a practice followed in the 2004 election, and continued for this Congressional election.
This study captured the earlier figures.
The postulated disappearance of 3 million votes, and a much larger Congressional sweep, is laid out here.

by syolles 2006-11-18 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

I read that story. Amazing isn't it? It seems stealing elections is still more of an art then a science @ this juncture anyway. Nevertheless, if that article and it's analysis is to be believed the wave last week was much bigger then anyone expected and only it's size breached the REPIG vote stealing effort. No wonder KING Dumb fuck and his evil legions seemed so surprised the day after. Here they thought NP we'll steal this one just like the last two and the MSM will do it's cowardly job of covering it up for us again. Just goes to show u that even the best laid plans as they say can and do go awry. That said, the machines have to be ditched they are truly a public menace.

by Blutodog 2006-11-18 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

Thanks for doing this initial run. Within the state delegations- you can see the impact of GOP gerrymandering. In Ohio, the GOP gets 47% of the vote, but 61% of the delegation; in Michigan, the GOP gets 46% of the vote, yet again gets 60% of the delegation seats, or the Texas DeLay Job- where 52% of the vote gives the GOP 62% of the 32 seats.If anything, the Dems are underrepresented in the House. And remember most of the uncontested seats are in minority districts, where the GOP actually blocks GOP candidates from running, because their strategy is to discourage anything thing that would gin up any turnout in minority areas.

by Skipster 2006-11-18 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

You ended up with a total of:
Total Votes: 79,079,590 435 districts
Democrats: 41,484,882 52.5% 233 districts
Republicans 35,957,956 45.5% 202 districts

The Predictions Thread record will show I predicted

42.0 M votes for Democratic Representatives
35.8 M votes for Republican Representatives

Sorry, thought that was close enough to be worth crowing a little :)

by Professor Foland 2006-11-18 09:16AM | 0 recs
hmmm...

It seems to me that this analysis has given a fictional 2 million votes to the Republicans, thereby giving them 2.5% more in the spread than actually existed.  I don't see why they should get credit for non-existent votes for non-existent candidates.  

I looked up Rob Andrews (NJ-1), and I see 134,130 votes for him (about what you estimate, good job!) and zero for the non-existent Republican.  

by John DE 2006-11-18 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: hmmm...

True.  I said the numbers were made up out of whole cloth.  

In total, the Democrats ran 425 candidates and the Republicans, I think, 390.  

The thing is: it's unlikely the people who were responsing to the generic polls knew if they didn't have a candidate to vote for.  So, I think, you have to adjust the Republican total vote to account for them having so many less candidates in order to compare it to the generic polls.

by Adam T 2006-11-18 05:38PM | 0 recs
Kerry Had No Effect

The dems were never going to win the generic ballot by double digits, anymore than Dumya was going to win by a landslide in 2000. Polls simply reflected a lack of enthusiasm among traditional repub voters (like they did for dems in 2000) and they didn't come around until the very end. I always thought 7-8 points would be the best we would do in the generic, and expected until the very last few days it would be more like 5-6.

by Davidsfr 2006-11-18 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry Had No Effect

please see my comment above. Thanks.

by NuevoLiberal 2006-11-18 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry Had No Effect

I saw that, but don't buy it. The numbers are not out of line with the numbers of independents who would be voting republican anyway, 20% of independents is a minimum number who would be regular repub voters, so that statistic is irrelevant.

Also, that last Pew poll was a real outlier regarding Bush's approval--it had him at 41%, higher than any other poll, which is not only the highest he had been in Pew all year, it was the first time in a very long time that Bush's approval was higher in the Pew poll than any other poll. In other words, in that poll, Pew oversampled repubs and/or repub leaning indies.

We just weren't going to do much better in the generic house vote than this folks, plain and simple.

by Davidsfr 2006-11-18 11:26AM | 0 recs
A well-coordinated attack always hurts

Every Republican in the country jumped on this on cue. Had Kerry not said it, they would have jumped on something else.

The Democrats have not yet been capable of such a unified attack on anything. Rahm says one thing, Joe Biden says another, and John Kerry says a third thing. Then Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu disavow both Kerry and Biden, the blogosphere says it will never again contribute to the Democratic party, and on it goes.

But when the GOP says the same thing, everywhere, on the same day, it's no wonder that 60% of the public hear it.

by stevehigh 2006-11-18 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

We accomplished a minor miracle in November 7th because when all is said and done we cracked the biggest GOP majority in the House since the 1920s.  We overcame huge institutional bias (gerrymandering, efficient for GOP seats, packed and wasted Democratic votes in a few districts) and retook the House in only 1 election.

Thats huge.

by TheBlueWarriors 2006-11-18 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

How does this compare with exit polls.  I heard there is a  significnt discrepancy not explainable by random.

by jasmine 2006-11-18 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/

They tried but failed to steal this one as well. The wave was just too big according to this article even for their vote stealing effort. I believe it. These are criminals we're dealing with here and just because they failed this time doesn't mean next time they won't win. The machines are a public friggin menace and have to be dealt with or else.

by Blutodog 2006-11-18 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

It affected the results because we should have more Reps in House--veto proof.

by jasmine 2006-11-19 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: U.S House Popular vote total

Right. Their last ditch position was to save W's veto. The machines have to go they've created a situation where for us to win we have to always produce these super majorities and all they have to do is show up. The system has been tilted from day one to favor the conservative south rural mid west and west. This isn't a democracy by any reach of the imagination. We should ditch the Senate for a start. Why should Wyoming or S.Dakota have as many Senators as Calif. or NY? The machines and the GOP gerrymandering of the last 12 yrs. has given these thugs an incredible edge. Add to this all the media concentration they've allowed and it's almost 100% GOP ownership , plus all the rest of the Corp. power and it's a wildly out of kilter playing field! Nevertheless, they LOST! EVIL FUCKING BASTARDS !!

by Blutodog 2006-11-24 06:06PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


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