Midterm Election 2010 v 2018 - Actual precentages?

The 2018 mid term elections just completed, and ignoring the races that are still not decided, all we are hearing is what each party wants us to hear. I’m hearing from the democrat leaning people how this is the largest amount of seats the democrats have won since Nixon and was a true “blue wave”. The republican people are saying that this wasn’t that a big a deal, and every president loses seats in the midterms. I’m wondering, ignoring the actual seats, what the actual percentages show?

In 2010, the republicans won 60 something seats, in 2018 the democrats won 30 something seats. But not all seats are created equal. There was a redistricting between the elections (and as we all know, the republicans gerrymandered the hell out of the map after their big win in 2010). What was the real difference in voting?

Also, the Senate, in 2010 the republicans gained 6 seats, in 2018 they gained some (exact amount still in flux). But they are different states, and different classes, so can’t exactly compare. Any data on how they compare, while controlled for the differences?

Basically, How was the election in actuality, without the spin, and accounting for redistricting?

The best way to gauge and compare would be the raw vote totals. That (somewhat) transcends gerrymandering, etc. But I can’t find that at the moment.
I think the Democratic vote in 2018 is roughly equivalent to the Republican vote in 2010, though, in terms of percentage?

The vote totals are really not a very good means of comparison. The Democrats stuff themselves into a comparatively few states and districts where they have a huge numerical advantage within that area. Thus, a percentage point or three in the overall vote totals doesn’t necessarily have any real effect on the outcome.

To listen to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, this election was the greatest triumph for America since the 1945 Japanese surrender, and has thrown Trump into panic. Beto O’Rourke’s Senate loss is compared with Abraham Lincoln’s failed bid for the Senate in 1858; and so on.

Take a molehill of truth, misconstrue it, and then make a mountain out of it? Is this the way we teach at SDMB?

How about this Democratic District? I guess the D’s really went through contortions to make sure they could “stuff themselves” into that! :smiley:

Moderator Warning

septimus, you’ve been told many times to avoid political commentary in General Questions. These posts do not address the OP. This is an official warning.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Moderator Note

Given that electoral districts are not strictly determined by Democrats, this is a non-factual statement. This also does not address the OP. Don’t make further posts of this kind.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

You can’t find it because not all of the votes have been counted yet. In California, for example, mail-in ballots can be postmarked as late as Election Day, which is why several of the races haven’t been called. We should have a better idea in a week or so.

MODERATOR INSTRUCTIONS

Stick strictly to the factual aspects of the OP. We are not interested in your political opinions on the subject.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Voxhas an analysis of the outcomes that is skewed toward progressives but I think does a good job of balancing the competing Democratic sides.

Also, the parties started from different positions. The Republicans had fewer seats in 2010 than Democrats do in 2018, so they had more room to gain. The total number of seats won will be a little closer, somewhere around 232-235 for the Democrats, compared to 242 for the Republicans in 2010.

Unfortunately, counting the total votes for each party for Representatives is only an approximate guess as to the current support for each party.

Due to gerrymandering, a lot of house seats are automatic wins for one party. For some races there is no opposition candidate to vote for at all. So no votes to count for the lesser party in that district and even the “winner”'s vote might indicate less support than if there had been a real race. Especially if fewer people turn up to vote since their side has no chance of winning (or losing).

This has always been the situation but got a lot, lot worse after the 2010 census redistricting. So comparing things now to 2010 or earlier is problematical.

Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report says that the Democrats’ margin is now 6.4%, but he estimates that it should rise above 7% as more votes are counted.

Also, many of the blue ripple stories were written when the Democrats had picked up 29 seats. Many seats still haven’t been finalized, but it’s looking like the pick-up will be around 40. That’s a significant difference. (And if any of the major elections heading for recounts, like Georgia and Florida, wind up Democratic even the pundits would shut up, if only for a day.)

There was something in today’s Times that claimed the Dems were 7% higher than the Reps.

Ah I just tried to google it and found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_2010, which stated that 51.7% of the votes were Republican and 44.9% Democratic. Pretty close to 7% difference. This is as close to answering the OP as we are going to get until all the recounts, mail-in votes, etc., are completed.