I’m trying to figure out the math because a 53 47 senate percentage should be reflected in the make up of the house and should we lose the house we should lose the senate...granted not all of the senate was up for re-election this years so perhaps that’s what makes the numbers look different.
The Senators are voted on statewide, the House Reps are District wide. It is conceiveable to have a State go for the Republican Senator, but individual congressional districts, depending how they are apportioned, be heavy dem districts. For example in Florida, there are liberal enclaves in certain areas that are heavily populated that have heavy Dem representation, but the state as a whole will probably elect Rick Scott (R) over incumbent Bill Nelson (D). It just depends on the makeup of the Congressional districts.
Senate representation does not track the popular vote for the House because of the unequal sizes of the States.
It doesn’t matter how many Democrats vote in California, they still only get two Senators, just like Wyoming.
I ran some numbers last month. States with two (D) Senators have 80 million more people than States with two (R) Senators.
It’s a very good thing the Senate is not apportioned by population - and it’s surprising when the Republicans win the House.
None of this would matter if we got rid of the cancer that is the 17th amendment.
Only one time since FDR has a political party gained seats in the senate and lost seats in the House...
JFK, 1960, gained 2 in the Senate, lost 22 in the House
NEVER in that time has anyone gained senate seats and lost control of the House, and certainly not gained 4-6 Senators like the republicans are likely to do.