Democratic Party Control of the U.S. House of Representatives (Since 1950 ...)

FR ^ | Aug 11 | RF

[Paperpusher]

How did they do it? They had total control of the news media and are experts, even in 1950, in propaganda.

[Liz]

As was posted on FR——Democrats are experts on finding votes where
none exist............and really really good at hiding and losing the evidence.

[nopardons]

BTTTT

[nopardons]

BTTT

[texas booster]

Lyndon Johnson lost his first election in S Texas when a bunch of ballots "mysteriously" arrived.

From Texapedia:

The most infamous element of the 1948 Texas Senate race centered on “Box 13,” a ballot box from Jim Wells County, Precinct 13. Johnson gained an additional 202 votes from this precinct in the final count, all added after the initial returns. These votes were highly uniform—reported in alphabetical order, cast at the end of the day, and almost exclusively for Johnson. This sudden bump provided the margin Johnson needed to overtake Stevenson.

While no court ever found Johnson personally responsible for fraud, his campaign’s coordination with local operatives in these counties raised persistent questions about the boundaries between machine politics and outright manipulation.

Add in Dem control of the courts and see what happens ...

[Libloather]

Mr. Newt signed my copy.

[stateofit]

Politics was less partisan overall, and there was more ticket-splitting. Democrats had their key core constituents, union, big city, and rural farmers, and they could deliver locally. Reps had their suburbs and business. The south was solid Dem, although conservative.

So, Ike, and Nixon could run string nationally, house and senate were still splitting over to dems on local and name recognition. The south started trending republican beginning in the 60s. Reagan swept in the republican Senate because Carter was an inept fool.

And then Clinton hit a bad economy on top of bad economy in 1994, Oval Office stunts, and a wife who tried to take over healthcare Bob Novak was the first I heard to say the reps would pick up 45. - 50 seats, in what was a stunning prediction. 54 was actual net pickup.

[Claud]

Since FDR Democrats were perceived as a working man’s party...and there was much less liberal nonsense to get in the way of that.

Plus, as I understand it House elections were *very* locally focused back then. They weren’t so much about national politics but what the Congressman could bring back home to his district. Democrats with their spendy ways were always naturally going to fare better in that situation.

The brilliance of the Newt Gingrich revolution in the mid-1990s was that he nationalized the House races by writing a Contract with America and saying if you voted for Republicans this is what we are going to for the country *as a whole*. He flipped the focus from local politics to national politics (and I think we see that still continuing today with, for example, Democrat House candidates running against Trump).

[nathanbedford]

Since 1900, the Democratic Party has controlled both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate during these periods:

Periods of Dual Democratic Control
1913–1919: Democrats held both chambers during the Woodrow Wilson presidency (63rd–65th Congresses).

1931–1947: The New Deal era saw Democrats control the House and, from 1933, also the Senate (72nd–79th Congresses).

1949–1953: Democrats controlled both during the Truman presidency (81st–82nd Congresses).

1955–1981: A lengthy stretch, starting in the Eisenhower years and continuing through Carter—House (1955–1994), Senate (1955–1981)—so both were Democratic-majority for 26 straight years.

1987–1995: Democrats controlled both chambers during Reagan’s last term and the Bush/Clinton transition (100th–103rd Congresses).

2007–2011: Democrats regained both chambers during the 110th and 111th Congresses, through the first Obama years.

2021–2023: Democrats narrowly controlled both after the 2020 elections, with a 50–50 Senate and the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote (117th Congress).

(source: perplexity)

[quantim]

“How did they do it?”

By large measure the GOPe sucked then just like it sucks now, a version of the ‘uniparty’ if you will. Should the party keep acting like democrats they will lose again in 2026 like they do. The house/senate bolting on vacay AGAIN ensures this.

Others may view things differently but I’ll give you 37,000,000,000,000 (and growing) reasons why the RINOs have a good chance of losing once again next year.

[ansel12]

Newt Gingrich earned his place in conservative history, if you don’t remember his epic accomplishment, you might wonder about the Gingrich you know, and wonder what is so great about him, but when historian PHD Gingrich brought his plan together in 1994, he earned his place in the Reagan Hall of Fame for his breaking down that barrier, and evidently shattering it.

[RandFan]

Fascinating so Newt Gingrich broke their chokehold on the House at least.

Shame it wasn’t cemented but he can take great credit for it.

[RandFan]

Yes, 100% right about Newt!

[ScaniaBoy]

Tradition...?

Here is a description of how things went on in NYC at the beginning of last century:

Harpo Marx on Yorkville’s corrupt Election Days

[No name given]

That’s because they manipulated emotions and conjured up lies and slander against their opponents.

[ansel12]

An example of the general effect of nationalizing Congressional elections, it killed the idea of southerners thinking their Democratic Party congressman was a conservative.

1992 Texas.

Texas 2025.

[nathanbedford]

This article/inquiry has been obviously contrived to stimulate discussion concerning gerrymandering, especially as it relates to the news in Texas.

However I suggest that there are factors that promote Democrat control which ought to be discussed:

1. State of the economy (Great Depression, 2008)

2. War footing (World War II, World War I vs. Vietnam)

3. Race (perhaps the longest influential factor)

[JSM_Liberty]

Solid South

[equaviator]

Let’s not forget Rush Limbaugh and his influence. I see it in Trump, MAGA and elsewhere.