No, the real Democratic stronghold was the so called solid South. The South influenced the Dem party because it was more conservative. There is a reason why most of the committee chairmen were from the South. LBJ's support of civil rights essentially laid the foundation for the South moving over to the Rep side. Depending on what period you are referring to, the Northeast and Midwest were Rep strongholds. The Javits/Rockerfeller/Taft Reps. The urban areas were always Dem.
The GOP majority in 1994 wasn't a huge one, and it hasn't varied much in size over the last 12 years. The Democratic majority in the House isn't a huge one, and their Senate majority is as slim as it could possibly be. I suspect there will be a lot of changes in dominance in both houses of Congress over the next couple of decades -- and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The GOP "majority" was indeed slim and almost an anomoly. The idea that we "controlled" Congress and government is nonsense. This "majority" cannot compare with what the Dems had during the 62 years prior. Composition of Congress by Political Party. The only brake on the Dems was the Southern conservatives.
It took us 40 years to gain the House and the Dems 12 years to regain it. I don't see the current split being maintained or control shifting back and forth, except for perhaps the Senate. Demographics will play a part. I see the Dems increasing their control as the percentage of minorities grows. The trend is in the Dems favor. Approximately, one out of every three Dem voters is black or Hispanic. The percentages are higher in places like California and Maryland. It remains to be seen whether the white, rich liberal Dems can maintain control of the party and what the impact on the body politic will be as they surely will lose control. Will the party become more radicalized? Will more middle class whites become disenchanted with the party?
Overall, it will be a long time before the Reps ever regain control of the House. Depending on how the entitlement programs are fixed, the Reps could become a permanent minority party. It is sobering to realize that 80% of Americans pay more in FICA taxes than income taxes. As the wealth disparity grows and the income tax burden falls on fewer and fewer, there will be pressure for more and expanded government programs since the costs will not be borne by a majority of the people. Tax the "rich" is an easy, painless solution to all of our problems--according to the Dems.
It's worth noting that the GOP's ascension to power over the last 25 years has really been tied to the party's ability to secure conservative votes from conservative parts of the country that used to be heavily Democratic. The "conservative" part hasn't changed all that much -- only the party affiliation has.
It is sobering to realize that 80% of Americans pay more in FICA taxes than income taxes.
That's not such a bad thing. The FICA tax is an income tax for all intents and purposes (most people don't realize this -- and it's better to keep them ignorant over it), and since there's a cap on income subject to FICA taxes it's actually a regressive income tax.
As the wealth disparity grows and the income tax burden falls on fewer and fewer, there will be pressure for more and expanded government programs since the costs will not be borne by a majority of the people. Tax the "rich" is an easy, painless solution to all of our problems--according to the Dems.
Even most Democrats are smart enough to realize that raising tax rates on upper-income earners won't generate enough revenue to support these stupid programs. This is why the "tax the rich" component of the party's last big tax-hike scheme (Clinton's 1993 budget) basically obscured the fact that the biggest revenue-generators in that tax bill were extremely regressive taxes borne primarily by middle-income and low-income people (the fuel tax hike, the new taxation of Social Security benefits, etc.).
Even more absurd was the way Clinton became a "fiscal conservative" by signing Republican tax cuts in 1995 that made the tax code even more regressive -- by imposing steep tax cuts on capital gains (most people in low-income brackets have no idea what a "capital gain" is) but by leaving the other 1993 tax hikes in place!