Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Legislature Seats

National Journal ^ | NOVEMBER 4, 2010 | Jeremy P. Jacobs

[RobinMasters]

While the Republican gains in the House and Senate are grabbing the most headlines, the most significant results on Tuesday came in state legislatures where Republicans wiped the floor with Democrats.

Republicans picked up 680 seats in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures -- the most in the modern era. To put that number in perspective: In the 1994 GOP wave, Republicans picked up 472 seats. The previous record was in the post-Watergate election of 1974, when Democrats picked up 628 seats.

The GOP gained majorities in at least 14 state house chambers. They now have unified control -- meaning both chambers -- of 26 state legislatures.

That control is a particularly bad sign for Democrats as they go into the redistricting process. If the GOP is effective in gerrymandering districts in many of these states, it could eventually lead to the GOP actually expanding its majority in 2012.

[meadsjn]

Too bad gerrymandering/packing doesn’t help the Senate races.

Not gerrymandering, but the State Legislatures and Governors can be very important in efforts to clean up voter registration databases and the entire electoral processes.

[Paladin2]

Excellent Point! Especially these dayz.

[ArrogantBustard]

He said he'd campaigned in 57 states and still had 1 more to go!

Thank you, sir. I've always believed that even a liberal d-bag like Barry Hussein deserved the courtesy of accurate and honest reporting.

[Sprite518]

Outstanding! Yes this picture is a great analogy!

[Red Dog #1]

Bruce,
We're talking about the 17th. I'm certain it was central to the gravitation of power to the Federal Government.

aruanan,

"...sink [sic..."

I'm really got to stop posting just before going to bed and after having a drink. lol

[aruanan]

We're talking about the 17th. I'm certain it was central to the gravitation of power to the Federal Government.

Having the senators appointed by the states made for all sorts of interesting arrangements between coalitions of states against the federal government. It was the perfect way to ensure multiple layers of factions and the wrangling and slowed down legislative "product" as the result. Didn't do as a senator what your state wanted, either as a creature of the legislature or of the governor? Wanted to be a maverick? You were out pushing daisies wherever mavericks that are good for nothing but trying to get their own way are sent. It made control of the state houses and the governorships (is that a word?) much, much more valuable for a single state or groups of states with common interests (oil or mining or agriculture or manufacturing or tourism, etc., etc.) and gave balance between populism exercised through the House and the federal government bureaucracy acting in its own interest and the states as states.

[SeattleBruce]

‘I’m really got to stop posting just before going to bed and after having a drink. lol’

Right! But when else do we have time? :)

[Red Dog #1]

In all honesty, I was drinking a Beam and Coke when I made the comment about not drinking and posting anymore. O:)