Table reduced for brevity sake.
House | P r e s |
Senate | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Congress | Years | # of Congs |
Reps | Dems | Majority | Others | Vacant | # of Sens |
Reps | Dems | Majority | Others | Vacant | |
93rd | 1973-1975 | 435 | 192 | 242 | 50 | 1 | 100 | 42 | 56 | 14 | 2 | |||
94th | 1975-1977 | 435 | 144 | 291 | 147 | 100 | 38 | 60 | 22 | 2 | ||||
95th | 1977-1979 | 435 | 143 | 292 | 149 | 100 | 38 | 61 | 23 | 1 | ||||
96th | 1979-1981 | 435 | 158 | 277 | 119 | 100 | 41 | 58 | 17 | 1 | ||||
97th | 1981-1983 | 435 | 192 | 243 | 51 | 100 | 53 | 46 | 7 | 1 | ||||
98th | 1983-1985 | 435 | 167 | 268 | 101 | 100 | 54 | 46 | 8 | |||||
99th | 1985-1987 | 435 | 182 | 253 | 71 | 100 | 53 | 47 | 6 | |||||
100th | 1987-1989 | 435 | 177 | 258 | 81 | 100 | 45 | 55 | 10 | |||||
101st | 1989-1991 | 435 | 175 | 260 | 85 | 100 | 45 | 55 | 10 | |||||
102nd | 1991-1993 | 435 | 167 | 267 | 100 | 1 | 100 | 44 | 56 | 12 | ||||
103rd | 1993-1995 | 435 | 176 | 258 | 82 | 1 | 100 | 43 | 57 | 14 | ||||
104th | 1995-1997 | 435 | 230 | 204 | 26 | 1 | 100 | 52 | 48 | 4 | ||||
105th | 1997-1999 | 435 | 228 | 206 | 22 | 1 | 100 | 55 | 45 | 10 | ||||
106th | 1999-2001 | 435 | 223 | 211 | 12 | 1 | 100 | 55 | 45 | 10 | ||||
107th | 2001-2003 | 435 | 221 | 212 | 9 | 2 | 100 | 49 | 50 | 1 | 1 | |||
108th | 2003-2005 | 435 | 229 | 204 | 25 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 51 | 48 | 3 | 1 | ||
109th | 2005-2007 | 435 | 232 | 202 | 30 | 1 | 100 | 55 | 44 | 11 | 1 | |||
110th | 2007-2009 | 435 | 202 | 233 | 31 | 0 | 100 | 49 | 49 | 2 | 2 | |||
Legend: | ||||||||||||||
^Democrats control House and Senate |
^Democrats control all three |
^Democrat majority |
Major Events such as World Wars, Great Depression, etc. | ^Democrat majority |
||||||||||
^Republicans control House and Senate |
^Republicans control all three |
^Republican majority |
^Republican majority |
I think you’re missing the part about the Dems controlling the Senate for the first two years, and GWB never having a conservative majority in the Senate, ever.
By the way, the Dems had a supermajority and couldn’t get health care through. (Miraculously!)
Nice chart though.
Here’s a breakdown of GWB’s discretionary spending 2001-2004. (It’s a lib center but their numbers are correct).
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1552
That GWB was a big spender is not correct, and repeating it just helps Obama.
Thats it for me tonight.
Good evening.