The Senate isn't close in terms of numbers who voted for Democrats

[dsc]

In 2006 we got 31,297,420 while the GOP got 24,870,674. That doesn't include either Lieberman or Sanders. We ended up with 22 seats, the GOP 9, and independents 2. In 2004, we got 44,104,943 while the GOP got 39,920,562. We got 14 seats, the GOP 19. In 2002, we got 19,613,804 votes while the GOP got 21,534,448 votes. We got 12 seats, they got 22 seats. The total for the 6 years, we got 95,016,167 votes while they got 86,325,684 votes. For that we got 49 seats, the GOP got 49 seats, and 2 Democratic leaning independents got 2 seats. By votes we got 52.3% while they got 47.7%. This wasn't close. We blew them out. Don't let them feed you this crap about close races.

Year Dems Gop
06 31 mill 25 mill
04 44 mill 40 mill
02 20 mill 22 mill
total 95 mill 86 mill

[kenny blankenship]

1. Blue-nami --and I promise I won't forget it!

[meti57b]

2. for the 1994 election when the House and the Senate became Republican .....

the Senate was 52 to 48 Republican majority and the Republicans had something like 24 seats more in the House. That's pretty much in the same realm as this Tuesday's turnover to the Democrats. So whether that is considered "close" or not, the results were a lot alike.

[AX10]

3. kick

[bigwillq]

4. Could you put those numbers top-down

instead of left-right???

It's kind of confusing to look at the way you have it.

[dsc]

5. I don't think I can. You can't do tables on this website.

[bigwillq]

6. Yeah but you can go like this

2004
Dems Repukes








2006
Dems Repukes


Right??? :shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

7. I think, by population, we represent an even more significant delta of Americans.

Republicans used to have the edge in representing acreage, but I'm not sure that's even true anymore.

[dsc]

8. They almost certainly still have acreage

Alaska and Texas are big.