Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Minnesota State Senate Election Analysis: DFL Thoroughly Dominates Republicans

Bookmark and Share

The DFL expanded its lead in the Minnesota State Senate from 38-29 to 44-23, after picking up eight seats and giving back two in this month's election. The DFL has now not only nearly doubled the number of GOP seats in the Senate, but has also more strongly situated itself to pick up even more seats in 2010 before redistricting.

Overall, 55.3% of Minnesotans who voted in State Senate races voted for DFL candidates, compared to 43.3% for Republicans. This 12-point differential is the largest margin in the DFL's favor since 1992 when the DFL garnered 55.6% to the GOP's 43.2%.

The DFL's strong position in the State Senate lies not only in the number of seats won, but also by the strength of their victories: the DFL won nearly as many seats by more than 30 points (22) as the number of seats Republicans won overall (23).

For example, the DFL won 10 seats by between 50 and 99 points, compared to none for the GOP (both parties ran one candidate unopposed by the other party).

The DFL also won 11 more "very uncompetitive" races, decided by between 30 and 49 points, compared to none for the Republicans.

The GOP held on to 13 "weakly competitive" Republican-controlled districts, decided by between 11 and 29 points, compared to 11 for the DFL. The GOP also held onto 7 "competitive" Republican-controlled districts, decided by between 0 and 10 points, compared to just 5 for the DFL. In other words, Republicans are protecting a greater number of precariously held districts.

Lastly, both Republican pickups in 2006 were very narrowly won (1.7 and 2.7 points) whereas most of the DFL's eight pickups were decided by larger margins: 1.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.9, 6.3, 7.3, 10.5 and 11.4 points.

Third Party Vacuum

Third party candidates were not much of a factor in 2006 with only 1.4% of votes cast for the State Senate going to non major party candidates, the lowest total since 1990 (0.4%). Only nine third party or independent candidates were even on the ballot in 2006, although all of these candidates did perform strongly in their respective districts—each winning at least 5.6% of the vote.

Previous post: Many Familiar Faces To Depart Capitol Hill After '06 Election
Next post: Gubernatorial Approval Ratings Rise Noticeably After Elections

2 Comments


  • Eric-

    What do you think about the three-cycle trend regarding close races (within 5 points) in the Minnesota legisative races?

    2002 - 11 close races (1 won by the DFL)

    2004 - 23 close races (12 won by the DFL)

    2006 - 24 close races (16 won by the DFL)

    Is this a sign that the state is swinging back to its historic DFL strength? Or that the the DFL has a better ground game than the Republicans? President Bush's falling popularity? All three? Some? None?

  • Ryan -

    I think this could be a sign of many things, including the decline of the Independence Party, which is not fielding as many candidates these days. Of the three points you listed above, I would speculate Bush's low popularity was likely the biggest factor in 2006 to motivate voters to vote against the GOP in races in the lower positions on the ballot (like State House / Senate).

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting