11 May 2014

2016 GE: Hillary Clinton vs. GOP Field, Part IV



This is a continuation of the first Hillary vs. GOP polling series that I started on March 17, 2013:

Statistikhengst's ELECTORAL POLITICS - 2013 and beyond: Clinton vs. GOP field, 2016 GE, Part I

Here are Part II  -and- Part III.

Back in March of 2013, 14 states had been polled. As of August 6th, 2013, it was 21 states. As of November 15th, 2013, 23 states had been polled, there has been extensive national polling and also one specialty poll (Latino Decisions). By the end of 2013, 26 states had been polled and now, as of May 10, 2014, 28 states have now been polled, 27 of which contain presidential match-ups (the lone California poll only has Clinton FAV/UNFAV ratings).

Let's see how this looks on a map. Here are the 26 states that were polled as of the end of 2013. The following colors have nothing to do with the political inclination of any state nor do they indicate who is winning. They just indicate geography.:



Now, of those 26 states, 18 have been freshly polled in 2014 thus far:



Add to that the two states have have been polled only in 2014 and are therefore very fresh:





The last time I reported on Hillary Clinton and polling (in late November of 2013), as of that point in time, there had been 83 polls total (including national polls), making for 209 Hillary vs. (GOP) match-ups. of which Hillary won 170 (81.34%).

Now, as of today, state and national polls together, there have been:

156 polls total, making for 508 presidential matchups.

Hillary Clinton has won 410 of those 508 matchups (80.71%)
The GOP field of various candidates have won 87 of those matchups (17.13%)
There have been 11 mathematical ties (2.17%)

So, in spite of the fact that the number of polls has almost doubled since the end of November 2013 and the number of matchups has more than doubled since then, the actual statistic of wins for Hillary Clinton has remained very stable.

Here an exact table, by state, with the number of polls, matchups, and who won:

State No. of polls No. of Matchups Clinton wins GOP wins Ties
National 41 122 118 4 0
AK 3 14 3 11 0
AR 2 5 4 1 0
AZ 1 5 4 1
CA 1 0 0 0 0
CO 8 27 14 11 2
FL 8 29 29 0 0
GA 2 9 8 0 1
IA 9 34 30 3 1
KS 2 6 0 6 0
KY 3 8 4 3 1
LA 4 14 5 7 2
ME 1 4 4 0 0
MI 5 15 15 0 0
MN 1 2 2 0 0
MS 1 4 0 4 0
MT 3 8 0 7 1
NH 8 20 19 1 0
NJ 5 7 6 1 0
NM 1 6 6 0 0
NY 6 8 8 0 0
NC 7 26 23 3 0
OH 4 21 20 0 1
PA 6 23 22 1 0
TX 4 18 5 13 0
VA 12 36 35 0 1
WV 1 5 0 5 0
WI 5 24 23 0 1
WY 1 5 0 5 0
Latino 1 3 3 0 0
TOTAL state polls 115 386 292 83 11
TOTAL state and national 156 508 410 87 11
% state polls only

75,65% 21,50% 2,85%
% state and nat'l together

80,71% 17,13% 2,17%



All of the polling values are here in this EXCEL DOCUMENT.

Here is a screenshot of an example of how the table is layed out, using the state of Florida as an example:



You will notice that the polls are numbered in reverse chronological order, with the latest poll at the top. All polls are linked, so you can click on the link for every single poll and see the results for yourself. The release date of the poll (European dating system) is then following by the survey size and MoE (Margin of Error). Then, if there are any FAV/UNFAV numbers or DEM nomination figures, they come next.

The Presidential matchups follow in this order:

Clinton vs. Christie
Clinton vs. Paul
(at the point the screenshot shows no more, you would have to scoll out at the excel table to see the rest)
Clinton vs. Ryan
Clinton vs. Cruz
Clinton vs. Bush, J.
Clinton vs. Rubio
Clinton vs. Huckabee

And then, any other GOP candidates that have been polled in that particular state.

The numbers are COLOR CODED (blue = DEM / red = GOP) and bolded = the higher value. Wherever you see values in italic, that means a mathematical tie.


The following 26 pollsters have polled Hillary vs. GOP matchups thus far:

Quinnipiac
Rasmussen
NBC (Princeton)
PPP (D)
Monmouth
Marist / McClatchy
Gallup
Bloomberg
YouGov
CNN / ORC
ABC / WAPO
The Field Poll
Gravis (R)
WMUR / UNH
Harper (R)
Purple Strategies
Marquette University Poll
Latino Decisions
The Arkansas Poll
The Polling Company
Conservative Intel
MRG (R)
Dartmouth
Rutgers/Eagleton
Siena
Roanoke

Here is a map of those states that have been polled, colored by the winner of the majority of the match-ups. In the case of Colorado and Kentucky it's really quite close, so I am leaving both states green for now.




This map is NOT a prediction map. It only shows who has won the majority of matchups.


What to make of all of this?

Well, it's still early, but the trend we have seen all through 2013 has continued into 2014, namely, that Hillary Clinton is demonstrably ahead in the battleground states that have decided the last 6 elections cycles. Not only is she ahead in those states, she is decisively ahead.  And in states where the GOP is winning, the margins are reduced.


1.) The Quntifecta: Florida (29 EV), Pennsylvania (20 EV) Ohio (18 EV), North Carolina (15 EV) and Virginia (13 EV). Total EV: 95

In every one of those 5 states, Hillary is ahead.

In Virginia, the most polled state thus far (here is the EXCEL tab for Virginia), there have been 12 polls with 36 matchups. Hillary has won 35 of them, there was one tie. The GOP has won not one single matchup in the Old Dominion, once a bedrock GOP state. The tie was against Christie, in September of 2013, long before Bridgegate. All said and told, Hillary is at between +4 and +14 against GOP candidates, all margins larger than Obama's 2012 win. 

In Florida, the third most polled state thus far (here is the EXCEL tab for Florida), there have been 8 polls with 29 matchups and Hillary has won every single matchup, with the majority of the margins in the double digits. No Democratic candidate that I know of has scored these type of margins in Florida in modern polling history.

The kind of polling we are seeing out of Florida and Virginia should be the no. 1 warning sign for the GOP.

In North Carolina, the fourth most polled state, (here is the EXCEL tab for North Carolina), there have been 7 polls and 26 matchups, of which Hillary Clinton has won 23. A strike against this data is that all of the polls have been from PPP (D) and I would much prefer to see a broad base of pollsters, as is the case with Virginia and Florida. The margins are also smaller, but consistent. PPP (D), which is based in North Carolina, nailed the polling in 2008, but called a tie in NC in 2012, where Romney won by +2.04%, so PPP (D) missed it in 2012. Alone the fact that this state is still unbelievably competitive is a bad sign for the GOP.

In Ohio, less polled than the others, (here is the EXCEL tab for Ohio), there have been 4 polls and 21 matchups, of which Hillary has won 20. And in 12 of those 20 wins, Hillary is winning with double digit margins over her opponents. The last time a Democrat won Ohio with more than a single digit margin: LBJ, 1964. Before that? FDR, 1936. Both of those elections were massive blowout elections for the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton barely won Ohio in 1992, but he won it by +6 in 1996. Obama won it by +4.6 in 2008 and by +3 in 2012. There has not been a poll of Ohio since 1988 to show a candidate of any party in double digits. This is an extremely important data point to remember. Again, it's not just one poll or one matchup where she is winning with double digits: it's in 12 matchups spread out over 3 polls.

In Pennsylvania, also one of the less polled states, (here is the EXCEL tab for Pennsylvania), there have been 6 polls and 23 matchups, Hillary has won 22 of them. And, similar to Ohio, 15 of those 22 wins are double-digits wins. Here, Christie still does the best of the GOP field.

So, of the Quintifecta, we have three of five states (VA, OH, FL) where, if the double-digit margins hold like this, those states will not even be true battlegrounds on election day 2016.

2.) Clinton is showing considerable strength in the so-called "Clinton 6 states" (three of which have been polled). The "Clinton 6", as I call them, are the six southern states that Bill Clinton won in both 1992 and 1996, that Obama never won. They are: WV, KY, MO, AR, LA and TN.  I did a write up over this phenomenon in November 2012.


Three of those "Clinton 6 have been polled": WV, KY and AR. Only one poll out of WV, but it confirms that the massive Romney landslide victory of 2012 is likely to hold for any Republican in 2016. But in Kentucky, it could be a horserace, and in Arkansas (the former home-state of the Clintons), we now have a second poll showing Hillary ahead of the GOP field, excepting fellow home-stater Mike Huckabee. Now, Mitt Romney won West Virginia by +27 and Arkansas by +24 and also made little known electoral history in 2012 as being the first Republican ever for whom both of these erstwhile Democratic bastions were called for a Republican immediately at poll closing time, but the Clinton polling here is divergent: she is losing in WV but winning somewhat in AR. However, she is under 50 in AR, there are lots of undecideds and things could change again. I have personally been thinking that Hillary would have better chances in Missouri, a state where Obama and McCain practically tied in 2008, but Romney won handily in 2012, than in Arkansas. Wait and see.

3.) Individual states that had been battlegrounds in 2000, 2004 and to some extent, in 2012, look very solid for Clinton: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, New Mexico and New Hampshire.  

In the West, also part of a very consistent pattern, Clinton is struggling mightily in Colorado, she has the entire time. If there is a state that the GOP has the best chances of regaining from 2008-2012, it is probably the Rocky Mountain State. Wait and see.  It also appears to be close in Iowa, but Clinton is winning.

In the state of New York, an expected blue state, Clinton has margins upwards of +40. The last (and only) time a Democrat won NY with circa +40? LBJ, 1964. 

Likewise, the GOP is easily winning Wyoming, by an average of about +27. George W. Bush (43) won Wyoming with over +40 both times.

Now, you might say: "Why quote NY and WY? NY is going to go blue and WY is going to go red!" And I will say: "a rising tide lifts all boats".

Expanded margins for Clinton in expected blue states and suppressed losing margins for her in expected RED states would point to a national win for her.

4.) Speaking of national win: national polling is overwhelmingly pointing to a large Clinton win:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ao6IyAPQ8DmmdEhxaGxWc0s4RU41czd0amxYT1ltT0E#gid=1


There have been 41 national polls, with 122 matchups. Hillary Clinton has won 118 (96.72%) of those matchups.  Go click on the link and see for yourself how many of those margins are double digit margins.


Now, varying from state to state, one GOPer may come closer to Clinton than the others, but she beats them all, consistently. And this data is coming from many various and independent-from-each-other pollsters. Rasmussen, a Right-Leaning outfit, recently put out a poll showing Hillary Clinton with a +13 margin over Jeb Bush nationally.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Facit: it's Hillary's election to have, if she wants it. If she declares (and I am more than reasonably sure she will declare), then she is the prohibitive front runner both for her party's nomination and also against any and all comers from the GOP.

Factors working against the GOP are the fact that Obama literally cemented Virginia into the Democratic column by winning the state not just once, but twice, against all conventional wisdom. Another factor against the GOP was the wild swing of Cuban-American voters in Florida from the GOP to Obama in 2012. The assumption is that this is due to the ongoing immigration debate. Another factor is the name "Clinton", where both Hillary and former President Bill Clinton are extremely well-known to the American public and in spite of the Lewinski scandal, Bill Clinton is still quite respected among the American public.

If Hillary only wins the states that were common DEM states between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, then she is already at 290 EV (shown in the Clinton 6 link above). I see a real possibility for Hillary Clinton to go slightly over 400 EV in 2016.

Those are the current polling statistics. Update in September 2014, again in January 2015. 

Full disclosure: I am a Clinton supporter, but were the numbers showing the GOP running away with this race, I would report it with exactly the same veracity.

14 January 2014

Congressional Elections compared to Presidential Terms, 1855-present





Senate Senate Senate Senate Senate



HOR HOR HOR HOR HOR






President Term Congress Years Total Dems Reps Others Vacant Margin Swing Swing %
Total Dems Reps Others Vacant Margin Swing Swing % Years Congress Term President
Pierce (D) 1st – mid-term 34th 1855–1857 62 42 15 5 D +27 ---

234 83 108 43 R +25 ---
1855–1857 34th 1st – mid-term Pierce (D)
Buchanan (D) 1st 35th 1857–1859 64 39 20 5 D +19 R +8 12,50%
237 131 92 14 D +39 D +64 27,00% 1857–1859 35th 1st Buchanan (D)
Buchanan (D) 1st – mid-term 36th 1859–1861 66 38 26 2 D +12 R +7 10,61%
237 101 113 23 R +12 R +51 21,52% 1859–1861 36th 1st – mid-term Buchanan (D)
Lincoln (R) 1st 37th 1861–1863 50 11 31 7 1 R +20 R +22 44,00%
178 42 106 28 2 R +64 R +52 29,21% 1861–1863 37th 1st Lincoln (R)
Lincoln (R) 1st – mid-term 38th 1863–1865 51 12 39 R +27 R +7 13,73%
183 80 103 R +23 D +41 22,40% 1863–1865 38th 1st – mid-term Lincoln (R)
Lincoln (R) / Johnson (R) 2nd 39th 1865–1867 52 10 42 R +32 R +5 9,62%
191 46 145 R +99 R +76 39,79% 1865–1867 39th 2nd Lincoln (R) / Johnson (R)
Johnson (R) (2nd) – mid-term 40th 1867–1869 53 11 42 R +31 D +1 1,89%
193 49 143 1 R +94 D +5 2,59% 1867–1869 40th (2nd) – mid-term Johnson (R)
Grant (R) 1st 41st 1869–1871 74 11 61 2 R +50 R +19 25,68%
243 73 170 R +97 R +3 1,23% 1869–1871 41st 1st Grant (R)
Grant (R) 1st – mid-term 42nd 1871–1873 74 17 57 R +40 D +10 13,51%
243 104 139 R +35 D +62 25,51% 1871–1873 42nd 1st – mid-term Grant (R)
Grant (R) 2nd 43rd 1873–1875 74 19 54 1 R +25 D +15 20,27%
293 88 203 2 R +115 R +80 27,30% 1873–1875 43rd 2nd Grant (R)
Grant (R) 2nd – mid-term 44th 1875–1877 76 29 46 1 R +17 D +8 10,53%
293 181 107 3 2 D +74 D +199 67,92% 1875–1877 44th 2nd – mid-term Grant (R)
Hayes (R) 1st 45th 1877–1879 76 36 39 1 R +3 D +15 19,74%
293 156 137 D +19 R +55 18,77% 1877–1879 45th 1st Hayes (R)
Hayes (R) 1st – mid-term 46th 1879–1881 76 43 33 D +10 D +13 17,11%
293 150 128 14 1 D +22 D +3 1,02% 1879–1881 46th 1st – mid-term Hayes (R)
Garfied (R) / Arthur (R) 1st 47th 1881–1883 76 37 37 2 TIE R +5 6,58%
293 130 152 11 R +22 R +44 15,02% 1881–1883 47th 1st Garfied (R) / Arthur (R)
Arthur (R) (1st) – mid-term 48th 1883–1885 76 36 40 R +4 R +4 5,26%
325 200 119 6 D +81 D +103 31,69% 1883–1885 48th (1st) – mid-term Arthur (R)
Cleveland (D) 1st 49th 1885–1887 76 34 41 1 R +7 R +3 3,95%
325 182 140 2 1 D +42 R +39 12,00% 1885–1887 49th 1st Cleveland (D)
Cleveland (D) 1st – mid-term 50th 1887–1889 76 37 39 R +2 D +5 6,58%
325 170 151 4 D +21 R +21 6,46% 1887–1889 50th 1st – mid-term Cleveland (D)
B. Harrison (R) 1st 51st 1889–1891 84 37 47 R +10 R +8 9,52%
330 156 173 1 R +17 R +38 11,52% 1889–1891 51st 1st B. Harrison (R)
B. Harrison (R) 1st – mid-term 52nd 1891–1893 88 39 47 2 R +8 D +2 2,27%
333 231 88 14 D +143 D +160 48,05% 1891–1893 52nd 1st – mid-term B. Harrison (R)
Cleveland (D) 2nd 53rd 1893–1895 88 44 38 3 3 D +6 D +14 15,91%
356 220 126 10 D +94 R +49 13,76% 1893–1895 53rd 2nd Cleveland (D)
Cleveland (D) 2nd – mid-term 54th 1895–1897 88 39 44 5 R +5 R +11 12,50%
357 104 246 7 R +142 R +136 38,10% 1895–1897 54th 2nd – mid-term Cleveland (D)
McKinley (R) 1st 55th 1897–1899 90 34 46 10 R +12 R +7 7,78%
357 134 206 16 1 R +72 D +70 19,61% 1897–1899 55th 1st McKinley (R)
McKinley (R) 1st – mid-term 56th 1899–1901 90 26 53 11 R +27 R +15 16,67%
357 163 185 9 R +22 D +50 14,01% 1899–1901 56th 1st – mid-term McKinley (R)
McKinley (R) / Roosevelt (R) 2nd (1st -TR) 57th 1901–1903 90 29 56 3 2 R +27 no change 0,00%
357 153 198 5 1 R +45 R +23 6,44% 1901–1903 57th 2nd (1st -TR) McKinley (R) / Roosevelt (R)
Roosevelt (R) 2nd – mid-term 58th 1903–1905 90 32 58 R +26 D +1 1,11%
386 178 207 1 R +29 D +16 4,15% 1903–1905 58th 2nd – mid-term Roosevelt (R)
Roosevelt (R) 2nd 59th 1905–1907 90 32 58 R +26 no change 0,00%
386 136 250 R +114 R +85 22,02% 1905–1907 59th 2nd Roosevelt (R)
Roosevelt (R) 2nd – mid-term 60th 1907–1909 92 29 61 2 R +32 R +6 6,52%
386 164 222 R +58 D +56 14,51% 1907–1909 60th 2nd – mid-term Roosevelt (R)
Taft (R) 1st 61st 1909–1911 92 32 59 1 R +27 D +5 5,43%
391 172 219 R +47 D +11 2,81% 1909–1911 61st 1st Taft (R)
Taft (R) 1st – mid-term 62nd 1911–1913 92 42 49 1 R +7 D +20 21,74%
391 228 162 1 D +66 D +113 28,90% 1911–1913 62nd 1st – mid-term Taft (R)
Wilson (D) 1st 63rd 1913–1915 96 51 44 1 D +7 D +14 14,58%
435 290 127 18 D +163 D +97 22,30% 1913–1915 63rd 1st Wilson (D)
Wilson (D) 1st – mid-term 64th 1915–1917 96 56 39 1 D +17 D +10 10,42%
435 231 193 8 3 D +38 R +125 28,74% 1915–1917 64th 1st – mid-term Wilson (D)
Wilson (D) 2nd 65th 1917–1919 96 53 42 1 D +11 R +6 6,25%
435 2101 216 9 R +6 R +44 10,11% 1917–1919 65th 2nd Wilson (D)
Wilson (D) 2nd – mid-term 66th 1919–1921 96 47 48 1 R +1 R +12 12,50%
435 191 237 7 R +46 R +40 9,20% 1919–1921 66th 2nd – mid-term Wilson (D)
Harding (R) 1st 67th 1921–1923 96 37 59 R +22 R +21 21,88%
435 132 300 1 2 R +168 R +122 28,05% 1921–1923 67th 1st Harding (R)
Harding (R) / Coolidge (R) 1st – mid-term 68th 1923–1925 96 43 51 2 R +8 D +14 14,58%
435 207 225 3 R +18 D +150 34,48% 1923–1925 68th 1st – mid-term Harding (R) / Coolidge (R)
Coolidge (R) 1st 69th 1925–1927 96 40 54 1 1 R +14 R +6 6,25%
435 183 247 5 R +64 R +45 10,34% 1925–1927 69th 1st Coolidge (R)
Coolidge (R) 1st – mid-term 70th 1927–1929 96 47 48 1 R +1 D +13 13,54%
435 195 237 3 R +42 D +22 5,06% 1927–1929 70th 1st – mid-term Coolidge (R)
Hoover (R) 1st 71st 1929–1931 96 39 56 1 R +27 R +26 27,08%
435 163 267 1 4 R +104 R +62 14,25% 1929–1931 71st 1st Hoover (R)
Hoover (R) 1st – mid-term 72nd 1931–1933 96 47 48 1 R +1 D +26 27,08%
435 216 218 1 R +2 D +102 23,45% 1931–1933 72nd 1st – mid-term Hoover (R)
F. Roosevelt (D) 1st 73rd 1933–1935 96 59 36 1 D +23 D +24 25,00%
435 313 117 5 D +196 D +198 45,52% 1933–1935 73rd 1st F. Roosevelt (D)
F. Roosevelt (D) 1st – mid-term 74th 1935–1937 96 69 25 2 D +44 D +23 23,96%
435 322 103 10 D +219 D +23 5,29% 1935–1937 74th 1st – mid-term F. Roosevelt (D)
F. Roosevelt (D) 2nd 75th 1937–1939 96 75 17 4 D +58 D +14 14,58%
435 333 89 13 D +244 D +25 5,75% 1937–1939 75th 2nd F. Roosevelt (D)
F. Roosevelt (D) 2nd – mid-term 76th 1939–1941 96 69 23 4 D +46 R +12 12,50%
435 262 169 4 D +93 R +151 34,71% 1939–1941 76th 2nd – mid-term F. Roosevelt (D)
F. Roosevelt (D) 3rd 77th 1941–1943 96 66 28 2 D +38 R +8 8,33%
435 267 162 6 D +105 D +12 2,76% 1941–1943 77th 3rd F. Roosevelt (D)
F. Roosevelt (D) 3rd – mid-term 78th 1943–1945 96 57 38 1 D +19 R +19 19,79%
435 222 209 4 D +13 R +92 21,15% 1943–1945 78th 3rd – mid-term F. Roosevelt (D)
F. Roosevelt (D) / Truman (D) (4th) / (1st) 79th 1945–1947 96 57 38 1 D +19 no change 0,00%
435 243 190 2 D +53 D +40 9,20% 1945–1947 79th (4th) / (1st) F. Roosevelt (D) / Truman (D)
Truman (D) 1st – mid-term 80th 1947–1949 96 45 51 R +6 R +27 28,13%
435 188 246 1 R +58 R +111 25,52% 1947–1949 80th 1st – mid-term Truman (D)
Truman (D) 2nd 81st 1949–1951 96 54 42 D +12 D +18 18,75%
435 263 171 1 D +92 D +150 34,48% 1949–1951 81st 2nd Truman (D)
Truman (D) 2nd – mid-term 82nd 1951–1953 96 48 47 1 D +1 R +11 11,46%
435 234 199 2 D +35 R +57 13,10% 1951–1953 82nd 2nd – mid-term Truman (D)
Eisenhower (R) 1st 83rd 1953–1955 96 46 48 2 R +2 R +3 3,13%
435 213 221 1 R +8 R +43 9,89% 1953–1955 83rd 1st Eisenhower (R)
Eisenhower (R) 1st – mid-term 84th 1955–1957 96 48 47 1 D +1 D +3 3,13%
435 232 203 D +29 D +37 8,51% 1955–1957 84th 1st – mid-term Eisenhower (R)
Eisenhower (R) 2nd 85th 1957–1959 96 49 47 D +2 D +1 1,04%
435 234 201 D +33 D +40 9,20% 1957–1959 85th 2nd Eisenhower (R)
Eisenhower (R) 2nd – mid-term 86th 1959–1961 98 64 34 D +30 D +29 29,59%
4363 283 153 D +130 D +97 2,22% 1959–1961 86th 2nd – mid-term Eisenhower (R)
Kennedy (D) 1st 87th 1961–1963 100 64 36 D +28 R +2 2,00%
4374 262 175 D +87 R +43 0,98% 1961–1963 87th 1st Kennedy (D)
Kennedy (D) / Johnson (D) 1st – mid-term 88th 1963–1965 100 67 33 D +34 D +6 6,00%
435 258 176 1 D +82 R +5 1,15% 1963–1965 88th 1st – mid-term Kennedy (D) / Johnson (D)
Johnson (D) 1st 89th 1965–1967 100 68 32 D +36 D +2 2,00%
435 295 140 D +155 D +73 16,78% 1965–1967 89th 1st Johnson (D)
Johnson (D) 1st – mid-term 90th 1967–1969 100 64 36 D +28 R +8 8,00%
435 248 187 D +61 R +94 21,61% 1967–1969 90th 1st – mid-term Johnson (D)
Nixon (R) 1st 91st 1969–1971 100 58 42 D +16 R +12 12,00%
435 243 192 D +51 R +10 2,30% 1969–1971 91st 1st Nixon (R)
Nixon (R) 1st – mid-term 92nd 1971–1973 100 54 44 2 D +8 R +8 8,00%
435 255 180 D +75 D +24 5,52% 1971–1973 92nd 1st – mid-term Nixon (R)
Nixon (R) / Ford (R) 2nd 93rd 1973–1975 100 56 42 2 D +14 D +6 6,00%
435 242 192 1 D +50 R +25 5,75% 1973–1975 93rd 2nd Nixon (R) / Ford (R)
Ford (R) (2nd) – mid-term 94th 1975–1977 100 61 37 2 D +24 D +10 10,00%
435 291 144 D +147 D +97 22,30% 1975–1977 94th (2nd) – mid-term Ford (R)
Carter (D) 1st 95th 1977–1979 100 61 38 1 D +23 R +1 1,00%
435 292 143 D +149 D +2 0,46% 1977–1979 95th 1st Carter (D)
Carter (D) 1st – mid-term 96th 1979–1981 100 58 41 1 D +17 R +6 6,00%
435 277 158 D +119 R +30 6,90% 1979–1981 96th 1st – mid-term Carter (D)
Reagan (R) 1st 97th 1981–1983 100 46 53 1 R +7 R +24 24,00%
435 242 192 1 D +50 R +69 15,86% 1981–1983 97th 1st Reagan (R)
Reagan (R) 1st – mid-term 98th 1983–1985 100 46 54 R +9 R +2 2,00%
435 269 166 D +103 D +53 12,18% 1983–1985 98th 1st – mid-term Reagan (R)
Reagan (R) 2nd 99th 1985–1987 100 47 53 R +6 D +3 3,00%
435 253 182 D +71 R +32 7,36% 1985–1987 99th 2nd Reagan (R)
Reagan (R) 2nd – mid-term 100th 1987–1989 100 55 45 D +10 D +16 16,00%
435 258 177 D +81 D +10 2,30% 1987–1989 100th 2nd – mid-term Reagan (R)
Bush „41“ (R) 1st 101st 1989–1991 100 55 45 D +10 unchanged 0,00%
435 260 175 D +85 D +4 0,92% 1989–1991 101st 1st Bush „41“ (R)
Bush „41“ (R) 1st – mid-term 102nd 1991–1993 100 56 44 D +12 D +2 2,00%
435 267 167 1 D +100 D +15 3,45% 1991–1993 102nd 1st – mid-term Bush „41“ (R)
Clinton (D) 1st 103rd 1993–1995 100 57 43 D +14 D +2 2,00%
435 258 176 1 D +82 R +18 4,14% 1993–1995 103rd 1st Clinton (D)
Clinton (D) 1st – mid-term 104th 1995–1997 100 48 52 R +4 R +18 18,00%
435 204 230 1 R +26 R +108 24,83% 1995–1997 104th 1st – mid-term Clinton (D)
Clinton (D) 2nd 105th 1997–1999 100 45 55 R +10 R +6 8,00%
435 207 226 2 R +19 D +7 1,61% 1997–1999 105th 2nd Clinton (D)
Clinton (D) 2nd – mid-term 106th 1999–2001 100 45 55 R +10 unchanged 0,00%
435 211 223 1 R +12 D +7 1,61% 1999–2001 106th 2nd – mid-term Clinton (D)
Bush „43“ (R) 1st 107th 2001–2003 100 50 50 Tie D +10 10,00%
435 212 221 2 R +9 D +3 0,69% 2001–2003 107th 1st Bush „43“ (R)
Bush „43“ (R) 1st – mid-term 108th 2003–2005 100 48 51 1 R +3 R +3 3,00%
435 205 229 1 R +24 R +15 3,45% 2003–2005 108th 1st – mid-term Bush „43“ (R)
Bush „43“ (R) 2nd 109th 2005–2007 100 44 55 1 R +10 R +7 7,00%
435 202 231 1 1 R +29 R +5 1,15% 2005–2007 109th 2nd Bush „43“ (R)
Bush „43“ (R) 2nd – mid-term 110th 2007–2009 100 49 49 2 Tie D +7 7,00%
435 233 198 4 D +35 D +64 14,71% 2007–2009 110th 2nd – mid-term Bush „43“ (R)
Obama (D) 1st 111th 2009–2011 100 57 41 2 2 D +16 D +9 9,00%
435 256 178 1 D +78 D +43 9,89% 2009–2011 111th 1st Obama (D)
Obama (D) 1st – mid-term 112th 2011–2013 100 51 47 2 D +4 R +12 12,00%
435 193 242 R +49 R +127 29,20% 2011–2013 112th 1st – mid-term Obama (D)
Obama (D) 2nd 113th 2013–2015 100 54 45 1 D +9 D +5 5,00%
435 201 234 R +33 D +16 3,68% 2013–2015 113th 2nd Obama (D)
Obama (D) 2nd – mid-term 114th 2015-2017 100 ?? ??













2015-2017 114th 2nd – mid-term Obama (D)