This is a good point that gets lost. Each state's legislative districts represent wildly different numbers of people.
It ranges all the way from California state senators (930,000 people per district, more even than a House seat) to New Hampshire state reps (3,000 people).
It ranges all the way from California state senators (930,000 people per district, more even than a House seat) to New Hampshire state reps (3,000 people).
So when someone says Dems lost 1,000 seats under Obama or gained 400 back under Trump, it would help to know the combined population the seats represent.
A lot of the flipped seats, in both of those figures, are in New Hampshire, which has a very big and very swingy legislature.
A lot of the flipped seats, in both of those figures, are in New Hampshire, which has a very big and very swingy legislature.
Rather than think about the raw number of seats, I prefer to focus on specific legislatures where a gain or a loss has long term consequences.
For example: losing the Kentucky House in 2016 was a big blow for Democrats. Gaining the New York Senate in 2018 was a big victory.
For example: losing the Kentucky House in 2016 was a big blow for Democrats. Gaining the New York Senate in 2018 was a big victory.
