we won the Senate 52.4 to 47.6

[dsc]

If you add up all the votes received by all the candidates in 2002, 2004, and 2006 (the years when the current Senate was elected) we received 95 million votes to their 86.3 million votes. We need to end all talk of us 'narrowly' taking the Senate. We actually got more votes than they did in 2002 when they won several seats. We beat them all three elections in actuality. We deserve the Senate. We won the Senate more than fair and square. We can't let the media define us as a party which barely won, by some fluke, the Senate. We creamed them, it doesn't get more simple than that. On edit: we actually did lose in 2002 but my figures for the total are correct. We won 2 out of the 3 elections even though we lost seats in 2 out of the three elections.

[ClassWarrior]

1. K&R

NGU.

[featherman]

2. Thanks for those numbers...always helpful to look at the overall

[Hav]

3. .

I also read that even with 45 Senate seats, the states represented by Dems had a higher population than the R states. Interesting.

[dsc]

7. It was true

and we had more votes as well since we won 2000's Senate election by a fairly goodly margin.

[elperromagico]

4. We beat them in the House by about 17 points this time around,

nearly triple the margin in the 1994 "Republican Revolution."

[WI_DEM]

5. that's because we won (in '02) in bigger states and they in smaller but your point is a good one.

[elperromagico]

6. Same thing happened in '04 as well.

Schumer, Boxer, and Obama won big in NY, CA, and IL respectively, contributing to an overall Dem margin of about three points. Yet we lost five seats.

[dsc]

8. kick