2020 National Election: Poor results for Democrats in House and Senate probably reflects a change in how Republicans and Democrats vote

Another way to "balance out the red" in voting pattern maps is to weight the states not by physical size, but by the number of electoral votes it has.  The smaller the population, the fewer the electoral votes, as illustrated by these graphics from the Wall Street Journal.

Democrats as "Drop Off" voters.  The trend in the past had been that Democrats vote strongly in Presidential years, but were less motivated to do so in off elections ("How ‘Drop-Off’ Voters Differ From Consistent Voters and Nonvoters," Pew Research Center).

In 2018 (and 2019 in Virginia), this changed as Democrats enraged by Trump's 2016 victory and subsequent acts by the Trump Administration came out to vote in force, a complete reversal of past voting behavior.  

This didn't make much difference for the Senate--because of how it's structured to favor rural and small state interests--but it made a big difference in the House of Representatives, where many suburban and a handful of rural seats that had been Republican in the past--such as many seats in Orange County, California--were won by Democrats, and therefore, control of the House switched from the Republicans to the Democrats.

This was heralded as a sea change in politics--that formerly Republican leaning suburban voters especially were moving into the Democratic Party camp.

That's why it was expected that what happened would continue into the 2020 election cycle, and that there would be a landslide election in favor of the Democrats, who were projected to not only build their lead in the House--which is why so many Republicans chose not to run again, only we are seeing their seats remaining in the Republican camp, especially in Texas--but to take control of the Senate ("A Biden Landslide? Some Democrats Can’t Help Whispering," New York Times).

It didn't happen ("2020’s Biggest Election Losers" and "Susan Collins and Majorities," Wall Street Journal; "Dem leaders warn liberal rhetoric could blow Georgia races," Politico).

A new see sawing of House seats: are Republicans now the "inconsistent" voters?  I'm thinking this is the result of the mix of the electorate changing somewhat.  Now, the less politically engaged working class, rural, and similar segments have shifted to the Republican side.  They are motivated to vote by the Presidential election, less so in the off year cycle.

Democrats likely are now more politically engaged, and more likely to vote in both the Presidential and non-Presidential cycles of the national elections.

What this means is that in conservative leaning districts, more Republicans will vote in the Presidential election, shifting the seat to Republicans when the margins are tight,  But in the off-year cycle, it's likely that Democrats will continue to vote in higher numbers, and with more Republicans sitting out, the seat will turnover or flip to Democrats.  The switch could then occur in the next Presidential election afterwards.  Although at least with suburban seats, as demographic changes continue to favor Democrats, over time more of these seats are likely to become more permanently Democratic.

Although to do so, continuous organizing is required ("Arizona just showed the right way to harness the power of Latino voters," Washington Post).

The Senate is a different story, Republican control is likely to be maintained.  With a significant number of Republican held seats up for election in the Presidential election cycle, it will become increasingly difficult for Democrats to flip seats in red states.  

The small state bias in the structure of the Senate can probably only be overcome by adding a third seat to the larger states--but a bunch of the larger states are Republican too, so it could remain pretty tight in terms of control for many years to come.*

(Some have suggested statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, which would add 4 Senate seats.  But that could be a wash, because Puerto Ricans living on the island often vote for Republicans for statewide office.)

In this cycle, because Cunningham was stupidly indiscreet ("Cal Cunningham affair included July encounter in NC, new texts and interviews show," Associated Press), he likely cost the Democrats the Senate seat in North Carolina, but the Republicans will win Alaska for sure.  While the count isn't complete, Cunningham is 97,000 votes behind, but the likelihood is that with only about 168,000 votes to count, he can't make that up.

That gives the Republicans 50 seats.  If the Democrats can win both Georgian seats, the Democrats will gain control of the Senate because the VP chairs the Senate, and the VP will be Kamala Harris.

Conclusion.  The Georgia Senate runoff races on January 5th will test this theory ("Second Georgia Senate seat headed to January runoff that could decide Senate control," Roll Call), although their special nature makes it more of a one-off situation, in that both Republicans and Democrats will be motivated to vote.  If more Democrats vote, both seats will go to the Democrats, and control of the Senate will be split.

We'll see what happens in 2022.  Will seats like California District 48, New Mexico District 2, and Texas District 23 which have or seem likely to flip to the Republicans this year, flip back to Democrats in 2022, only to flip back to Republicans in 2024?

=========

* Adding a third Senate to the 20 most populated states

Adding a third Senate seat to the most populous states would shift the Senate to the Democrats but only slightly.

New seats added to California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Massachusetts and Maryland, totaling 8, would be solidly Democratic.

New seats added to Ohio, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, and Missouri, totaling 5, would be solidly Republican.

New seats in Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, totaling 4, are a toss up, but I'd say would lean Republican, while seats in Michigan, Arizona, and Wisconsin would probably lean Democrat.  

It's remains pretty close, although it might be that Georgia is slowly realigning towards the Democrats especially if voter suppression can be staunched, while Florida, might be realigning towards the Republicans, because more conservative leaning Latinos will move there instead of more progressive states--the way that in the past, more conservative refugees from the Soviet Union would come to the US, while more progressive Russian refugees would move to Europe.

If we added 5 more seats--to the 25 most populated states--the Republicans would be favored (South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana), not the Democrats (Colorado, Minnesota).