The CWAL Rubber Room
"[An Invalid twitched while processing this directive]"
And given the Senate electoral lineup, it's virtually impossible for Republicans to even dream of nearly matching the aggregate vote tally the Democrats should have there, if they somehow did, the Democrats fucked up big time. (remember, 2/3rds of the Senate is NOT up for election; and the Democrats hold over 2/3rds of the Senate seats up for election this cycle)
....That and the aggregate polling number for House races is utterly meaningless, but I wouldn't bet against people trying to use it if it gives them a chance to rail further against "How undemocratic and broken/embarrassing the electoral systems of the Unites States are" oh, and that "gerrymandering is out of control."
Even if it was more a function of disparities in district sizes between states(which has nothing to do with gerrymandering), and that as a result of recent events, many "Republican Districts" saw depressed voter turn outs(as is normal for the party controlling the White House during mid-terms) while the Democrats potentially make a strong showing at the polls... Albeit a lot of that happens in districts that historically vote Democrat anyway--so they don't change anything except that mostly meaningless aggregate number.
That said, from the little bit of looking I've done so far, that aggregate number is evidently so meaningless, its actually reasonably hard to find information on it. But if I read an infographic right somewhere else, it looks like 1952 might currently be the closest we've come(since WW2) to seeing either party(Republicans that time too) being in majority control of the House while holding a razor thin lead(but importantly in this case--not behind) on the aggregate popular vote tally.
- Ahahahaha, the 2018 "Murphy hates us" Election outcome. Republicans keep majorities in the House and Senate. BUT some McGuffin aggregates House vote tallies and discovers most voters went for a Democratic Candidate. - TheDeamon 17:47:03 12018-01-19