Which party controls Congress? Which, the White House? The answer reveals the “balance of power” in the two branches of government that have elected officials (Congress and the White House). [Jump to chart]
Americans seem to prefer that the checks-and-balances envisioned by the founders be facilitated by having different parties control Congress and the White House.
- Contrary to popular belief, most of the time (in modern political history, post 1945) Congress and the President are at odds; that is, most of the time the same political party does not control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.
- Congress has usually been controlled by the same party (post WWII) with the “odd man out” being, literally, the President. Only 16 times (32 years) since 1945 have both branches of Congress and the Presidency been controlled by the same party; the Democrats have held this advantage more often than Republicans (11 to 4). However, it has happened four times (8 years) since 2003, making this seem more common that it has been, historically (Republicans, three times). Prior to WWII, having House, Senate and White House controlled by the same party was the norm.
- Since 1945, the House and Senate have been controlled by different parties only six times (12 years). The first three (in succession) were under Reagan (1981-1986). The other three have been since the 2000 elections, which makes this “seem” more normal to us than it is, historically. From 1901-1945, this happened only twice.
And there have been only two complete turn-overs of Congress since 1949: one in 1995 and the other in 2007.
Demographics
The 115th Congress, which will convene January 3, 2017, will have 21 women in the Senate and 83 women in the House. Four of the new female Democrats are minorities:
- Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA) is the first Indian-American woman in the House;
- Sen. Tammy Duckworth (IL) is the first Thai-American in Senate (second Asian American senator) and the first female senator to serve a combat role in the U.S. Army; she was also the first Thai-American in the House (2014);
- Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) is our first Latina senator and the first woman elected to the Senate from Nevada;
- Sen. Kamala Harris (CA) is the first black woman elected to the Senate in more than 20 years (Carol Moseley Braun, IL, served one term from 1993-99).
These four members join Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI), who became the first Asian-American woman to gain a seat in the chamber in 2012, and will bring the total number of minority women in the Senate to four.
Women account for 50.8% of the US population but only 21% of the US Senate and 19% of the House. We rank 99th out of 193 countries in terms of women’s parliamentary representation.
The average age of members of the 114th Congress is slightly younger than in recent history:
- 114th Congress (2015-2016): 57.0 years for Representatives and 61.0 years for Senators
- 111th Congress (2009-2010): 57.2 years for Representatives and 63.1 years for Senators
U.S. Representatives must be at least 25 years old when they assume office (January following the November even-year election). Senators must be at least 30 years old. (CRS report)
Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency
Updated: 11 November 2016 5 January 2017
| Year | Congress | President | Senate 100 |
House 435 |
Wars & Economics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 – Trump | 115th | R | R: 52 | R: 246[7] | |
| 2015 | 114th | D | R: 54 | R: 247[6] | |
| 2013 – Obama | 113th | D | D: 52 | R: 232[5] | |
| 2011 | 112th | D | D: 56 | R: 241 | Iraq (2003-11) Great Recession (2007-2011) |
| 2009 – Obama | 111th | D | D – 57[4] | D – 256 | Iraq, GR |
| 2007 | 110th | R | D – 49[3] | D – 233 | Iraq, GR |
| 2005 – Bush | 109th | R | R – 55 | R – 232 | Iraq |
| 2003 | 108th | R | R – 51 | R – 229 | Iraq |
| 2001 – Bush | 107th | R | D[2] | R – 221 | |
| 1999 | 106th | D | R – 55 | R – 223 | |
| 1997 – Clinton | 105th | D | R – 55 | R – 228 | |
| 1995 | 104th | D | R – 52 | R – 230 | Savings&Loan Crisis (1986-95) |
| 1993 – Clinton | 103rd | D | D – 57 | D – 258 | S&L |
| 1991 | 102nd | R | D – 56 | D – 267 | Iraq (1990-91) S&L |
| 1989 – Bush | 101st | R | D – 55 | D – 260 | S&L |
| 1987 | 100th | R | D – 55 | D – 258 | Iran-Contra (1981-1987) S&L |
| 1985 – Reagan | 99th | R | R – 53 | D – 253 | Iran-Contra; S&L |
| 1983 | 98th | R | R – 54 | D – 269 | Iran-Contra |
| 1981 – Reagan | 97th | R | R – 53 | D – 242 | Contra |
| 1979 | 96th | D | D – 58 | D – 277 | Hostage Crisis (1979-1980*) |
| 1977 – Carter | 95th | D | D – 61 | D – 292 | |
| 1975 1974- Ford |
94th | R | D – 60 | D -291 | Watergate (1972-74) Vietnam (1955-1975) |
| 1973 – Nixon | 93rd | R | D – 56 | D – 242 | Vietnam, US withdrew (1973) |
| 1971 | 92nd | R | D – 54 | D – 255 | Vietnam |
| 1969 – Nixon | 91st | R | D – 57 | D – 243 | Vietnam, Draft began (1969) |
| 1967 | 90th | D | D – 64 | D – 247 | Vietnam Nixon tries to sabotage peace talks during ’68 campaign |
| 1965 – Johnson | 89th | D | D – 68 | D – 295 | Vietnam |
| 1963 – JFK (d) ; Johnson | 88th | D | D – 66 | D – 259 | Vietnam |
| 1961 – JFK | 87th | D | D – 64 | D – 263 | Vietnam |
| 1959 | 86th | R | D – 65 | D -283 | Vietnam |
| 1957 – Eisenhower | 85th | R | D – 49 | D – 232 | Vietnam |
| 1955 | 84th | R | D – 48 | D – 232 | Vietnam |
| 1953 – Eisenhower | 83rd | R | R – 48 | R – 221 | Korea (1950-1953) |
| 1951 | 82nd | D | D – 49 | D – 235 | Korea |
| 1949 – Truman | 81st | D | D – 54 | D – 263 | Korea |
| 1947 | 80th | D | R – 51 | R – 246 | |
| 1945 – FDR (d) ; Truman | 79th | D | D – 57 | D – 242 | WWII (1939-45) |
| 1943 | 78th | D | D – 57 | D – 222 | WWII |
| 1941 – Roosevelt | 77th | D | D – 66 | D – 267 | WWII Pearl Harbor (1941) |
| 1939 | 76th | D | D – 69 | D – 262 | WWII |
| 1937 – Roosevelt | 75th | D | D – 76 | D – 333 | Great Depression (1929-39) |
| 1935 | 74th | D | D – 69 | D – 322 | G.D. |
| 1933 – Roosevelt | 73rd | D | D – 59 | D – 313 | G.D. |
| 1931 | 72nd | R | 48[1] | R – 218 | G.D. |
| 1929 – Hoover | 71st | R | R – 56 | R – 267 | G.D. |
| 1927 | 70th | R | R – 48 | R – 237 | |
| 1925 – Coolidge | 69th | R | R – 54 | R – 247 | |
| 1923 – Harding (d) ; Coolidge | 68th | R | R – 53 | R – 225 | |
| 1921 – Harding | 67th | R | R – 59 | R – 300 | Depression 1920-21 |
| 1919 | 66th | D | R – 49 | R – 237 | |
| 1917 – Wilson | 65th | D | D – 54 | R – 216 | WWI (1914-18) |
| 1915 | 64th | D | D – 56 | D – 231 | WWI |
| 1913 – Wilson | 63rd | D | D – 51 | D – 290 | WWI |
| 1911 | 62nd | R | R- 52 | D – 228 | |
| 1909 – Taft | 61st | R | R – 60 | R – 219 | |
| 1907 | 60th | R | R – 61 | R – 222 | Panic of 1907 |
| 1905 – T. Roosevelt | 59th | R | R – 58 | R – 250 | |
| 1903 | 58th | R | R – 57 | R – 207 | |
| 1901 – McKinley (d) ; T. Roosevelt | 57th | R | R – 56 | R – 198 | |
|
Yellow years mark Presidential inauguration. * Iranian hostage crisis ended when Carter’s presidency ended. |
|||||
Sources:
House and Senate
Brown University, InfoPlease, Janda, Wikipedia
[1] There were 48 Republicans, 47 Democrats and one Farmer-Labor who caucused with Ds.
[2] There were 50 Ds and 50 Rs until May 24, 2001, when Sen. James Jeffords (R-VT) switched to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001; he announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage.
[3] Two Independents (Lieberman-CT and Sanders-VT). Lieberman was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate and became an Independent Democrat; Sanders was elected in 2006 as an Independent.
[4] Two Independents (Lieberman-CT and Sanders-VT); Arlen Specter (PA) was reelected in 2004 as a Republican and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009.
[5] House data (3 vacancies); Senate independents caucus with Democrats
[6] As of October 20, 2016, there was one vacancy (only 434 members)
[7] As of December 31, 2016, there were 246 Republicans in the House and 52 in the Senate.
~~~~
I created this table (and introductory narrative) while I was the US Politics guide at About.com. I left that position in March 2009.
~~~~~
Q&A
- Why start with 1901?
For several years, the start-date was 1945 because this mid-century marker reflected the “modern” era. I expanded it to 1901 after a discussion of how often a political party was able to hold the White House for 12 years or more. - Why not include key events, bills?
The goal was create an at-a-glance chart that simply showed the balance of power. I agree that knowing key historical events could provide additional perspective. To that end, I have now marked times of war. Given sufficient time, I might add an additional page that highlights key legislation or other items of historical interest.
RELATED: Visual Guide : The President v the Senate (Confirmed Nominations)
ace
January 25, 2017 at 9:34pmGreat chart! Thanks for posting. I think 9/11 should be on the chart in the war column, considering the military action that it prompted. my two cents.
Lynn
January 23, 2017 at 3:11amThanks for sharing this chart! Another key addition would be the judicial branch. I would like to see how many times we had a conservative vs liberal judicial branch, since we are about to have a situation where all 3 branches will be controlled by one party. Has this happened before?
phillip
January 5, 2017 at 2:20pmThey call Afghanistan the forgotten war for good reason I guess. Please include it above.
David Silberstein
January 3, 2017 at 12:08pmUnless I’m mistaken, your statement that “Since 1945, the House and Senate have been controlled by different parties only five times (10 years)” should be altered to six times: 3 times since the 2000 elections and 3 times during the Reagan presidency. Besides this detail, I found your chart very helpful..
KE Gill
January 5, 2017 at 12:43pmThanks, David – you are correct!
Ralph P. Brescia
January 1, 2017 at 7:52pmIran/Contra should be added to far right column of the chart from Reagan II thru Bush I.
KE Gill
January 5, 2017 at 1:06pmVery good point. Thank you.
Don Evans
November 20, 2016 at 5:12amDemographics – 115th Congress correction
Senator Tammy Duckworth (IL) is the first Thai-American senator
KE Gill
January 5, 2017 at 12:46pmGot it – thanks!
Billy Skinner
November 17, 2016 at 4:57amThis is awesome. I have been looking for this for several years and give up and did my own. I added two columns that I dont see on yours. They are 1)hourly compensation and 2) productivity, which show a continuous negative correlation no matter which party is in control. This is my source: http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/.
What are your thoughts?
KE Gill
November 17, 2016 at 4:14pmThanks, Billy! (I’m originally from SW Georgia, BTW.)
I had not thought about adding wage stagnation but charts showing that common preconceptions about the two parties and economy vitality are important.
Leila
November 14, 2016 at 1:48amGreat visual – thank you!
I went looking for something like this to show how very wrong Ann Coulter’s tweet was.
(“1928 was last time Republicans had the White House, the House and the Senate” — https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/796220757571411968)
KE Gill
November 14, 2016 at 1:40pmTY, Leila. I also have a story debunking that tweet:
http://wiredpen.com/2016/11/09/no-1928-was-not-the-last-time-rs-controlled-all-branches-of-the-u-s-government/
Mike Viater
November 11, 2016 at 12:06pmVery good… the only change I would make is on the 1921… Why not “Roaring Twenties”? then move the Depression by 1929. Unless this is the revision of history you want to keep.
KE Gill
November 11, 2016 at 3:45pmThe 1921 depression is not the Great Depression. It is the post WWI depression.
Paul Wheaton
November 11, 2016 at 7:18amDuring 1931-1932 Hoover (R) was still President. Chart does not reflect this as of right now. Hoover was in office until noon, March 4, 1933 when FDR took over.
KE Gill
November 11, 2016 at 3:46pm1931 *is* Hoover. I only post the name when there is a vote. FDR’s name does not appear until 1933.
Rick
November 11, 2016 at 4:19amNeed to add R or D next to the President.
KE Gill
November 11, 2016 at 3:47pmThe president’s party has its own column, alongside Senate and House.
tom paper
November 10, 2016 at 1:23pmKathy – I love the table above! Thanks for doing this. Any chance you can update for the results from Tuesday? Thanks, Tom
KE Gill
November 11, 2016 at 3:47pmThanks, Tom! Yes, probably Sunday. :-)
Nobody
November 10, 2016 at 9:02amYour table is still wrong for the 83rd Congress. That should say R-221 in 1953 and be shaded full red across.
KE Gill
November 11, 2016 at 10:52pmA early comment included a link with this info. This has been updated.
Mike
November 9, 2016 at 11:14pm1931 should read as R for President Hoover, please correct.
KE Gill
November 11, 2016 at 3:48pm1931 *is* Hoover. I only post the name when there is a vote. FDR’s name does not appear until 1933.
Curt Flowers
November 9, 2016 at 4:52amI believe you have the 83rd Congress incorrect. http://history.house.gov/Congressional-Overview/Profiles/83rd/ It was 221 Republicans.
KE Gill
November 11, 2016 at 3:53pmTY, Curt! That’s been in error a long time (unless I introduced the error when I added the first half of the century last month).
Paul H
October 29, 2016 at 11:27amKathy, great information that I was trying to put together myself. I read many of the comments and scratched my head as I understood exactly that what you posted are facts that don’t connate good or bad. The good or bad is a matter of perspective and while having the major accomplishments of each Congress might be interesting for bills passed it wouldn’t tell us what wasn’t passed that maybe should have been. FWIW, I agree on your starting point. The problem with going back even to the 1930’s is that the great depression and WWII both created untypical periods of actions.
Kathy E. Gill
October 29, 2016 at 10:32pmHi, Paul – thank you for your kind words. I should probably answer some of these questions in the main article.
Craig Ricks
August 4, 2016 at 11:12amWhy did you stop at 1945? I would have gone back to at least 1933 when “Social Justice” really began. Then you would have a much more lopsided chart. In my humble opinion Republicans have had very little opportunity to actually affect policy to any great degree since 1933 and the birth of modern Progressivism.
Kathy E Gill (@kegill)
August 4, 2016 at 5:27pmHi, Craig – I don’t remember. :-)
I’m guessing it had to do with ease of finding the info back when this was originally built, more than 10 years ago.
Jerry Verlinger
February 14, 2016 at 12:00pm@Old Fogey. Are you now or were you ever a member of the Newsvine subsidiary of NBC News? I recall knowing someone that went by that user name when I was more active on that site. As a matter of fact he was on my “Friends List” until they abolished them.
Kathy E. Gill
February 14, 2016 at 1:51pmThat be me, Jerry. How the heck are you??
Jerry Verlinger
February 14, 2016 at 11:50amThe “chart” you designed for this presentation is very confusing and difficult to follow or understand. I was trying to find out who had control of the Senate during the last year of Reagan and Eisenhowers’ last year in office, but I had to go elsewhere. .
Kathy E. Gill
February 14, 2016 at 7:50pmHi, Jerry — I’m sorry! Can you please share the link for a visualization that worked better for you?
Here’s the “line” on this chart for the session of Congress (two years) during Reagan’s last year in office:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5317130/2016/images/reagan-last-year.png
When it was built — 10-12 years ago, this table format was all we had as an option. I’ve not fiddled with its presentation, just try to remember to keep adding each new Congress. Which I don’t always remember to do!
Peter Embriano
August 25, 2015 at 4:02pmYour categorization of the Republican and Democratic parties is simplistic and erroneous. True they were different then they are today but that has been true since their birth. Here are the party platforms from 1960 for accuracy:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25839
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25839
Kathy E. Gill
September 6, 2015 at 4:21pmHello, Peter — I have not “characterized” the parties.
This chart documents the balance of power between the two houses of Congress and the White House. It does not attempt – in any shape/form/or/fashion – to characterize political party ideology.
And the ideology has certainly changed over time. Today’s Republican Party bears little resemblance to the Party of Lincoln, for example. For example:
Not surprisingly, the overlap of the region known as the Confederate States of America and modern electoral college votes is quite telling.
This Washington Post analysis from 2012 shows the Republican Party shift from “moderate” to “conservative” orientation — much (most?) can be traced to Reagan’s influence:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-platform-through-the-years-shows-partys-shift-from-moderate-to-conservative/2012/08/28/09094512-ed70-11e1-b09d-07d971dee30a_story.html
Finally, your links (above) are to the same page, the Republican Party Platform of 1960.
This is the Democratic Party Platform of 1960:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29602
eewalker39
October 17, 2012 at 6:21amGreat and informative chart. Thanks. Shouldn’t the complete turnover of congress dates be 1995 and 2007?
mattrich731
August 15, 2015 at 10:19pmNo its correct, 2010(11) was the year the Repubs won back the house and thats what the chart says. I think its accurate :)
Sarah
September 30, 2012 at 8:40amit would be interesting to add a column highlighting major events/laws/act/bills passed by year to get a picture of how the relationship between these government positions shapes our nation.
mattrich731
August 15, 2015 at 10:20pmI think that would be an amazing idea! It could give the average voter something to take into account!
Kathy E. Gill
September 6, 2015 at 4:22pmThanks, Sarah – very good idea.
Name witheld by request
July 29, 2012 at 7:14amLee Bacott’s comment “the overwhelming cover of “blue” areas indicate how the left has dominated and failed the people, and where our rights have been undermined”, gives me pause. Are you wealthy? If not, you should consider examining who has proposed the majority of legislation eroding the rights and financial stability of the poor and middle class. If you really investigate objectively, I think you’ll be surprised at what you find. Both parties are equally to blame. All of the headline worthy topics; guns, abortion, social security… are just devices used to distract the public from seeing the larger picture. These people are legislating for their own gain. They want to maintain wealth and power, nothing more, nothing less. How “We the people…” fare is not their concern.
mattrich731
August 15, 2015 at 10:24pmyou realize before LBJ the parties were switched and democrats of those days believe in similar things Republicans do now and vice versa, so yeah just wanted to make sure you have all your facts straight :)
Louie
June 26, 2012 at 3:14amIt would be helpful if you listed the President’s name beside each term. My memory can’t associate them.
— Old Fogey
Kathy E. Gill
September 6, 2015 at 4:25pmI don’t remember when, but I did make this addition. :-)
Lee Bacott
March 3, 2012 at 9:22pmthis is a nice visual chart that shows just how we got to this point in our nations history…the overwhelming cover of “blue” areas indicate how the left has dominated and failed the people, and where our rights have been undermined….enjoy!
Kathy E. Gill
September 6, 2015 at 4:23pmAs others have pointed out — as I just did — the policy positions of the parties have flipped in my lifetime.
John Kenney
August 26, 2011 at 1:58pmnice chart! thank you.
Kathy E. Gill
August 4, 2011 at 11:41pmLOL – Thanks, Tom! I need to update the headline …
Tom
August 4, 2011 at 12:20pmthanks for this chart, needed it for an argument with my Aunt! :-)