More tenuous than might appear, as Rick Hertzberg explains:
This year, as usual, “people” wanted one party to run the whole show. That party was the Democrats. Republican House candidates won more seats, but Democratic House candidates won more votes—in the aggregate, about a million more.
For one party to win a majority of House seats with a minority of votes is a relatively rare occurrence. It has now happened five times in the past hundred years. In 1914 and 1942, the Democrats were the beneficiaries. In 1952, 1996, and this year, it was the Republicans’ turn to get lucky, and their luck is likely to hold for many election cycles to come.
It's not just gerrymandering; it's also geographic distribution. But it seems to me an important talking point if House Republicans claim a mandate for divided government. Popular majorities voted for Democrats in all three branches of government. That is obviously not dispositive. But it argues for a kind of humility and spirit of compromise that the GOP has not exactly been famous for lately.
The Dish 