I think Courser's people were referring to president, congress, senate, and most of all the trustees. It didn't include Supreme Court which was 2-1 (R).
9 for 24 = 62.5% Loss
Add Supreme Court and state reps which are generally under state "jurisdiction" -
59+9+2 = 70 = 51.095%
51+15+1 = 67 = 48.905%
I was tied up with planning for 8th caucus and my portion of it, so I didn't have time to go over that claim.
Going over those on microlevel.
POTUS - I can tell you for a fact that the loss would have been worse without Schostak. There would have been almost zero signs otherwise. Boston hung us out to dry.
Senate - Hoesktra campaign was one of the most disappointing I've ever seen. I knew that race was lost in August.
Trustees - Historically they live and die with the top of the ticket within a couple of percent. That goes from the active campaigns like Foster and Sakwa to some of the inactive ones. Now is the best strategy with these going all in at the top of the ticket and/or a famous name? That can be debated.
Opposing parties winning Trustee/Regents
98 - Fieger blowout - (D) - Kelly for WSU, White for UM (Phil Power lost though), Gire for St Board,
2000 - 5pt loss (R) - Romney for MSU,
2002 - 4pt loss (R) - Curtin for St Board, Nugent for MSU, Newman and Richner for UM, Dunaskiss for WSU
2004 - 4pt loss (R) - Foster for MSU, Danhof for St Board
2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 - Sweeps.
In non presidential years, there's more of a chance to get people through from the non winning party in a non wave election. In 2002, the R's won more than the D's. In presidential, the strongest sometimes get by if the race is within 5% (Foster).
8-9 pts or more? That's tough. Too many straight tickets.
