Do Dems get a "working majority"?

[morgieb]

While I think the Dems getting a raw majority is a pretty decent chance of happening right now, the problem is getting a majority that doesn't rely on Manchin/Sinema, or (more significantly) relying on procedural hawks like Feinstein and King. I'm still a bit skeptical that they do so.

IMO if the Dems are under 52 Senate seats it's as good as a loss in the Senate as nothing will pass.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

"Nothing will pass" is an exaggeration, but yes, 52 is a critical threshold. I believe they will (just about) reach it, but reaching the post-procedural hawks threshold would, I think, require 58 seats (including one of two likely R contests).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems will win 51/55 seats the low end AZ, CO, GA, IA, ME, NC and SC the high end add GA and either MT or KS, it's was gonna be hard to beat 2008 numbers of 8 seat gained anyways. AK was a substitute for MT and both Gross and Bullock are losing by 3

[SnowLabrador]

Probably not.

[pppolitics]

Yes, but that's after admitting DC as a state

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think 51 is what they'll get. I'll personally be happy with 50, though 51 is my ideal number. I think it's important to have a check on Biden through Sinema and Manchin, though not a check that relies on McConnel literally blocking everything.

Something like this would be nice:

[Ferguson97]

51 seats exactly.

[Senator Incitatus]

No guarantee that none of the new Senators is a procedural hawk or moderate. I can easily see Hickenlooper fitting either mold, and Kelly too. Less clear on what a "Senator Cunningham" looks like but as a relative nobody I guess he (and Gideon, who I think would find no reason to rebel) will go along with leadership.

[7,052,770]

51 would be pretty disappointing, as it means we blow both Georgia seats and don't get any of the reaches (SC, TX, AK, KS, MT), or we do get one of those but blow NC.

I'm thinking 53-55 is the most likely, increased to 55-59 after liberating Douglass and Puerto Rico from their second-class status.

[morgieb]

Yes, but that's after admitting DC as a state

The problem is I don't see 50-51 seats being enough to admit DC as a state.

[NewYorkExpress]

I see us getting 50 seats.

I also see Manchin (assuming he wants to run again in 2024) voting to keep McConnell as Majority Leader.

[Saruku]

I also see Manchin (assuming he wants to run again in 2024) voting to keep McConnell as Majority Leader.

The Senate does not vote on the Majority Leader like the House votes on the Speaker.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I see us getting 50 seats.

I also see Manchin (assuming he wants to run again in 2024) voting to keep McConnell as Majority Leader.

That's not how it works.

[NewYorkExpress]

I also see Manchin (assuming he wants to run again in 2024) voting to keep McConnell as Majority Leader.

The Senate does not vote on the Majority Leader like the House votes on the Speaker.

Given that's how campaign ads portray it...that's how I thought it worked.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I see us getting 50 seats.

I also see Manchin (assuming he wants to run again in 2024) voting to keep McConnell as Majority Leader.

Manchin isn't running again, and even if he is, he voted to remove Trump from office during impeachment, so there's no way he would switch to caucusing with the GOP.

[NewYorkExpress]

I see us getting 50 seats.

I also see Manchin (assuming he wants to run again in 2024) voting to keep McConnell as Majority Leader.

Manchin isn't running again, and even if he is, he voted to remove Trump from office during impeachment, so there's no way he would switch to caucusing with the GOP.

Mitt Romney also voted to remove Trump from office, if I remember correctly...

[ProgressiveModerate]

I see us getting 50 seats.

I also see Manchin (assuming he wants to run again in 2024) voting to keep McConnell as Majority Leader.

Manchin isn't running again, and even if he is, he voted to remove Trump from office during impeachment, so there's no way he would switch to caucusing with the GOP.

Mitt Romney also voted to remove Trump from office, if I remember correctly...

Manchin is endorsing Biden, and appears to be opposing ACB. He's not the most reliable Democrat but he's still a Democrat. This is as crazy as people who say Murkowski will start caucusing with Ds or Romney will become a swing-senator in a Biden administration

[7,052,770]

Yes, but that's after admitting DC as a state

The problem is I don't see 50-51 seats being enough to admit DC as a state.

Not a single Democratic Senator will oppose it. There is no argument against it (assuming you exclude the federal buildings) beyond "They might elect Democrats/blacks to the Senate, and I don't like that." No Democrat is going to stand up for taxation without representation, for Americans denied a voice in Congress altogether.

Once it's going to pass anyway, you'll probably see some Republican support too, just for the optics.

[morgieb]

Yes, but that's after admitting DC as a state

The problem is I don't see 50-51 seats being enough to admit DC as a state.

Not a single Democratic Senator will oppose it. There is no argument against it (assuming you exclude the federal buildings) beyond "They might elect Democrats/blacks to the Senate, and I don't like that." No Democrat is going to stand up for taxation without representation, for Americans denied a voice in Congress altogether.

Once it's going to pass anyway, you'll probably see some Republican support too, just for the optics.

I was assuming that DC statehood could still be filibustered, and my point was I'm not sure if there's enough numbers to nuke the filibuster.

Although if Angus King is saying "do it", then.....

[Virginiá]

Well, one of the bonuses of court-packing becoming a hotly contested idea in the party is that simply reforming/abolishing the filibuster becomes the more moderate option. Even if the Democrats only get a very slim majority, it wouldn't be difficult to convince everyone to at least vote to allow statehood bills to pass by simple majorities. Especially when the side effect of statehood means an extra 2-4 possible Senators.

At any rate, it seems very unlikely that the party base will sit idly by while the party's Senate caucus simply shrugs in the face of Republican obstruction and says "there is simply nothing we can do with our majority." Those days are most definitely gone.

[Kuumo]

They would be lucky to get to 51 seats, so they probably won't win more than 51.

[7,052,770]

Yes, but that's after admitting DC as a state

The problem is I don't see 50-51 seats being enough to admit DC as a state.

Not a single Democratic Senator will oppose it. There is no argument against it (assuming you exclude the federal buildings) beyond "They might elect Democrats/blacks to the Senate, and I don't like that." No Democrat is going to stand up for taxation without representation, for Americans denied a voice in Congress altogether.

Once it's going to pass anyway, you'll probably see some Republican support too, just for the optics.

I was assuming that DC statehood could still be filibustered, and my point was I'm not sure if there's enough numbers to nuke the filibuster.

Although if Angus King is saying "do it", then.....

As far as I know it can be, but Democrats can and will declare that the filibuster doesn't apply to new states if they need to, just like Republicans declared it didn't apply to new Supreme Court justices.

[ShadowRocket]

I think they reach 52 with a shot at hitting as high as 55 or 56 if the bottom really falls out for the GOP, so yes.

[Roronoa D. Law]

I understand people skepticism of Manchin and Feinstein but I don't see either of them wanting to be the deciding vote on what many Democrats see as their last resort of passing any meaningful legislation by removing the filibuster.

Also, DC and PR statehood is not some radical left idea. I don't see any reason for the 4 to vote against it. DC has been part of this country since its founding and PR has been part of the US longer than East Prussia has been part of Russia so why not.

[7,052,770]

Also, DC and PR statehood is not some radical left idea. I don't see any reason for the 4 to vote against it. DC has been part of this country since its founding and PR has been part of the US longer than East Prussia has been part of Russia so why not.

Exactly. The only reason DC/PR statehood is "controversial" is because Republicans have framed it that way. It's actually quite obvious that all Americans should be represented in Congress unless they explicitly don't want to be (which is something that PR will decide next week).

Democrats must NOT allow Republicans to define the admission of the 51st and 52nd states as some kind of norm violation or something that requires a big concession to them to even out.