Democrats: If we can't win the Senate after a Biden slide, what's the strategy going forwards?

[Virginiá]

We would've would've had 2 Democratic landslide elections and on basically even election, and we still wouldn't have control of the senate (even though some of our wins were on the backs of Republicans screwing up). This makes me think that me think that we're doing something wrong, or that winning a senate majority just isn't realistic.

[...]

It's not that Democrats are doing anything wrong campaign/strategy-wise, it's just that the Senate is essentially packed for Republicans. All those extra states the GOP added to cement their power in the Senate in the 19th century are still paying dividends for them.

And it's not something downballot Democrats can just campaign their way out of. They can't win North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska et al just by running more conservative candidates. They've been trying that or years now. People there aren't biting because everything has become nationalized. Their party affiliation matters much more than any candidate attributes.

Personally, I think polarization will eventually recede at least somewhat, but it could be a long time from now, and it still won't change the fact that Democrats have a serious Senate disadvantage that makes obtaining or holding a majority very difficult. In the meantime, the most realistic option for re-balancing the Senate is to add DC/PR as states. There is no other plausible option. It's either that or get locked out of the Senate for numerous cycles at a time, wasting precious time to actually change things.

[Virginiá]

For a little while though, up until about 2010, we did a pretty good job at winning senate seats in states in the plains, especially the northern plains states. Obama came close in MT, ND, and SD as recently as 2008.

Democrats were doing a good job, but polarization has increasingly made candidates less relevant to voters' decisions than the party they belong to. If the Democratic Party's chances of Senate majorities regularly depend on winning seats in reliably Republican states, then Democrats should get used to never enacting any policies they want as well as having their presidential administrations perpetually restricted in cabinet/judicial confirmations, because Republicans will make it as difficult as possible for them. I wouldn't be surprised if refusing to confirm any judges whatsoever from opposition presidents becomes the norm.

I think DC/PR statehood might help, but is that logistically feasible? I guarentee you no Republican, even Murkowski or Romney would vote for DC statehood (though I see them voting for PR) What would prevent Republicans from adding some stupid state down the road that is obviously a power grab? What I worry about is as soon as we start making power grabs, it's just going to escalate the situation, and not necessarily make it better.

There are no states for them to add. They spent it all on their 19th century statehood shopping spree. All they could do is try to convince an existing strongly Republican state to give up a significant portion of their land and tax base to create a new state, which is unlikely to happen.

It's not like there isn't a legitimate reason to make DC/PR states, or at least give them equivalent representation in Congress. If merely being a state was the primary reason the GOP was opposed to DC statehood, they would compromise with a constitutional amendment. But they won't, because it's really about power and Senate seats. It's always been that way, even 150 years ago.

At any rate, as a former DC resident, I'd rather do the right thing and give them representation with that risk than nothing at all.

[Virginiá]

Weirdly I never noticed the Democrats complain about the Dakotas split in 2001 or 2007?

Who cares what Democrats did or didn't say back then? I was just a child. It doesn't change the fact that the Senate is a grossly unequal part of our dysfunctional system of government. I've long thought that and the fact that Democrats performed well in Senate elections in certain Republican states at one point or another doesn't change that fact. I've long been for major structural reform of America's government, regardless of who it benefits. And the reason for that is because even it doesn't benefit my side now, it will probably later on, because I know if we ever develop the support base for our beliefs, a properly-designed system will translate that support into power, instead of blocking the majority's will to empower the minority. The way people see their government and the relationship between states and the federal government has notably reduced the importance of the Senate other than yet another institution that significantly favors one segment of the populace over the other. You're really asking for civil unrest and all that comes with it when the federal government is practically designed to thwart the will of the people so long as they choose to cluster in dense urban clusters. There is pretty much no major part of our government you can look at and say, "gee, that was designed well and adequately represents the will of the people."

It is made so much worse when the party that benefits from these structural issues has become an institution devoid of any substantive agenda beyond accruing and clinging to power at any costs, to the point of crippling the decennial census and the freakin' post office just to try and notch a small advantage.

And it's this line of thinking that has made the Democratic Party's base so bloodthirsty as to the point of calling for packing the courts and abolishing the electoral college. What do you expect? You have tens of millions of urban voters who even when they win, they lose, whether it's because of outright corruption or just a badly-designed government. I personally was never a fan of court packing, but after years of watching the GOP do it at the state level (or other judiciary meddling), or stealing over a hundred judicial seats from Obama (including a SCOTUS seat), or trying to cripple the census / USPS for partisan gain, I mean, where does it end? Why would we not want to force reforms through via any means necessary? What other option is there?

[Virginiá]

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

Maybe we need to come to a new understanding in an age of urbanization and densely populated cities. Large states need protection from a cadre of small states who wield significantly more political power than they deserve, due to a system designed hundreds of years ago for a country whose geography and population looks dramatically different.

[Virginiá]

And just to point out here that is a lot of distance between people merely calling for reform and those calling for abolition of the Senate entirely. You can still argue to keep the Senate while also arguing that large states deserve more representation - not necessarily proportional, but enough that creates more balance. Of course, this is all moot as the allocation of Senate seats is basically the only thing we can't amend the constitution for. The only solution would be to create a new chamber and restructure Congress and shift the Senate's powers over.

It doesn't change the fact that arguing about "protecting small states" sounds like you're a time traveler making an argument for an America that doesn't exist anymore. Nowadays, saying small states need "protection" is like saying fortune 500 corporations have too little political power and influence. It's so comically wrong and inverted that it is hard to take seriously.

[Virginiá]

The Democrats literally blocked so many of Bush's judicial picks for years too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-judicial-nominees-democrats-have-only-themselves-to-blame/2018/07/05/2225c65c-8067-11e8-b660-4d0f9f0351f1_story.html

10 mentioned in that article. Personally, I think each party has the right to try and block some nominees they consider exceptionally unqualified or unacceptable, but Democrats shouldn't have filibustered all of them. Nevertheless, if you're looking to use that as a justification for this:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/



feel free to, but you won't find agreement from me. Retaliation for filibustering those judges should not have been "effectively shut down judicial confirmations by opposition party presidents," which is basically what Republicans have done. Quite frankly, given everything that has transpired, I am less than convinced that McConnell wouldn't have did what he did anyway. Just like the excuses Republicans threw against the wall like spaghetti when blocking Garland, it's merely cover for McConnell's overall strategy of maximizing GOP power via any means necessary, no matter what.

I'm not even going to address the other points in that article, which make laughable assumptions about what the GOP would or wouldn't have done.