Cook: Mixed messages on enthusiasm / midterm dynamics

[Tartarus Sauce]

Interesting. I mean, some of us have been saying for months about how the midterms won't be about how liberal or obstructionist a Democratic Senator has been, but oh well! I'd rather be the party that is crushing it among intensity and independents, but that's just me.

That's how I feel as well. I still don't think Democrats should just run on being anti-Trump. They should point out unpopular items in his agenda, and run on being a check against these items.

     It really comes down to how Democrats run against Trump. If they try the same tack of "he says mean things!" that they did in 2016, they will find themselves being frustrated because that does not resonate with the people who voted for him across the Midwest. If they can emphasize the promises he failed to come through on and talk about how they will do better, then that could make the difference.

Agreed. That's not mutually exclusive with thinking that Democrats' chances at maintaining their current 48 seats despite the unfavorable map (or even getting to 49 or 50 seats) are extremely underrated. The heat is not going to be on Democratic senators next year, since they're not in power. That's never really been the case for a party out of power (except 1934), especially not when the party in power is as popular as AIDS. Right now, I'd give Democrats a 40% chance of keeping 48 seats going into 2019. Trading off MO and another seat for NV and AZ

+1

People don't understand how clear the historical record is on the strength of out of party senators during midterms. They are ridiculously hard to take out even during relatively favorable political environments for the incumbent party (which I seriously doubt will be the case for Republicans in 2018.)



This is why the Republicans won't be able to take advantage of the favorable map. They would be lucky to take out any of the incumbent Democratic senators, even McCaskill, especially since they almost certainly won't be facing a favorable political environment. Taking out McCaskill and one other would be nothing short of a miracle.

The odds are simply not in their favor. Democrats likely have an even higher than 40% chance of keeping all their seats, especially if the Republicans continue to take blows to their political brand by the midterms.

[Tartarus Sauce]

^ 96% would mean that 24/25 senators get reelected and 1 falls. There's 23 Democratic senators up for reelection so statistically there's a good chance 1 of them falls.

I think they'll both lose. And I still stand by me saying that Democrats have an excellent chance of retaining 48 seats. But I wouldn't count her out in a D wave.

Neither would I, she's by far the most vulnerable of the Democrats, but she's not as doomed as some would like to think, she'll have strong political tailwinds bolstering her. Meanwhile, some are engaging in fantasies of 4 or more red state Democrats falling, which will simply not happen.