Reminder: Republicans can still feasibly get 57 Senate Seats in 2024

[UncleSam]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

It’s hard to put Baldwin losing in a Biden +0 state on the same level as I.e. Hawley losing in Trump+15 Missouri. There’s no way the two situations are even remotely comparable.

Yes R 57-43 is ridiculously unlikely, but I think relative unlikelihood should be taken into account. 57-43 R is way more likely than even 54 D, much less 55.

[UncleSam]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

It’s hard to put Baldwin losing in a Biden +0 state on the same level as I.e. Hawley losing in Trump+15 Missouri. There’s no way the two situations are even remotely comparable.

Yes R 57-43 is ridiculously unlikely, but I think relative unlikelihood should be taken into account. 57-43 R is way more likely than even 54 D, much less 55.

We are two years out and I could be wrong, but in my mind there roughly equal. 57 R is more likely to be then 54 D. But 53 D is far more likely (in my two year out opinion) then 57 R

I’d say 57 R and 53 D are roughly equally likely as ‘reasonable best-case scenario’ outcomes for each party, but that’s definitely fair. Two years is a long time and who knows, maybe Susan Collins and Ron Johnson both resign and Trump loses by 15 in the GE. A lot can happen, but as of now assuming a fairly ‘normal’ cycle I think they’re both in a similar boat, with 53D being the more likely of the two because the 57 R scenario requires a larger number of races to go one way.

[UncleSam]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

It’s hard to put Baldwin losing in a Biden +0 state on the same level as I.e. Hawley losing in Trump+15 Missouri. There’s no way the two situations are even remotely comparable.

Yes R 57-43 is ridiculously unlikely, but I think relative unlikelihood should be taken into account. 57-43 R is way more likely than even 54 D, much less 55.

We are two years out and I could be wrong, but in my mind there roughly equal. 57 R is more likely to be then 54 D. But 53 D is far more likely (in my two year out opinion) then 57 R

I’d say 57 R and 53 D are roughly equally likely as ‘reasonable best-case scenario’ outcomes for each party, but that’s definitely fair. Two years is a long time and who knows, maybe Susan Collins and Ron Johnson both resign and Trump loses by 15 in the GE. A lot can happen, but as of now assuming a fairly ‘normal’ cycle I think they’re both in a similar boat, with 53D being the more likely of the two because the 57 R scenario requires a larger number of races to go one way.

My thinking is to get to 57 republicans have to dislodge Baldwin and Casey. Both have strong brands in the state, and are generally popular and can outrun their party. Baldwin won in 2018 with 150,000 more votes then Evers. Also this probably means nothing but the Culver’s family did donate to her in 2018, and no other democrats (iirc). Casey’s situation I’m not as familiar with, but I know he has deep roots in the state. Maybe the could knock one out, but knocking both out would be incredulous at this point.

Absolutely agree, extremely unlikely on both of them. However, at the end of the day, they both represent states won by Trump in 2016. To get to 53, Ds need to win states that Trump won twice, both by solid margins. The baseline partisanship implies it is more likely Rs win WI / PA than that Ds win TX / FL. That being said, the D incumbent strength + the sheer number of pickups Rs would need to hit 57 implies to me that 53 D is slightly more likely, overall.