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

[lfromnj]

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.

I thought the parties switched?

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

[lfromnj]

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?

My point is  that you are complaining about the GOP "gerrymandering" the senate in 1890 or whatever but forgetting all the other context. The senate hasn't been touched since 1960 and its absurd to bring up that comparison when stuff like Maine and Missouri came together to keep slave and free states equal 180 years ago.