Has GOP recruitment given Dems a shot at holding the Senate?

[Skill and Chance]

The biggest flops were Oz, Sununu not running (although it would still have been winnable for Hassan even with him running), and (so far, at least) Walker, who was always going to be hit or miss. Laxalt is not a "bad candidate" no matter how much people want him to be one (again, NV is a textbook example of generic R vs. generic D), and Masters is still a wild card who is not guaranteed to be the nominee.

Recruitment has been rather awful for the GOP this year - there’s no denying that - but it’s not going to give Democrats a "great" shot at holding the Senate on a night when they’re losing 25 House seats.

The environment would have to improve meaningfully for Dems.  As of today, R's are still on track to take the senate even if Walker and Oz both flop.  They only need 2 of AZ/NV/NH, all of which are looking pretty good for them. 

[Skill and Chance]

The biggest flops were Oz, Sununu not running (although it would still have been winnable for Hassan even with him running), and (so far, at least) Walker, who was always going to be hit or miss. Laxalt is not a "bad candidate" no matter how much people want him to be one (again, NV is a textbook example of generic R vs. generic D), and Masters is still a wild card who is not guaranteed to be the nominee.

Recruitment has been rather awful for the GOP this year - there’s no denying that - but it’s not going to give Democrats a "great" shot at holding the Senate on a night when they’re losing 25 House seats.

The environment would have to improve meaningfully for Dems.  As of today, R's are still on track to take the senate even if Walker and Oz both flop.  They only need 2 of AZ/NV/NH, all of which are looking pretty good for them.  

I don’t think Republicans should count on NH even with a "strong" campaigner (the state is blue enough at the federal level to carry even an unpopular Democratic Senator short of a truly massive wave), but if they can’t win AZ/NV (especially NV) in this environment, it’ll be less about "GOP candidates underperforming" and more about 2022 being a historic midterm election across the board for the party holding the White House.

NV's PVI is closer to the nation than that of any other state, it’s one of the most nationalized states (in part due to the large transient population), the House Popular Vote in NV mirrored the presidential vote in 2016/2020 (with the HPV in 2018 mirroring the Senate race that year), both candidates are very generic, and there have been no signs of a leftward shift in NV. While you could debate PA/GA and even AZ, there’s no reason to believe the NV Senate race will defy the overall environment or end up notably left of the national HPV.

I’m of course not saying that Democrats can’t win NV, just that Republicans will be lucky to even win the House if they lose NV-SEN or NV-GOV. I’m honestly surprised that people can’t agree on that?

I understand where you are coming from re: NH, but that still puts them in control even with a Fetterman win and a Walker loss, albeit with exactly 51 and a lot of regrets.  The Latin swing that is now evident should be enough to carry them even if they falter everywhere else.  More realistically, they're unlikely to finish below 52 unless the national environment changes and they still have a solid chance at 54.