What percent chance do the Democrats have of taking back the senate?

[Figueira]

With Trump as unpopular as he is, I can see Democrats holding their own and winning Nevada, and that's about it. Just makes it that much easier to win the Senate in 2020.

I don't see any seats Democrats can win in 2020 aside from IA and CO.  So they basically have to gain at least one seat in 2018 to be even have a shot at controlling the chamber before 2024.

NC, GA, and arguably MT are more plausible pickups than IA.

[LabourJersey]

5% chance at best, though to be quite honest a net gain of +1 or +2 seats in the Senate coupled with major gains in the House would be really incredible for the Democratic party, considering how many barriers the Republicans have placed against them in midterm elections.

I put the number at 5% mostly because I wouldn't rule out someone like Grassley, Isakson, etc. dying in the next year or so, which could lead to better opportunities for the Dems (I really hate to think of people's deaths being opportunities, but that's the world we live in)

[Blackacre]

With Trump as unpopular as he is, I can see Democrats holding their own and winning Nevada, and that's about it. Just makes it that much easier to win the Senate in 2020.

I don't see any seats Democrats can win in 2020 aside from IA and CO.  So they basically have to gain at least one seat in 2018 to be even have a shot at controlling the chamber before 2024.

The map is very limited, but I can think of like 5 better opportunities than Iowa alone: NC, MT, AK, GA, and ME if Collins retires. On the flip side, Republicans don't really have many great targets either. I think Warner starts at Likely D in a presidential year, Shaheen also at likey, but NH is swingier and she can get a strong opponent like Sununu or Ayotte. Peters is in the same boat as Warner, and he dramatically overperformed in 2014.

The 2020 Senate map is full of opportunities for both parties.

On the R side, Michigan, new Hampshire, and Virginia are all flippable maaaaybe MN too but probably not. On the D side, oh man, Georgia, North Carolina, Colorado, Iowa, Montana, Alaska, even Texas is doable, if unlikely.

[Blackacre]

Michigan is literally the Republicans' only plausible pickup opportunity in 2020. Mayyybe MN, but I doubt it. Meanwhile the Dems will be contesting NC, CO, AK, MT, GA, IA, LA, ME and maybe even KY. For that reason alone, it's important for Republicans to pick up at least 3 Senate seats next year.

I don't think those 2 are in danger. Cassidy is relatively inoffensive and Collins is an institution. Texas is more plausible than either ME or LA, because it doesn't have much of a record of Republican Senate candidates outperforming the top of the ticket. As unlikely as it is, it's still a better shot for Dems than LA or ME.

[peterthlee]

Michigan is literally the Republicans' only plausible pickup opportunity in 2020. Mayyybe MN, but I doubt it. Meanwhile the Dems will be contesting NC, CO, AK, MT, GA, IA, LA, ME and maybe even KY. For that reason alone, it's important for Republicans to pick up at least 3 Senate seats next year.

I don't think those 2 are in danger. Cassidy is relatively inoffensive and Collins is an institution. Texas is more plausible than either ME or LA, because it doesn't have much of a record of Republican Senate candidates outperforming the top of the ticket. As unlikely as it is, it's still a better shot for Dems than LA or ME.

Collins retiring could not be ruled out. But yes, LA is inoffensive.

[Skill and Chance]

Michigan is literally the Republicans' only plausible pickup opportunity in 2020. Mayyybe MN, but I doubt it. Meanwhile the Dems will be contesting NC, CO, AK, MT, GA, IA, LA, ME and maybe even KY. For that reason alone, it's important for Republicans to pick up at least 3 Senate seats next year.

I don't think those 2 are in danger. Cassidy is relatively inoffensive and Collins is an institution. Texas is more plausible than either ME or LA, because it doesn't have much of a record of Republican Senate candidates outperforming the top of the ticket. As unlikely as it is, it's still a better shot for Dems than LA or ME.

1. Cornyn is an institution in Texas.  He's entirely uncontroversial by red state standards.  The only way that seat gets interesting is if it's open.  Cruz is the one to watch.  If he makes it through the primary in 2018, I think he's still safe in the general (a general between O'Rourke and a hardcore Trumpist R who beat Cruz in the primary would be quite competitive), but he could be easily be the Republican Feingold in 2024: an ideologically inflexible senator in a state steadily drifting to the center that now only leans to his party.  

2.  ME would be Lean D if Collins retires, but likely to safe for her if she runs.  Although at this point I think there's a nontrivial chance she runs for reelection as an independent.

3.  The jury is still out on this one, but I think it will be a generation or more before another Dem wins statewide in IA, even against Ernst.  She also fits the mold of the times better than many other R senators.

4.  I think this is too early for AK, but Bill Walker could win one of the seats in 2022 or 2026.

5.  Although Cassidy is by far the weaker incumbent, I also think 2020 is too early for LA, but that seat is JBE's for the taking in 2026.  In the meantime, he should focus on getting reelected, as the Dem base is strong enough in the state legislature that redistricting will be veto-able.  For the time being, I don't think any other Dem can win LA statewide.

6.  KY is likely a generational lost cause for Democrats.  Unlike WV, they don't have a Manchin or Justice there.

7.  CO is clearly the best Dem target.  I would not be surprised if Gardner gets Blanched and loses by 12.

8.  GA is an underrated Dem target.  Perdue has had some weird gaffes, and he is old enough that he may not seek reelection.  There is a lot of VA 2006 potential here IMO.

9.  I have no idea what is going on in NC for the long term.  Tillis could win or lose by 8 and it wouldn't surprise me either way.  This is probably the 3rd best Dem opportunity after CO and GA.

10.  MT is all about the candidates.  Bullock (or Quist?) would turn it into an instant toss up against Daines, anyone else on the Dem side and he is basically safe.    

11.  Peters is clearly the stronger of the two MI senators, but Stabenow definitely could lose next year or in 2024.
  
12.  MS is not on your list, but it could be a longshot state for Dems if Jim Hood finally runs for something other than AG.  However, just like in LA, he is probably far better off running for governor in 2019 and redistricting would also be veto-able for the MS Dems.


Basically, the name of the game for Senate Dems is keeping the Class I (2006-12-18-24) seats shielded from a Republican wave until the late 2020's when they can seriously contest some more Deep South and/or Mountain West states.  The luck of the presidential draw now favors the Class I Dems, as it's highly unlikely that a Democrat strong enough to beat Trump in 2020 would lose in a landslide in 2024.  

[MT Treasurer]

^Great points, but I would add two things: I don't think Maine would be "Lean D" if Collins were to retire. Yes, I can see why someone would rate it that way, but this is like Montana in so many ways: The state is not as Democratic as it may appear at first glance. I don't see someone like Chellie Pingree or Emily Cain having enough appeal in ME-02 and statewide to make the race Lean D. This isn't New Hampshire. Someone like Poliquin could definitely win a Senate race in a presidential year, especially if Trump wins reelection and does well in ME.

I also agree that Peters is stronger than Stabenow. I've never really understood how Stabenow is able to win her elections so decisively - she's always striked me as a McCaskill-esque figure with not much appeal to WCW. Tbf, she's only run in Democratic wave years so far and two of her opponents didn't really run good campaigns, IIRC. I could easily see a scenario where she loses in 2018 in a big upset while Tammy Baldwin holds on.

[BuckeyeNut]

No one I know from The State Up North likes Peters.

[Heisenberg]

I also agree that Peters is stronger than Stabenow. I've never really understood how Stabenow is able to win her elections so decisively - she's always striked me as a McCaskill-esque figure with not much appeal to WCW. Tbf, she's only run in Democratic wave years so far and two of her opponents didn't really run good campaigns, IIRC. I could easily see a scenario where she loses in 2018 in a big upset while Tammy Baldwin holds on.

I think Upton can upset Stabenow next year, and then Benishek should go after Peters in 2020. Many think I'm crazy, but I think Dan Benishek is the only one who can beat Peters (unless ex-AG Mike Cox, who's already beat Peters statewide, wants to make a comeback and hasn't accumulated any baggage since). Benishek has the perfect personal profile for WWC voters. True, he had some close calls in the House, but MI-01 is actually pretty Democratic downballot (or at least a lot more than its presidential PVI suggests), and Democrats have quite a few legislative seats there and many county-level offices. And sharing the ballot with Trump should help Benishek, and Peters is a first-term incumbent who really got lucky to have a crappy opponent in 2014. I'm not saying that Benishek would be favored, but it wouldn't hurt to run someone who has nothing to lose and force the Democrats to play defense. If anyone can beat Peters, it's Benishek.