Reality: There's a decent chance that the GOP will control the entire government

[JJC]

The premise of this topic is this; almost every poll shows GOP senate candidates polling several points better than Trump. Let me explain.

At the off set of the GE campaign earlier this year, it seemed all but assured that democrats would retake the Senate, and with Trump as the GOP nominee, keep the WH. Hell, there was even talk about retaking the house! After all, the first thing Trump did after becoming the presumptive nominee was to get into a dumb and pointless spat with the latino judge overseeing his case. And then he got into another very pointless and damaging spat with the Khans. Democrats, obviously, were cheering. Despite Hillary's high negatives this election would be a cake walk. They need not do anything; just sit back and watch The Donald self-implode.

That was half a year ago. Things have changed.

After 'The Great Fall' of 2016, Deplorables, and a much more disciplined Trump campaign, future dem prospect are starting to fade.

The Senate:
Senate seats that once looked like solid pickup opportunities - FL and OH - are now proving to be long shots at best. Had Rubio not run again, Patrick Murphy, a well known political figure, may well have carried the state. As it is, Rubio is still very popular and polling has shown him with solid leads. RCP has him ahead by 6.5 points

The same can be said for Ohio. Dems did well recruiting Frm Gov Ted Stickland, but Portman is proving to be resilient. The RCP average has Portman up by 14.3 points. What's more, unlike many other states, Trump is probably helping Portland more than hurting him. His core base is white blue-collar workers - Trump's bread and butter.

In fact, the DSCC has pulled funding from both of those states. That should tell you everything you need to know about those races.

The Senate race in PA, also a once prime pickup, is now all but a tossup, with Toomey and McGinty within the MOE.

You can begin to see why democrats may be starting to fret.

Take away FL and OH, and dems are left with 2 - 3 probable pickups; IL, IN, and WI. That just leaves NV, where Heck is slightly ahead for a possible GOP gain, and MO and NC, where the GOP is modestly ahead. NH and PA is too close to call.

The best case for Dems from this scenario is routing all of these states, which would put them at 54-46. This is unlikely to happen. That's the best case scenario.

Now here's the worst.

Virtually every poll in the battleground states shows the GOP senate candidates running several points ahead of Trump - usually on average about 5 points, but in some cases by substantially more. The point being?

If Trump wins the WH, it is almost certain that the GOP in the battleground states - running ahead of Trump - will win their respective seats. OH and FL are solid GOP holds. NH - especially if Trump wins it - will also go to the GOP. MO is the one state that Trump is doing better than the candidate, but it too tilts to the GOP. NC will follow, and it's hard not seeing Nevada go to the party that wins the WH. At this point PA wouldn't even matter, but if Trump gets to within five points there, then Tommey probably wins.

Basically, I can imagine a scenario where Hillary wins the WH but the GOP still barely retains control of the Senate.

I cannot, however, imagine any scenario where Trump wins but the GOP loses the senate.

IMHO, if Trump wins the WH, which is starting to seem more plausible, then Republicans will have total control of the government. Democrats may want to deny it, but this is the reality of the situation.

What do you guys think?

[Devout Centrist]

That's the best part. No more free trade, a border wall, and a repeal of roe v wade. Basically, utopia.

[Boston Bread]

At the beginning of the year, OH and FL were critical for a D majority. But now Democrats are focusing on IN, NH, PA, and MO, all of which are at least tossups for the Dems right now. (they are already well ahead in WI and IL) That would give them 52-48 if they win their best targets.

[JJC]

At the beginning of the year, OH and FL were critical for a D majority. But now Democrats are focusing on IN, NH, PA, and MO, all of which are at least tossups for the Dems right now. (they are already well ahead in WI and IL) That would give them 52-48 if they win their best targets.

Yes, but wrestling MO away from the GOP will be tough for democrats. There's no Todd Akins running to save them this time. NH, PA, NV, and NC are what will determine the majority.

[Suburbia]

It is very likely. Just like it was in 2001 and 2005, and 2009. One party government. Democrats would be absolutely devastated, and you may see people like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Tim Ryan be more vocal leaders of the Democratic Party.

[Wisconsin+17]

Umm, no. Chances to hold the Senate are about 60/40 right now. Trump has about a 15 percent chance of winning. Combination of holding the Senate and Trump would run about 7, 8 percent now.

[tmthforu94]

I agree with you - if Trump wins, Republicans keep the Senate. If Clinton wins by a razor-thin margin, Republicans keep the Senate. If Clinton wins by more than a couple points, it probably flips to the Democrats.

Where are the five pickups if Trump wins? Johnson and Kirk probably still lose, and I imagine the next two would come from Indiana and New Hampshire to get to 50 (I still maintain that Young pulls it out, but say he loses for arguments sake). Who is 51? Burr and Toomey have been running ahead of Trump, and I can't see Trump winning Nevada and Heck losing. Honestly, I think the best shot may be Louisiana. If Trump wins and the Senate is 50-49 D, Democrats can make the argument that a Democratic Senate is needed to keep Trump in check.

[Boston Bread]

It is very likely. Just like it was in 2001 and 2005, and 2009. One party government. Democrats would be absolutely devastated, and you may see people like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Tim Ryan be more vocal leaders of the Democratic Party.

Why 2009?

But I do agree that Democrats are going to need to get people like Kamala Harris and Tim Ryan to be more prominent in the future. Hopefully not Booker, however.

At the beginning of the year, OH and FL were critical for a D majority. But now Democrats are focusing on IN, NH, PA, and MO, all of which are at least tossups for the Dems right now. (they are already well ahead in WI and IL) That would give them 52-48 if they win their best targets.

Yes, but wrestling MO away from the GOP will be tough for democrats. There's no Todd Akins running to save them this time. NH, PA, NV, and NC are what will determine the majority.

I mostly agree about with your characterization of Senate races, but I don't think that Trump winning would guarantee a GOP senate.

[Suburbia]

It is very likely. Just like it was in 2001 and 2005, and 2009. One party government. Democrats would be absolutely devastated, and you may see people like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Tim Ryan be more vocal leaders of the Democratic Party.

Why 2009?

But I do agree that Democrats are going to need to get people like Kamala Harris and Tim Ryan to be more prominent in the future. Hopefully not Booker, however.

At the beginning of the year, OH and FL were critical for a D majority. But now Democrats are focusing on IN, NH, PA, and MO, all of which are at least tossups for the Dems right now. (they are already well ahead in WI and IL) That would give them 52-48 if they win their best targets.

Yes, but wrestling MO away from the GOP will be tough for democrats. There's no Todd Akins running to save them this time. NH, PA, NV, and NC are what will determine the majority.

I mostly agree about with your characterization of Senate races, but I don't think that Trump winning would guarantee a GOP senate.

Why not Booker? What's wrong with Booker?

[JJC]

Umm, no. Chances to hold the Senate are about 60/40 right now. Trump has about a 15 percent chance of winning. Combination of holding the Senate and Trump would run about 7, 8 percent now.

Well prognosticator Nate Silver has Trump at 40% right now, as do the betting markets. Hillary still has an advantage, but unless something huge happens (which is always a possibility), then this will probably be a close election regardless.

Watch the rust-belt.

[Boston Bread]

Booker is too much of a pro-Wall Street, hawkish Democrat for me. More so than Clinton, who I think is attacked to unfairly for this by fellow Liberals, considering she is where the median Democratic pol is. But I can see more fiscally conservative Democrats and African Americans supporting Booker.

[SWE]

Umm, no. Chances to hold the Senate are about 60/40 right now. Trump has about a 15 percent chance of winning. Combination of holding the Senate and Trump would run about 7, 8 percent now.

Under what circumstances would a Trump victory not result in Republicans holding the Senate?

[DrScholl]

Wannabe journalists and their long posts. smh.

[JJC]

Wannabe journalists and their long posts. smh.

Who would want to be a journalist? Gross.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Narrow Trump win with VA and NC, swing away in CO and NV. That plus IN would be 51-49 Dem senate plus Trump win. Unlikely, but plausible.

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

That's the best part. No more free trade, a border wall, and a repeal of roe v wade. Basically, utopia.

Abolishment of the clean water and air act.
Abolishment of clean food and safety regulations
Abolishmetn of science and infrastructure investment

One would have to be insane to vote republican this year.

[Vosem]

Umm, no. Chances to hold the Senate are about 60/40 right now. Trump has about a 15 percent chance of winning. Combination of holding the Senate and Trump would run about 7, 8 percent now.

Under what circumstances would a Trump victory not result in Republicans holding the Senate?

IL and WI are basically certain D gains even in the event of a Trump win. IN is clearly basically unrelated to the presidential race, and the chance for a Democratic Top-Two in LA underrated. NV polling is flawed in this scenario, so that's a D hold, and that leaves one more Democratic gain in a state that votes Hillary (NH and NC seem like decent possibilities); one of those could cancel out WI if Trump's path to victory is through a breakthrough in the Upper Midwest that ends up carrying Johnson to a victory as well.

So, yeah, some chance does exist.

[Figueira]

Umm, no. Chances to hold the Senate are about 60/40 right now. Trump has about a 15 percent chance of winning. Combination of holding the Senate and Trump would run about 7, 8 percent now.

That's not how it works. A Trump victory would be pretty much guaranteed to include Republican Senate control.

Anyway, you're basically right, although I'm somewhat optimistic about the Senate assuming that Clinton wins by a decent margin.

[Drew]

In this scenario, this GOP domination would go beyond the WH and Congress.  There would be another Scalia type appointed to SCOTUS, again giving the court a conservative majority.  Also, at the state level, most governors are and will be GOP, and the state legislatures are/will be overwhelmingly GOP.  And then there's the 2018 midterms, which typically feature conservative turnout and this particular midterm will feature a bad map for Dems.  Though this could be neutralized by liberal/moderate backlash against the Trumpublicans.

Overall, a complete Democratic dystopia.

[DS0816]

Booker is too much of a pro-Wall Street, hawkish Democrat for me. More so than Clinton, who I think is attacked to unfairly for this by fellow Liberals, considering she is where the median Democratic pol is. But I can see more fiscally conservative Democrats and African Americans supporting Booker.

This describes the overwhelming majority of this Democratic Party.

Let's just call them what they really are: The Republican Party, Part II.

One poster on another thread, thinking it's all dandy, wants the status quo because to change to a Bernie-type Democratic Party—which is more in line with the Franklin Roosevelt/New Deal Democratic Party than the Bill Clinton/DLC/Third Way Democratic Party—would deliver huge Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

[Devout Centrist]

Booker is too much of a pro-Wall Street, hawkish Democrat for me. More so than Clinton, who I think is attacked to unfairly for this by fellow Liberals, considering she is where the median Democratic pol is. But I can see more fiscally conservative Democrats and African Americans supporting Booker.

This describes the overwhelming majority of this Democratic Party.

Let's just call them what they really are: The Republican Party, Part II.

One poster on another thread, thinking it's all dandy, wants the status quo because to change to a Bernie-type Democratic Party—which is more in line with the Franklin Roosevelt/New Deal Democratic Party than the Bill Clinton/DLC/Third Way Democratic Party—would deliver huge Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

If only they'd realize that wifi is frying kid's brains and vaccines are too.

[Virginiá]

This describes the overwhelming majority of this Democratic Party.

Let's just call them what they really are: The Republican Party, Part II.

One poster on another thread, thinking it's all dandy, wants the status quo because to change to a Bernie-type Democratic Party—which is more in line with the Franklin Roosevelt/New Deal Democratic Party than the Bill Clinton/DLC/Third Way Democratic Party—would deliver huge Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

You do realize that even before Clinton, the Democratic Party was riddled with conservatives, right? Far more than today. Don't you ever wonder why, despite such large, enduring majorities in Congress for literally generations, New Deal-esque stuff was rarely passed unless Democrats experienced massive gains, such as in 1933-1939, or 1965-1967?

You'll never be satisfied.

[Devout Centrist]

This describes the overwhelming majority of this Democratic Party.

Let's just call them what they really are: The Republican Party, Part II.

One poster on another thread, thinking it's all dandy, wants the status quo because to change to a Bernie-type Democratic Party—which is more in line with the Franklin Roosevelt/New Deal Democratic Party than the Bill Clinton/DLC/Third Way Democratic Party—would deliver huge Republican majorities in both houses of Congress.

You do realize that even before Clinton, the Democratic Party was riddled with conservatives, right? Far more than today. Don't you ever wonder why, despite such large, enduring majorities in Congress, New Deal-esque stuff was never passed unless Democrats experienced massive gains, such as in 1933-1939, or 1965-1967?

You'll never be satisfied.

Of course he won't. He wants socialism, that's probably not going to happen in the US any time soon.

[Virginiá]

Of course he won't. He wants socialism, that's probably not going to happen in the US any time soon.

I suppose. I already had a hair-pulling conversation with him on his ideological purity and how self-defeating it is in another thread, but I wanted to point out that the party he thinks existed prior to Bill Clinton/DLC didn't actually exist in the form he might believe. I think it actually might be more accurate to call the pre-Third Way era Democratic Party Republican II than today's Democratic Party (though I still think that label is inaccurate in both instances and an insulting delegitimization tactic common among the ideological fringes)

[Nyvin]

I still have a hard time believing Trump is anywhere near tied with Clinton.   I just cannot imagine him actually winning the presidency in any scenario.

The Senate is looking a lot less predictable, but even if it's just Clinton in the White House that's actually fine,  it means that we "hold the line" for 4 years.