Percentage chance of Democratic control of the US Senate after 2020?

[ElectionsGuy]

10%, but goes up to 25% if they win the presidential election.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Moore is polarizing

Absolutely. But Jones is way too liberal for today's Alabama. It will be close, but in Presidential year Moore would be favored...

Stop driveling about insufficient moderate-ness. Jones could vote to the right of Jim Inhofe and he’d still lose a general election in Alabama.

Yes, if Harris or Bernie are the nominees who are very liberal and can only solidify the 279 blue wall; however, Biden, Beto and Tim Ryan can expand the map to IA and OH, with WWC voters that can get Jones over the top; as well as Kelly and Castro and Jeff Jackson

[MT Treasurer]

35-40%, mostly because Democrats are way undervalued in AZ, MT, AL, NC, TX, and to a lesser extent GA. I think they’re being overestimated in IA, MI, and ME, though.

[Xing]

35-40%, mostly because Democrats are way undervalued in AZ, MT, AL, NC, TX, and to a lesser extent GA. I think they’re being overestimated in IA, MI, and ME, though.

Why NC? It seems like most people here consider the race a Toss-Up, or at most Tilt/Lean R.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's a 45% chance of happening.  TX/KY/NC/GA +CO, AL and AZ will flip control of the Senate.

[Adam Griffin]

Low

[DaWN]

I'd say about 35%.

CO/AL swap unless something unexpected happens, which keeps us at the 53/47 baseline.

Aside from CO, AZ is the lowest hanging fruit. Flips depending on the outcome of the presidential race in the state, but Kelly is strong enough and McSally weak enough that I think PresiDem could lose marginally with this seat still flipping. 52 - 48

NC falls next. PresiDem would probably need to be winning by a solid but not spectacular margin. 51 - 48

Then, with a PresiDem victory, they need one of GA/ME. TX may well end up being competitive but if it falls then GA probably does as well. IA could become competitive if it's a wave but probably not and MT depends on Bullock.

So one of GA or ME has to be cracked to get the majority. Even if they don't land Abrams, the Dems have a decent bench in GA, and Perdue is not the strongest incumbent. However, the demographics might not be right yet and the turnout differentials have to be pretty heavily in the Dems favour for them to stand a chance. In ME, they have to get a strong candidate (Golden would be the best option) and get to work on Collins' image now. But, as we all know, the Democrats aren't exactly stellar at this whole politics business and will probably let her glide through because of 'moderatism' or some guff like that.

Overall, it's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination, but it'll take some work.

[Sestak]

35

[SnowLabrador]

I give it 1%, for what it's worth.

[Orser67]

I'd say about 35%.
NC falls next. PresiDem would probably need to be winning by a solid but not spectacular margin. 51 - 48

Clinton won nationwide by 2 points in 2016, but lost NC by 3.5 points. Do you see NC trending Democratic in the presidential race, or do you see the Democratic Senate candidate running ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate in NC?

[Frenchrepublican]

I'd say about 35%.

CO/AL swap unless something unexpected happens, which keeps us at the 53/47 baseline.

Aside from CO, AZ is the lowest hanging fruit. Flips depending on the outcome of the presidential race in the state, but Kelly is strong enough and McSally weak enough that I think PresiDem could lose marginally with this seat still flipping. 52 - 48

NC falls next. PresiDem would probably need to be winning by a solid but not spectacular margin. 51 - 48

Then, with a PresiDem victory, they need one of GA/ME. TX may well end up being competitive but if it falls then GA probably does as well. IA could become competitive if it's a wave but probably not and MT depends on Bullock.

So one of GA or ME has to be cracked to get the majority. Even if they don't land Abrams, the Dems have a decent bench in GA, and Perdue is not the strongest incumbent. However, the demographics might not be right yet and the turnout differentials have to be pretty heavily in the Dems favour for them to stand a chance. In ME, they have to get a strong candidate (Golden would be the best option) and get to work on Collins' image now. But, as we all know, the Democrats aren't exactly stellar at this whole politics business and will probably let her glide through because of 'moderatism' or some guff like that.

Overall, it's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination, but it'll take some work.

NC votes generally six points to the right of the rest of the country so a 51/48 D wins wouldn’t be enough to flip NC

[DaWN]

Sorry That was a typo on my part. I meant 51-49 in reference to the Senate composition. PresiDem would need to be winning the presidential race by a bit more than 3 points for NC to flip, even with crossover votes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

With Beto or Biden, Dems can secure TX/KY/NC/GA + AL, CO and AZ. Sanders or Harris it wouldnt be a sure thing
.

[Orser67]

I'd say about 35%.
NC falls next. PresiDem would probably need to be winning by a solid but not spectacular margin. 51 - 48

Clinton won nationwide by 2 points in 2016, but lost NC by 3.5 points. Do you see NC trending Democratic in the presidential race, or do you see the Democratic Senate candidate running ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate in NC?

It’s much easier to envision a Trump/Jackson voter than it is a PresiDem/Tillis voter. The former is the kind of unengaged person who probably doesn’t like Trump but thinks he hasn’t done anything tooo bad but REALLY likes that hunk Jeff Jackson and his haircut and how he’s a veteran even though there’s no real policy differences between Jackson and PresiDem. Basically like your Trump/Kander voter in Missouri in 2016.

I guess Kander's performance is pretty conclusive in support of the notion that Democratic Senate candidates can significantly run ahead of the top of the ticket against a Republican incumbent in presidential years. Though it's worth noting that John McCain, Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, Rob Portman, and Ron Johnson all ran ahead of Trump in 2016, while Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Heck, and Pat Toomey all basically matched Trump's margin of victory or defeat.

[lfromnj]

I'd say about 35%.
NC falls next. PresiDem would probably need to be winning by a solid but not spectacular margin. 51 - 48

Clinton won nationwide by 2 points in 2016, but lost NC by 3.5 points. Do you see NC trending Democratic in the presidential race, or do you see the Democratic Senate candidate running ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate in NC?

It’s much easier to envision a Trump/Jackson voter than it is a PresiDem/Tillis voter. The former is the kind of unengaged person who probably doesn’t like Trump but thinks he hasn’t done anything tooo bad but REALLY likes that hunk Jeff Jackson and his haircut and how he’s a veteran even though there’s no real policy differences between Jackson and PresiDem. Basically like your Trump/Kander voter in Missouri in 2016.

I guess Kander's performance is pretty conclusive in support of the notion that Democratic Senate candidates can significantly run ahead of the top of the ticket against a Republican incumbent in presidential years. Though it's worth noting that John McCain, Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, Rob Portman, and Ron Johnson all ran ahead of Trump in 2016, while Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Heck, and Pat Toomey all basically matched Trump's margin of victory or defeat.

In most circumstances it’s very dependent on the candidate. Like if the voter likes the challenger’s haircut or thinks they are bang-able. Voters don’t behave rationally, so might as well give them what they aesthetically want

Only ayotte/Heck really matched Trump

Kirk and Toomey were vastly different from Trump's map. Kirk lost Gallatin county a Trump+50 county while only losing Lake by 5 points compared to Trumps 20.

Toomey won chester and bucks two suburban PA counties while losing Lackawanna by 16 points which Trump only lost by 3.

[lfromnj]

I'd say about 35%.
NC falls next. PresiDem would probably need to be winning by a solid but not spectacular margin. 51 - 48

Clinton won nationwide by 2 points in 2016, but lost NC by 3.5 points. Do you see NC trending Democratic in the presidential race, or do you see the Democratic Senate candidate running ahead of the Democratic presidential candidate in NC?

It’s much easier to envision a Trump/Jackson voter than it is a PresiDem/Tillis voter. The former is the kind of unengaged person who probably doesn’t like Trump but thinks he hasn’t done anything tooo bad but REALLY likes that hunk Jeff Jackson and his haircut and how he’s a veteran even though there’s no real policy differences between Jackson and PresiDem. Basically like your Trump/Kander voter in Missouri in 2016.

I guess Kander's performance is pretty conclusive in support of the notion that Democratic Senate candidates can significantly run ahead of the top of the ticket against a Republican incumbent in presidential years. Though it's worth noting that John McCain, Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, Richard Burr, Johnny Isakson, Rob Portman, and Ron Johnson all ran ahead of Trump in 2016, while Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte, Joe Heck, and Pat Toomey all basically matched Trump's margin of victory or defeat.

In most circumstances it’s very dependent on the candidate. Like if the voter likes the challenger’s haircut or thinks they are bang-able. Voters don’t behave rationally, so might as well give them what they aesthetically want

Only ayotte/Heck really matched Trump

Kirk and Toomey were vastly different from Trump's map. Kirk lost Gallatin county a Trump+50 county while only losing Lake by 5 points compared to Trumps 20.

Toomey won chester and bucks two suburban PA counties while losing Lackawanna by 16 points which Trump only lost by 3.

Does that really challenge my point though? I find it hard to pinpoint where on the map Tillis would run better than Trump. Tillis’ poll numbers are trash, and unlike in 2016, these Republicans can’t credibly separate themselves from Trump

I doubt these trends will continue in 2020 with there being such a large disparate. gap as we saw many even when the year went from R+1 to D+9 many #populist D's like Tim Ryan, Kildee,Peterson and others saw their margins of victory brought down because of sheer partisanship catching up. I was merely just commenting that Tillis in 2016 would have done worse in a lot of rurals but done slightly better in Charlotte MSA and Research Triangle.

[MT Treasurer]

35-40%, mostly because Democrats are way undervalued in AZ, MT, AL, NC, TX, and to a lesser extent GA. I think they’re being overestimated in IA, MI, and ME, though.

Why NC? It seems like most people here consider the race a Toss-Up, or at most Tilt/Lean R.

It seems like many people are assuming that Trump needs to lose the presidency or even lose NC for Tillis to lose his seat, but I could easily see him losing even if Trump wins the state and the presidency. This idea that every state must vote for the same party for president and Senate just because it (barely) happened in 2016 is ludicrous. Tillis really can’t afford to underperform Trump given how close NC will likely be in the presidential race, but like Mizzouian said, all signs point to him underperforming the top of the ticket. He’s a far weaker incumbent than Burr, and Jackson is definitely a stronger candidate than Deborah Ross or Kay Hagan.

[Person Man]

If they are wearing the White House they are winning the Senate.