Will Republicans have a lock on the senate in the 2030s and beyond?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I see an urban rural divide sticking around in the long term, and it seems that 2018 proved that red-state democrats are becoming much more rare, so is it possible that Republicans have a lock on the senate, just by winning small rural states. Even though the Democrats have more EVs that seem to be becoming more in reach, it's mostly a few large states like TX and GA, whereas Republicans are picking up a lot of smaller states, but all states get 2 senate seats no matter what. Also, a lot of these larger rust belt states the Republicans have been doing better in are losing EVs like crazy. Seems to me that Republicans could very well have a lock on the senate, and pretty much no matter what, Democrats can't win.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Don't ever bet against the ability of the GOP to piss away sure bet Senate seats even in deep red states. MT 2006 (corruption), AK 2008 (Corruption), NV 2010, CO 2010, DE 2010, (Sheer Stupidity) IN 2012, MO 2012, (Sheer Insanity) ND 2012, MT 2012, (Sheer incompetence) AL 2017, (Sheer pedophilia), MT 2018, WV 2018, (See MT/ND 2012).

[brucejoel99]

Considering we don't know what the hell American politics is gonna look like come the 2030s, no, of course not.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Considering JD Scholten,  Tim Ryan and Joe Kennedy may all win Senate seats and are 2028 Dem Prez prospects in 2028, no the GOP have elders in McConnell,  Graham whom may be defeated in 2020 and new generations of Dem Leaders emerge in the Senate in 2020s, so no.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Considering JD Scholten,  Tim Ryan and Joe Kennedy may all win Senate seats and are 2028 Dem Prez prospects in 2028, no the GOP have elders in McConnell,  Graham whom may be defeated in 2020 and new generations of Dem Leaders emerge in the Senate in 2020s, so no.

I love this bog standard old Atlas analysis, "Democrats have these amazing candidates, Republican candidates are all terrible...."

Then half the time these amazing Dem candidates get caught in a scandal, or run and get destroyed or end up losing to a crappy GOP candidate simply because of demographics or the cycle.

If I had a dollar for every time: someone was sure that Rob Portman was going to be defeated because of his ties to Bush or Pat Toomey was going to be defeated b/c he is more conservative than Santorum, and don't get me started on Missouri. 

There is this pre-disposition on this site, to proclaim every new, young moderate Democrat from a red state as the next JFK.

[KaiserDave]

Considering JD Scholten,  Tim Ryan and Joe Kennedy may all win Senate seats and are 2028 Dem Prez prospects in 2028, no the GOP have elders in McConnell,  Graham whom may be defeated in 2020 and new generations of Dem Leaders emerge in the Senate in 2020s, so no.

I love this bog standard old Atlas analysis, "Democrats have these amazing candidates, Republican candidates are all terrible...."

Then half the time these amazing Dem candidates get caught in a scandal, or run and get destroyed or end up losing to a crappy GOP candidate simply because of demographics or the cycle.

If I had a dollar for every time: someone was sure that Rob Portman was going to be defeated because of his ties to Bush or Pat Toomey was going to be defeated b/c he is more conservative than Santorum, and don't get me started on Missouri. 

There is this pre-disposition on this site, to proclaim every new, young moderate Democrat from a red state as the next JFK.

You are responding to OC
Mistake

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Considering JD Scholten,  Tim Ryan and Joe Kennedy may all win Senate seats and are 2028 Dem Prez prospects in 2028, no the GOP have elders in McConnell,  Graham whom may be defeated in 2020 and new generations of Dem Leaders emerge in the Senate in 2020s, so no.

I love this bog standard old Atlas analysis, "Democrats have these amazing candidates, Republican candidates are all terrible...."

Then half the time these amazing Dem candidates get caught in a scandal, or run and get destroyed or end up losing to a crappy GOP candidate simply because of demographics or the cycle.

If I had a dollar for every time: someone was sure that Rob Portman was going to be defeated because of his ties to Bush or Pat Toomey was going to be defeated b/c he is more conservative than Santorum, and don't get me started on Missouri. 

There is this pre-disposition on this site, to proclaim every new, young moderate Democrat from a red state as the next JFK.

You are responding to OC
Mistake

All part of the plan.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Considering JD Scholten,  Tim Ryan and Joe Kennedy may all win Senate seats and are 2028 Dem Prez prospects in 2028, no the GOP have elders in McConnell,  Graham whom may be defeated in 2020 and new generations of Dem Leaders emerge in the Senate in 2020s, so no.

I love this bog standard old Atlas analysis, "Democrats have these amazing candidates, Republican candidates are all terrible...."

Then half the time these amazing Dem candidates get caught in a scandal, or run and get destroyed or end up losing to a crappy GOP candidate simply because of demographics or the cycle.

If I had a dollar for every time: someone was sure that Rob Portman was going to be defeated because of his ties to Bush or Pat Toomey was going to be defeated b/c he is more conservative than Santorum, and don't get me started on Missouri. 

There is this pre-disposition on this site, to proclaim every new, young moderate Democrat from a red state as the next JFK.

Kate McGinty,  Strickland and Bayh all had scandals and Tim Ryan, JD Scholten and Joe Kennedy have none. Had Joe Sestak ran in 2016, he would have defeated Toomey. IA, OH, WI and PA are gonna be contested again in 2022. Toomey received money from Bloomberg for his support for gun control rights, that wont be there in 2022, due to Bloomberg becoming a Dem in 2020

[DC Al Fine]

Considering JD Scholten,  Tim Ryan and Joe Kennedy may all win Senate seats and are 2028 Dem Prez prospects in 2028, no the GOP have elders in McConnell,  Graham whom may be defeated in 2020 and new generations of Dem Leaders emerge in the Senate in 2020s, so no.

I love this bog standard old Atlas analysis, "Democrats have these amazing candidates, Republican candidates are all terrible...."

Then half the time these amazing Dem candidates get caught in a scandal, or run and get destroyed or end up losing to a crappy GOP candidate simply because of demographics or the cycle.

If I had a dollar for every time: someone was sure that Rob Portman was going to be defeated because of his ties to Bush or Pat Toomey was going to be defeated b/c he is more conservative than Santorum, and don't get me started on Missouri. 

There is this pre-disposition on this site, to proclaim every new, young moderate Democrat from a red state as the next JFK.

Aw man, this takes me back. Remember people hyping Ed Fitzgerald? Good times.

[Person Man]

They could but probably won't. Even when Democrats held it through the 60s and 70s, they only did so because of the ideological diversity that both parties today lack though there were times they probably didn't need conservative Democrats to hold the chamber at all the way House Democrats don't need conservatives at this moment.

This is so even because they will most likely have a lot of 2006 situations with the next Republican president. Where all the elements we are talking about actually do create the perfect storm to get enough moderate Democrats elected to flip the senate. That means there comes a time where someone new shows up at the right time that doesn't offend the sensibilities of those who are open minded but would NEVER vote for someone who reliably tows the opposite line or for a Democrat at the top of the ticket during a presidential year.

[TheSaint250]

Doubt it. Domination of a branch of Congress for that long is gonna prove to be more and more difficult

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Doubt it. Domination of a branch of Congress for that long is gonna prove to be more and more difficult

2020, 2022, and 2024 Senate maps are difficult with so many R retirements

[Skill and Chance]

I don't really think so, no.  Dems will have gained enough in small-ish Western states by then . It's easier to imagine a scenario where they extend their current control to 2030: either Biden wins without flipping the senate or Trump wins big enough that R's are sitting at 56 or 57 (AL+MI+NH+MN and they only lose CO if anything?) seats, which means they could plausibly withstand the Trump midterm in 2022 and the likely Dem win in 2024. 

[Orser67]

I certainly think there's a chance it could happen, especially if Trump loses but Democrats fail to take the Senate in 2020. Republicans clearly have a major advantage with the Senate map, and I expect Democrats to generally control the presidency (meaning less Dem-friendly midterms).

Democrats had a lock on the House for 40 years (1955-1995), so it's not like there's no precedent.

[Person Man]

I certainly think there's a chance it could happen, especially if Trump loses but Democrats fail to take the Senate in 2020. Republicans clearly have a major advantage with the Senate map, and I expect Democrats to generally control the presidency (meaning less Dem-friendly midterms).

Democrats had a lock on the House for 40 years (1955-1995), so it's not like there's no precedent.

But not the senate. I think Republicans were able to hold the Senate for 16 years at one point and the Democrats 26 years? It's truly a dynasty if the GOP is still in control in 2024.

[Orser67]

I certainly think there's a chance it could happen, especially if Trump loses but Democrats fail to take the Senate in 2020. Republicans clearly have a major advantage with the Senate map, and I expect Democrats to generally control the presidency (meaning less Dem-friendly midterms).

Democrats had a lock on the House for 40 years (1955-1995), so it's not like there's no precedent.

But not the senate. I think Republicans were able to hold the Senate for 16 years at one point and the Democrats 26 years? It's truly a dynasty if the GOP is still in control in 2024.

Yeah, I think the Democrats from 1955-1981 hold the record for longest uninterrupted period of control, though the Democratic-Republicans (1801-1825; though it could be longer if one wants to argue that the party didn't truly break up until a few years later) come close. Another impressive period of Senate dominance is GOP from 1861 to 1933; they controlled it for 62 of 72 years.

The GOP controlling the Senate for 10 straight years (2015-2025) would be pretty impressive, but I think it's important to understand that it's not unusual for one party to dominate a chamber over a long period of time.

[Person Man]

I certainly think there's a chance it could happen, especially if Trump loses but Democrats fail to take the Senate in 2020. Republicans clearly have a major advantage with the Senate map, and I expect Democrats to generally control the presidency (meaning less Dem-friendly midterms).

Democrats had a lock on the House for 40 years (1955-1995), so it's not like there's no precedent.

But not the senate. I think Republicans were able to hold the Senate for 16 years at one point and the Democrats 26 years? It's truly a dynasty if the GOP is still in control in 2024.

Yeah, I think the Democrats from 1955-1981 hold the record for longest uninterrupted period of control, though the Democratic-Republicans (1801-1825; though it could be longer if one wants to argue that the party didn't truly break up until a few years later) come close. Another impressive period of Senate dominance is GOP from 1861 to 1933; they controlled it for 62 of 72 years.

The GOP controlling the Senate for 10 straight years (2015-2025) would be pretty impressive, but I think it's important to understand that it's not unusual for one party to dominate a chamber over a long period of time.

Unless of course one party is about to be replaced by another more modern party.