Is the Republican "small-state advantage" in the senate a double edged sword?

[ProgressiveModerate]

I ask this because generally, it seems like Democrats are at a disadvantage in the senate, winning in larger states but not in the smaller ones. However, in smaller states, it seems generally that people feel that they have more of a connection to their senator, because the sentor has to appeal to a smaller audience. In larger states, senators tend to be more mainstream. In small states there are fewer people to win over, and typically there's less diversity of groups one must win over to win the state, so there's less people one has to convince to vote for them whereas in a larger state, usually the winning coalition is more diverse and generally larger. This means that for a Democrat to win a state like WV (take Manchin), they can appeal to the pretty narrow electorate that is WV, but in a larger state like NY or CA, which are technically less blue than WV is red, it's nearly impossible for an R to win, even if they are a good fit for the state. This cycle, we have seen Democrats put up strong challengers in MT and KS, where the actual canidate seems to have more power, whereas in NC, Tillis will be swept away if a blue wave year comes and there's not much he can do about it. In ME, Susan Collins seems to being held accountable, but might be able to recover from it just because of how small ME is and how few people she needs to apologize to. If MI was a smaller state, I bet you John James would've won his race in 2018, and if MT was a larger state, Tester would've lost in 2018. In my view, this is why is senate elections it's much rarer to see a Blue State R than a Red State D. Is this hurting the Republicans in the senate this cycle by constraining their pickup opportunities, while creating more room for Ds to gain seats?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, Collins, Ernst and SMC, by Collins holding onto ME 2 and Ernst holding onto IA 4, all three females can win. Whereas, in AZ, CO, GA, KS, MT and NC and even AK can be won by the Ds

[gerritcole]

Are HI RI VT DE and NH big states?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Are HI RI VT DE and NH big states?

HI is a small stringly D state yes. RI, VT, DE are all currently D strong states but they might change in the next decade or 2. NH is a swing state, not safe. If you take the 2016 election result, and shuft every state 2.1% to the right, to make the map roughly what it would've been if the PV was tied, Clinton would've won 18 states and Trump would've won 32. It's pretty obvious Rs have a small state advanatge through WY, ID, SD, ND, MT, AK, WV, NE, ect, and it's only growing as more and more people are clustering in the same few states (although that trend may be breifly reversed after COVID)

[Pollster]

It's a mixed bag. On one hand, Democrats tend to do better in Senate races in red states than Republicans do in blue states because of the population size gaps and the cost of campaigning. On the other hand, there are more red states than blue states, so Democratic efforts wind up being overstretched and more costly.

[gerritcole]

Are HI RI VT DE and NH big states?

HI is a small stringly D state yes. RI, VT, DE are all currently D strong states but they might change in the next decade or 2. NH is a swing state, not safe. If you take the 2016 election result, and shuft every state 2.1% to the right, to make the map roughly what it would've been if the PV was tied, Clinton would've won 18 states and Trump would've won 32. It's pretty obvious Rs have a small state advanatge through WY, ID, SD, ND, MT, AK, WV, NE, ect, and it's only growing as more and more people are clustering in the same few states (although that trend may be breifly reversed after COVID)

I do see your point about the GOP having an advantage in the Senate for the next few election cycles due to broader appeal in different states, however, I fail to see why this is an issue now.

For example, as recently as 2010, ND+SD sent 3 Dem senators to DC and have been electing Dem senators for decades. In WV, when Moore-Capito (R) won in 2014, she was the first GOP WV senator since 1956. MT has 1 Dem senator right now and may have 2 after Nov. AK had a Dem senator till 2014 and NE till 2012.

My overall point is, why is the small state versus large state senate an issue now? If Dems lose elections the senate is rigged? All these states sent Dem senators for decades to DC.

EDIT - NM is another Dem state that is rather small population wise and has been atlas red/reality blue for decades.