Who's more likely to win a supermajority in the senate in 2020?

[Storr]

PEOPLE
Am I the only one who considers "supermajority" as "being able to override a veto" and so 67 seats instead of 60?

That's not an invalid way of looking at what a supermajority should be. But, since the last time a party had a 67+ seat majority in the Senate was in the 89th Congress (1965-67), when the Democratic caucus was still bitterly divided among Liberals and Southern Democrats, I doubt we'll ever see a veto-proof supermajority in our lifetimes. (Unless there is another political realignment, one of which was at its beginning in the mid-60s.)

[Battista Minola 1616]

PEOPLE
Am I the only one who considers "supermajority" as "being able to override a veto" and so 67 seats instead of 60?

That's not an invalid way of looking at what a supermajority should be. But, since the last time a party had a 67+ seat majority in the Senate was in the 89th Congress (1965-67), when the Democratic caucus was still bitterly divided among Liberals and Southern Democrats, I doubt we'll ever see a veto-proof supermajority in our lifetimes. (Unless there is another political realignment, one of which was at its beginning in the mid-60s.)

I perfectly agree. Just I consider "supermajority" to mean a veto-proof one and not a filibuster-proof one (especially since the filibuster is a much more transient thing that the presidential veto)
At the same time the Republicans could not possibly win a veto-proof majority in 2020 even if they won every single seat up for election, so in that sense my reading is dumb. (the Democrats could)