If Ds had won Bill Nelson's seat in 2018, how much easier would it be to get a majority?

[ProgressiveModerate]

This races pisses me off so much. Literally all the dominoes fell perfectly in the GOP's favor. Scott was pretty much the strongest possible canidate, Nelson barely campaigned, and Scott ended up winning literally by the skin of his teeth. If the ballots were designed differently in some counties, we could very well have a senator Nelson. Would winning this seat have helped them significantly in winning back the majority in 2020, or would it have motivated Rs early on to run better canidates and take the senate battle more seriously from the get go?

[WD]

It would help significantly. If Nelson won and Dems had 48 seats now, all they would need is AZ and CO (which are all but guaranteed) and then one of MT,ME,NC,GA-R,GA-S,IA, or KS. The Senate would be Lean or maybe even Likely D in this case. If Schumer is still Minority Leader after 2021 he has Nelson to blame.

[YE]

I’d feel more confident about more than a 51 seat majority, and at least 50 seats would be quite likely. But it’s just one seat and the DSCC seems to have done well with recruitment anyway.

[Roll Roons]

Helps significantly. Assuming Democrats write off Alabama as a loss and build solid leads in Colorado and Arizona as they are doing now, they would only need two more seats to get to 51. Between North Carolina, Maine, Montana (assuming Bullock still runs), both Georgia seats and Iowa, not to mention reach targets like Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, and Texas, it would be a very doable task and I think they would be favored, though not guaranteed, to flip the Senate.

In real life, it's still very possible, especially with Trump crashing and burning, but it's a tougher task than it would have been if Nelson had held on. Though it's not just Nelson - there have also been other close races in recent cycles that could have gone the Democrats' way, but didn't. Think Pennsylvania in 2016, or Colorado and North Carolina in 2014. Mark Udall's seat would have been Likely to Safe D, and Kay Hagan, assuming she doesn't die, would have also likely been favored.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Helps significantly. Assuming Democrats write off Alabama as a loss and build solid leads in Colorado and Arizona as they are doing now, they would only need two more seats to get to 51. Between North Carolina, Maine, Montana (assuming Bullock still runs), both Georgia seats and Iowa, not to mention reach targets like Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, and Texas, it would be a very doable task and I think they would be favored, though not guaranteed, to flip the Senate.

In real life, it's still very possible, especially with Trump crashing and burning, but it's a tougher task than it would have been if Nelson had held on. Though it's not just Nelson - there have also been other close races in recent cycles that could have gone the Democrats' way, but didn't. Think Pennsylvania in 2016, or Colorado and North Carolina in 2014. Mark Udall's seat would have been Likely to Safe D, and Kay Hagan, assuming she doesn't die, would have also likely been favored.

They've also had their own share of narrow victories like Warner in 2014, which means 1 less seat to worry about this cycle, as well as Shahen's seat, which I actually thought Brown might win. In 2016, they got very lucky in NH with Hassan barely beating Ayotte as well as Cortez-Masto winning narrowly. In 2018, they had AZ, WV, MT all narrowly fall their way. It's not like one side can just have all the narrow races always fall there way. I think RN, AL is a guarenteed flip, even in a Bidenslide, and CO and AZ are on the weaker end of likely. You can't really make a logical argument for McSally winning, which is, sad, but who knows it could be WI-2016 all over again. Unless something goes terribly wrong for Ds, they should be able to pick up at least one of ME, NC, MT, KS, IA, GA, and AK, and don't really have any seats of their own to worry about other than maybe MI if Trump makes a comeback and James actually starts running a better campaign and lives up to the hype. -AL +CO, AZ, NC, ME is probably their easiest path, but having backups in diverse states across the country means that even if they collapse in a certain region, they still have a good chance at winning the senate.

[Epaminondas]

It would have helped, granted.

But don't lose sight of the big picture: if any of Tester, Brown or Manchin had retired, the Senate was staying GOP in 2020.

Besides, the fact that the Dems are not guaranteed the Senate should help them garner some wavering voters in November, given how beholden US voters are to the idea of "checks".

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Hot take, but I doubt it makes a difference that much, mainly since a 51-49 R Senate after 2020 seems to me to be in lower range of possible outcomes as is, with both 52-48 R and 50-50 D (lets face it, if Dems are netting more than a single seat in the US Senate in 2020, then they are almost certainly already winning the presidency) far more likely.

[Ferguson97]

I mean... duh? Having 48 seats by definition brings them closer to a majority than 47 and obviously puts them in a better position than they are now.