Democrats: If we can't win the Senate after a Biden slide, what's the strategy going forwards?

[ProgressiveModerate]

We would've would've had 2 Democratic landslide elections and on basically even election, and we still wouldn't have control of the senate (even though some of our wins were on the backs of Republicans screwing up). This makes me think that me think that we're doing something wrong, or that winning a senate majority just isn't realistic.

The last few cycles, we've definately begun to learn just how much partisanship wins out in senate races; trying to win in red states like MO, TN, or IN just isn't feasible. With that being said, it's still possible to win in some smaller states since the race is more localized and the senator can have more of a personal connection with the constituents. ND was too red, but a place like MT, which is relatively small and only votes like 20 points to the right of the country still seems winnable.

The issue is that most of the states that are becoming more favorable have a lot of Electoral Votes, and while that's great in the electoral college, it's problematic in the senate. A lot of our smaller states are becoming less favorable to us (MN, IA, WI, ME, NM, NV). In exchange, we only gain GA, NC, TX, and AZ.

If we can't win the senate, all our Presidents are just going to be lame ducks, Republicans may also have a lock on the judicial branch which is dangerous in a Democracy.

Personally, I think we need to invest in smaller states such as MT, AK, and even ID, all of which I can see becoming a bit closer at the top of the ticket with the right messaging, and keep them winnable for the senate. I also think it's imperative that we stay a more moderate party so that voters that may be uncomfortable with some our our ideology can still feel ok voting for one of our canidates down ballot.

Anyways, what do you guys think?

[Virginiá]

We would've would've had 2 Democratic landslide elections and on basically even election, and we still wouldn't have control of the senate (even though some of our wins were on the backs of Republicans screwing up). This makes me think that me think that we're doing something wrong, or that winning a senate majority just isn't realistic.

[...]

It's not that Democrats are doing anything wrong campaign/strategy-wise, it's just that the Senate is essentially packed for Republicans. All those extra states the GOP added to cement their power in the Senate in the 19th century are still paying dividends for them.

And it's not something downballot Democrats can just campaign their way out of. They can't win North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska et al just by running more conservative candidates. They've been trying that or years now. People there aren't biting because everything has become nationalized. Their party affiliation matters much more than any candidate attributes.

Personally, I think polarization will eventually recede at least somewhat, but it could be a long time from now, and it still won't change the fact that Democrats have a serious Senate disadvantage that makes obtaining or holding a majority very difficult. In the meantime, the most realistic option for re-balancing the Senate is to add DC/PR as states. There is no other plausible option. It's either that or get locked out of the Senate for numerous cycles at a time, wasting precious time to actually change things.

[ProgressiveModerate]

We would've would've had 2 Democratic landslide elections and on basically even election, and we still wouldn't have control of the senate (even though some of our wins were on the backs of Republicans screwing up). This makes me think that me think that we're doing something wrong, or that winning a senate majority just isn't realistic.

[...]

It's not that Democrats are doing anything wrong campaign/strategy-wise, it's just that the Senate is essentially packed for Republicans. All those extra states the GOP added to cement their power in the Senate in the 19th century are still paying dividends for them.

And it's not something downballot Democrats can just campaign their way out of. They can't win North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska et al just by running more conservative candidates. They've been trying that or years now. People there aren't biting because everything has become nationalized. Their party affiliation matters much more than any candidate attributes.

Personally, I think polarization will eventually recede at least somewhat, but it could be a long time from now, and it still won't change the fact that Democrats have a serious Senate disadvantage that makes obtaining or holding a majority very difficult. In the meantime, the most realistic option for re-balancing the Senate is to add DC/PR as states. There is no other plausible option. It's either that or get locked out of the Senate for numerous cycles at a time, wasting precious time to actually change things.

For a little while though, up until about 2010, we did a pretty good job at winning senate seats in states in the plains, especially the northern plains states. Obama came close in MT, ND, and SD as recently as 2008. We even had some house seats in that region of the country. Now the only state in that region where it still seems possible to win senate seats is MT, but even that requires the right canidate and the right national climate and then some.

I think DC/PR statehood might help, but is that logistically feasible? I guarentee you no Republican, even Murkowski or Romney would vote for DC statehood (though I see them voting for PR) What would prevent Republicans from adding some stupid state down the road that is obviously a power grab? What I worry about is as soon as we start making power grabs, it's just going to escalate the situation, and not necessarily make it better.

[Kuumo]

Senate Democrats in the Midwest need to hang on as long as possible. I’m not sure how they would do that, but it would be necessary.

If Democrats ever lock down Texas in Presidential elections, we could be in a situation where Democrats are strongly favored in the electoral college and Republicans are strongly favored in the Senate for at least a decade. Maybe this would eventually cause some of realignment after a period of near-constant gridlock makes it difficult to respond to the next big recession/pandemic/climate disaster.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Senate Democrats in the Midwest need to hang on as long as possible. I’m not sure how they would do that, but it would be necessary.

If Democrats ever lock down Texas in Presidential elections, we could be in a situation where Democrats are strongly favored in the electoral college and Republicans are strongly favored in the Senate for at least a decade. Maybe this would eventually cause some of realignment after a period of near-constant gridlock makes it difficult to respond to the next big recession/pandemic/climate disaster.

Mark my word that on top of TX, FL will likely become a blue leaning state unless Rs change their message. I made a thread about this a while ago, and once retirees stop moving to FL because it's too expensive or not desirable for some other reason, it'll likely shift to the left. This would be pretty disaster for the GOP if they were underdogs in CA, NY, FL, and CA.



An electoral map that looks something like this would be problematic for the GOP on the Presidential level but problematic for Democrats in the senate. Maybe there would be a bipartisan effort to level the playing field?

[Storr]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

[Hope For A New Era]

We have to go all in on candidates. There's usually one Democrat who can win. Jim Matheson in Utah, Rocky Adkins in Kentucky, Brad Henry in Oklahoma, Kathleen Sebelius for the other Kansas seat, and so on. We need a Jon Tester for every state.

MT, AK, and even ID

Idaho is an odd case. It's extremely Republican right now, but the population is exploding in the Boise area, Mormons are shifting left (and with them the southeast part of the state), and the panhandle, culturally speaking, is an odd fusion of western Montana and the Rust Belt.

We'd have to find a perfect candidate, but if we ever did, they'd be invincible. Landslides forever. Some sort of Mormon union activist and environmentalist with a generic whitepicketfencia suburban family, maybe?

[Kuumo]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

I know, it’s not like there are five incumbent Republican Senators in likely double-digit Biden states like MA, VT, IL, CT, and OR. The best Democrats can hope for are FL-SEN scenarios in PA, WI, and NC.

[Roll Roons]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

Yeah, the equivalent of Democratic incumbents in North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri would be if there were Republican incumbents in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois and Oregon.

In terms of R-held seats, I think only Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina would be realistic targets. And in a Biden midterm, Democrats would honestly be lucky to win even one.

Wisconsin: If Johnson retires and Mike Gallagher runs, Democrats can kiss that seat goodbye. That man is an insanely strong candidate.
Florida: If Florida Democrats couldn't even reelect their own incumbent in a Trump midterm, how on earth will they beat Marco?
Ohio: Aside from Obama and Sherrod Brown, no Democrat has won a statewide race in Ohio this decade, and I don't think Ohio Democrats have a candidate of Brown's caliber waiting in the wings. Plus Portman is a machine when it comes to campaigning and fundraising.
Iowa: Chuck Grassley is Jesus in this state.

Every other state is just too red for Democrats to win in a Biden midterm.

[lfromnj]

We would've would've had 2 Democratic landslide elections and on basically even election, and we still wouldn't have control of the senate (even though some of our wins were on the backs of Republicans screwing up). This makes me think that me think that we're doing something wrong, or that winning a senate majority just isn't realistic.

[...]

It's not that Democrats are doing anything wrong campaign/strategy-wise, it's just that the Senate is essentially packed for Republicans. All those extra states the GOP added to cement their power in the Senate in the 19th century are still paying dividends for them.

And it's not something downballot Democrats can just campaign their way out of. They can't win North Dakota or Idaho or Nebraska et al just by running more conservative candidates. They've been trying that or years now. People there aren't biting because everything has become nationalized. Their party affiliation matters much more than any candidate attributes.

Personally, I think polarization will eventually recede at least somewhat, but it could be a long time from now, and it still won't change the fact that Democrats have a serious Senate disadvantage that makes obtaining or holding a majority very difficult. In the meantime, the most realistic option for re-balancing the Senate is to add DC/PR as states. There is no other plausible option. It's either that or get locked out of the Senate for numerous cycles at a time, wasting precious time to actually change things.

I thought the parties switched?

Weirdly I never noticed the Democrats complain about the Dakotas split in 2001 or 2007?

[Heebie Jeebie]

Convince moderates and liberals to move to cities like Cheyenne (Reasonable!  That's not too far from Denver.), Fargo, Sioux Falls, and Anchorage (Less reasonable!  Nobody wants to live in these cities.)

Really, though, short of quick demographic change in a handful of low-population conservative states, Democrats are screwed in the Senate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Ds should have 52 seats, win AZ, CO, ME and NC and win both GA seats; consequently getting DC statehood enacted

[slothdem]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

Yeah, the equivalent of Democratic incumbents in North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri would be if there were Republican incumbents in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois and Oregon.

In terms of R-held seats, I think only Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina would be realistic targets. And in a Biden midterm, Democrats would honestly be lucky to win even one.

Wisconsin: If Johnson retires and Mike Gallagher runs, Democrats can kiss that seat goodbye. That man is an insanely strong candidate.
Florida: If Florida Democrats couldn't even reelect their own incumbent in a Trump midterm, how on earth will they beat Marco?
Ohio: Aside from Obama and Sherrod Brown, no Democrat has won a statewide race in Ohio this decade, and I don't think Ohio Democrats have a candidate of Brown's caliber waiting in the wings. Plus Portman is a machine when it comes to campaigning and fundraising.
Iowa: Chuck Grassley is Jesus in this state.

Every other state is just too red for Democrats to win in a Biden midterm.

This is strong analysis. A Biden midterm probably gives us a range of +2 to -2, weighted towards the later. Pennsylvania is a possible pick-up no matter what - the Dem bench is extremely strong, and a Toomey retirement probably makes it a true toss-up. And 2022 Georgia might just "be there" where the inelastic nonwhite + white liberal vote has just become greater than the conservative vote. The races you listed as being unlikely in a Biden midterm are all too heavy lifts, and I think you can add NC to that list - the red lean is durable and it won't flip in a decent republican year.

The lucky thing for Democrats is that their exposure is low. Only Nevada and NH could be vulnerable, and I am deeply skeptical that CCM goes down, even in a bad year.

Edit: Forgot that Sen. Kelly is going to be on the ballot again. AZ GOP can probably find a stronger candidate that McSally but it might not matter.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

Yeah, the equivalent of Democratic incumbents in North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri would be if there were Republican incumbents in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois and Oregon.

In terms of R-held seats, I think only Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina would be realistic targets. And in a Biden midterm, Democrats would honestly be lucky to win even one.

Wisconsin: If Johnson retires and Mike Gallagher runs, Democrats can kiss that seat goodbye. That man is an insanely strong candidate.
Florida: If Florida Democrats couldn't even reelect their own incumbent in a Trump midterm, how on earth will they beat Marco?
Ohio: Aside from Obama and Sherrod Brown, no Democrat has won a statewide race in Ohio this decade, and I don't think Ohio Democrats have a candidate of Brown's caliber waiting in the wings. Plus Portman is a machine when it comes to campaigning and fundraising.
Iowa: Chuck Grassley is Jesus in this state.

Every other state is just too red for Democrats to win in a Biden midterm.

This is strong analysis. A Biden midterm probably gives us a range of +2 to -2, weighted towards the later. Pennsylvania is a possible pick-up no matter what - the Dem bench is extremely strong, and a Toomey retirement probably makes it a true toss-up. And 2022 Georgia might just "be there" where the inelastic nonwhite + white liberal vote has just become greater than the conservative vote. The races you listed as being unlikely in a Biden midterm are all too heavy lifts, and I think you can add NC to that list - the red lean is durable and it won't flip in a decent republican year.

The lucky thing for Democrats is that their exposure is low. Only Nevada and NH could be vulnerable, and I am deeply skeptical that CCM goes down, even in a bad year.

As for GA, NC, FL, and other southern states, we just need to do a better job at turning Democrats out to vote. For some reason, in off years, Democrats tend to have terrible turnout in Southern States, but if we can make these voters reliable, these 3 senate seats could all be very competative in an off year (though FL prolly won't be competative unless Rubio goes away). PA could definately be lean D if 2022 isn't a complete disaster and Woof runs. I'm still leaning towards a net loss of 1 seat on average.

[We Live in Black and White]

Get rid of the Senate.

[here2view]

They do it by teaching voters how to correctly spell "definitely."

[S019]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

Yeah, the equivalent of Democratic incumbents in North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri would be if there were Republican incumbents in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois and Oregon.

In terms of R-held seats, I think only Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina would be realistic targets. And in a Biden midterm, Democrats would honestly be lucky to win even one.

Wisconsin: If Johnson retires and Mike Gallagher runs, Democrats can kiss that seat goodbye. That man is an insanely strong candidate.
Florida: If Florida Democrats couldn't even reelect their own incumbent in a Trump midterm, how on earth will they beat Marco?
Ohio: Aside from Obama and Sherrod Brown, no Democrat has won a statewide race in Ohio this decade, and I don't think Ohio Democrats have a candidate of Brown's caliber waiting in the wings. Plus Portman is a machine when it comes to campaigning and fundraising.
Iowa: Chuck Grassley is Jesus in this state.

Every other state is just too red for Democrats to win in a Biden midterm.

IA and OH are blue enough for Dems to win in a midterm, but GA and NC aren't? Especially since GA is quite inelastic anyways, also what about PA. Dem chances in those three states are far better than OH (lol) and IA (LOL).

[YE]

Better pray 2022 is a somewhat favorable midterm climate. Otherwise any sort of domestic accomplishment is hopeless on either side of the political spectrum for the forseeable future.

[Roll Roons]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

Yeah, the equivalent of Democratic incumbents in North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri would be if there were Republican incumbents in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois and Oregon.

In terms of R-held seats, I think only Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina would be realistic targets. And in a Biden midterm, Democrats would honestly be lucky to win even one.

Wisconsin: If Johnson retires and Mike Gallagher runs, Democrats can kiss that seat goodbye. That man is an insanely strong candidate.
Florida: If Florida Democrats couldn't even reelect their own incumbent in a Trump midterm, how on earth will they beat Marco?
Ohio: Aside from Obama and Sherrod Brown, no Democrat has won a statewide race in Ohio this decade, and I don't think Ohio Democrats have a candidate of Brown's caliber waiting in the wings. Plus Portman is a machine when it comes to campaigning and fundraising.
Iowa: Chuck Grassley is Jesus in this state.

Every other state is just too red for Democrats to win in a Biden midterm.

IA and OH are blue enough for Dems to win in a midterm, but GA and NC aren't? Especially since GA is quite inelastic anyways, also what about PA. Dem chances in those three states are far better than OH (lol) and IA (LOL).

Yes. I said that in a Biden midterm, Democrats would have a shot at PA, GA and NC, with PA starting as a Tossup and the latter two as Lean R. I also said OH and IA would be out of reach.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Have the president force Congressional compromise by proving their willingness to use executive power in the absence of any legislation. After Trump, it should be clear that a precedent of weak Democratic presidencies is not going to stop Republican presidents wielding it to the fullest extent they are able and that's not necessarily a bad thing anyway.

[S019]

Work to win it in 2022. It's a favorable field for Dems. It's favorable enough a 2018 scenario could occur where Dems lose a ton of House seats, but still gain a few (or at least have no losses) in the Senate.

The only seats they have to defend that might be competitive are Arizona (assuming Kelly wins), Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Whoever the Georgia 2020 special winner is will be up again as well.  Meanwhile Republicans have to defend North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Florida, Kansas (these last few are likely not competitive but...a man can dream) Missouri, South Carolina, and Louisiana. Plus, Alaska will be a wildcard due to Murkowski's high Republican unfavorability despite a history of winning even when she's lost the Republican nomination.

We don't have the same low hanging fruit in 2022 that Rs had in 2018 though. Those potential pick up opportunities are in at best states with an even PVI.

Yeah, the equivalent of Democratic incumbents in North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, Indiana and Missouri would be if there were Republican incumbents in California, New York, Maryland, Illinois and Oregon.

In terms of R-held seats, I think only Pennsylvania, Georgia and North Carolina would be realistic targets. And in a Biden midterm, Democrats would honestly be lucky to win even one.

Wisconsin: If Johnson retires and Mike Gallagher runs, Democrats can kiss that seat goodbye. That man is an insanely strong candidate.
Florida: If Florida Democrats couldn't even reelect their own incumbent in a Trump midterm, how on earth will they beat Marco?
Ohio: Aside from Obama and Sherrod Brown, no Democrat has won a statewide race in Ohio this decade, and I don't think Ohio Democrats have a candidate of Brown's caliber waiting in the wings. Plus Portman is a machine when it comes to campaigning and fundraising.
Iowa: Chuck Grassley is Jesus in this state.

Every other state is just too red for Democrats to win in a Biden midterm.

IA and OH are blue enough for Dems to win in a midterm, but GA and NC aren't? Especially since GA is quite inelastic anyways, also what about PA. Dem chances in those three states are far better than OH (lol) and IA (LOL).

Yes. I said that in a Biden midterm, Democrats would have a shot at PA, GA and NC, with PA starting as a Tossup and the latter two as Lean R. I also said OH and IA would be out of reach.

Ah okay, the list format that you had made it tough, anyways, I think Dems only have a chance in FL if they ran Jolly as an independent, GA should be close no matter what, given it's inelastic. PA will be interesting, but either Lamb or Shapiro could win it. WI, I think could also be a top target, but depends on recruitment, I think Kind would be wise to run honestly, since I can't see him surviving in his Driftless seat in a Biden midterm. NC also is probably a tossup, I do think Dems will try to recruit a top candidate, maybe Cooper, who's term-limited in 2024, Stein could also work, as could Jeff Jackson or Janet Cowell. IA and OH aren't flipping even if Portman and Grassley retire.

[Virginiá]

For a little while though, up until about 2010, we did a pretty good job at winning senate seats in states in the plains, especially the northern plains states. Obama came close in MT, ND, and SD as recently as 2008.

Democrats were doing a good job, but polarization has increasingly made candidates less relevant to voters' decisions than the party they belong to. If the Democratic Party's chances of Senate majorities regularly depend on winning seats in reliably Republican states, then Democrats should get used to never enacting any policies they want as well as having their presidential administrations perpetually restricted in cabinet/judicial confirmations, because Republicans will make it as difficult as possible for them. I wouldn't be surprised if refusing to confirm any judges whatsoever from opposition presidents becomes the norm.

I think DC/PR statehood might help, but is that logistically feasible? I guarentee you no Republican, even Murkowski or Romney would vote for DC statehood (though I see them voting for PR) What would prevent Republicans from adding some stupid state down the road that is obviously a power grab? What I worry about is as soon as we start making power grabs, it's just going to escalate the situation, and not necessarily make it better.

There are no states for them to add. They spent it all on their 19th century statehood shopping spree. All they could do is try to convince an existing strongly Republican state to give up a significant portion of their land and tax base to create a new state, which is unlikely to happen.

It's not like there isn't a legitimate reason to make DC/PR states, or at least give them equivalent representation in Congress. If merely being a state was the primary reason the GOP was opposed to DC statehood, they would compromise with a constitutional amendment. But they won't, because it's really about power and Senate seats. It's always been that way, even 150 years ago.

At any rate, as a former DC resident, I'd rather do the right thing and give them representation with that risk than nothing at all.

[Virginiá]

Weirdly I never noticed the Democrats complain about the Dakotas split in 2001 or 2007?

Who cares what Democrats did or didn't say back then? I was just a child. It doesn't change the fact that the Senate is a grossly unequal part of our dysfunctional system of government. I've long thought that and the fact that Democrats performed well in Senate elections in certain Republican states at one point or another doesn't change that fact. I've long been for major structural reform of America's government, regardless of who it benefits. And the reason for that is because even it doesn't benefit my side now, it will probably later on, because I know if we ever develop the support base for our beliefs, a properly-designed system will translate that support into power, instead of blocking the majority's will to empower the minority. The way people see their government and the relationship between states and the federal government has notably reduced the importance of the Senate other than yet another institution that significantly favors one segment of the populace over the other. You're really asking for civil unrest and all that comes with it when the federal government is practically designed to thwart the will of the people so long as they choose to cluster in dense urban clusters. There is pretty much no major part of our government you can look at and say, "gee, that was designed well and adequately represents the will of the people."

It is made so much worse when the party that benefits from these structural issues has become an institution devoid of any substantive agenda beyond accruing and clinging to power at any costs, to the point of crippling the decennial census and the freakin' post office just to try and notch a small advantage.

And it's this line of thinking that has made the Democratic Party's base so bloodthirsty as to the point of calling for packing the courts and abolishing the electoral college. What do you expect? You have tens of millions of urban voters who even when they win, they lose, whether it's because of outright corruption or just a badly-designed government. I personally was never a fan of court packing, but after years of watching the GOP do it at the state level (or other judiciary meddling), or stealing over a hundred judicial seats from Obama (including a SCOTUS seat), or trying to cripple the census / USPS for partisan gain, I mean, where does it end? Why would we not want to force reforms through via any means necessary? What other option is there?

[morgieb]

Bribe a significant chunk of Californians to move to states like Montana, Wyoming, Alaska etc.