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

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The problem for Rs is GA, the runoffs will decide the fate of the Senate if its close, and they are draining resources from other states. Trump also has a Latino problem ever since 2016 and TX is bound to get competetive and Hegar is polling close to Cornyn

[TML]

Remember these words of wisdom when picking candidates and their platforms:

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

[...]

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and Fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

Now, I know this might not translate into immediate victories in some places, but it could help turn the tide over the long run.

[NewYorkExpress]

Start kicking all of these small states out of the Union.

[Calthrina950]

Remember these words of wisdom when picking candidates and their platforms:

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

[...]

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and Fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

Now, I know this might not translate into immediate victories in some places, but it could help turn the tide over the long run.

Words of wisdom from Harry Truman, who is one of the most underrated Presidents of the past century. I don't think I can agree with those on here who grouse about the Senate being an "undemocratic" institution. As has been pointed out by others, many of the "smaller" states, such as the Dakotas and Montana, were historically competitive for Democrats. Democrats held both of South Dakota's Senate seats as late as 2004, both of North Dakota's Senate seats as late as 2010, and both of Montana's Senate seats as late as 2014 (and could again, if Bullock manages to defeat Daines in November).

Moreover, they hold the Senate seats of other smaller states such as Delaware, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. And there are demographic trends at work in states such as Alaska, Kansas, and South Carolina (to say nothing of Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas) that may give them more avenues in the years to come.

[Stockdale for Veep]

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

This is the correct answer. Have billionaires make public statements about actively rigging the Electoral College and Senate races. (you could easily steal a Senate seat by paying 100K Dem twenty-somethings to move to a small state just before the residency deadline) The GOP would then counter-rig, and the public would lose faith in any institution that could so easily be compromised.

The Senate would then be reformed and the EC would cease to exist.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

CO and ME, AL are definately gonna flip, then we have AZ, NC and GA, which can definately split their votes for Prez and for Senate. NC has Cooper coattails and AZ, is anyone's guest and then there is GA runoffs.

One thing for cetain is that 279 with a split Senate and a power sharing agreement between Leader McConnell and Schumer is possible like it was in 2000.

Wildfires and climate change is definately has put oil and gas states more in the Trump column and the Environmental states in the Biden column.

If its a close election.

[SevenEleven]

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

Where's "George Soros" when you need him?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We have been consistently getting Registered voter polls and not Likely voter polls; consequently, Progressive Moderate whom is the author of this thread has Biden winning a 334 map, and a tied Senate, and his map is inflated. I been wanting to mention to him about his map, but he thinks his models are all accurate. He doesn't know that we can get split state voting in AZ, NC and GA, after CO, ME and AL flips. Biden isn't gonna automatically win 334 EC votes with AZ, CO, GA, ME and NC going D. Biden can win a 279 map and have a tied Senate or a 52 senate map.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly I don't get that hate for the Senate among Democrats.

If the Senate is safe R because Republicans win most of the small states that is not a bug; it's a feature and the Senate is working exactly as intended.

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

In fact having a Senate is something that naturally comes with any sort of federal system. So unless you support turning the US into a unitary country with direct rule from DC for everything, then the Senate is there to stay.

DC and PR statehood would help but it should not happen because those states would be Safe D. It should happen because it is the morally right thing to do and because the people there want statehood (well, in PR it is definitely not clear at all whether they want it or not but let's assume they do)

[walleye26]

The correct answer is “The Wyoming Solution.” Literally if you move tech firms from unaffordable San Fran to Cheyenne and Casper, Wyoming (affordable) and then to Fargo (which is home to the largest Microsoft campus outside of its headquarters and is already tech-y) you would go from 4 safe GOP seats to 4 safe Dem seats (8 seat flip) and then wait for Demographic change in Texas, GA, and Arizona.

[ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed]

Ditch identity politics.

[Nyvin]

Honestly I don't get that hate for the Senate among Democrats.

If the Senate is safe R because Republicans win most of the small states that is not a bug; it's a feature and the Senate is working exactly as intended.

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

In fact having a Senate is something that naturally comes with any sort of federal system. So unless you support turning the US into a unitary country with direct rule from DC for everything, then the Senate is there to stay.

DC and PR statehood would help but it should not happen because those states would be Safe D. It should happen because it is the morally right thing to do and because the people there want statehood (well, in PR it is definitely not clear at all whether they want it or not but let's assume they do)

Was it the morally right thing to do when Republicans added Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming as states unilaterally in one term between 1889-1890? 

[gerritcole]

For every ID/WY/SD/ND there are HI/RI/DE/NM. All these plains and mountain states added in the 19th century all had dem senators up until a few years ago. Dems need to run better candidates

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

For every ID/WY/SD/NM there are HI/RI/DE/NM. All these plains and mountain states added in the 19th century all had dem senators up until a few years ago. Dems need to run better candidates

Agreed, but the second group of states with the exception of HI has a much weaker partisan lean than the first group of states. The national party would need to change if Democrats were to seriously compete for Senate seats in ID, SD and WY (NM seems to have cropped up twice ) - a good candidate/campaign alone would not be enough for those titanium R places at the federal level.

[gerritcole]

For every ID/WY/SD/NM there are HI/RI/DE/NM. All these plains and mountain states added in the 19th century all had dem senators up until a few years ago. Dems need to run better candidates

Agreed, but the second group of states with the exception of HI has a much weaker partisan lean than the first group of states. The national party would need to change if Democrats were to seriously compete for Senate seats in ID, SD and WY (NM seems to have cropped up twice ) - a good candidate/campaign alone would not be enough for those titanium R places at the federal level.

Whoops I meant ND - I agree that it’s much harder for candidates to dissociate from the national party in these federal races. I think the solution is just blowing the filibuster, Dems should be able to get 51. These other solutions of splitting CA or admitting DC are just not realistic imo

[Former President tack50]

Honestly I don't get that hate for the Senate among Democrats.

If the Senate is safe R because Republicans win most of the small states that is not a bug; it's a feature and the Senate is working exactly as intended.

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

In fact having a Senate is something that naturally comes with any sort of federal system. So unless you support turning the US into a unitary country with direct rule from DC for everything, then the Senate is there to stay.

DC and PR statehood would help but it should not happen because those states would be Safe D. It should happen because it is the morally right thing to do and because the people there want statehood (well, in PR it is definitely not clear at all whether they want it or not but let's assume they do)

Was it the morally right thing to do when Republicans added Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming as states unilaterally in one term between 1889-1890? 

Other than Dakota territory being split into 2 (which was indeed purely for partisan gain as I don't think the people there wanted division and the "natural" dividing line is east-west anyways); yeah those were all morally right.

All of those (except the Dakotas) were already pre-existing territories in the late 1880s. I think they all had reasonable populations for being admitted at the time and presumably they all wanted statehood (it's not like there is an "Idaho independence movement" going around; nor was there one in the 1880s)

The equivalent here; if anything, would be the Democrats dividing Puerto Rico into "North Puerto Rico" and "South Puerto Rico" at best.

I will also note that the division of the Dakotas (indeed for partisan gain) is later "rectified", albeit admittedly for racist reasons and not because of any feelings of guilt or remorse; by Oklahoma being admitted as a single state instead of two. Two states that (as of now at least) would be Titanium R.

[Virginiá]

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

Maybe we need to come to a new understanding in an age of urbanization and densely populated cities. Large states need protection from a cadre of small states who wield significantly more political power than they deserve, due to a system designed hundreds of years ago for a country whose geography and population looks dramatically different.

[Virginiá]

And just to point out here that is a lot of distance between people merely calling for reform and those calling for abolition of the Senate entirely. You can still argue to keep the Senate while also arguing that large states deserve more representation - not necessarily proportional, but enough that creates more balance. Of course, this is all moot as the allocation of Senate seats is basically the only thing we can't amend the constitution for. The only solution would be to create a new chamber and restructure Congress and shift the Senate's powers over.

It doesn't change the fact that arguing about "protecting small states" sounds like you're a time traveler making an argument for an America that doesn't exist anymore. Nowadays, saying small states need "protection" is like saying fortune 500 corporations have too little political power and influence. It's so comically wrong and inverted that it is hard to take seriously.

[Former President tack50]

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

Maybe we need to come to a new understanding in an age of urbanization and densely populated cities. Large states need protection from a cadre of small states who wield significantly more political power than they deserve, due to a system designed hundreds of years ago for a country whose geography and population looks dramatically different.

I mean it's not like the US are a huge exception on that issue (as far as federal states go). Here are the distributions of the upper houses of several federal countries

United States Senate
Least populated 50% of States: 50% of Seats; 16% of the population

German Bundesrat
Least populated 50% of States: 41% of Seats; 19% of the population

Brazilian Federal Senate
Least populated 50% of States (14/27): 52% of Seats; 17% of the population

Australian Senate
Least populated 50% of States+territories: 37% of Seats, 12% of the population
Least populated 50% of States+Least populated 50% of Territories: 50% of Seats, 20% of the population

Argentine Senate
Least populated 50% of States: 50% of Seats, 14% of the population.

The United States Senate, while leaning more on the disproportionate side than others, is far from an exception internationally. Argentina and Brazil use literally the exact same system in fact.

Now, like I say if theoretically all the states were abolished and everyone was ruled from DC (like France or the UK) then sure; abolishing the Senate would work.

And I do think that some proportionality (even if it's not 100% proportionality) can and probably even should be introduced. A decent enough proposal could be that the 1/3 of most populated states gets 3 Senators, the middle third gets 2 and the least populated third gets just 1. (not too unlike the German Bundesrat in fact). But like you say that is never happening.

But having an upper chamber that is deliberately non-proportional is a feature of any federal system, not a bug.

And small states do indeed need protection from larger states. That is one of the reaasons for federations and that is why federations usually have non-proportional upper houses.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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?

The Democrats literally blocked so many of Bush's judicial picks for years too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-judicial-nominees-democrats-have-only-themselves-to-blame/2018/07/05/2225c65c-8067-11e8-b660-4d0f9f0351f1_story.html

[Never Made it to Graceland]

The correct answer is “The Wyoming Solution.” Literally if you move tech firms from unaffordable San Fran to Cheyenne and Casper, Wyoming (affordable) and then to Fargo (which is home to the largest Microsoft campus outside of its headquarters and is already tech-y) you would go from 4 safe GOP seats to 4 safe Dem seats (8 seat flip) and then wait for Demographic change in Texas, GA, and Arizona.

Tech Bros are more likely to vote Republican than other young demographics. And why would Jeff Bezos want to take away power from the party that helps him stomp on workers and suppress unions, while hoarding the gains from his employees' labor and the destruction of American small businesses?

[Virginiá]

The Democrats literally blocked so many of Bush's judicial picks for years too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/with-judicial-nominees-democrats-have-only-themselves-to-blame/2018/07/05/2225c65c-8067-11e8-b660-4d0f9f0351f1_story.html

10 mentioned in that article. Personally, I think each party has the right to try and block some nominees they consider exceptionally unqualified or unacceptable, but Democrats shouldn't have filibustered all of them. Nevertheless, if you're looking to use that as a justification for this:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/04/senate-obstructionism-handed-judicial-vacancies-to-trump/



feel free to, but you won't find agreement from me. Retaliation for filibustering those judges should not have been "effectively shut down judicial confirmations by opposition party presidents," which is basically what Republicans have done. Quite frankly, given everything that has transpired, I am less than convinced that McConnell wouldn't have did what he did anyway. Just like the excuses Republicans threw against the wall like spaghetti when blocking Garland, it's merely cover for McConnell's overall strategy of maximizing GOP power via any means necessary, no matter what.

I'm not even going to address the other points in that article, which make laughable assumptions about what the GOP would or wouldn't have done.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

2008 and 2014, the most incumbents that lost their seats were 4 to 6, 2014 Pryor, Landrieu, Walsh, Hegar lost in 2014 and in 2008 Sununu, Dole, Coleman, Snith lost and in 2006 Talent, DeWine, Santorum, Burns lost. Dems have 4 targets AZ, CO, ME and NC and two GA seat runoffs; consequently,  winning SC, MT, IA, TX, KY, and AK were never gonna happen and win 13 to reach 60.

Especially,  when you are handing out unemployment checks to people that can work. Yang program UBI benefits is all that indefinite unemployment is and middle class voters know their taxes will be increased to pay for it

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Honestly I don't get that hate for the Senate among Democrats.

If the Senate is safe R because Republicans win most of the small states that is not a bug; it's a feature and the Senate is working exactly as intended.

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

In fact having a Senate is something that naturally comes with any sort of federal system. So unless you support turning the US into a unitary country with direct rule from DC for everything, then the Senate is there to stay.

DC and PR statehood would help but it should not happen because those states would be Safe D. It should happen because it is the morally right thing to do and because the people there want statehood (well, in PR it is definitely not clear at all whether they want it or not but let's assume they do)

Your argument is entirely correct and I am very much in agreement.

What you fail to realize is that yours is also an extremely powerful argument for why federalism sucks.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Honestly I don't get that hate for the Senate among Democrats.

If the Senate is safe R because Republicans win most of the small states that is not a bug; it's a feature and the Senate is working exactly as intended.

The intention of the Senate is to protect the small states from the large states controlling everything. And this is just as true now as it was back in the late 1700s. California and Texas should not get to run the country unilaterally.

In fact having a Senate is something that naturally comes with any sort of federal system. So unless you support turning the US into a unitary country with direct rule from DC for everything, then the Senate is there to stay.

DC and PR statehood would help but it should not happen because those states would be Safe D. It should happen because it is the morally right thing to do and because the people there want statehood (well, in PR it is definitely not clear at all whether they want it or not but let's assume they do)

Your argument is entirely correct and I am very much in agreement.

What you fail to realize is that yours is also an extremely powerful argument for why federalism sucks.

The main thing I like about the senate is the staggered maps; it's hard to flip the senate and you have to make long term investments to get a majority.