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

[Jay 🏳️‍⚧️]

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

Not all of us want direct rule from DC

[DaleCooper]

The Tea Party is what made marked the beginning of Democrats' big woes in the Senate. It effectively made every election a life-or-death partisan issue for conservatives nationwide. Before then you had plenty of Senate Democrats representing states like the Dakota, Nebraska, and a lot of the South. Now, it's a rarity.

[ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed]

Ditch identity politics.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

With today's polls AK, AZ, CO, GA, KS, ME, NC and SC can go D for 55 seats.

[Indy Texas]

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?

The Great Plains states were always Republican vote sinks. They just vote Republican for different reasons today than they did in the late 19th century. The Democrats' ability to elect Democratic Senators in the Dakotas and Nebraska in the late 20th century says more about how uniquely de-polarized that era was and how bad Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan were for farmers.

[lfromnj]

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?

My point is  that you are complaining about the GOP "gerrymandering" the senate in 1890 or whatever but forgetting all the other context. The senate hasn't been touched since 1960 and its absurd to bring up that comparison when stuff like Maine and Missouri came together to keep slave and free states equal 180 years ago.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

The 2016 election featured multiple red and swing state seats that were winnable such as Missouri, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The Democrats chose to deprioritize those states in favor of wasting money in New York (Schumer was head of DSCC) and Florida (did they really think they were going to take down Rubio?). Ron Johnson especially should have been beatable since he wasn’t a particularly strong politician and Trump barely won his state. If Dems won those three seats they’d have a majority right now.

[Roll Roons]

The 2016 election featured multiple red and swing state seats that were winnable such as Missouri, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The Democrats chose to deprioritize those states in favor of wasting money in New York (Schumer was head of DSCC) and Florida (did they really think they were going to take down Rubio?). Ron Johnson especially should have been beatable since he wasn’t a particularly strong politician and Trump barely won his state. If Dems won those three seats they’d have a majority right now.

Missouri wasn't winnable. Kander did really well but the Trump coattails were just too strong. But the right candidates could have won in Pennsylvania (DePasquale or Patrick Murphy if he had gotten elected AG in 2012), Wisconsin (Kind) and North Carolina (Shuler or Hagan).

[AndyHogan14]

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.

How many of those are the more powerful of the two houses of the legislature? I know for a fact that the Bundestag is more powerful than the Bundesrat and I am pretty sure it the same is true in Australia (being that they have a Westminster system). If the Senate were stripped of some of its power in favor of the more democratic body (the House), then I don't think there would be much of a problem. But at this point, the Senate can completely hijack the entire judiciary, kill all legislation, and deny the President their desired cabinet with somewhere around 40% (or less) popular support. That said, I don't have much of a problem having a chamber of the legislature that is protects the rights of smaller states, but the US Senate has gone overboard. I get the need to protect against the tyranny of the majority, but what we have now is significantly worse: the tyranny of the minority.

If it were up to me, I would transfer judicial and cabinet nominations over to the House and make it so anything passed by the House must be taken up by the Senate. If a bill is not voted on, then it is assumed that the Senate consents and it goes straight to the President. If the Senate votes a bill down, then I believe the House should also have the right to override the Senate with a 60-67% vote. The House has its problems as well (I would start by doubling its size and outlawing gerrymandering), but there is no doubt that as a body, it is more in tune with what the American people want than the Senate.

[Figueira]

Does anyone seriously believe that "small states" are the most oppressed group in the United States?

Anyway, the Senate is bad, but unfortunately there isn't really a way of getting rid of it, so Democrats need to find ways to win it. I think the most realistic path in the short-term is simply winning the popular vote by enough that you also win the Senate. But also make sure that states like Maine, New Hampshire, and Delaware stay Democratic, and invest in places like Alaska, Montana, Kansas, and Iowa. If Democrats do manage to get ahold of the Senate, make DC a state, and Puerto Rico IF AND ONLY IF it votes conclusively for statehood.