do senate democrats not realize

[freepcrusher]

that this might be there last chance? 2022 is probably not too bad in the senate - but 2024 could be very bad. David Shor has mentioned dems might be down to 43 senate seats that year even if they win - which means they have to wait until 2032 (or 2028 if they lose in 2024) to really make any major changes.

But what I'm worried most about is elections in the future where dems are winning by 5 points and losing a majority of states. I'm hopeful that the increasing % of millenials as a part of the electorate will help by then - but I remember being worried about this very thing in 2013 and it hasn't gone away.

People said nothing lasts forever but the republicans have had a sc majority since 1970. Someone graduating from high school that year may not live to see it end.

[EastOfEden]

dems might be down to 43 senate seats that year

uh, what?

[Vespucci]

dems might be down to 43 senate seats that year

uh, what?

Yeah, I'm not sure how it gets that bad. They'll probably lose Montana and West Virginia, and possibly Ohio but those IMO are the only seats they'd lose if they win the election, and there's no way the Democrats have only 46 seats in 2024 if Biden wins 2020. Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota might be in play if a Republican wins, but not if a Democrat wins, since senate Dems tend to run ahead of the presidential ticket.

[freepcrusher]

dems might be down to 43 senate seats that year

uh, what?

David Shor in NYMAG
"Right now — because we already have a lot of these incumbents in red states, and because we were lucky enough to have a big wave when many of them were on the ballot in 2018 — we have a decent chance of winning the Senate in 2020. But if you just project out the trends — if you fit a regression on 2018 polling and apply it forward — if we have a neutral national environment in 2024 (i.e., a 2016-style environment), we’re going to be down to 43 Senate seats."

"If education-based polarization reaches a point where Texas becomes the tipping-point state, then that means that Michigan and Minnesota and Maine and Wisconsin are all gone. Right now, we’re in a place where there are a bunch of working-class states that are two points more Republican than the country. And that sucks, but we can live with it. If those states become five points more Republican than the country, then it becomes harder. I’m not saying it will be like this forever. But for the next two cycles, the baseline case is fairly bad."

[7,052,770]

I guess we're going to have to govern competently and prove to American voters that we are the party that should be in charge.

[EastOfEden]

dems might be down to 43 senate seats that year

uh, what?

Yeah, I'm not sure how it gets that bad. They'll probably lose Montana and West Virginia, and possibly Ohio but those IMO are the only seats they'd lose if they win the election, and there's no way the Democrats have only 46 seats in 2024 if Biden wins 2020. Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota might be in play if a Republican wins, but not if a Democrat wins, since senate Dems tend to run ahead of the presidential ticket.

Most likely at least 50 D senators after 2020, possibly as many as 57 (though that's very unlikely). 2022 will have either one or two vulnerable Democrats (Mark Kelly, who will probably be safe, and potentially Raphael Warnock, who if he wins will be much more vulnerable). Even if Ds lose both of those seats, they can offset them with potential gains in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, maybe even Iowa if Grassley decides not to run again. And if Greitens successfully primaries Blunt in Missouri, all bets are off.

This isn't even including as many as 4 new D-leaning seats from DC and PR statehood.

Democrats may very well have more Senate seats in January 2023 than in January 2021.

As long as Democrats take the Senate this year, I'd be surprised to see anything lower than 48 after 2024. It's possible that the Senate may be under D control all the way to 2026.

[freepcrusher]

dems might be down to 43 senate seats that year

uh, what?

Yeah, I'm not sure how it gets that bad. They'll probably lose Montana and West Virginia, and possibly Ohio but those IMO are the only seats they'd lose if they win the election, and there's no way the Democrats have only 46 seats in 2024 if Biden wins 2020. Wisconsin, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota might be in play if a Republican wins, but not if a Democrat wins, since senate Dems tend to run ahead of the presidential ticket.

Most likely at least 50 D senators after 2020, possibly as many as 57 (though that's very unlikely). 2022 will have either one or two vulnerable Democrats (Mark Kelly, who will probably be safe, and potentially Raphael Warnock, who if he wins will be much more vulnerable). Even if Ds lose both of those seats, they can offset them with potential gains in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, maybe even Iowa if Grassley decides not to run again. And if Greitens successfully primaries Blunt in Missouri, all bets are off.

This isn't even including as many as 4 new D-leaning seats from DC and PR statehood.

Democrats may very well have more Senate seats in January 2023 than in January 2021.

As long as Democrats take the Senate this year, I'd be surprised to see anything lower than 48 after 2024. It's possible that the Senate may be under D control all the way to 2026.

I think DC and PR help but there is no precedent for picking up seats in opposite party elections unless its seats that are flukish like ND, IN, MO. FL is it's own weird thing. I'm suffering from a sort of PTSD. Like in September 2014, I was thinking -6, in 2016 I was thinking +4, in 2018 I was thinking EVEN or +1.

[Pericles]

To be fair, in 2018 without the fluke ballot design it might easily have been just -1 for Dems (an impressive result on such a horrific map for them). 2024 is worrying, but with some of the low-hanging fruit for Republicans already gone, they should need a neutral environment to make more than marginal gains. So given how much of a disaster their time in government has been, and the usual reluctance of the electorate to change parties after one term (unless of course, the incumbents are a disaster like the Republicans right now), 2024 may still be a Democratic-leaning national environment. Looking way ahead, 2026 should be a brutal midterm for Senate Democrats in that scenario. From there it gets too hard to tell.

[GeneralMacArthur]

OK folks let's look at the actual seats up for contest.

Let's assume Dems currently win every race where they're favored and lose every race where they're not.  That would mean winning NC, ME, CO, AZ and losing AL to get to a 50-50 split Senate.

In 2022 Dems have to defend NV, CO, and AZ.  NV and CO are both probably lean/likely D, and Mark Kelly should easily be able to hold off whatever loser the AZ GOP comes up with.  Meanwhile, Republicans have to hold onto:
NC (Burr retiring)
PA
WI
FL (Rubio)
GA
IA
OH

In 2024, Dems have to defend:
MT
WV
OH
AZ
NV
MN
WI
MI
PA
while Republicans only have to defend FL and TX.

It's entirely possible that Dems will once again be the Senate minority come 2024, but it's just as likely that they gain seats in 2022 and do well in 2024 if the Biden administration is successful.

For instance, it's easy to imagine Dems only losing MT/WV, and taking NC, PA, WI, and one of the FL elections, to have 54 seats from 2022-24 and 52 seats after 2024.  

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yeah, they really do need to get moving on DC and Puerto Rico statehood. 

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

The D's are focused on winning in 2020, and D's have plenty of targets

[President Johnson]

I think Democrats keep the senate until 2026 if they win this year. 2022 is going to be neutral due to a good 2022 map and President Joe Biden not as polarizing as Trump or Obama. So I wouldn't be surprised if the 2022 midterms are much a backlash against him. The economy will likely start rebounding in the second half of 2021 and into 2022 as a result of the pandemic getting under control and his administration putting in sound economic policies as under Obama and Clinton. I think Democrats are favored for 2024 with either Joe Biden winning a second term or Kamala Harris elected president. On the senate, only West Virginia will be gone for sure. Titan Jon Tester and Sherrod Brown could easily hang on. I don't see Sinema losing either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I guess we're going to have to govern competently and prove to American voters that we are the party that should be in charge.

Of course they'll make that case.  Just look at the moderate reasonableness of those they already elect:

This is as much about public outcry, organizing and mobilizing and applying pressure,” Pressley said on “AM Joy.” “So that this GOP-led Senate and these governors that continue to carry water for this administration, putting American people in harm’s way, turning a deaf ear to the needs of our families and our communities – hold them accountable.

“Make the phone calls, send the emails, show up. You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/08/28/kamala-harris-laughs-as-she-warns-that-violent-riots-will-continue/

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1299013980711784448

This is the Democratic Party that left ordinary law-abiding Americans. 

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Assuming Biden wins, the baseline is probably R+4 in 2022, and ~even in 2024. It's pretty likely that Republicans get 60 senate seats in 2024 given how dedicated Democrats are to ing over the WWC.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Your weird obsession with Harris, and belief that every single protester in America is somehow an automaton that blindly obeys her orders, is becoming disturbing (though not all that surprising).

[freepcrusher]

Assuming Biden wins, the baseline is probably R+4 in 2022, and ~even in 2024. It's pretty likely that Republicans get 60 senate seats in 2024 given how dedicated Democrats are to ing over the WWC.

Nh az co and nv?

[SevenEleven]

I think Democrats keep the senate until 2026 if they win this year. 2022 is going to be neutral due to a good 2022 map and President Joe Biden not as polarizing as Trump or Obama.

Whether Democrats can bother bother showing up to vote without Trump keeping their pants wet is still to be determined.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Assuming Biden wins, the baseline is probably R+4 in 2022, and ~even in 2024. It's pretty likely that Republicans get 60 senate seats in 2024 given how dedicated Democrats are to ing over the WWC.

Nh az co and nv?

I meant generic ballot, but yeah in a R+4 environment, NH, AZ, CO, and NV should all flip.

[Nyvin]

Assuming Biden wins, the baseline is probably R+4 in 2022, and ~even in 2024. It's pretty likely that Republicans get 60 senate seats in 2024 given how dedicated Democrats are to ing over the WWC.

Nh az co and nv?

I meant generic ballot, but yeah in a R+4 environment, NH, AZ, CO, and NV should all flip.

I can't see CO flipping in any environment really.  There's nothing in the state moving toward the Republicans besides those empty eastern farm counties.  

It's probably one of the least WWC states in the country.

[Kingpoleon]

Of course they'll make that case.  Just look at the moderate reasonableness of those they already elect:

This is as much about public outcry, organizing and mobilizing and applying pressure,” Pressley said on “AM Joy.” “So that this GOP-led Senate and these governors that continue to carry water for this administration, putting American people in harm’s way, turning a deaf ear to the needs of our families and our communities – hold them accountable.

“Make the phone calls, send the emails, show up. You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/08/28/kamala-harris-laughs-as-she-warns-that-violent-riots-will-continue/

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1299013980711784448

This is the Democratic Party that left ordinary law-abiding Americans.  

Really? Saying BLM protests - which are supported by almost seven out of ten Americans - should not let up means you’ve left ordinary law abiding Americans behind?

This is not reasonable. There’s a case to be made for voting for Trump, but it is not and should not be based around vague criticisms and hyperbolic statements, like that Democrats are just so evil they think violence is a good thing.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

Assuming Biden wins, the baseline is probably R+4 in 2022, and ~even in 2024. It's pretty likely that Republicans get 60 senate seats in 2024 given how dedicated Democrats are to ing over the WWC.

Nh az co and nv?

I meant generic ballot, but yeah in a R+4 environment, NH, AZ, CO, and NV should all flip.

I can't see CO flipping in any environment really.  There's nothing in the state moving toward the Republicans besides those empty eastern farm counties.  

It's probably one of the least WWC states in the country.

It voted for Clinton by 5 as she won by 2 and 38% of voters are WWC as compared to 41% nationwide. In a Biden midterm, it's definitely a possible flip.

[RJ]

Let's ad Puerto Rico and DC as states!!

[Zohranism is OUR future]

Assuming Biden wins, the baseline is probably R+4 in 2022, and ~even in 2024. It's pretty likely that Republicans get 60 senate seats in 2024 given how dedicated Democrats are to ing over the WWC.

Nh az co and nv?

I meant generic ballot, but yeah in a R+4 environment, NH, AZ, CO, and NV should all flip.

I can't see CO flipping in any environment really.  There's nothing in the state moving toward the Republicans besides those empty eastern farm counties.  

It's probably one of the least WWC states in the country.

It voted for Clinton by 5 as she won by 2 and 38% of voters are WWC as compared to 41% nationwide. In a Biden midterm, it's definitely a possible flip.

Lol

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of course they'll make that case.  Just look at the moderate reasonableness of those they already elect:

This is as much about public outcry, organizing and mobilizing and applying pressure,” Pressley said on “AM Joy.” “So that this GOP-led Senate and these governors that continue to carry water for this administration, putting American people in harm’s way, turning a deaf ear to the needs of our families and our communities – hold them accountable.

“Make the phone calls, send the emails, show up. You know, there needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there’s unrest in our lives.”

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/08/28/kamala-harris-laughs-as-she-warns-that-violent-riots-will-continue/

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1299013980711784448

This is the Democratic Party that left ordinary law-abiding Americans.  

Really? Saying BLM protests - which are supported by almost seven out of ten Americans - should not let up means you’ve left ordinary law abiding Americans behind?

This is not reasonable. There’s a case to be made for voting for Trump, but it is not and should not be based around vague criticisms and hyperbolic statements, like that Democrats are just so evil they think violence is a good thing.

Rioting has been presented as "mostly peaceful protests".  This is not true, and it has not been true, but Democrats flat-out lied about the violence, then attempted to blame Trump for the riots (which I hope you can see is ridiculous).  A majority of Americans (myself included) certainly believe that it is time to look at a slew of issues regarding to policing including use of force and racial profiling.  These are legitimate issues in policing, but they also need to be viewed through the lens of who is actually committing the crimes that police are called to respond to.  These are serious issues with multiple sides to them, but the violence in the streets (committed by groups Democrats will not disavow) prevents serious solutions by serious people.  If your data on who supports BLM and Antifa is still true, it's a testament to a media not being honest as to what is actually going on (at least with their own "analysis"; independent journalists and other outlets have gotten the facts out).

One sentence from Kamala Harris would prompt a good many of the violent protesters to stand down.  These are not spontaneous events; they are coordinated and financed.  She chooses not to do this for reasons I cannot fathom, other than she approves of the violence.  Her statements are what they are.

I don't enjoy harping on this issue.  For most of my life, I have found my natural sympathies with those whose Constitutional Rights are violated by police.  There is no excuse for true police brutality.  But it's not "murder" just because a black subject resists arrest and is killed while trying to apprehend him/her.  There are facts surrounding these circumstances.  What we have now is a group of people violently rioting every time police use force against a black person who is resisting arrest, no matter how lawful, and (in the case of Breonna Taylor) even when the police were shot at first (after identifying themselves).  This aspect of things is utter dysfunction, and it's dysfunction caused by the mobs in the streets, and by the politicians that either (A) support them or (B) are afraid to stand up to them.  This poses a greater threat to our society than anyone will admit, as it effectively transfers police power to the mob.  Think this through.  This is where we're at.  And the fact is that Biden's impotence and Harris's active advocacy have made this situation worse.

[Sestak]

One sentence from Kamala Harris would prompt a good many of the violent protesters to stand down. 

Lol lol lol lol lol.

Quite possibly the most delusional sentence I've read on this forum this entire year.