Which party is more likely to reach 60 seats in the Senate?

[GALeftist]

I was thinking about this, and I actually think that, despite the structural challenges in the Senate for Dems, they might actually have a clearer path to 60 than the Republicans. The 29th most Democratic state by PVI is Georgia, the 30th most is South Carolina, and the 31st most is Texas, but I think this sort of betrays the potential Democrats have in idiosyncratic states; it is 100% within the realm of plausibility for Democrats to hold both seats of Montana, and even potentially Alaska, given the right national environment, to say nothing of Democrats' unusually strong showing downballot in states like Kansas and maybe even Missouri in a perfect storm.

Contrast that with the Republicans. The 29th most Republican state by PVI is Pennsylvania, the 30th most is New Hampshire, and the 31st most is Virginia (lol). Unlike the Republicans, though, the Democrats have a near stranglehold on the Senate delegations of D PVI states, and if Collins and Gardner bite the dust in 2020 they straight up will have all those seats. It seems to me that the most plausible path to 60 for the Republicans is to have all the Senate seats of anything as or more Republican than New Hampshire, which is a tall order, and they don't really have great prospects in too many D PVI states to make up for that. Thoughts?

[Ferguson97]

Democrats getting to 60 seats is clearly far easier, and this isn't even close.

Dem's 60 seat map happens on A REALLY good night for Democrats with a small shift to Biden and minimal voter suppression.

Republicans' 60 seat map happens in SirWoodbury's fantasies.

Democrats with 60 Seats (light blue indicates a flip)



Republicans with 60 Seats (light red indicates a flip)

[Suburbia]

Democrats getting to 60 seats is clearly far easier, and this isn't even close.

Dem's 60 seat map happens on A REALLY good night for Democrats with a small shift to Biden and minimal voter suppression.

Republicans' 60 seat map happens in SirWoodbury's fantasies.

Democrats with 60 Seats (light blue indicates a flip)



Republicans with 60 Seats (light red indicates a flip)

Flip KY and add MS.

[DaleCooper]

Democrats. Neither is likely to get 60 seats any time soon, but the Republican Party's suicidal strategy of appealing to bigoted evangelicals at the expense of alienating entire races, genders, and generations  of Americans is going to make them less competitive in even more places as time goes on.

[Roll Roons]

Yeah, for all the "SeNate iS strUctURALlY biaSEd AGaInST deMOcRaTS" talk, red state Democrats, for whatever reason, are way more common than blue state Republicans.

In the past decade, Mark Kirk was pretty much the only Republican to win a full Senate term from a solidly blue state (Colorado wasn't really solidly blue in 2014). Democrats had Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill, Manchin and Tester, not to mention Bullock, Gross, Bollier and Harrison all having real shots this year. It wasn't even that long ago that Pryor, Begich, Landrieu and Tim Johnson were in office.

[Left Wing]

Democrats getting to 60 seats is clearly far easier, and this isn't even close.

Dem's 60 seat map happens on A REALLY good night for Democrats with a small shift to Biden and minimal voter suppression.

Republicans' 60 seat map happens in SirWoodbury's fantasies.

Democrats with 60 Seats (light blue indicates a flip)



Republicans with 60 Seats (light red indicates a flip)

The path of least resistance for Republicans is absolutely not through Joe Rae Perkins. Mehta, Curran, Watters and O’Connor all have better shots than her.

[Roll Roons]

Democrats getting to 60 seats is clearly far easier, and this isn't even close.

Dem's 60 seat map happens on A REALLY good night for Democrats with a small shift to Biden and minimal voter suppression.

Republicans' 60 seat map happens in SirWoodbury's fantasies.

Democrats with 60 Seats (light blue indicates a flip)



Republicans with 60 Seats (light red indicates a flip)

The path of least resistance for Republicans is absolutely not through Joe Rae Perkins. Mehta, Watters and O’Connor all have better shots than her.

I'd put Curran over Waters.

[Young Conservative]

I will never understand why Republican state are so conducive to voting Democrats to senate while Democrat states recognize it as a terrible idea.

[Beet]

This is irrelevant because either the Republicans or the Democrats are going to get rid of the filibuster before either reaches 60.

[Vosem]

In 2020, clearly Democrats.

In the near future, quite clearly Republicans, to the point that a Democratic presidential victory in 2024 could coexist with a filibuster-proof Republican Senate majority.

Let's tilt things toward the Republican end in 2020, with them holding on to a 51-49 Senate majority; per 538 the odds of this are 30%. (Also, this way I don't have to deal with the possibility of DC or PR being added as states). In 2022, there are four very obvious Republican targets (AZ/NH/NV in states to the right of the US, and CO, which has been three points left of the country at every election in the 2010s), but few past that; let's say Republicans gain all four. This is doable even if Biden has a good midterm and the GCB is something like R+3 (which would be a smaller victory for the out-party than 2006/2010/2014/2018 were; those were D+8, R+7, R+5, and D+8. R+3 is historically weak!). This gets you to a Republican Senate majority of 55-45.

So you need 5 more seats. Let's assume current trends continue, with the Sun Belt trending Democratic and the Midwest trending Republican, and 2024 is a skin-of-their-teeth Democratic presidential win; a plausible map might be all the Hillary '16 states + AZ/FL. This would correspond with a popular vote of ~D+3 nationally. Let's further say that polarization is very high, and seats all vote the same way presidentially and senatorially. So Democrats gain a seat in FL...but lose six seats in MI/MT/OH/PA/WI/WV.

Republicans don't need victories as strong as the ones they achieved in 2010/2014 to get a 60-seat majority; if 2020/2022 are merely OK, they don't even need a national victory in 2024.

[politicallefty]

If Democrats win control of the Senate this year, DC (and pending the results of the referendum, Puerto Rico) statehood will be a top priority for the new Congress. If they are both admitted, DC will easily elect 2 Democrats and PR would be likely to do so as well. Depending on what happens in a couple weeks, that would easily set Democrats much closer to 60. Assuming the OP meant a 3/5 majority, which would be 62 seats in a 102-seat Senate and 63 seats in a 104-seat Senate, I think the longer term prospects would be better for Democrats.

[ProgressiveModerate]

According to my model, Democrats currently have a 1.31% chance of winning 60 senate seats as opposed to the Republican's 0.23%

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

In the short term (this electoral cycle), Democrats, although they'd need to flip/hold a couple of the three seats in the 1%-5% chance range. In the medium term, Republicans have a firm and growing advantage thanks to electoral geography.

In the long term, I'm not going to project trends that far!

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Yeah, for all the "SeNate iS strUctURALlY biaSEd AGaInST deMOcRaTS" talk, red state Democrats, for whatever reason, are way more common than blue state Republicans.

In the past decade, Mark Kirk was pretty much the only Republican to win a full Senate term from a solidly blue state (Colorado wasn't really solidly blue in 2014). Democrats had Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill, Manchin and Tester, not to mention Bullock, Gross, Bollier and Harrison all having real shots this year. It wasn't even that long ago that Pryor, Begich, Landrieu and Tim Johnson were in office.

Republicans are a lot worse at running moderates. Mike Castle had a very good chance of winning but he lost his primary. Brian Sandoval would have won in NV but the primary electorate is too toxic for him.

Also, you’re forgetting Scott Brown! And Scott was fairly fiscally conservative for a senator from MA.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Neither party will, it's unlikely D's will sweep all the competetive seats 51/55 seats has always been the range and MT, AK, KS and SC from the polls yesterday showed Harrison losing by 6

[Orser67]

Over the next three cycles, I'd say it's about even.

For Democrats, it would require an outstanding 2020 cycle getting them into the high 50s, followed either by a)admitting PR and DC and winning enough Senate races (PR could be competitive) to get to 60, or b)an unusually good mid-term that gets them over 60 (and of course these options aren't mutually exclusive).

For Republicans, it would require limiting their losses in 2020, having a good mid-term in 2022, and then picking up seats in several swing and Republican-leaning states in 2024.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

57/43 on a Biden plus 12 night 2020, short of 60 votes

D's are gonna lose AL KY, MS, SC and TX

Lol McGrath, has 0 chance, that's why they won't poll the race

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Neither.  

Republicans will likely have fewer opportunities in 2022 (NH, maybe AZ depending on Kelly’s ability to lockdown his seat if he wins, and maybe NV if it’s a big Republican wave).  Democrats have opportunities in PA, FL, IA (if Grassley retires), NC, WI, maybe AK (if Murkowski runs as an independent in a three way race against a Republican and a top-tier Democrat), and maybe GA (especially if Loeffler hobbles to victory this year and we run an A-list candidate in 2022).  

It’d also be worth running a wave/scandal insurance candidate (Tim Ryan?) in Ohio just in case an Ernst-style opportunity unexpectedly emerges in 2022 and/or we beat the odds like Republicans did in 2002.  Even in a Republican wave, the math isn’t there b/c this year is gonna be a bigger Dem wave than 2018 with a far more favorable map.

The other thing is that 2022 could easily be a non-wave, but still mildly Republican-leaning year, in which case the bad Republican Senate map could still hurt them a lot.  And even in a wave, look how much good that did Senate Democrats in 2018.  PA, NC, WI, and probably FL (with a good candidate) should still be very competitive even in a Republican wave.

[Bootes Void]

I will never understand why Republican state are so conducive to voting Democrats to senate while Democrat states recognize it as a terrible idea.

Most of the Democrats who run in red states are fairly moderate while most republicans who run in blue state s are no different than national republicans