Overall, was 2020 a good election cycle for Democrats?

[ProgressiveModerate]

Democrats up and down the ballot generally underperformed polling, and this wasn’t the landslide some had expected it to be; Democrats lost significant ground in the House, Biden only squeaked by in the Presidency, and many Senate seats seen as D pickups were lost. Despite this, they are still likely to have a narrow trifecta going into 2021, so it’s not like this was a bad year for them, flipping the Presidency while an incumbent is running for re-election is an accomplishment of its own. Would you consider 2020 a good year for Democrats?

[Bootes Void]

Winning the presidency and Senate while keeping the house makes it a good but necessarily a great year

[ultraviolet]

Trifecta=good

[Mr. Third-Wayist]

Yes

[TML]

A good cycle would have had them beating Trump by Reagan-like margins. They didn’t even come close to doing that.

[ultraviolet]

A good cycle would have had them beating Trump by Reagan-like margins. They didn’t even come close to doing that.

Talk about never being satisfied...

[MRS. MEE SUM CHU]

No, but Dems got a trifecta so it wasn’t a bad one either.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yes!...there is a HUGE discontinuity between winning the Senate and not winning it, especially this year when things like DC/PR statehood are on the table.  So my answer would have been No with one less Senate seat.

[Alben Barkley]

At the end of the day, it would be foolish to call winning a trifecta for the first time in a decade a bad year no matter how much it might have underperformed expectations. Clearly there are still things Democrats could do to improve, but ultimately we’re a lot better off now than the GOP is and will have the power of undivided government for at least 2 years. Indisputably a win, even if you want to say it shouldn’t have been as close as it was.

Also Georgia in particular was a huge bright spot for our future. It’s looking more and more like the next Virginia.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes, but it wasn't great.

Almost losing The House is kinda pathetic.

[Illiniwek]

Federal level yes. State legislature level no.

[E-Dawg]

On the Presidential and Senate level, it was good but not great. On the House level, it was pretty bad.

[Democratic Hawk]

Federal level yes. State legislature level no.

[Bomster]

This election cycle favored Republicans, but Trump’s awfulness cost them the Presidency, the House, and the Senate.

[Catalyst138]

Back in 2019 the prospect of flipping the Senate at all was considered a long shot, and it was Trump’s election to lose. I think people don’t give 2020 credit because of the later expectation that it was going to be a blowout (largely because of the junk polls).

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

It seems to be like the 2000 election with the parties reversed.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Back in 2019 the prospect of flipping the Senate at all was considered a long shot, and it was Trump’s election to lose. I think people don’t give 2020 credit because of the later expectation that it was going to be a blowout (largely because of the junk polls).

That's definately very true. Until COVID, most people considered Democrats to be anywhere from modest to significant underdogs in the Senate, a pure tossup on the Presidency, and a likely D House, though Democrats were favored to lose seats. Underperforming final expectations =/= a bad election cycle by default, and I bet it you showed a Democrat on Atlas those results back in 2019, they would be pretty happy.

[anthonyjg]

Would have said short-term yes long-term no in November, but Georgia was huge. There’s some question in my mind of how sustainable this coalition is given the nature of the Senate and electoral college, but it might be a bit more plausible than I have it credit for. In the short-term, a trifecta, no matter how shaky, is inarguably fantastic.

[Astatine]

President: A win is a win, unseating an incumbent President is not easy to begin with, and the result was ultimately better than I had expected during election night.

House: Rather disappointing, some tough (and narrow) losses and a very slim majority. Defending/gaining more seats would've been a necessary backup to have a fighting chance to keep the House in 2022 - I'm really not optimistic about the Democrats' chances in 2 years.

Senate: Not great, but good. The Senate appeared to be an uphill battle at the beginning of the election cycle, and gaining it back after 6 years in the minority is relieving.

Gubernatorial: Nothing unexpected, losing MT was not surprising, and NC was kept.

Statewide row offices: Mixed, worst losses were in NH (Executive Council) and NC (row offices + Supreme Court), while the MI Supreme Court and some other statewide offices (in WA and OR for instance) could be flipped. Sad that John Perdue lost in WV.

State legislatures: Extremely disappointing, especially the losses in NH and the failed gains in AZ and MN.

[slothdem]

Obviously it was very good. Trifecta's for either party are rare and difficult to muster. Democratic control of the Senate is especially difficult. You always take the trifecta if you can.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Winning the presidency and Senate while keeping the house makes it a good but necessarily a great year

Federal level yes. State legislature level no.

[DaleCooper]

They gained the Senate and White House. I'd trade 10 House seats for that any day.

[seeking mystical annihilation]

Federal level 7/10, state level 2/10 (that 2 coming almost entirely from the coalition keeping the AK House).

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, after all Ds won the Trifecta

[NYDem]

Winning the trifecta means it was good, but there was potential for so much more...