Overall, was 2020 a good election cycle for Democrats?

[Gracile]

Good, albeit highly underwhelming year given the circumstances.

[หมูเด้ง]

Good enough. When was the last time we got a trifecta this quickly after a Republican one? Cleveland?

[Interlocutor]

I guess it depends how much you set your expectations.

For those aching for a knockout blow (Most of this board), it was good but very underwhelming. Biden not winning in a landslide, Florida/Texas/North Carolina disappointing in the end, House/Senate underperformances, losing seemingly gimme pickups like Maine & TX-23.

But to the casual Dem who assumed Trump was gonna win no matter what, you'd have been over the moon. Defeating Trump, flipping Arizona/Georgia, keeping the House & winning Senate control.

I think it was a pretty solid cycle for the Dems. We just spoiled ourselves and built up sky-high expectations in our heads (Myself being a big culprit in that). But if you told me 4 years ago how the 2020 election would've ended up, I'd have been ecstatic. Especially with Georgia easily being the brightest state for the Dems.

[Ogre Mage]

Yes.  If a Higher Power said that I could have a guaranteed Joe Biden win and narrow Democratic control of both the U.S. Senate and House vs. an unknown roll of the dice I would take the guarantee.

It was a good enough result.  I had hoped we would do modestly better, but I never thought the dreams of Biden 413 EVs and 2008 size congressional majorities were realistic.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Now, we gotta expand our Majority in.2022

[dw93]

The Presidency: It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. The fundamentals of the year leading up to the election should've given the Democrats a 1932 or 1980 style victory, but given polarization, Trump's grip on his base (cult), and given the pandemic limited Biden's ability to campaign, as well as the fact that Biden was no FDR, Reagan, or Bill Clinton in terms of charisma, this likely was the best we could've done.

The House: While I do think a lot of the results here had to do with moderate Republicans who voted for Biden voting Republican down ticket, I also think "Defund the Police" and the party not meaningfully condemning the rioting and looting during the summer hurt the Democrats and gave some close house races to the Republicans.

The Senate: They really blew it here. Instead of focusing like laser beams on very winnable races like the ones in Maine and North Carolina, we spent too much money and resources on long shot races in Kentucky, Texas, and to a lesser extent South Carolina. The Georgia races wouldn't even have mattered as much as they did had we flipped ME and NC.

State level: No surprises with the Governor's races, but the state legislative result was disappointing.

[Devils30]

The Presidency: It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. The fundamentals of the year leading up to the election should've given the Democrats a 1932 or 1980 style victory, but given polarization, Trump's grip on his base (cult), and given the pandemic limited Biden's ability to campaign, as well as the fact that Biden was no FDR, Reagan, or Bill Clinton in terms of charisma, this likely was the best we could've done.

The House: While I do think a lot of the results here had to do with moderate Republicans who voted for Biden voting Republican down ticket, I also think "Defund the Police" and the party not meaningfully condemning the rioting and looting during the summer hurt the Democrats and gave some close house races to the Republicans.

The Senate: They really blew it here. Instead of focusing like laser beams on very winnable races like the ones in Maine and North Carolina, we spent too much money and resources on long shot races in Kentucky, Texas, and to a lesser extent South Carolina. The Georgia races wouldn't even have mattered as much as they did had we flipped ME and NC.

State level: No surprises with the Governor's races, but the state legislative result was disappointing.

OTOH, Georgia being blue and North Carolina red was unknown before the election to many and makes the Senate results more explainable now.

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

All of their victories (the Presidency, the House, and the Senate) should've been a little larger, but what matters above all else is that they were still all victories. You can't complain about a trifecta too much, no matter how narrow.

[CookieDamage]

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

That would never happen. Reagan beat Carter with like 489 EVs and beat Whats-his-name with like 525 EVs. The most fantastical-but-still-plausible Biden vs. Trump win was the 413 map, way short of even Reagan's more "modest" win. My best prediction was like 395 EVs, which would be a Clinton-era victory. 306 was not a bad win. Definitely qualifies as a good cycle, especially considering we held the house and went on to win the senate, albeit narrowly.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Ask yourself how you'd feel if you were told that democrats would hold a Federak trifecta in 2021?

That should be your answer.

[Alcibiades]

Winning a trifecta is a fantastic accomplishment, which few would have predicted two, or even one, years ago. So at the federal level, very good.

The state legislatures were concerning, however, and Democrats never seem to learn their lesson at that level.

[Chips]

Yes.

[Non Swing Voter]

Obviously.  They got rid of Trump, which was their biggest mission.  AND they now have unified control of government. 

People who were expecting a massive blowout were fooling themselves.  Losing a bunch of house seats was disappointing, and I didn't expect that part.  But in retrospect, 2018 was a great year for Democrats because educated people turn out in off years.  The conventional logic that Republicans do better in off years is no longer the case.  We kind of all recognized that but failed to recognize that the reverse is thus true: Democrats no longer do better in Presidential years.  Therefore, 2020 was just a reversion to the mean in the House.

[pbrower2a]

Not as decisive, but possibly more sustainable. Republicans had to decide between Trump and the Constitution.

It is too early to tell whether the Democrats are in position to make gains in 2022. Democrats do not have contradictory interests in their coalition, which is a bare majority. Republicans may be vulnerable to in-fighting that Democrats can exploit. 

[Orser67]

Somewhere between ok and good. They got rid of Trump and got a trifecta, and that has to be the headline. But they also have extremely narrow majorities in both houses of Congress and lost ground in the state races (at least in terms of governorships and legislative chambers controlled).

Purely in terms of federal elections, I would still say it was a good a result given the geographic+gerrymandering disadvantages they face in Congress and the Electoral College, and especially given how rare it is to unseat a sitting president. But I was really hoping for a stronger election at the state level, especially with redistricting coming up. I'm also a little worried that we won't have large enough majorities to get a whole lot done (especially if there is any kind of vacancy in the Senate).

[forsythvoter]

If the point of winning elections is to pass policies, then the election results were undeniably good for the Dems, although they could certainly have done better in terms of margins of victory, and this likely will mean more moderate legislation than if the margins were larger. Whether the House has 235 or 222 Democrats really doesn't make much difference policy wise and the Senate also is too geographically polarized to have more than a narrow Dem majority at best.

I was also reading on 538 this morning and they had an interesting evaluation of Trump's Presidency. Going into 2016, Rs controlled the Senate 54-46 and the House 247-188. Dems have gained 4 senate seats, 34 House seats, and regained the Presidency in that timeframe - which is actually pretty good.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The Democrats did absolutely everything they had to: win the presidency against an incumbent (often a tough task), hold the House, and win back the Senate. And speaking of the Senate, that oddly was probably the biggest bright spot overall, even though those elections too under-performed expectations. Just think about how Democrats actually lost seats in 2018, a year with a way friendlier national environment. As such it was probably a B- grade cycle for the party. It could have, and should have, been hell of a lot better, don't get me wrong. But it also could have been devastatingly worse. Things managed to work out, and I'll take that at this point.

[ShadowRocket]

Yes. Despite underperforming results wise in a few aspects, they still won and now hold a trifecta at the federal level.

[Virginiá]

The Senate: They really blew it here. Instead of focusing like laser beams on very winnable races like the ones in Maine and North Carolina, we spent too much money and resources on long shot races in Kentucky, Texas, and to a lesser extent South Carolina. The Georgia races wouldn't even have mattered as much as they did had we flipped ME and NC.

To be fair, Maine saw record spending and Gideon didn't even spend everything she raised. More money wouldn't have mattered. Democrats blew Republicans out dollar-wise, but money in politics is overrated, at least in terms of effectiveness in changing votes.

Given how much Collins won by, I doubt Gideon was ever truly going to thread that needle, despite that the polls overwhelmingly suggesting she would.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The Presidency: It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. The fundamentals of the year leading up to the election should've given the Democrats a 1932 or 1980 style victory, but given polarization, Trump's grip on his base (cult), and given the pandemic limited Biden's ability to campaign, as well as the fact that Biden was no FDR, Reagan, or Bill Clinton in terms of charisma, this likely was the best we could've done.

The House: While I do think a lot of the results here had to do with moderate Republicans who voted for Biden voting Republican down ticket, I also think "Defund the Police" and the party not meaningfully condemning the rioting and looting during the summer hurt the Democrats and gave some close house races to the Republicans.

The Senate: They really blew it here. Instead of focusing like laser beams on very winnable races like the ones in Maine and North Carolina, we spent too much money and resources on long shot races in Kentucky, Texas, and to a lesser extent South Carolina. The Georgia races wouldn't even have mattered as much as they did had we flipped ME and NC.

State level: No surprises with the Governor's races, but the state legislative result was disappointing.

I would actually agree the Senate was where they underperformed expectations the least. Before election day, most people seemed to think Ds would win about 51 Senate Seats, 240 House Seats, and in the mid-350s electorally. In hindsight, races like MT, IA, KS, and TX were likely going to be harder to flip than most people expected, and while they did blow NC and ME, they made up for it with the Georgia runoff races. I would argue if Democrats had won ME and NC and therefore the Senate, they would have struggled to get the same enthusiasm that ultimately put them over the edge in Georgia, though I think it would've been nice to win one of ME/NC and end up with a 51-49 Senate, but all in all, I would argue the Senate results were actually pretty respectable considering the NPV.

The House is what really bugs me; Democrats lost a bunch of very winnable races, even if they ultimately didn't flip the House to Rs.

[Interlocutor]

To addon/reiterate my previous post, it also depends what your definition of "underperformed" is.

Don't forget that polls showed most/half of Biden voters felt Trump was gonna win in the end. Imagine telling them not only will Biden win, he'll also flip "Conservative" Arizona & Georgia (With those states also giving Dems a 51/50 Senate majority). The same respective states that gave us the 'Show Your Papers' law and didn't elect Stacy Abrams for Governor.

Basically, like most other things, there's a clear dichotomy between the voting majority & the Atlas bubble

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

Tbh, the GA runoffs were the only really good part of the cycle for Dems and they weren’t even in 2020. Sure, we won the presidency, but by less than expected. State legislatures will continue to be messed up and who knows how badly they’ll gerrymander the House. I mean, it obviously could’ve been worse, but I’d rate it at a C compared to my expectations going into the election.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Winning the trifecta made it better but losing NE 02, TX 24, CA 21, 25 ,39 and MN State senate was pathetic

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

Winning the trifecta made it better but losing NE 02, TX 24, CA 21, 25 ,39 and MN State senate was pathetic

The Ashfords are terrible people.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

We can't see in the future, but if Trump is jailed and the Economy comes back, then D's should have a very good 2022.

I don't think that the public will stand for a stagnant Economy like we are in now and Trump not jailed. The Economy must be normalized