Was 2020 a good or bad election for the GOP?

[It's Time.]

^

[MT Treasurer]

Losing the Senate was a disaster, so yes.

[..]

They lost the presidency and the Senate, plus they failed to gain control of the House in spite of making some unexpected gains. These defeats are somewhat mitigated by their good performance at the state level, but overall the balance is still negative.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It was neutral at first and then turned bad. It was definitely better than it should have been, it should have been a disaster for them. But it wasn't very clearly a bad election until they ended up losing the Senate with the Georgia runoffs and the self-destruction in the aftermath of the Capitol Storming. Before that it looked like the party could continue on as is, even without Trump especially with the House being biggest bright spot for them. Not so much anymore. The party is now forced to do some soul-searching regarding their future in spite of that now.

The Republicans it was overall good for, and the voters who are most likely the most satisfied with this election, consequently, are probably anti-Trump Republicans who want to see their party move on.

[seeking mystical annihilation]

Neutral. Losing the Senate is a huge negative, but they're in a strong position to potentially take both houses of Congress in 2022 if the year favors them, and they did an excellent job of holding their ground at the state level and even expanding it in some areas.

[Roll Roons]

The Republicans it was overall good for, and the voters who are most likely the most satisfied with this election, consequently, are probably anti-Trump Republicans who want to see their party move on.

Ding ding ding!

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

They overperformed in  Congress where 2022, was in reach, but the insurrection has damaged their chances of taking control

[Real Texan Politics]

Would say terrible if it weren't for the house gains, but it looks like they're on track to flipping the house in 2022.

[SnowLabrador]

Would say terrible if it weren't for the house gains, but it looks like they're on track to flipping the house in 2022.

[Gracile]

Bad, though unfortunately for people on left not as bad as it should have been.

[Pericles]

They lost the presidency and the Senate, plus they failed to gain control of the House in spite of making some unexpected gains. These defeats are somewhat mitigated by their good performance at the state level, but overall the balance is still negative.

Only MN and NH were really close for redistricting, and that's only 1 or 2 House seats in total. Democrats may have been close to breaking a Republican trifecta in AZ, but that doesn't matter for redistricting. States like NC, FL, and GA were out of reach for Democrats with redistricting. TX may have been barely in reach, I found if Democrats won all races they lost by 4% or less in that state the State House would have been 75-75 exactly (even while they only pick up TX-24). Redistricting was always going to be tough to gain control of for Democrats, because existing gerrymandering gave them a big disadvantage (plus their coalition is doing well in the wrong states, WI state legislature is hopeless when Biden is only winning by 0.6%)

[WD]

They lost the Presidency and the Senate, definitely a bad election.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Even if they outperformed expectations, losing both the Senate and Presidency in the same cycle is always bad. it wasn't a terrible landslide either though. I don't see how anyone can call the Democrats gaining a trifecta by flipping the Presidency and the Senate a good election for the GOP.

[Da2017]

Outperformed expectations but still bad. Lost the trifecta.

[JoeInator]

Even if they didn't lose as badly as expected, losing both the White House and the Senate while failing to take back the House makes 2020 a bad election for the GOP.

[SInNYC]

Slightly good.
All 3 of the House, Senate, and White House were close and  really could have gone either way.
And they of course did well downballot.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Slightly good.
All 3 of the House, Senate, and White House were close and  really could have gone either way.
And they of course did well downballot.

That's like saying 2016 was a good for Democrats because the Presidency and Senate were close. We can debate about downballot a bit more, as those results weren't great for Democrats, but they're still in a better position than 4 years ago.

[Alcibiades]

Slightly good.
All 3 of the House, Senate, and White House were close and  really could have gone either way.
And they of course did well downballot.

I fail to see how the other side getting a trifecta can be seen as a good result in any way for a party.

[AGA]

It takes a special kind of hackery to argue that an election in which Democrats win a trifecta was good for the GOP.

[Mr. Smith]

It takes a special kind of hackery to argue that an election in which Democrats win a trifecta was good for the GOP.

Or a sage understanding of the tactics, strategies, and mentality used by both parties and the conservative, whataboutist, "both sides" media.

Which one uses the levers of power to the fullest when in power and which one seeks to chop off a leg in "good faith".

Which one obstructs and telegraphs sound bites ad-nauseum to catch the apathetic and angry when out of power; and which one sits back with maybe one or two platitudes, hoping the insanity can speak for itself because everyone will just magically agree.

For a truly bad result [not terrible though], the House needed to recede further...not almost flip, Cornyn or Collins needed to be ousted, and Biden needed to flip Ohio.

No, this was still a good election for them too.

[BoJack Horseman]

It’s really not all that bad for them. They’ll get both the House and Senate back in 2022 and the Senate won’t change hands for at least the next couple decades due to polarization.

[ProgressiveModerate]

It’s really not all that bad for them. They’ll get both the House and Senate back in 2022 and the Senate won’t change hands for at least the next couple decades due to polarization.

I would say they're favorites to take back the House and slight favorites to take back the Senate un 2022, but I think to say they'll flip both with certainly this far out is jumping the gun a little bit.

Furthermore, to say they'll hold the Senate for several decades is a bit of a stretch, Democrats will likely struggle to win functional majorities with their current coalition, but you have smaller states like AK and KS which have potential to be competative down the road and the Democratic Party will change their strategy as needed. Same thing goes for the GOP; if they lose TX, they won't be locked out of the Presidency, they'll just shift their messaging to come up with a new strategy to win that involves other states. We just don't know what the political coalitions will look like in 2030 or 2040 yet.

If you were to show someone the 2020 election results even just 4 years ago, they would likely be shocked by quite a lot of things. Politics can change in unforeseen ways that we don't expect with time, so to draw conclusions about so much this soon is a little close minded and jumping the gun in my view, you may very well be correct, but things might also go a way we weren't expecting.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Much better than expected, even though Democrats did manage to win the trifecta. But that's largely irrelevant now in light of the brand damage they're potentially going to face in the reckoning the aftermath of the election has wrought.

[AGA]

It takes a special kind of hackery to argue that an election in which Democrats win a trifecta was good for the GOP.

Or a sage understanding of the tactics, strategies, and mentality used by both parties and the conservative, whataboutist, "both sides" media.

Which one uses the levers of power to the fullest when in power and which one seeks to chop off a leg in "good faith".

Which one obstructs and telegraphs sound bites ad-nauseum to catch the apathetic and angry when out of power; and which one sits back with maybe one or two platitudes, hoping the insanity can speak for itself because everyone will just magically agree.

For a truly bad result [not terrible though], the House needed to recede further...not almost flip, Cornyn or Collins needed to be ousted, and Biden needed to flip Ohio.

No, this was still a good election for them too.

What kind of nonsense is this? Democrats were never going to get more than 52 Senate seats, and most of those House seats lost would be lost in 2022 anyway. It doesn't matter if Biden got 270 or 538 EVs; he will still be President either way.

[Pericles]

A bad outcome that was just 0.6% away from being a great one for them. If Trump could get 74 million votes after everything he's done, the Republican Party may have a very strong floor going forward so stuff like the Capitol Riot could be pretty minor going forward.