Has GOP recruitment given Dems a shot at holding the Senate?

[Politician]

Republicans said the same thing in 2018, that Democrats nominating "extreme" candidates would somehow save them...which didn't happen.

In some cases it did. Kara Eastman blew a perfectly winnable race for example by being a poor fit for her district.

Eastman only lost because the DCCC foolishly triaged the race after their preferred candidate lost the primary. She obviously would have won a D-trending, anti-Trump suburban district otherwise.

[Skill and Chance]

The biggest flops were Oz, Sununu not running (although it would still have been winnable for Hassan even with him running), and (so far, at least) Walker, who was always going to be hit or miss. Laxalt is not a "bad candidate" no matter how much people want him to be one (again, NV is a textbook example of generic R vs. generic D), and Masters is still a wild card who is not guaranteed to be the nominee.

Recruitment has been rather awful for the GOP this year - there’s no denying that - but it’s not going to give Democrats a "great" shot at holding the Senate on a night when they’re losing 25 House seats.

The environment would have to improve meaningfully for Dems.  As of today, R's are still on track to take the senate even if Walker and Oz both flop.  They only need 2 of AZ/NV/NH, all of which are looking pretty good for them.  

I don’t think Republicans should count on NH even with a "strong" campaigner (the state is blue enough at the federal level to carry even an unpopular Democratic Senator short of a truly massive wave), but if they can’t win AZ/NV (especially NV) in this environment, it’ll be less about "GOP candidates underperforming" and more about 2022 being a historic midterm election across the board for the party holding the White House.

NV's PVI is closer to the nation than that of any other state, it’s one of the most nationalized states (in part due to the large transient population), the House Popular Vote in NV mirrored the presidential vote in 2016/2020 (with the HPV in 2018 mirroring the Senate race that year), both candidates are very generic, and there have been no signs of a leftward shift in NV. While you could debate PA/GA and even AZ, there’s no reason to believe the NV Senate race will defy the overall environment or end up notably left of the national HPV.

I’m of course not saying that Democrats can’t win NV, just that Republicans will be lucky to even win the House if they lose NV-SEN or NV-GOV. I’m honestly surprised that people can’t agree on that?

I understand where you are coming from re: NH, but that still puts them in control even with a Fetterman win and a Walker loss, albeit with exactly 51 and a lot of regrets.  The Latin swing that is now evident should be enough to carry them even if they falter everywhere else.  More realistically, they're unlikely to finish below 52 unless the national environment changes and they still have a solid chance at 54.

[sg0508]

One has to wonder, but if the GOP completely strikes out across the map in the key states, what will the internal implications be in the party? It could perhaps lead to wholesale changes.  It seems almost too easy for a GOP wave this time around and the Democrats may end up netting seats both in the upper chamber and also in the governorships.

Plus, if the Democrats do decently at the top of the ballot, could there be a bit of a trickledown to the House where more Democrats save their seats or hold onto their seats than we think?

It really seems and feels like as of now, the Republicans have set themselves up for a disastrous November.  They'll spin it of course if they win the House, but internally, anyone who knows electoral politics will know they blew it.

[wbrocks67]

One has to wonder, but if the GOP completely strikes out across the map in the key states, what will the internal implications be in the party? It could perhaps lead to wholesale changes.  It seems almost too easy for a GOP wave this time around and the Democrats may end up netting seats both in the upper chamber and also in the governorships.

Plus, if the Democrats do decently at the top of the ballot, could there be a bit of a trickledown to the House where more Democrats save their seats or hold onto their seats than we think?

It really seems and feels like as of now, the Republicans have set themselves up for a disastrous November.  They'll spin it of course if they win the House, but internally, anyone who knows electoral politics will know they blew it.

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if House races continue to get nationalized and follow what the Sen/GOV races are. There was still quite a bit of ticket splitting in 2020 though with Biden/house R seats though so it remains to be seen.

[sg0508]

I guess the question is...what is a "bad" night for the GOP, and what is a "disastrous" night?

If they win 30-40 House seats, but lose a net of 2-3 Senate seats and 2-3 governors chairs, what does that quality as? I'm thinking that is where this is going to end up.

[Pericles]

GA might be a bit easier because of its inelasticity, but there and in AZ, NV and PA, the Democrats basically have no margin to lose. If there is a nearly 10 point swing from 2020, that is a huge gap for candidate quality to make up. Plus, even if Republicans choke in one race, they don't have these candidate quality problems in NH which is a very winnable race, even if it isn't a likely win like the others. Most importantly, NV candidate quality isn't a significant factor, so that's a probable pickup. With a net gain of 1, Republicans can pick only one of GA, AZ, or NH to be able to afford losing one seat, or just not lose any seats. It could come into play if the environment significantly improves from where it is, but right now, it's just mitigating losses.

[Mr. Smith]

A shot, and only a shot.

[LabourJersey]

I guess the question is...what is a "bad" night for the GOP, and what is a "disastrous" night?

If they win 30-40 House seats, but lose a net of 2-3 Senate seats and 2-3 governors chairs, what does that quality as? I'm thinking that is where this is going to end up.

I personally think the measure for the GOP is a fine night is winning back both chambers of Congress.

If they don't win the Senate back (either staying at 50 or the Dems gaining seats), then I'd consider that a disappointing night for the Republicans frankly. But I'm also expecting them to win the Senate back so this is also based on my perception of what will happen

[TodayJunior]

Pretty much, yes.

Dems will pick up PA, and hold NH and NV.
GOP will hold OH/FL/NC.

The real tossups this cycle are WI/AZ/GA. Gun to my head? GOP holds WI, picks up AZ, and falls short in GA after a runoff, netting a draw overall, so senate is still 50/50.

>>>>>>>>>>>

I really haven’t looked into specific house races as there are 435. I’ll say that the waves of 2010, 2014, and 2018 probably gutted most of the cross-over reps/districts (I.e. blue district republicans and red district Dems), so due to polarization, I’d say the GOP picks up 25-30 seats netting them about a 20 seat margin.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

Republicans said the same thing in 2018, that Democrats nominating "extreme" candidates would somehow save them...which didn't happen.

In some cases it did. Kara Eastman blew a perfectly winnable race for example by being a poor fit for her district.

Eastman only lost because the DCCC foolishly triaged the race after their preferred candidate lost the primary. She obviously would have won a D-trending, anti-Trump suburban district otherwise.

IDK if that's true (the DCCC had her on its Red to Blue list all the way up to the election), but even if it was, it's still a case of poor recruitment/a candidate outside "the establishment's" purview leading to a seat being lost. Both the Dems and the GOP triage races.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Republicans said the same thing in 2018, that Democrats nominating "extreme" candidates would somehow save them...which didn't happen.

In some cases it did. Kara Eastman blew a perfectly winnable race for example by being a poor fit for her district.

Eastman only lost because the DCCC foolishly triaged the race after their preferred candidate lost the primary. She obviously would have won a D-trending, anti-Trump suburban district otherwise.

No, Eastman lost b/c she was a horrible fit for the district and blew a very winnable race

[ProgressiveModerate]

Tbf for the GOP, is there really much of a benefit to winning the Senate in 2022 beyond stopping Biden from confirming anymore justices to courts? Even if they somehow end up with just 48 seats in a worse case scenario, Biden will still control the White House and the Senate will almost surely flip R in 2024 when they actually have a chance to control the Pres.

Also rmbr the next time this Senate map will be up is in 2028, a Presidential year, which by nature will likely be more stable no matter who wins overall. Any flips the GOP make this cycle would be very vulnerable come 2028, especially since states like AZ and GA seem to generally be getting bluer.

[Tartarus Sauce]

It's more a question of whether they have a shot at keeping senate losses low enough to win the Senate back later in the decade under optimal circumstances.

[Vosem]

I don't think GOP recruiting has been particularly bad; there's very little evidence that Herschel Walker is going to do worse than Generic R, and Ron Johnson always over-performs. Nor is there evidence that any of the Arizona candidates are poised to do worse than Generic R.

Vance and Greitens will underperform, but they're in red enough states that it doesn't really matter. At this point it's hard to avoid the conclusion that Oz's favorables are just awful, but at the same time he has clear advantages and it doesn't seem like that seat is enough to give Democrats a shot at holding the Senate.

[Roll Roons]

Yes. The path to Dems holding the Senate is relatively narrow, but it certainly exists. Masters, Walker and Oz are all extremely flawed candidates who could definitely lose in spite of the environment.

Even Ron Johnson's favorability has massively declined since his last race. I suppose I'd still call him a narrow favorite, but him running probably makes the race harder for the GOP than it needs to be.

[David Hume]

The biggest flops were Oz, Sununu not running (although it would still have been winnable for Hassan even with him running), and (so far, at least) Walker, who was always going to be hit or miss. Laxalt is not a "bad candidate" no matter how much people want him to be one (again, NV is a textbook example of generic R vs. generic D), and Masters is still a wild card who is not guaranteed to be the nominee.

Recruitment has been rather awful for the GOP this year - there’s no denying that - but it’s not going to give Democrats a "great" shot at holding the Senate on a night when they’re losing 25 House seats.

To be fair, the major problem is not really NRSC, but Trump.

In GA, Trump dissuaded all other potential candidates to clear the field for his old friend Walker.

In AZ, Trump trashed and threatened Ducey, and backs Master.

In PA, McCormick would be a solid candidate, yet Trump backs Oz.

In NH, Sununu is the one to blame, as he maded it sound like he is running, but declined too late. Trump backs Bolduc who has no chance to win.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Thru 2026 as my signature states, the Senate is gonna favor the 303 Wall, Rs aren't defeating Fetterman or Casey and Collins in DOA and the H favors the Rs due to The TX and FL that's why the Rs have won 16/20 H Election and D's have controlled the S and the Prez except during the Lewinsky era D's were shutout in the S

But Rs aren't gonna have a Supermajority H and D's can win it back if need be with a Fav S in 24//26

McCarthy isn't as dominant as BOEHNER

Majorities aren't forever , especially with Rs they won't get rid of Filibuster and if D's get a Filibuster proof Senate they will pass DC Statehood with a 218H

[choclatechip45]

Republican recruitment has been below par, probably because everyone hates the NRSC, McConnell, and/or Rick Scott, but no, Democrats do not have a realistic chance at holding the Senate unless something else changes.

And on the flip side, if things continue on a Republican trajectory the battleground may shift to NH/CT/WA. We could just as easily be talking about how lucky the Republicans are to have solid candidates in those races. (They blew Oregon and potentially Colorado, though.)

A republican is not winning the CT senate race especially with Stefanowski at the top of the ticket.

[Buffalo Mayor Young Kim]

I guess the question is...what is a "bad" night for the GOP, and what is a "disastrous" night?

If they win 30-40 House seats, but lose a net of 2-3 Senate seats and 2-3 governors chairs, what does that quality as? I'm thinking that is where this is going to end up.

Unless Ron Johnson gets arrested, I’m seeing how they lose 2 senate seats.

[MargieCat]

Yes. The path to Dems holding the Senate is relatively narrow, but it certainly exists. Masters, Walker and Oz are all extremely flawed candidates who could definitely lose in spite of the environment.

Even Ron Johnson's favorability has massively declined since his last race. I suppose I'd still call him a narrow favorite, but him running probably makes the race harder for the GOP than it needs to be.

I agree.

If Ron Johnson chose not to run again, it's likely that Mike Gallagher or Bryan Steil ran.

In that situation, Democrats would have less of a shot in Wisconsin.

While incumbency is usually a good thing, Ron Johnson is an exception given how much he's gone off the rails.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Oz and Masters are neutral.

There's no way Oz is a 'neutral' (generic) candidate given all his baggage and background. His approvals speak for themselves.

The Pieman thinks #populism has uniform appeal to all demographics. Oz's -30 favorability rankings don't matter.

[Politician]

While Republican candidates certainly aren't good, the problem isn't really ideology, but more of lack of political experience.

[Mr. Smith]

Yes. The path to Dems holding the Senate is relatively narrow, but it certainly exists. Masters, Walker and Oz are all extremely flawed candidates who could definitely lose in spite of the environment.

Even Ron Johnson's favorability has massively declined since his last race. I suppose I'd still call him a narrow favorite, but him running probably makes the race harder for the GOP than it needs to be.

His favorability was not great in 2016. Like Toomey and Kirk, it was underwater.  But only Kirk actually suffered the consequences, and that was in a relatively neutral year...slight R lean.

The calculus is far far better this time for RoJo, the only thing against him, is that Barnes is no Feingold.

The other three aren't necessarily all that bad, so much as the Dems actually appear good, but tbf, Kirkpatrick might actually have done better if McCain retired in 2016 and run against a Generic R. Still Kelly is pretty good and Warnock is definitely a step up from Barksdale.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Yes. The path to Dems holding the Senate is relatively narrow, but it certainly exists. Masters, Walker and Oz are all extremely flawed candidates who could definitely lose in spite of the environment.

Even Ron Johnson's favorability has massively declined since his last race. I suppose I'd still call him a narrow favorite, but him running probably makes the race harder for the GOP than it needs to be.

His favorability was not great in 2016. Like Toomey and Kirk, it was underwater.  But only Kirk actually suffered the consequences, and that was in a relatively neutral year...slight R lean.

The calculus is far far better this time for RoJo, the only thing against him, is that Barnes is no Feingold.

The other three aren't necessarily all that bad, so much as the Dems actually appear good, but tbf, Kirkpatrick might actually have done better if McCain retired in 2016 and run against a Generic R. Still Kelly is pretty good and Warnock is definitely a step up from Barksdale.

I think part of what makes this tricky to analyze is what is acceptable and unacceptable, particularly for an R candidate, has changed quite a lot from 2016.

In hingsight though, I'm suprised Kirk didn't hold up better and don't understand why Duckworth overperformed downstate in the way she did.

I wouldn't be suprised if some Senate Dems run ahead of Biden by a few points in teh suburbs, but a consistent 20 point+ overperformance? How.

[wesmoorenerd]

Yes. The path to Dems holding the Senate is relatively narrow, but it certainly exists. Masters, Walker and Oz are all extremely flawed candidates who could definitely lose in spite of the environment.

Even Ron Johnson's favorability has massively declined since his last race. I suppose I'd still call him a narrow favorite, but him running probably makes the race harder for the GOP than it needs to be.

His favorability was not great in 2016. Like Toomey and Kirk, it was underwater.  But only Kirk actually suffered the consequences, and that was in a relatively neutral year...slight R lean.

The calculus is far far better this time for RoJo, the only thing against him, is that Barnes is no Feingold.

The other three aren't necessarily all that bad, so much as the Dems actually appear good, but tbf, Kirkpatrick might actually have done better if McCain retired in 2016 and run against a Generic R. Still Kelly is pretty good and Warnock is definitely a step up from Barksdale.

I think part of what makes this tricky to analyze is what is acceptable and unacceptable, particularly for an R candidate, has changed quite a lot from 2016.

In hingsight though, I'm suprised Kirk didn't hold up better and don't understand why Duckworth overperformed downstate in the way she did.

I wouldn't be suprised if some Senate Dems run ahead of Biden by a few points in teh suburbs, but a consistent 20 point+ overperformance? How.

The GCB is rosier than Biden's approvals across the board, and individual Senate races are in turn looking rosier than the GCB. I'm not expecting Senate Dems to suffer the full weight of Biden's unpopularity.