Rs temper enthusiasm for a 54 Seats Senate majority

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/gop-tempers-expectations-senate-majority-090105186.html

It's not happening a 54 R Seat majority

[Progressive Pessimist]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

[Spectator]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010 ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they do.

[Progressive Pessimist]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010, ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they doZ

Democrats are inhibited by the very institution of the Senate so losing seats matter more in the end, especially for reasons of padding margins. When Class I rolls around in 2024 Democrats would probably need a 60 seat majority to feel safe in keeping the majority.

And then legislatively too with Manchin and Sinema's shenanigans being as common as they are, imagine if we even had just two of Cunningham, McGinty, and/or Nelson in the Senate how much different things would be.

[Spectator]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010, ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they doZ

Democrats are inhibited by the very institution of the Senate so losing seats matter more in the end, especially for reasons of padding margins. When Class I rolls around in 2024 Democrats would probably need a 60 seat majority to feel safe in keeping the majority.

And then legislatively too with Manchin and Sinema's shenanigans being as common as they are, imagine if we even had just two of Cunningham, McGinty, and/or Nelson in the Senate how much different things would be.

That’s shifting the goal posts of your original argument that Democrats blow more winnable races than Republicans, and that’s not true.

[Progressive Pessimist]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010, ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they doZ

Democrats are inhibited by the very institution of the Senate so losing seats matter more in the end, especially for reasons of padding margins. When Class I rolls around in 2024 Democrats would probably need a 60 seat majority to feel safe in keeping the majority.

And then legislatively too with Manchin and Sinema's shenanigans being as common as they are, imagine if we even had just two of Cunningham, McGinty, and/or Nelson in the Senate how much different things would be.

That’s shifting the goal posts of your original argument that Democrats blow more winnable races than Republicans, and that’s not true.

Maybe. It's just that the losses feel so much more significant.

[sg0508]

The GOP failures in CO, NV and DE in 2010 and then in MO and IN in 2012 were the WORST throwaways I've ever seen in my life. I still wonder how was that possible?

I understand that sometimes the extreme wings of the party just want to make a statement and they want THEIR candidate rather than a moderate like Mike Castle who would have a few year lease on a seat, but wow.

[Devils30]

The GOP failures in CO, NV and DE in 2010 and then in MO and IN in 2012 were the WORST throwaways I've ever seen in my life. I still wonder how was that possible?

I understand that sometimes the extreme wings of the party just want to make a statement and they want THEIR candidate rather than a moderate like Mike Castle who would have a few year lease on a seat, but wow.

Castle would have either switched parties or gotten Kirked in 2016.

[OSR stands with Israel]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

In Which was is this accurate. Since 2006 these are the races you could say were blown by each party without even taking into account hindsight and taking into account the environment

2006:

GOP: VA
Dems: None


2008:

GOP: None
Dems: None

2010:

GOP: Delaware, Colorado, Nevada
Dems: Massachusetts(Counting the Special)

2012:

GOP: Indiana , Missouri and North Dakota
Dems: None

2014:

GOP: None
Dems: None(Though they were close to blowing VA)

2016:

GOP: None(Though they were close to blowing MO)
Dems: None

2018:

GOP: Alabama
Dems: None(FL was always a tossup and always close)

2020:

GOP: Georgia Regular(If Trump didnt depress GOP turnout , Perdue almost certainly gets reelected)
Dems: North Carolina

[OSR stands with Israel]

The GOP failures in CO, NV and DE in 2010 and then in MO and IN in 2012 were the WORST throwaways I've ever seen in my life. I still wonder how was that possible?

I understand that sometimes the extreme wings of the party just want to make a statement and they want THEIR candidate rather than a moderate like Mike Castle who would have a few year lease on a seat, but wow.

Castle would have either switched parties or gotten Kirked in 2016.

Delaware was a special so he would be up for reelection in 2014 where he probably wins but then he retires in 2020 to avoid being Blanched

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

That's certainly not a complete list. Pennsylvania 2016 is rather obvious.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

WI is gone now since Kleefisch is toast , Johnson said he nor Paul Ryan are campaigning for Michaels

Lean D 51
Tossup GA runoff, OH, FL and NC,
Could be competetive LA Runoff, UT, IA and MO
Safe R 42

D's move to 60/40 percent control of the Senate with Kleefisch losing

[Xing]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010 ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they do.

I suppose it depends on how one defines “winnable”, but I’d certainly argue that IL-SEN 2010, as well as possibly PA-SEN 2010, NC-SEN 2014, PA-SEN 2016, WI-SEN 2016, and ME-SEN 2020 were all winnable for Democrats if they had played their cards better. Possibly a few more.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010 ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they do.

I suppose it depends on how one defines “winnable”, but I’d certainly argue that IL-SEN 2010, as well as possibly PA-SEN 2010, NC-SEN 2014, PA-SEN 2016, WI-SEN 2016, and ME-SEN 2020 were all winnable for Democrats if they had played their cards better. Possibly a few more.

Do you know why we lost ME Sen Collins negotiated with Schumer, and Pelosi and Trump the 1200 and then the 2K stimulus checks no it was not winnable but now the Rs are more vulnerable now there are no more stimulus check but stimulus PROGRAMS like Student Loans Discharge, and Collins blocked Voting Rights, but Trump never brought up Voting Rights

This is why Mills and Golden are gonna win Angus King support Voting Rights and Collins blocked it

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010 ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they do.

I suppose it depends on how one defines “winnable”, but I’d certainly argue that IL-SEN 2010, as well as possibly PA-SEN 2010, NC-SEN 2014, PA-SEN 2016, WI-SEN 2016, and ME-SEN 2020 were all winnable for Democrats if they had played their cards better. Possibly a few more.

I agree that IL 2010 should be on the list.  But the others weren’t really “squandered”.  It’s not like the Dems nominated unserious or crazy extremist candidates, or got caught in some major scandal.  E.g. I seem to recall Hagan ran a pretty good campaign in 2014, it just was just never going to get her over the top in that national environment.

[ProgressiveModerate]

They only have themselves to blame. Usually it's the Democrats squandering winnable Senate races.

Interesting take. The only races since 2010 I think Dems have blown that were potentially avoidable were Massachusetts in 2010, Nevada in 2012, Colorado in 2014, Florida in 2018 and North Carolina in 2020. Even many of those are debatable as to whether the outcome would have been different with a better candidate or stronger fundraising.

The list for Republicans seems a lot more stark: Delaware, Nevada and Colorado in 2010 ; Missouri, Indiana, and North Dakota in 2012; New Hampshire in 2016; Alabama in 2017; West Virginia, Montana and Ohio in 2018; and Georgia and Arizona in 2020.

Some of these are nitpicking, like one could argue Bill Nelson, Kelly Ayotte, Martha McSally and Kelly Loeffler don’t belong on here, but I would say they do.

I suppose it depends on how one defines “winnable”, but I’d certainly argue that IL-SEN 2010, as well as possibly PA-SEN 2010, NC-SEN 2014, PA-SEN 2016, WI-SEN 2016, and ME-SEN 2020 were all winnable for Democrats if they had played their cards better. Possibly a few more.

I agree that IL 2010 should be on the list.  But the others weren’t really “squandered”.  It’s not like the Dems nominated unserious or crazy extremist candidates, or got caught in some major scandal.  E.g. I seem to recall Hagan ran a pretty good campaign in 2014, it just was just never going to get her over the top in that national environment.

Technically everything on the list was winnable had Dems played their cards near perfectly, but that's impossible to do for every single race of every cycle. On the contrary for instance, i could name a handful of recent Senate races Republicans could've won had they played their cards better but given poltiical dynamics they didn't end up playing their cards perfectly.

[coloradocowboi]

In a post Roe environment:

- WA Senate is off the table (it probably always was), and so is CT Senate after nominating Ms. Crazy last night.
- CO Senate is also off the table. I know Joe O'Dea is "pro-choice" but so was Cory Gardner and CO voters aren't stupid enough to fall for that again.
- NH Senate Lean-->Likely D.
- Theoretically, FL Senate Likely --> Lean R but rly it just means both Desantis and Rubio's margins will be much slimmer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio win ~51-47 and Desantis by even less.
- Row offices and state legislatures will be very aggressively contested in AZ, MI, and PA, and Dems will have an advantage in tight races bc Republicans went and nominated crazies
- Less people will be willing to vote third party in MN, benefiting democrats
-A handful of theoretically possible House races become impossible for the GOP - RI1, VA10, CO7... there is no way Aadland can win, even with that internal they released last week, when about 2/3 of the district is pro choice and he is for strict abortion bans. One ad on the topic will decimate him with older white ladies and he'll never recover. All of the Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico races... I even think Chabot and Schweikert are more imperiled by this. All it takes is a small sh**t on the margins forr some of these seats to come into play. Jay Chen and Christy Smith, previously goners, now have a chance again.
- Democrats likelihood of holding NC supreme court goes way up! Same with KS and other contested courts. Even retention races, e.g. FL's could get really spicy.

[libertpaulian]

In a post Roe environment:

- WA Senate is off the table (it probably always was), and so is CT Senate after nominating Ms. Crazy last night.
- CO Senate is also off the table. I know Joe O'Dea is "pro-choice" but so was Cory Gardner and CO voters aren't stupid enough to fall for that again.
- NH Senate Lean-->Likely D.
- Theoretically, FL Senate Likely --> Lean R but rly it just means both Desantis and Rubio's margins will be much slimmer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio win ~51-47 and Desantis by even less.
- Row offices and state legislatures will be very aggressively contested in AZ, MI, and PA, and Dems will have an advantage in tight races bc Republicans went and nominated crazies
- Less people will be willing to vote third party in MN, benefiting democrats
-A handful of theoretically possible House races become impossible for the GOP - RI1, VA10, CO7... there is no way Aadland can win, even with that internal they released last week, when about 2/3 of the district is pro choice and he is for strict abortion bans. One ad on the topic will decimate him with older white ladies and he'll never recover. All of the Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico races... I even think Chabot and Schweikert are more imperiled by this. All it takes is a small sh**t on the margins forr some of these seats to come into play. Jay Chen and Christy Smith, previously goners, now have a chance again.
- Democrats likelihood of holding NC supreme court goes way up! Same with KS and other contested courts. Even retention races, e.g. FL's could get really spicy.

Here in IN-01, Mrvan likely holds on too.

[coloradocowboi]

In a post Roe environment:

- WA Senate is off the table (it probably always was), and so is CT Senate after nominating Ms. Crazy last night.
- CO Senate is also off the table. I know Joe O'Dea is "pro-choice" but so was Cory Gardner and CO voters aren't stupid enough to fall for that again.
- NH Senate Lean-->Likely D.
- Theoretically, FL Senate Likely --> Lean R but rly it just means both Desantis and Rubio's margins will be much slimmer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio win ~51-47 and Desantis by even less.
- Row offices and state legislatures will be very aggressively contested in AZ, MI, and PA, and Dems will have an advantage in tight races bc Republicans went and nominated crazies
- Less people will be willing to vote third party in MN, benefiting democrats
-A handful of theoretically possible House races become impossible for the GOP - RI1, VA10, CO7... there is no way Aadland can win, even with that internal they released last week, when about 2/3 of the district is pro choice and he is for strict abortion bans. One ad on the topic will decimate him with older white ladies and he'll never recover. All of the Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico races... I even think Chabot and Schweikert are more imperiled by this. All it takes is a small sh**t on the margins forr some of these seats to come into play. Jay Chen and Christy Smith, previously goners, now have a chance again.
- Democrats likelihood of holding NC supreme court goes way up! Same with KS and other contested courts. Even retention races, e.g. FL's could get really spicy.

Here in IN-01, Mrvan likely holds on too.

For sure. The Midwest is gonna be a tough spot for Republicans. Probably dooms Esther Joy King.

Where I'm not sure it will have much of an effect is Wisconsin. It is such a polarized place, I have no idea if Roe helps anyone and who it would be

[Tekken_Guy]

In a post Roe environment:

- WA Senate is off the table (it probably always was), and so is CT Senate after nominating Ms. Crazy last night.
- CO Senate is also off the table. I know Joe O'Dea is "pro-choice" but so was Cory Gardner and CO voters aren't stupid enough to fall for that again.
- NH Senate Lean-->Likely D.
- Theoretically, FL Senate Likely --> Lean R but rly it just means both Desantis and Rubio's margins will be much slimmer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio win ~51-47 and Desantis by even less.
- Row offices and state legislatures will be very aggressively contested in AZ, MI, and PA, and Dems will have an advantage in tight races bc Republicans went and nominated crazies
- Less people will be willing to vote third party in MN, benefiting democrats
-A handful of theoretically possible House races become impossible for the GOP - RI1, VA10, CO7... there is no way Aadland can win, even with that internal they released last week, when about 2/3 of the district is pro choice and he is for strict abortion bans. One ad on the topic will decimate him with older white ladies and he'll never recover. All of the Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico races... I even think Chabot and Schweikert are more imperiled by this. All it takes is a small sh**t on the margins forr some of these seats to come into play. Jay Chen and Christy Smith, previously goners, now have a chance again.
- Democrats likelihood of holding NC supreme court goes way up! Same with KS and other contested courts. Even retention races, e.g. FL's could get really spicy.

Here in IN-01, Mrvan likely holds on too.

For sure. The Midwest is gonna be a tough spot for Republicans. Probably dooms Esther Joy King.

Where I'm not sure it will have much of an effect is Wisconsin. It is such a polarized place, I have no idea if Roe helps anyone and who it would be

I think Van Orden will still win WI-03 but it might be closer than expected.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Don't forget SCOTUS GERRYMANDERING this state the Crt rules that the State legislatures is likely to keep it's R majority but Biden still win WI in 2020

[coloradocowboi]

In a post Roe environment:

- WA Senate is off the table (it probably always was), and so is CT Senate after nominating Ms. Crazy last night.
- CO Senate is also off the table. I know Joe O'Dea is "pro-choice" but so was Cory Gardner and CO voters aren't stupid enough to fall for that again.
- NH Senate Lean-->Likely D.
- Theoretically, FL Senate Likely --> Lean R but rly it just means both Desantis and Rubio's margins will be much slimmer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio win ~51-47 and Desantis by even less.
- Row offices and state legislatures will be very aggressively contested in AZ, MI, and PA, and Dems will have an advantage in tight races bc Republicans went and nominated crazies
- Less people will be willing to vote third party in MN, benefiting democrats
-A handful of theoretically possible House races become impossible for the GOP - RI1, VA10, CO7... there is no way Aadland can win, even with that internal they released last week, when about 2/3 of the district is pro choice and he is for strict abortion bans. One ad on the topic will decimate him with older white ladies and he'll never recover. All of the Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico races... I even think Chabot and Schweikert are more imperiled by this. All it takes is a small sh**t on the margins forr some of these seats to come into play. Jay Chen and Christy Smith, previously goners, now have a chance again.
- Democrats likelihood of holding NC supreme court goes way up! Same with KS and other contested courts. Even retention races, e.g. FL's could get really spicy.

Here in IN-01, Mrvan likely holds on too.

For sure. The Midwest is gonna be a tough spot for Republicans. Probably dooms Esther Joy King.

Where I'm not sure it will have much of an effect is Wisconsin. It is such a polarized place, I have no idea if Roe helps anyone and who it would be

I think Van Orden will still win WI-03 but it might be closer than expected.

Barnes is prolly gonna fund a massive turnout and registration operation in the UW system, and many campuses lie in this district. I dk if that will be enough though

[Progressive Pessimist]

In a post Roe environment:

- WA Senate is off the table (it probably always was), and so is CT Senate after nominating Ms. Crazy last night.
- CO Senate is also off the table. I know Joe O'Dea is "pro-choice" but so was Cory Gardner and CO voters aren't stupid enough to fall for that again.
- NH Senate Lean-->Likely D.
- Theoretically, FL Senate Likely --> Lean R but rly it just means both Desantis and Rubio's margins will be much slimmer. I wouldn't be surprised to see Rubio win ~51-47 and Desantis by even less.
- Row offices and state legislatures will be very aggressively contested in AZ, MI, and PA, and Dems will have an advantage in tight races bc Republicans went and nominated crazies
- Less people will be willing to vote third party in MN, benefiting democrats
-A handful of theoretically possible House races become impossible for the GOP - RI1, VA10, CO7... there is no way Aadland can win, even with that internal they released last week, when about 2/3 of the district is pro choice and he is for strict abortion bans. One ad on the topic will decimate him with older white ladies and he'll never recover. All of the Oregon, Nevada, and New Mexico races... I even think Chabot and Schweikert are more imperiled by this. All it takes is a small sh**t on the margins forr some of these seats to come into play. Jay Chen and Christy Smith, previously goners, now have a chance again.
- Democrats likelihood of holding NC supreme court goes way up! Same with KS and other contested courts. Even retention races, e.g. FL's could get really spicy.

I'm feeling much more confident now about this year's elections in general, but I still can't go as far with some these, save for the first three points you made. But I eagerly hope you are correct in your assessments. Circumstances are significantly improving, I just need to see if they hold up with three months left.

Basically, Republicans were in the driver's seat but decided to get drunk first and are now passing out at the wheel. If they don't sober up, Democrats, more or less, can then get us to the destination we want.