Reminder: Republicans can still feasibly get 57 Senate Seats in 2024

[ProgressiveModerate]

Def not the most likely outcome by any means, but it's def not impossible either, especially given how much can change between now and 2024. Post-2022, some people seem completely oblivious to the fact that Republicans could build up a pretty big Senate majority in 2024. And it would be a pretty big problem for Dems since the seats just aren't there on the 2026 and 2028 Senate maps to claw back at that deep of a minority barring extraordinary circumstances.

The median outcome though is prolly about 53R-47D knowing what we know now, and Ds could feasibly get the Senate back by 2028 in that case.

The general consensus is that the institutional bias of the Senate against Dems isn't as big as some had thought it could become post-2016, and while I generally agree, it still only takes one mildly bad year to put Dems in a pretty deep hole.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Why would the median outcome be 53 R?  IMO, Dems are favored in all of their own seats except WV and maybe OH.

[Frodo]

I like your strategy -set expectations low, and prepare to be pleasantly surprised if we actually hold the Senate next year against all odds.  Just like last year... 

[ProgressiveModerate]

Why would the median outcome be 53 R?  IMO, Dems are favored in all of their own seats except WV and maybe OH.

I'm assuming Ds lose WV, MT, and OH due to partisanship along with one other seat given how much they have to defend and the uncertainties around AZ.

Ds can win MT and OH, but it'd require a very solid performance by the top of the ticket and honestly, some luck of Rs screwing up.

[Vosem]

Why would the median outcome be 53 R?  IMO, Dems are favored in all of their own seats except WV and maybe OH.

There is absolutely no way Democrats are not strongly disfavored in WV/MT under presidential conditions (no state saw a high enough rate of vote-splitting in 2016 or 2020 to reelect Manchin or Tester), and they are probably disfavored in OH (only 4-5 had enough for this to happen in 2016/2020, though Brown is a popular incumbent) and AZ (an open seat in a state that looks pinkish based on 2020/2022). I might even say the median outcome would be 54 because Republicans have so many targets beyond these seats that at least one flips, but 53 seems perfectly reasonable; if Democrats do better than that they're having a very good year.

(OTOH, in 2022 I generally overestimated the extent to which Senate results would follow presidential ones, but in my defense they did in 2016/2020 much more than in 2022/2018, and presidential elections bring out a substantially different electorate).

[ProgressiveModerate]

I like your strategy -set expectations low, and prepare to be pleasantly surprised if we actually hold the Senate next year against all odds.  Just like last year... 

Actually, I'm one of the people who get upset at the people on this forum who intentionally do that. I was def wrong about 2022, but I genuinely expected it to be a worse year for Dems than it was, though one could argue maybe subconsciously I was expectation setting. In the end, I was still a lot more favorable to Ds than many on this forum, believing till election day things like Fetterman was favored and Boebert could be in trouble.

This is not the outcome I'd expect by any means, I'm just saying it's a plausible outcome.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

[The Mikado]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

[Vosem]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

Easiest way to posit that would be something terrible happening to Ron Johnson and Susan Collins. (Unlikely, but, well, Democrats got pretty lucky with the special elections they got to contest in the 2020 cycle, so this sort of thing does happen).

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

[UncleSam]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

It’s hard to put Baldwin losing in a Biden +0 state on the same level as I.e. Hawley losing in Trump+15 Missouri. There’s no way the two situations are even remotely comparable.

Yes R 57-43 is ridiculously unlikely, but I think relative unlikelihood should be taken into account. 57-43 R is way more likely than even 54 D, much less 55.

[Unelectable Bystander]

I view this as pretty unlikely and something that would require a national route to knock off that many incumbents on the same night. I view 55 or 56 as possible if it’s a strong night nationally. I’d still argue that this scenario is the same order of likelihood as D’s holding the senate. One requires R’s running the table on battleground states. The other requires D’s winning 4 out of 5 in legitimate red states.

[Mr.Phips]

Likely requires Republicans not only to win the White House, but also win the popular vote.

[Tekken_Guy]

I view this as pretty unlikely and something that would require a national route to knock off that many incumbents on the same night. I view 55 or 56 as possible if it’s a strong night nationally. I’d still argue that this scenario is the same order of likelihood as D’s holding the senate. One requires R’s running the table on battleground states. The other requires D’s winning 4 out of 5 in legitimate red states.

Democrats only need two of FL/MT/OH/TX/WV to hold the Senate. 3 if the presidency flips.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump is losing 49/40 this map isn't happening lol Progressive Moderate his R nut map was wrong like the Compiled map in 22

Laxalt isn't even running for Sen anyways

[ProgressiveModerate]

I view this as pretty unlikely and something that would require a national route to knock off that many incumbents on the same night. I view 55 or 56 as possible if it’s a strong night nationally. I’d still argue that this scenario is the same order of likelihood as D’s holding the senate. One requires R’s running the table on battleground states. The other requires D’s winning 4 out of 5 in legitimate red states.

Democrats only need two of FL/MT/OH/TX/WV to hold the Senate. 3 if the presidency flips.

Easier said than done. 2 of those states voted for Trump by over 10 points, Texas is super expensive, Ohio doenst exists, and Florida is cursed for Dems

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I view this as pretty unlikely and something that would require a national route to knock off that many incumbents on the same night. I view 55 or 56 as possible if it’s a strong night nationally. I’d still argue that this scenario is the same order of likelihood as D’s holding the senate. One requires R’s running the table on battleground states. The other requires D’s winning 4 out of 5 in legitimate red states.

Democrats only need two of FL/MT/OH/TX/WV to hold the Senate. 3 if the presidency flips.

Don't you see the MS poll we are within 4 because Brad Presley is cuz of Elvis Presley so can Ty PICKINS

We're not winning FL or TX we are targeting MS and MO

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I view this as pretty unlikely and something that would require a national route to knock off that many incumbents on the same night. I view 55 or 56 as possible if it’s a strong night nationally. I’d still argue that this scenario is the same order of likelihood as D’s holding the senate. One requires R’s running the table on battleground states. The other requires D’s winning 4 out of 5 in legitimate red states.

Democrats only need two of FL/MT/OH/TX/WV to hold the Senate. 3 if the presidency flips.

Easier said than done. 2 of those states voted for Trump by over 10 points, Texas is super expensive, Ohio doenst exists, and Florida is cursed for Dems

It doesn't matter how much Trump won the state by Brad Presley is 4 of Gov Reeves and Andy Beshear can win when are people gonna know that's it's called upsets

The RS won the H PVI and we won the natl PVI that's why your R nut map and the compiled map was wrong same for S019

[Sir Mohamed]

MI, WI and PA are unlikely to flip, imho, especially MI and PA.

I think the median scenario is 51 or 52, with WV going red for certain and at least one of MT and OH also flipping R. AZ is a total wildcard, especially if Sinema launches a reelection campaign.

Tbh, I don't think Dems will pick up a seat, even with Biden winning reelection. FL isn't going to happen and TX is a longshot as well. Even with Cruz. Very much possible the senate flips R and the House D while Biden gets a 2nd term. If Trump or DeSantis win the presidential election, there's going to be a R trifecta with 53-54 senate seats.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

It’s hard to put Baldwin losing in a Biden +0 state on the same level as I.e. Hawley losing in Trump+15 Missouri. There’s no way the two situations are even remotely comparable.

Yes R 57-43 is ridiculously unlikely, but I think relative unlikelihood should be taken into account. 57-43 R is way more likely than even 54 D, much less 55.

We are two years out and I could be wrong, but in my mind there roughly equal. 57 R is more likely to be then 54 D. But 53 D is far more likely (in my two year out opinion) then 57 R

[Unelectable Bystander]

I view this as pretty unlikely and something that would require a national route to knock off that many incumbents on the same night. I view 55 or 56 as possible if it’s a strong night nationally. I’d still argue that this scenario is the same order of likelihood as D’s holding the senate. One requires R’s running the table on battleground states. The other requires D’s winning 4 out of 5 in legitimate red states.

Democrats only need two of FL/MT/OH/TX/WV to hold the Senate. 3 if the presidency flips.

You are right, my math is wrong. It’s R’s that need 4 out of 5 in those states to win the senate (assume there’s no way they win the White House without winning 4 of those at the senate level). The point is the same however. All 5 of those states have, at the very least, voted statewide for a republican by double digits in at least one of the last two cycles.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

D's will get 53 seats net MO and MS before RS get to 57 that's for sure

[UncleSam]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

It’s hard to put Baldwin losing in a Biden +0 state on the same level as I.e. Hawley losing in Trump+15 Missouri. There’s no way the two situations are even remotely comparable.

Yes R 57-43 is ridiculously unlikely, but I think relative unlikelihood should be taken into account. 57-43 R is way more likely than even 54 D, much less 55.

We are two years out and I could be wrong, but in my mind there roughly equal. 57 R is more likely to be then 54 D. But 53 D is far more likely (in my two year out opinion) then 57 R

I’d say 57 R and 53 D are roughly equally likely as ‘reasonable best-case scenario’ outcomes for each party, but that’s definitely fair. Two years is a long time and who knows, maybe Susan Collins and Ron Johnson both resign and Trump loses by 15 in the GE. A lot can happen, but as of now assuming a fairly ‘normal’ cycle I think they’re both in a similar boat, with 53D being the more likely of the two because the 57 R scenario requires a larger number of races to go one way.

[JM1295]

I mean sure, but this is a much better position than they were coming into the 2022 midterms. With many expecting a red wave in November, a supermajority for 2024 wasn't out of question. Democrats managing to expand their majority in 2022 was so important for this reason alone. GOP would have to be having a great night to have a net gain of 8 seats.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

It is feasible just as it’s feasible just as democrats winning 54/55. Are either going to happen? Very very unlikely.

You could've said "Ds winning 53" and it'd be comparable, and even that would require Dems holding every single seat (LOL West Virginia) and picking up TX and FL. And yeah, that result would be about as weird or arguably slightly weirder than the 57-43 R result OP posted.

But you went to 55 seats? That'd require Dems picking up...Missouri? Indiana? Dems lost both in the very good environment of 2018.

I’ll admit 55 was bullish, but in my mind 54 d is just as equal at 57 R. Dems win all the expected seats and then some fluke like Baldwin or Toomey loosing would be a fluke.

It’s hard to put Baldwin losing in a Biden +0 state on the same level as I.e. Hawley losing in Trump+15 Missouri. There’s no way the two situations are even remotely comparable.

Yes R 57-43 is ridiculously unlikely, but I think relative unlikelihood should be taken into account. 57-43 R is way more likely than even 54 D, much less 55.

We are two years out and I could be wrong, but in my mind there roughly equal. 57 R is more likely to be then 54 D. But 53 D is far more likely (in my two year out opinion) then 57 R

I’d say 57 R and 53 D are roughly equally likely as ‘reasonable best-case scenario’ outcomes for each party, but that’s definitely fair. Two years is a long time and who knows, maybe Susan Collins and Ron Johnson both resign and Trump loses by 15 in the GE. A lot can happen, but as of now assuming a fairly ‘normal’ cycle I think they’re both in a similar boat, with 53D being the more likely of the two because the 57 R scenario requires a larger number of races to go one way.

My thinking is to get to 57 republicans have to dislodge Baldwin and Casey. Both have strong brands in the state, and are generally popular and can outrun their party. Baldwin won in 2018 with 150,000 more votes then Evers. Also this probably means nothing but the Culver’s family did donate to her in 2018, and no other democrats (iirc). Casey’s situation I’m not as familiar with, but I know he has deep roots in the state. Maybe the could knock one out, but knocking both out would be incredulous at this point.