Does the 2024 Senate cycle have less discussion than usual?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Compared to this point in 2020 or 2022, it seems like there is far less discussion regarding the 2024 senate cycle than usual, not just on Atlas, but the internet as well.

I find this bizarre because you have Senate races in every swing state besides Georgia, along with a lot of somewhat competitive states like Texas, Florida, Virginia, Minnesota, Maine, etc. And of course the big two in Ohio and Montana. With all that, you would probably expect it to have much more discourse than it usually does. In Jan 2022, the Ohio Senate megathread had double the pages the 2024 one has at this point despite this years actually being the more competitive one.

I'm not saying that there is very little discussion either about the senate races, but compared to what I expected in late 2022 it seems relatively underwhelming.

[SnowLabrador]

I've noticed this too. Especially Nevada - considering it was the closest Senate race in 2022, the fact that Nevada's Senate race has gotten very little discussion just boggles my mind. Even if Biden wins, he's unlikely to get anything major done in his second term.

[MT Treasurer]

I suspect a lot of Democrats, including on Twitter and this forum, are quite familiar with that map and would rather not entertain the potential down-ballot consequences of the Biden collapse currently evident in most GE polling.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

[SnowLabrador]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

It may not be a decisive race for the 2024 cycle, but if the Democrats lose too many seats in November, they could be locked out of the Senate until at least 2030. These races still matter.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

It may not be a decisive race for the 2024 cycle, but if the Democrats lose too many seats in November, they could be locked out of the Senate until at least 2030. These races still matter.

Yeah the Senate is a long-run game for both sides. Losing WI-Sen 2022 for instance puts Dems in a far more difficult position for 2024. However, had a few hundred people voted differently in NH-Sen 2016 Dems wouldn't have won the Senate in 2020.

[SnowLabrador]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

It may not be a decisive race for the 2024 cycle, but if the Democrats lose too many seats in November, they could be locked out of the Senate until at least 2030. These races still matter.

Yeah the Senate is a long-run game for both sides. Losing WI-Sen 2022 for instance puts Dems in a far more difficult position for 2024. However, had a few hundred people voted differently in NH-Sen 2016 Dems wouldn't have won the Senate in 2020.

In the long run I expect Democrats to be locked out of the Senate in the future, just because the small states have so much power and there's a brain drain out of states with abortion bans. That's why polls showing the majority of young voters hating the GOP just demoralize me more, because they are moving to states where their votes won't make a difference.

Of course, I don't fault any individual for doing what's best for them.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

It may not be a decisive race for the 2024 cycle, but if the Democrats lose too many seats in November, they could be locked out of the Senate until at least 2030. These races still matter.

Yeah the Senate is a long-run game for both sides. Losing WI-Sen 2022 for instance puts Dems in a far more difficult position for 2024. However, had a few hundred people voted differently in NH-Sen 2016 Dems wouldn't have won the Senate in 2020.

In the long run I expect Democrats to be locked out of the Senate in the future, just because the small states have so much power and there's a brain drain out of states with abortion bans. That's why polls showing the majority of young voters hating the GOP just demoralize me more, because they are moving to states where their votes won't make a difference.

Of course, I don't fault any individual for doing what's best for them.

I'm not *too* worried. After 2016 the big fear is that it seemed like a lot of smaller New England states would go R long term like NH, ME, RI, DE, ect. However, in recent years, this seems unlikely to happen (some of these states seem to be getting bluer). I think states like AK and KS eventually being winnable for Dems at the Senate level could be really powerful.

In 2024, it'll be interesting to see how the median state votes relative to the nation. In 2020, it was about 5 points to the right (the median states were GA and NC with Trump and Biden winning 25 states each).

There def is a current R bias though which is really frustrating.

[smoltchanov]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

It so happened, that 2024 Senate cycle is very one-sided: Democrats play defence in lot of states and offence - almost nowhere (Texas may be lone exception, but even there Republicans are generally favored). Almost nothing to discuss. In addition - this forum is, generally, somewhat liberal- and Democratic- leaning, and there is very few to cheer for these people in this year Senate election... So - rather subdued reaction...

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

It so happened, that 2024 Senate cycle is very one-sided: Democrats play defence in lot of states and offence - almost nowhere (Texas may be lone exception, but even there Republicans are generally favored). Almost nothing to discuss. In addition - this forum is, generally, somewhat liberal- and Democratic- leaning, and there is very few to cheer for these people in this year Senate election... So - rather subdued reaction...

Well the 2020 cycle was also one sided with Rs playing defense in every competitive state sans Michigan. (Alabama was basically a fluke and considered safe R) However, that cycle still had far more interest and discussion compared to 2024. One theory I have, is in 2020 many people wrote off the Presidential race and didn't find it competitive so the senate races had much more people interested in them. Whereas in 2024, the general election is basically a dead heat so all the attention is focused on that.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think it's probably due to the fact the outcome of the Senate feels pre-determined - it'll flip R barring an amazing night for Ds nationally. Seats like NV which may technically be competitive don't get a lot of attention because it's very unlikely to be the tipping point seat - NV is basically a must-win for Dems.

It so happened, that 2024 Senate cycle is very one-sided: Democrats play defence in lot of states and offence - almost nowhere (Texas may be lone exception, but even there Republicans are generally favored). Almost nothing to discuss. In addition - this forum is, generally, somewhat liberal- and Democratic- leaning, and there is very few to cheer for these people in this year Senate election... So - rather subdued reaction...

Well the 2020 cycle was also one sided with Rs playing defense in every competitive state sans Michigan. (Alabama was basically a fluke and considered safe R) However, that cycle still had far more interest and discussion compared to 2024. One theory I have, is in 2020 many people wrote off the Presidential race and didn't find it competitive so the senate races had much more people interested in them. Whereas in 2024, the general election is basically a dead heat so all the attention is focused on that.

Yeah i remember this too. The funny part was in the end, the tipping points in the EC, US House, and US Senate all voted nearly identically with Dems narrowly winning all 3.

Another factor could be that this cycle, the US House is actually seen as competitive whereas in 2020, it was seen as safe D. The competitive House races and redistricting battles might suck some Oxygen that would otherwise go to the Senate races.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes because of the Prez race obviously Rs are underperforming their usual pick-up because Brown and Tester aren't as vulnerable as they thought

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

The only races that are really competitive are Montana and Ohio, and those are really dependent on the GOP nom. There’s not really any democratic pick up opportunities outside of a long shot in Texas. Wisconsin and Michigan could’ve been competitive, but in both the GOP are only able to recruit B tier candidates (generously) against a tier democratic candidates.

There’s just not much to say at this point.

[Tekken_Guy]

I think the senate has been kind of written off already by Democrats. Democrats need to win all three of Montana, Ohio, and the presidency in order to hold the Senate.

Also in the senate races in narrow Biden states (AZ/MI/NV/PA/WI) the consensus is that senate Republicans will have a tougher time winning them than Trump will.

So not a lot of interesting action in the senate level.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I think the senate has been kind of written off already by Democrats. Democrats need to win all three of Montana, Ohio, and the presidency in order to hold the Senate.

Also in the senate races in narrow Biden states (AZ/MI/NV/PA/WI) the consensus is that senate Republicans will have a tougher time winning them than Trump will.

So not a lot of interesting action in the senate level.

Lol Brown Tester, Gallego are leading in Emerson by 3 pts and NEB Osbourne is tied with Fischer and ALLRED is down 2, and Kunce is within 5, it has not been written off except FL and IA, WV, Act blue want us to donate to mostly male S candidate but in the H it's a different story, we donate to women and men. That's why Schiff and Trone are ahead and Also Brook and Porter are loosing

[ProgressiveModerate]

The only races that are really competitive are Montana and Ohio, and those are really dependent on the GOP nom. There’s not really any democratic pick up opportunities outside of a long shot in Texas. Wisconsin and Michigan could’ve been competitive, but in both the GOP are only able to recruit B tier candidates (generously) against a tier democratic candidates.

There’s just not much to say at this point.

Eh that's a bit premature. I'd say Dems are currently favored in all of AZ, NV, MI, WI, and PA but none are locks; in states like NV and AZ there are too many unknowns to really say much at this point; the right circumstnaces could make them genuine tossups or Lean R.

Also as for MT, I think Tester is currently an underdog. A huge reason he won in 2018 was because of disproportionately strong Dem turnout that is unlikely for 2024. He def overperforms but imo partisanship probably wins out. Lean R.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

The only races that are really competitive are Montana and Ohio, and those are really dependent on the GOP nom. There’s not really any democratic pick up opportunities outside of a long shot in Texas. Wisconsin and Michigan could’ve been competitive, but in both the GOP are only able to recruit B tier candidates (generously) against a tier democratic candidates.

There’s just not much to say at this point.

Eh that's a bit premature. I'd say Dems are currently favored in all of AZ, NV, MI, WI, and PA but none are locks; in states like NV and AZ there are too many unknowns to really say much at this point; the right circumstnaces could make them genuine tossups or Lean R.

Also as for MT, I think Tester is currently an underdog. A huge reason he won in 2018 was because of disproportionately strong Dem turnout that is unlikely for 2024. He def overperforms but imo partisanship probably wins out. Lean R.

The issue with AZ, NV, MI, WI, and PA depends on who the republicans nominate, which I as a democrat have very little influence of care over especially, as I said, most of the “recruits” are unknown self funding businessmen or right wing nut jobs. Not exactly leaders who inspire.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only races that are really competitive are Montana and Ohio, and those are really dependent on the GOP nom. There’s not really any democratic pick up opportunities outside of a long shot in Texas. Wisconsin and Michigan could’ve been competitive, but in both the GOP are only able to recruit B tier candidates (generously) against a tier democratic candidates.

There’s just not much to say at this point.

Eh that's a bit premature. I'd say Dems are currently favored in all of AZ, NV, MI, WI, and PA but none are locks; in states like NV and AZ there are too many unknowns to really say much at this point; the right circumstnaces could make them genuine tossups or Lean R.

Also as for MT, I think Tester is currently an underdog. A huge reason he won in 2018 was because of disproportionately strong Dem turnout that is unlikely for 2024. He def overperforms but imo partisanship probably wins out. Lean R.

Yeah underdog and he is leading by 3 in an Emerson poll he won in 2o12 in a Prez yr as well, where are the polls showing Brown and Tester losing there aren't none

I grow tired of preemptively saying the S is gone for Ds and all the rating have Rs would win WV ONLY

[Vosem]

I suspect a lot of Democrats, including on Twitter and this forum, are quite familiar with that map and would rather not entertain the potential down-ballot consequences of the Biden collapse currently evident in most GE polling.

Even besides this, it feels like an unusually uninteresting Senate primary cycle. With Trump's cooperation, Daines has basically been able to coronate Republican nominees in most competitive Senate races, and the majority of these individuals are boring self-funders. (Yes, this has included ceding two nominations to kind of questionable candidates -- Lake and Moreno -- but that still doesn't make the primaries interesting. No, Mooney, Rosendale, and Marchant don't have real shots, and you're kidding yourself if you think they do.) People just don't have very many interesting things to say about Dave McCormick or Sam Brown or Mike Rogers.

On the Democratic side, too, where are the competitive primaries? California and Maryland, I guess, but neither are that interesting, and the narrative of relatively old white men (Schiff and Trone) being likely to beat younger progressive opponents (Porter and Alsobrooks) through the strength of fundraising just isn't something people like to talk about.

The only races that are really competitive are Montana and Ohio, and those are really dependent on the GOP nom. There’s not really any democratic pick up opportunities outside of a long shot in Texas. Wisconsin and Michigan could’ve been competitive, but in both the GOP are only able to recruit B tier candidates (generously) against a tier democratic candidates.

There’s just not much to say at this point.

Eh that's a bit premature. I'd say Dems are currently favored in all of AZ, NV, MI, WI, and PA but none are locks; in states like NV and AZ there are too many unknowns to really say much at this point; the right circumstnaces could make them genuine tossups or Lean R.

Also as for MT, I think Tester is currently an underdog. A huge reason he won in 2018 was because of disproportionately strong Dem turnout that is unlikely for 2024. He def overperforms but imo partisanship probably wins out. Lean R.

The issue with AZ, NV, MI, WI, and PA depends on who the republicans nominate, which I as a democrat have very little influence of care over especially, as I said, most of the “recruits” are unknown self funding businessmen or right wing nut jobs. Not exactly leaders who inspire.

It depends significantly more on the national environment -- it would be stunning if the candidates weren't Kari Lake, Sam Brown, Mike Rogers, Eric Hovde, and Dave McCormick. But apart from Lake none of these are really easy to demonize, and the thing with several of them (Brown, Rogers, and McCormick) is that they're veterans with a background which is -- if not "neoconservative" -- then at least tilts interventionist, and so they're not really very beloved by the ultra-Trump movement either.

[S019]

Republicans also have at least matched Trump's lead in generic ballot polls and often have exceeded it. They are not going to run far enough behind Trump to lose the Senate even if the election tightens significantly.

[2016]

Republicans also have at least matched Trump's lead in generic ballot polls and often have exceeded it. They are not going to run far enough behind Trump to lose the Senate even if the election tightens significantly.

Republicans have a structural Advantage this year when it comes to Senate Races. All what they have to do is hold FL, TX, TN and MO and knock off either Tester in MT or Brown in OH.

[Tekken_Guy]

Republicans also have at least matched Trump's lead in generic ballot polls and often have exceeded it. They are not going to run far enough behind Trump to lose the Senate even if the election tightens significantly.

Republicans have a structural Advantage this year when it comes to Senate Races. All what they have to do is hold FL, TX, TN and MO and knock off either Tester in MT or Brown in OH.

Trump+WV alone gets them the senate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Republicans also have at least matched Trump's lead in generic ballot polls and often have exceeded it. They are not going to run far enough behind Trump to lose the Senate even if the election tightens significantly.

Republicans have a structural Advantage this year when it comes to Senate Races. All what they have to do is hold FL, TX, TN and MO and knock off either Tester in MT or Brown in OH.

Trump+WV alone gets them the senate.

Trump isn't gonna win

[Progressive Pessimist]

It will ramp up when the primaries are settled.