Which Senate seats should Dems seriously contest?

[ProgressiveModerate]

NC and ME seem pretty obvious, but beyond those. All their other opportunities are in states Trump won by double-digits such that they may be far out there of reaches.

This is what I think:

AK - Yes. Alaska is a state with unique politics that has shown abilities to ticket split and for moderate candidates to develop winning coalitions, especially with RCV. It's also not a very large state, so it's wouldn't be that large of a money sink given the potential upside of a Senate seat. I think the biggest thing would be getting the right candidate who's willing to break from the national Democratic brand. It also seems like the type of seat they'd have a decent chance of holding in 2034 given these unique dynamics and how consistently left Alaska has trended (though that's crazy far out at this point).

TX - Maybe - I think it should only be contested under 2 scenarios. First is if Cornyn doesn't seek re-election and/or loses the primary and someone like Paxton ends up being the R nominee. The second is if Cornyn gets on Trump's bad side such that Cornyn struggles to consolidate Trump's voters. 2024 was definitely a huge blow to the prospects of Blexas in the next decade, but I think it's underdiscussed just how well Allred did in the context of the national environment. Relative to the nation, he put up the best showing of any Dem (including Beto 2018) since maybe 2010 Gov. However, TX would be a huge investment and Dems would have to make a real effort to try and get Dem turnout up in these urban cores - one underrated reason Trump did so well in TX in 2024 is because Dem turnout was terrible in these areas relative to 2018/2020.

IA - Why Not - I wouldn't try to go over the top here but having a strong Dem Seante campaign could be useful - even if we don't win the Senate seat it could help us flip IA-01 and IA-03. Similar to AK, IA wouldn't be a huge money sink, and being competitive would really require the right type of Dem.

KS - Probably not. Only if there's a Laura Kelly tier candidate and/or the national environment looks amazing.

SC/MS - No. They could be somewhat close, but the states are just too polarized that even in a Dem friendly national environment they would be a very heavy lift.

Outside these, I don't think there's any they should seriously contest barring extreme circumstances.

[Figueira]

Aside from the obvious two: Ohio, Florida, Texas, Alaska, Kansas, Iowa. These states were the narrowest non-swing state Trump wins in 2024, and Democrats need to figure out where the map can be expanded in the coming decades.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Aside from the obvious two: Ohio, Florida, Texas, Alaska, Kansas, Iowa. These states were the narrowest non-swing state Trump wins in 2024, and Democrats need to figure out where the map can be expanded in the coming decades.

That's a fair point - trying in all of them under a (presumably) more favorable national environment may help them get a sense of which could be realistic targets in the future and which are just out of reach.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Iowa and Texas if Paxton or some lunatic is the nominee. I don't buy that higher turnout benefits democrats among any group other than african americans.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Iowa and Texas if Paxton or some lunatic is the nominee. I don't buy that higher turnout benefits democrats among any group other than african americans.

High turnout amongst Democrats benefits Democrats.

Once again, I still don't believe high/low turnout is something that inherently favors either side because it depends on who's driving that turnout. Theoretically having a low turnout election because Dems sit out or high turnout election where Dems bring out left-leaning lower propensity voters are both theoretically possible, just maybe less likely than before.

[Del Tachi]

NC, ME, AK (w/ Peltola), and the FL/OH specials. They need to 1 pickup to be back on track for a majority in 2029.

[Spectator]

NC—Cooper makes this Lean/Likely D in terms of probability I think.
ME—Golden, by far the strongest. Mills as a backup.
KS—Laura Kelly. Have her promise to serve one term.
IA—Rob Sand either here or Governor and get an outsider for the other race.
AK—I wouldn’t waste Peltola here on a likely loss when her path to the Governor’s office would be much simpler, but it wouldn’t be a bad idea to run like a Forrest Dunbar or someone as a backup/help get out the D vote to get Peltola over the line in the gubernatorial race.
OH—Ryan I guess, idk.
TX—idk who they would even run. Doubt Allred would want to again. Maybe only if sh**t really hits the fan and if GOP nominates Paxton or something.

[Talleyrand]

Roland Guiterrez could be a good "insurance" candidate in Texas.

[Compuzled_One]

NC and Maine 100%. Outside those two...

Ohio-Brown, Ryan, Kaptur (if those two are unavailable), or some other economically populist Dem should be able to make this a contest.

Iowa-Ernst is weak, and the Dems have both Rob Sand and maybe Franken assuming he isn't to stained by his loss.

Texas-If Cornyn goes down, the Dems should be able to contest this with basically any candidate who's either fiscally or socially conservative-the first should allow them to contest the suburbs, and the second the RGV. The Dems should likely just thrown in the towel completely if Cornyn looks set to be nominated-unless Cuellar beats the allegations.

Florida-This can still be competative. That being said, for the best shot, the Dems would likely need someone like Scoop Jackson-that being a rabid anti-China, anti-Venezuela hawk.

Nebraska-This can be contested by not contesting it. That being said, the Dems should only to this if Dan Osborn comes back, and unlike this time he shouldn't be on ActBlue or let his PACs sent out sh**tty messages (these two are basically the only mistakes he made). This'll still be tough, but he can do it.

Alaska-Mary Peltola is the clear choice, but as with Nebraska, the Dems could just run paper candidates and hope some aligned independent (like Galvin, who also did well against an established incumbent) gets ahead.

Kansas-Kelly is likely the only candidate who can make it a contest at this point, so deploying her is likely the best option. Assuming that fails, throwing the towel to Greg Orman might be the only thing to possibly make it close.

Montana-I'd say there could still be Tester-esque candidates who could make it a contest. The guy might be conscripted himself, who knows.

Louisiana-John Bel Edwards could make it a genuine contest, especially if the GOP nominates a nutjob.

Mississippi-The current incumbent seems insanely weak, and I'd say there's enough Blue Dogs like Pressley, Hood, and likely more in the state to make it a contest.

That should be about it-with how much it was won by, I don't think even Beshear can contest Kentucky, especially with how he's basically an orthodox Dem on anything but guns.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Honestly, as many as possible.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

Honestly, as many as possible.

This. Money is not an issue for them, and now is the time for Democrats to cast a wide net.

[MarkD]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

[ProgressiveModerate]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

Fair point - I think it largely depends on what the national environment is looking like. Most seem to be assuming at least a modestly D-leaning environment where those seats (especially NH) would probably be fine, but there's also the scenario where the Trump administration remains relatively popular, Rs are successful at getting their voters to turn out, perhaps Dems having a bit of an identity crisis depresses turnout on their side, and the environment is more R-friendly).

I would just warn people this far out not to be so confident in any specific outcome or national environment - there have been so many times where these early priors don't come to fruition. Like 2022 was never the bloodbath for Democrats many expected, and then Democrats failed to flip back the US House this cycle, something which most assumed would happen by default post-2022.

[henster]

IA seems like it would especially sensitive to Trump's tariffs and mass deportation wreaking havoc with the farm economy. And with the craziness coming from RFK over the food industry I think it would be perfect sleeper race if the bottom falls out for Trump.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

The premise of the thread makes it pretty clear that it’s talking about where Democrats play offense. While Democrats should spend somewhat in GA/MI early on, it would have to be an abnormally good midterm for Republicans for either of them to flip, barring a sharp Republican trend in one of the states. NH, on the other hand, is not at all a realistic pick-up, even in a neutral environment.

Democrats losing Senate seats and failing to pick up the House in a Trump midterm in which the economy is probably not going to be as good as it was in 2018, while not an impossible outcome, would be a historical blunder, far worse than 2016 or 2022 for Republicans.

[Spectator]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

The premise of the thread makes it pretty clear that it’s talking about where Democrats play offense. While Democrats should spend somewhat in GA/MI early on, it would have to be an abnormally good midterm for Republicans for either of them to flip, barring a sharp Republican trend in one of the states. NH, on the other hand, is not at all a realistic pick-up, even in a neutral environment.

Democrats losing Senate seats and failing to pick up the House in a Trump midterm in which the economy is probably not going to be as good as it was in 2018, while not an impossible outcome, would be a historical blunder, far worse than 2016 or 2022 for Republicans.

Yeah, the only Democratic seat that is vulnerable in any serious sense is Georgia. I don't think Michigan is in any serious danger, but could be wrong. New Hampshire is definitely not, even if Shaheen retires.

[Tekken_Guy]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

The premise of the thread makes it pretty clear that it’s talking about where Democrats play offense. While Democrats should spend somewhat in GA/MI early on, it would have to be an abnormally good midterm for Republicans for either of them to flip, barring a sharp Republican trend in one of the states. NH, on the other hand, is not at all a realistic pick-up, even in a neutral environment.

Democrats losing Senate seats and failing to pick up the House in a Trump midterm in which the economy is probably not going to be as good as it was in 2018, while not an impossible outcome, would be a historical blunder, far worse than 2016 or 2022 for Republicans.

Yeah, the only Democratic seat that is vulnerable in any serious sense is Georgia. I don't think Michigan is in any serious danger, but could be wrong. New Hampshire is definitely not, even if Shaheen retires.

I think GA’s only in danger if Kemp runs. If he doesn’t I don’t see any way Ossoff loses. Even then Kemp needs a good national evironment if he wants to beat Ossoff.

[Compuzled_One]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

Fair point - I think it largely depends on what the national environment is looking like. Most seem to be assuming at least a modestly D-leaning environment where those seats (especially NH) would probably be fine, but there's also the scenario where the Trump administration remains relatively popular, Rs are successful at getting their voters to turn out, perhaps Dems having a bit of an identity crisis depresses turnout on their side, and the environment is more R-friendly).

I would just warn people this far out not to be so confident in any specific outcome or national environment - there have been so many times where these early priors don't come to fruition. Like 2022 was never the bloodbath for Democrats many expected, and then Democrats failed to flip back the US House this cycle, something which most assumed would happen by default post-2022.

Shaheen seems well liked, so I think she holds on in NH. Assuming she doesn't, Trump got the base out, and/or Sununu runs though...that could be an issue.

Still, I'd say the Dems likely need to only worry about Georgia, Michigan, and maybe New Mexico or Minnesota.

I say all this expecting the contest to be D+3 or D+4 as a national baseline.

[Talleyrand]

Which Demicrats could replace Shaheen?

[Tekken_Guy]

Which Demicrats could replace Shaheen?

Pappas is the obvious one.

[Figueira]

Which Demicrats could replace Shaheen?

Pappas is the obvious one.

He might be the best from an electability standpoint, but it's probably possible to get someone at least a little bit to the left of him.

[Rural Radical2]

They should look at some smaller states that are trending Dem.

Iowa, Alaska and Utah.

[coloradocowboi]

Gonna go alphabetically cuz I needed Wikipedia to remember...

Alaska: Given how small and elastic the population is, I just don't see a downside. We need strong recruits for this, governor, and the House race though. The state party needs to work with the unions on this one.

Iowa: This is the hardest of the Great Plains trio actually. There just isn't a good candidate. I would rather see Rob Sand run for governor. Maybe try the labor movement? Given how small Iowa is though, it's worth a try.

Kansas: Run Kelly and see what happens. I know governor retreads don't usually work, but the goal is to bleed their resources dry.

Kentucky: Likewise, worth going after if Beshear can be convinced. I really hope he considers it. I don't think he can get through a presidential primary. Not any more likely than winning here.

Louisiana: Likewise, if JBE can be convinced to run, why not? I don't think we can win here though.

Maine: Run Troy Jackson. This should be an easy one but if anyone can f it up its the Democrats

Nebraska: Don't run a candidate, push Osborn to run.

NC: Please run Cooper. Wiley Nickel is a much riskier bet. Corporate wet blanket and carpetbagger.

Ohio: Sherrod Brown or Tim Ryan

I am very pessimistic about Texas though. I don't think it's worth the exorbitant cost, and Dems seem to do better there without nationalizing the race

[Reactionary Libertarian]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

Fair point - I think it largely depends on what the national environment is looking like. Most seem to be assuming at least a modestly D-leaning environment where those seats (especially NH) would probably be fine, but there's also the scenario where the Trump administration remains relatively popular, Rs are successful at getting their voters to turn out, perhaps Dems having a bit of an identity crisis depresses turnout on their side, and the environment is more R-friendly).

I would just warn people this far out not to be so confident in any specific outcome or national environment - there have been so many times where these early priors don't come to fruition. Like 2022 was never the bloodbath for Democrats many expected, and then Democrats failed to flip back the US House this cycle, something which most assumed would happen by default post-2022.

It never made sense to assume Ds would flip the House if an R won the Presidency. House was always going to go to Presidential winner with margins that close.

[Spectator]

So far, everyone in this thread is only talking about opportunities to flip R seats. Dems also need to worry about holding on to seats that are potentially going to flip the other way, such as GA, MI, and NH. Those three are their most vulnerable seats, in my estimation.

Fair point - I think it largely depends on what the national environment is looking like. Most seem to be assuming at least a modestly D-leaning environment where those seats (especially NH) would probably be fine, but there's also the scenario where the Trump administration remains relatively popular, Rs are successful at getting their voters to turn out, perhaps Dems having a bit of an identity crisis depresses turnout on their side, and the environment is more R-friendly).

I would just warn people this far out not to be so confident in any specific outcome or national environment - there have been so many times where these early priors don't come to fruition. Like 2022 was never the bloodbath for Democrats many expected, and then Democrats failed to flip back the US House this cycle, something which most assumed would happen by default post-2022.

It never made sense to assume Ds would flip the House if an R won the Presidency. House was always going to go to Presidential winner with margins that close.

Yep, I think it was reasonable for people to think the House could go D so long as Harris won the popular vote. If you told people in Dec. 2022 that Trump would win the popular vote, I doubt people would think Dems even did as well as they did tbh.