A Federal court has thrown out the North Carolina congressional district map as unconstitutionally gerrymandered: North Carolina gerrymandering decision creates uncertainty ahead of midterms | CNN Politics
The latest prediction from Predictwise.Com offers a glimmer of hope. The chance that Chuck Schumer, or someone like him, will Lead the Senate next year is 22% — up from a low of 7% on July 12. 22% isn’t 50% (or even 23% 
) but it should be big enough to invigorate the optimists. There’s a chance the worst of the nightmare may be ending!
Thirty-five Senate seats will be decided on November 6th, but the incumbent party has 87% chance or more of retaining all but 9 of them. The D’s must win seven of nine very close races to get D+I up to the magic 51. Here they are, with incumbent party and (according to Predictwise) chance of Democratic success:
MT (D) 71 %
NV (R) 68 %
IN (D) 55 %
AZ (R) 54 %
TN (R) 43 %
MO (D) 43 %
FL (D) 43 %
ND (D) 32 %
TX (R) 29 %
The D’s are now slightly favored to take NV, AZ and perhaps TN away from the R’s. OTOH there are four D incumbents in IN, MO, FL, ND whose races are all virtually what Vegas calls “10 to 11 and you pick.”
TX? TX is on the list? TeXas ?? :eek: The last time Texas elected a D Senator was Lloyd Bentsen, who defeated a man named G.H.W. Bush for the job way back in 1970 before Southern racists started pulling the R-lever reflexively. (Bentsen was “grandfathered-in” and re-elected thrice before becoming Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury.) Yet now the “most despised man” in the Senate whose own daughter won’t let him hug her is at risk of losing to a man named Beto! If you want to back Beto at BetFair all you can get right now is $39 at 2.2 to 1.
Will Happy Days indeed come again? Don’t hold your breath, but the Senate election has become a ball game.
While I would be quite happy to see the House flip this cycle, I’d be even more so to see the Senate, even without the House. Taking either chamber would put the brakes on the Republicans’ legislative agenda, but taking the Senate would stop their judicial agenda, too.
That ain’t gonna happen. The math is just too brutal. Function of doing well in 2006 and 2012.
I’m perfectly fine not taking the Senate this fall. It’ll keep people angry and hungry and activated; complacency is the enemy going into an election. Plus if Dems have both houses of Congress, nothing of substance will get done for the next two years, but Republicans will be able to blame that on the Dems in 2020. A split Congress will still give Dems a clusterfuck to campaign against in 2020, but also rein things in a bit.
I do pray for RBG’s health and safety on daily basis, though. And will until Dems re-take the Senate (and/or WH).
Absolutely. The Senate is the more powerful body. If Kavanagh can be beaten off, there’s a chance we can put a fifth sane person on SCOTUS. When Sessions is fired, Trump won’t be able to replace him with Joe Arpaio. (Don’t tell me that even the R’s would vote down Arpaio. They accepted DeVos, didn’t they? And several almost as bad as her.)
So you have me on Ignore also. :o In #142 explained that this “long-shot”, while still a decided underdog, is starting to look quite plausible. There are some Senate seats for which the Democrats are heavily favored,
but not a sure thing: OH (93%), MI (92%), WI (91%), NJ (87%), WV (87%) and the special MN election (91%). However, if the D’s do well nationally those “Likelies” will probably turn into sure things.
Here are the nine close races again, copied from #142:
MT (D) 71% Weak-Lean D
NV (R) 68% Tossup
IN (D) [del]55%[/del] 52% Tossupx8
AZ (R) 54% Tossupx8
TN (R) 43% Tilt R
MO (D) 43% Tossupx8
FL (D) 43% Tossupx8
ND (D) 32% Tossup
TX (R) [del]29%[/del] 32% Lean R
51+ [del]22%[/del] 18%
If you don’t like David Rothschild’s predictions, I’ve summarized the eight pundits cited on the Wikipedia page. Note that four of these close races are called “Tossup” by all 8 pundits.
The chance of winning 7 out of 9 coin tosses is only 9.0% But that underestimates the chance because these races are highly correlated. If the mood turns against the R’s, it will do so over a wide geographic area.
Rothschild updates his numbers frequently. Since I posted just 8 hours ago, his estimate of D majority has dropped from 22% to 18%. 
But Beto is now given a 32% chance of becoming the first Democratic U.S. Senator elected in Texas since Lloyd Bentsen! :eek:
I’m not sure I follow you.
You’re saying that, if the Dems have both houses, then the President proposes stuff and the House says “no” regardless of what the Senate says and — as you say — nothing of substance gets done; and Republicans say, “if we had both houses of Congress, this stuff the President is talking about would be law; blame the Dems.”
But if the Dems have one house of Congress, then the President talks up stuff and the House says “no” regardless of what the Senate says, and — what? Aren’t we still in a scenario where ‘nothing gets done’ is the order of the day, and Republicans can just as readily make “if we had both houses of Congress” blame-claims, like you said?
We can’t “beat off” Kavanaugh. The best we can do is to make sure that everyone knows just why the Republicans support him.
And the irony is that the Founders intended for the House to be the more powerful of the two chambers, but that the only House-exclusive powers they gave them are irrelevant in practice. Yet another illustration of the fact that our Constitution was written by amateurs who didn’t know what they were doing.
So you’re sure that at least 50 of the 51 R’s—including the supposedly moderate Collins and Murkowski—will vote to confirm a misogynist and perjurer, manifestly nominated by a criminal to protect himself from prosecution? Despite that this criminal’s closest confederates have pled guilty or been convicted of crimes? Despite that a “senior official” now warns that the Republic is in danger from this oaf? Despite the torture of asylum seekers, the babyish behavior on the national and international stages, the temper tantrums, the sacrifice of all national interest to his own petty greeds and egotism?
You’re sure that at least 50 out of 51 R Senators will stand up and say “I want to enable this despicable criminal. When my grandchildren ask me what I did in America’s dire hour of need. I want to say I sacrificed every principle I ever stood for. Because some campaign donor promised me a couple more million if I’d just fall in line. Sorry, kids!”
You’re probably right. It will be a travesty if the insane circus this once-grand old Party has become doesn’t quickly disappear into the dustbin of history. Still, America will feel great shame for decades to come.
Now, who’s being naive?
Are you certain that all 49 Dem senators are going to vote “no” on the “misogynist and perjurer, manifestly nominated by a criminal to protect himself from prosecution”? That not a one of them wants to “enable this despicable criminal”? I’m not.
Mississippi could send a black Democrat to U.S. Senate
Trump cancels Mississippi rally for Senate Republicans
The stars are starting to align…
A lot of people thought that in September 2016 too.
Yeah, just before Uranus went retrograde.
a few Dems in red states could vote yes on Kavanaugh. Especially if they are running this year. It’s not a lock all 49 vote no on him.
The GOP-gerrymandered U.S. House district lines, struck down by a Federal court, will be used this fall in North Carolina anyway, due to the lack of time to draw new district lines: North Carolina Can Use Gerrymandered Map In November, Court Rules : NPR
There’s enough time if you don’t footdrag, or allow or want footdragging. Not long ago, the Virginia lines were even de-gerrymandered *during *a term.
I’m glad that you understand this.
Of course, on either side of the aisle, individual votes are going to be swayed by the chamber as a whole, in terms of what they can get away with and/or need. If there’s a margin, then a few of the majority senators might vote against a position (that passes anyway without them), or a few of the minority might vote for (that would have passed even without them), just for the sake of looking bipartisan or mavericky or whatever. But when it really counts, both sides will vote party lines.
That’s why running ads saying your opponent supports something when they say they don’t is not dishonest at all. There are a ton of “centrist” politicians running in states where their party has trouble getting elected who are actually liberal or conservative, and will always be there for their party when it really counts, but “say what they have to say” back home. Their opponents are not obligated to play that game.