I am well aware of all of that. On balance the Democrats may be able to regain control of the Senate, but McConnell would still have a “reason” to filibuster. At that point the Democrats would be forced to use the “nuclear option”. Doing so would end a long tradition with uncertain consequences.
I think the key question is the extent to which Trump’s implosion will depress conservative turnout. It’s quite possible that a lot of Republicans stay home on Election Day.
On the other hand, all it takes is Republican voters in Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Missouri to turn up to elect Senate candidates who reject the Trump disaster but promise to be a check on the inevitable Hillary.
I bet the R candidates in those states are going to go full on anti-Trump to distance themselves from that disaster, and do nothing but talk about how they will stop Hillary’s agenda. Given how close the races in those states are, it is a reasonable strategy.
Sam Wang noted the Dems are running female Senatorial candidates in 5 swing states, a fact that may become more significant as time passes.
My point remains that McConnell could find any number of reasons to fillibuster. A list as long as your arm. It’s just that Clinton having only a plurality won’t be on it.
Jill’s vote will probably double merely by the number of Republican women who can’t vote Hillary/Trump, but are intrigued by another woman on the ballot.
And by double, maybe another 400k votes added to her 2012 number.