Why is everyone taking Democratic wins in '26 and '28 for granted?

[PhillyGuy]

One reason to not take a Democratic win of the Senate this year for granted:

Fetterman may change parties.

I know, he still goes with the Democrats except on a few high profile votes. But he talks like someone who is going to switch parties. See:

Are YOU Prepared for the Fetterman Contingency?

The bad news is that Democrats probably need to get at least 52 seats. Because if they only get to 51, they’re going to get schlonged by [Fetterman] . . .

If Democrats wind up with 51 seats, Republicans will make a full-court press to get him to join their caucus. Why wouldn’t Fetterman switch? He is a ballroom-endorsing, Netanyahu-maximalist who has a good relationship with Trump and has been gradually expanding his grievances as not merely being with progressives, or Israel-skeptics, but with the main body of Democratic voters and elected Democrats in Congress, too.

And the Senate is a lot more important than the House. Trump rules by decree when it comes to stuff the House of Representatives votes on. Where Trump is not enough of a dictator to dictate the result is on Senate confirmations, including the Supreme Court. This is my case for not thinking the Democrats will truly win this year.

[ZosterSandstorm]

@iiandyiiii

Your complaint appears to be that progressives prefer progressive candidates, and vote for them in primaries, and they’re winning more and more Democratic primaries. Even if this is a problem (which I don’t concede), what to you propose doing about it? Like it or not, Democratic voters get to vote for the candidates they choose.

There are two phenomena here that are, in fact, problems:

1. The nomination process is drastically over-influenced by people who have the time to attend caucuses and town halls and work on campaigns. This is hugely biased towards the unemployable and the insane. Normal people who have jobs to go to and value keeping them are effectively disenfranchised by the procedures, and the resulting ratchet effect of ideological extremism produces bad candidates.

2. The people who work as staffers for the DNC and elected officeholders are also extremely unrepresentative of not just the electorate as a whole, but even of the Democratic Party base. The typical staffer is 20-something, from a wealthy family, and to the left of 90% of Democrats on most issues.

Biden was in a huge fight over this from the beginning and ultimately lost it. He and his veteran advisors knew that he needed to disassociate himself from the craziest elements of the party to win in 2020, but ultimately the bill came due for the deals he struck to get Sanders et al to support him in the general.

This happened before, in 1972 when the party was taken over by McGovern and ended up being crushed to dust by Nixon because its nominee was way to the left of the median voter. The response was to change the primary procedures as a brake on this happening again. It’s obviously time for another re-evaluation of the process, with a particular focus on the composition of staff offices and the development of real, non-geriatric candidates from the mainstream liberal wing of the party.

[iiandyiiii]

Or maybe you’re just wrong, and things change, and a “leftist” with the ability to inspire and connect to voters could win the presidency. All you’ve offered are a bunch of assertions.

[DrDeth]

@PhillyGuy

One reason to not take a Democratic win of the Senate this year for granted:

Fetterman may change parties.

It never was a a sure thing, more like a 60/40 and no, he not gonna change to GOP, maybe he might declare Indy but caucus with the Dems.

[Loach]

@ekedolphin

Every political post I see here, it seems that people are taking for granted that the Democrats will win the midterms in '26 and take back the White House in '28.

How do you define “win the midterms?” Personally I believe the Democrats have a very good chance of winning the House. The Senate is going to be much harder. Polling me now I’m a bit negative about the prospect.

So if you define winning the midterms as winning both houses I think very few people are assuming that. As for 2028 it’s way too early. The Democrats certainly have a lot of ammunition for the campaign but I wouldn’t even try to guess the candidates let alone assume a win.

[Atamasama]

@Loach

Personally I believe the Democrats have a very good chance of winning the House. The Senate is going to be much harder.

I feel the same. My prediction is thar they’ll end up with a pretty big majority in the House, but the Senate will be very close. They may or may not have the majority in the Senate, probably not. The House majority will be enough to at least slow down the destruction we’ve been seeing over the past year and a half.

[dtilque]

I don’t think “taking for granted” is the appropriate term I would use, but I do think there will be a blue tsunami in November. The reason is because the current admin shows little prospensity to change, so I don’t expect the political situation to change between now and the election. If anything, Trump will do something to make the tsunami bigger.

[Loach]

@Atamasama

@Loach

Personally I believe the Democrats have a very good chance of winning the House. The Senate is going to be much harder.

I feel the same. My prediction is thar they’ll end up with a pretty big majority in the House, but the Senate will be very close. They may or may not have the majority in the Senate, probably not. The House majority will be enough to at least slow down the destruction we’ve been seeing over the past year and a half.

There’s also the possibility of a 50/50 split. That means Vance would have to do some work.

[Atamasama]

@Loach

There’s also the possibility of a 50/50 split.

I really should have suggested that, yes, I think that’s absolutely plausible.

[DrDeth]

@Atamasama

I feel the same. My prediction is thar they’ll end up with a pretty big majority in the House, but the Senate will be very close. They may or may not have the majority in the Senate, probably not.

I am guessing 50/50 the Dems get the senate. But yeah, I agree- the House- unless there are voting shenanigans- is more like 80% chance of winning.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

If SCOTUS doesn’t strike down the decision today by the 5th Circuit blocking access to mifepristone by mail, I imagine Senate races may well shift toward the D candidates. In purple states for sure and even in some red ones. 1 or 2 points in some states could make a difference.