It’s 52-48.
It’s hard to tell, of course, since 2006 was a wave election for Dems while 2010 and 2014 were decidedly not. But from what I’ve read, the Party actually did a lot better after 2006 in terms of getting data and money to campaigns and using state-of-the-art techniques. Is that wrong?
My mind assume’s it’s possible somehow because of the polarization in politics and with the voters that do straight party-line votes (straight D or straight R). Add a potential further lack of participation by voters (which is one of the reasons 2016 was a loss for Clinton) and 60 seems very likely if voters are unwavering from the 2016 election. I think 61 is possible, with room for more.
They put an article up today, here.
There’s no way it happens unless Trump becomes radically less unpopular, and I’ve seen no reason whatsoever to believe that is all likely. There are 5 Dem Senators running in deep red States, but all of them have already won in those States before, so given a heavily pro-Democrat mood among the voters, all or most of them will probably be OK.
The 538 article lists 5 GOP seats that might be in more danger than people realize, but they’re all still long shots for Dem pickups.
Bottom line, I don’t expect much change in the Senate; maybe a seat or two either way, which wouldn’t change the balance of power. A Democratic takeover is unlikely, but far, far more likely than an 8 seat GOP pickup.
Of course, we can also hope that one of the more reasonable Republicans might pull a Jim Jeffords and become an independent caucusing with Democrats.
PredictIt has 60+ seats for the Republicans at 8% right now. If someone thinks it’s likely, they could make a lot of money.
We have a President who is a pathological liar, who is violating ethics laws and possibly the U.S. Constitution, who refuses to fulfill his promise to release his tax returns, who has as much said that he will attack North Korea, who embarrasses the United States every time he makes a speech, and who spends more time golfing than he does ‘presidenting’. Meanwhile Republicans in Congress are doing everything they can to take health care away from tens of millions of people, whose policies have caused health insurance premiums to skyrocket, whose ‘health care’ plan will raise insurance rates for the middle class, who are writing huge tax cuts for themselves on the backs of the poor and middle class, and have completely put their self-enrichment ahead of the nation.
So what do Democrats do? They focus on the one thing guaranteed to lose them votes: Gun control. The massacre in Las Vegas is a tragedy. And it’s just the distraction the Republicans needed to ensure Democratic candidates lose.
Sure, because picking a topic that close to 80% of Americans are in agreement on is a sure loser…
Even the NRA (according to what I just saw on the news) is okay with regulation of bump stocks. So that’d be a big political win for all, ISTM.
If that’s what finally breaks through the brick wall, then hallelujah.
Exactly. Because while 80% of Americans think ‘something should be done’, when it comes to the ballot box a sizeable number of them are all ‘They wanna take ahr gunz! :eek: :o !!!11one’ The more the Democrats focus on gun control, the more they’re going to turn away the voters in rural states.
Anyway, it’s a great distraction that not only will help Republican candidates, but also make people forget about the more important issues like health care and war.
The president doesn’t even have 50 votes on many issues. Whether the Republicans get to 60 or not, there’s going to be a big asterisk next to any number they get.
Oh man, do democrats (and many republicans) in all jurisdictions have a beautiful anchor to cling to in criticizing The Donald in upcoming mid-terms.
I want to say that logically Republicans aren’t going to have a super majority, despite the potentially number of seats they could flip. However, logic has nothing on Trump. He might have performed a dark ritual somewhere to get so much luck.
All we can hope are the Democrats learn actual lessons from the last election.
The Democrats have an uncanny knack of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Keep in mind that during presidential elections each party has about 60-70 million voters turn out. In a midterm election it is closer to 40 million per party.
The 2010 house elections which turned the dem supermajority into a republican house with 242 votes was 45 million GOP votes to 40 million dem votes. In 2008 the GOP and dems got about 60 million and 70 million votes respectively.
So something as small as making sure only 25 million dem voters (as opposed to the usual 30) who’d vote in a presidential election stay home during a midterm is probably enough to give power back to the house.
From what I recall of the special elections in Georgia’s 6th district, even though the dem lost, the dem candidate got roughly the same number of votes that the dem got in presidential year elections, while the GOP candidate got the number of votes obtained in midterm elections when turnout is 40% lower.
Special election in 2017 in Georgia’s 6th:
**GOP 135k
Dem 126k **
2016 in Georgia’s 6th:
GOP 201k
Dem 125k
2014 in Georgia’s 6th:
GOP 139k
Dem 71k
Meaning, the dems turned out at levels seen in presidential year elections, the GOP turned out at levels seen in midterm elections in Georgia’s 6th house race special election.
If the democrats can keep up their ground game and make sure as many democrats as possible vote, getting the house back shouldn’t be too hard.
Anything can happen when the current government sees no need to stop Russians from hacking state election systems:
U.S. government notifies 21 states of election hacking attempts | CBC News
There’s no way the Republicans get to 60, but there’s little chance of them losing the Senate. It probably remains the same in terms of the numbers, but what may well change is the tone of the chamber. Moore is likely to win in Alabama and there’s word that Eric Prince, backed by Bannon, will challenge for the Wyoming Senate seat. What we could end up with is a Senate that might remain in Republican hands but the types of Republicans in the Senate and House could be vicious and nasty on a scale that hasn’t been seen. We’re heading toward a time when the polarization in politics is becoming toxic. It’s not just the occasional shock jock who’s toxic but the chambers of congress themselves.
Interesting twist today. Susan Collins apparently won’t leave the Senate to run for governor. Although it might be seen as problematic for Democrats’ Senate hopes, I’m not that disappointed. I’m somewhat relieved – for the moment – that a moderate Republican is staying in the Senate.
Agreed. It’s good to see someone who not only sees a responsibility to be part of the containment structure around Trump and the crazies, but acts on it. I’m sure she’d go home if she thought it was safe to leave DC, but obviously she knows a state that would elect LePage would replace her with Og knows who.