Is there any democrat who could defeat Cruz in 2018?

[MATTROSE94]

The only way Cruz could lose would be if he were to say that the president should be assassinated, and even then, it'd still be Likely Safe R.

[ag]

No.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No.

Assuming Hillary wins the W.H. and Dems have 51-49 senate: OH,WI,NH,PA,CO, NV, IL  wins in senate races: here is the breakdown of another site's early prognosticators. 2017-2018 senate breakdown.

http://danielsattelberger.blogspot.com/p/2017-2018-senate-yes-im-serious-general.html

[MATTROSE94]

No.

Assuming Hillary wins the W.H. and Dems have 51-49 senate: OH,WI,NH,PA,CO, NV, IL  wins in senate races: here is the breakdown of another site's early prognosticators. 2017-2018 senate breakdown.

http://danielsattelberger.blogspot.com/p/2017-2018-senate-yes-im-serious-general.html

Their 2018 don't look too off overall IMO, though I do feel that West Virginia should be either moved into the lean D/tossup category and that Indiana and Montana should be moved to the lean R category.

[CapoteMonster]

Probably not on their abilities alone. However, it is wouldn't surprise me if Ted Cruz made some fatal gaffe and ended his own career.

No Cruz is a good campaigner he doesn't make unforced errors. I have seen him speak to audiences on TV he is pretty good  but tactical errors hurt him(i.e. 2013 Government Shutdown.)

"I wish we had 99 senators like Jesse Helms" - Ted Cruz.

[Maxwell]

Probably not on their abilities alone. However, it is wouldn't surprise me if Ted Cruz made some fatal gaffe and ended his own career.

No Cruz is a good campaigner he doesn't make unforced errors. I have seen him speak to audiences on TV he is pretty good  but tactical errors hurt him(i.e. 2013 Government Shutdown.)

"I wish we had 99 senators like Jesse Helms" - Ted Cruz.

That's not a mistake. Cruz knows who he's talking to.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It is clear that Dems may have a slim majority heading into 2018 and Donnelly, Tester and Heitkemp are vulnerable.

The Dems will have eiher a 51-49 majority or a 51-50, since conservatives will target Democratic 3, Dems must target Flake, Heller and 1 more conservative.  Although, it will be a tremendous upset, Hatch or Cruz will be targetted as well. But, must be done to ensure that Dems can have a majority still in 2018.

Dems have positives going in IL, WI, ME, MA, MD, MI, NJ governors going into the 2017-2018 cycle as well.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It is clear that Dems may have a slim majority heading into 2018 and Donnelly, Tester and Heitkemp are vulnerable.

The Dems will have eiher a 51-49 majority or a 51-50, since conservatives will target Democratic 3, Dems must target Flake, Heller and 1 more conservative.  Although, it will be a tremendous upset, Hatch or Cruz will be targetted as well. But, must be done to ensure that Dems can have a majority still in 2018.

Dems have positives going in IL, WI, ME, MA, MD, MI, NJ governors going into the 2017-2018 cycle as well.

Hatch will be targeted? I mean, he will retire, but I can't see his seat flipping to the Dems. Also, Cruz losing seems to be very, very unlikely.
If the Dems regain the Senate majority in 2016 (let's say 50-50 with the Democratic VP breaking the tie), they will amost certainly lose it in 2018 because the map is even worse for them than it was in 2014. Another problem is that those states are not the typical "base turnout" states (IN, WV, MT, ND, MO, to a lesser extent AZ). What makes it a bit difficult for the GOP is the fact that the incumbent Democratic senators in 2018 will presumably be much more popular than those in 2014 (Manchin, Heitkamp, Brown, Nelson).

[/b][/i]


That's why having 52 senators including FL is essential, as well, with Murphy winning. I wasn't trying to say that those GOPers will lose  except for maybe Flake or Heller, is that if Immigration Reform passes or Keystone Passes, the possiblly of a Castro or Matheson upset makes it more of a probability, which Hilary has more of cbance passing it, due to triangulation, than Obama.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Obviously yes because Texas will be blue in a few years

Yes, eventually Democrats will win everywhere and they don't even have to try because muh demographics.

Yes, but will we all be alive 25 years from now to see Democratic victories in Texas?))

I'll be in my 50s by then, so going by actuarial tables, I should still be alive. But as to the relevant question, no, Cruz probably won't lose to a Democrat in 2018. If it's a midterm with an unpopular Republican president, he's in danger, but he can probably raise enough money to pull through anyway. His real danger is in the Republican primary.

[King]

2024 maybe, but not in a midterm

[136or142]

My view is that Ted Cruz only ran for the U.S Senate as a platform to run for President and if he doesn't become the President he won't run for reelection to the U.S Senate.

[IceSpear]

Realistically, unless 2016 ends up being a Democratic tsunami, Democrats will not control the Senate in 2019.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Realistically, unless 2016 ends up being a Democratic tsunami, Democrats will not control the Senate in 2019.

This. As much as I like Heitkamp, McCaskill, Donnelly, and Tester, I realize that they likely won't survive 2018. And if the republicans can find someone competent to challenge Brown in OH, he'll be gone as well. And then there's Nelson, Kaine, Casey, Baldwin, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Heinrich at various levels of vulnerability. If Klobuchar retires, her seat will have some vulnerability as well.

For the democrats, Nevada is the only realistic pickup. Arizona is not realistic in a midterm unless Sinema runs.

[Miles]

^ I think it was more than luck.

[The Other Castro]

^ I think it was more than luck.

Agreed. She was a former Attorney General going up against a sitting Congressman who outspent her in North Dakota, but she still won. She also didn't have a strong Libertarian candidate like Tester, or a rape-gaffe-prone Republican emerge from a primary like McCaskill or Donnelly. 2018 will be a midterm, but now she'll be an incumbent.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

^ I think it was more than luck.

Agreed. She was a former Attorney General going up against a sitting Congressman who outspent her in North Dakota, but she still won. She also didn't have a strong Libertarian candidate like Tester, or a rape-gaffe-prone Republican emerge from a primary like McCaskill or Donnelly. 2018 will be a midterm, but now she'll be an incumbent.

Miles's comment was referring to McCaskill, not to Heitkamp.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

Realistically, unless 2016 ends up being a Democratic tsunami, Democrats will not control the Senate in 2019.

This. As much as I like Heitkamp, McCaskill, Donnelly, and Tester, I realize that they likely won't survive 2018. And if the republicans can find someone competent to challenge Brown in OH, he'll be gone as well. And then there's Nelson, Kaine, Casey, Baldwin, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Heinrich at various levels of vulnerability. If Klobuchar retires, her seat will have some vulnerability as well.

For the democrats, Nevada is the only realistic pickup. Arizona is not realistic in a midterm unless Sinema runs.

I think McCaskill and Donnelly are 100% goners. Heitkamp and Tester are fantastic campaigners, who do have the ability to win in small states, but it'll be rough.

Cantwell, Heinrich, and Stabenow are safe. New Mexico and Michigan both ended up being sleepers in 2014, they'll be fine in 2018.

If Kaine and Casey actually campaign, they'll be fine. Casey and Warner didn't know they were running for reelection, and if Kaine actually tries, they can win without sweating too much in their respective states.

Baldwin and Brown are interesting. Both are very liberal, but I see them both not being as expensive as their 2012 races because Republicans will still have to sink money into lower hanging fruit like ND, MO, MT, and IN. Completely depends on the nature of their challengers, but both are fantastic candidates.

[The Other Castro]

^ I think it was more than luck.

Agreed. She was a former Attorney General going up against a sitting Congressman who outspent her in North Dakota, but she still won. She also didn't have a strong Libertarian candidate like Tester, or a rape-gaffe-prone Republican emerge from a primary like McCaskill or Donnelly. 2018 will be a midterm, but now she'll be an incumbent.

Miles's comment was referring to McCaskill, not to Heitkamp.

Hmm, no idea why I misread McCaskill as Heitkamp...oops.

[jimrtex]

I'm thinking no, given midterm turnout patterns. Gallego might make it close, but I don't think he'd actually take the plunge.

President Cruz won't be running for senate re-election in 2018.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm thinking no, given midterm turnout patterns. Gallego might make it close, but I don't think he'd actually take the plunge.

President Cruz won't be running for senate re-election in 2018.

Jon Huntsman has a better chance of becoming president than Cruz.