2018 Republican Supermajority?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

A Republican filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate seems entirely reasonable for 2018.  Let's say that a moderate GOP momentum results in a 0 net in 2016 (Kirk losing, but Reid also losing) and elects President Walker or Bush (or insert your Republican here).  Then, it is crazy that Democrats won in ND, MT, WV, MO, and IN in 2012 to begin with, and those 5 get the GOP to 59.  WI, MN, PA, MI, VA, FL, and OH then are all possibilities.  The GOP, if it could hold on in NV, would only need 1 of those 7 to get to 60.  If the GOP has two big waves in 2016 and 2018 and has Kirk win and a Republican win in CO in '16, the GOP could get as high as 68, more than enough for a veto-proof majority, which wouldn't matter with a Republican president.

[pikachu]

I can't see the party having 2 consecutive waves. If Hillary wins in 2016, I think Democrats will have a net gain in Senate seats. If a Republican wins in 2016, I don't think they'll get the 3 or 4 seats they'll need. Even if a Republican does win in 2016, I think they'll lose House seats, and they'll definitely lose more during the midterm, so their majority might be at risk.

[IceSpear]

I highly doubt there will be 3 Republican waves in a row. If 2016 is such a strongly Republican year that they break even in the Senate, it seems unlikely they'll be able to pick up very many seats in 2018.

Probably a more likely scenario for a Republican supermajority would be a modest Democratic victory in 2016 leading to a roughly evenly split Senate, then 2018 ends up being 2014 redux.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A Republican filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate seems entirely reasonable for 2018.  Let's say that a moderate GOP momentum results in a 0 net in 2016 (Kirk losing, but Reid also losing) and elects President Walker or Bush (or insert your Republican here).  Then, it is crazy that Democrats won in ND, MT, WV, MO, and IN in 2012 to begin with, and those 5 get the GOP to 59.  WI, MN, PA, MI, VA, FL, and OH then are all possibilities.  The GOP, if it could hold on in NV, would only need 1 of those 7 to get to 60.  If the GOP has two big waves in 2016 and 2018 and has Kirk win and a Republican win in CO in '16, the GOP could get as high as 68, more than enough for a veto-proof majority, which wouldn't matter with a Republican president.

I tend to agree though it is easier without a GOP President then with, it is most certainly doable in any circumstance.

Also, welcome to the forum by the way.

[Emperor Charles V]

I can't see the party having 2 consecutive waves. If Hillary wins in 2016, I think Democrats will have a net gain in Senate seats.

History shows that this is far from plausible. Assuming Clinton wins, the Democrats would have been in office for ten years come 2018. You don't think voter fatigue would have crept in by then? Also, have you seen the Senate map for 2018? It is hard to think of a worse map for the Democrats than 2014, but 2018 may be our answer.

[NewYorkExpress]

No, but they easily could get to 58 or 59... I just don't see where they get the 60th.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems will win IL, WI, PA and OH for a net seat 4 gain. At the very worse, I can see Dems losing MT, MO, IN, and WV or any 4 Romney state Dems for 46 senators, I see no scenario in which GOP has a fillibuster proof majority.

And Dems will take back the senate in 2020 with CO, IA, NC and AK.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The Dems will win IL, WI, PA and OH for a net seat 4 gain. At the very worse, I can see Dems losing MT, MO, IN, and WV or any 4 Romney state Dems for 46 senators, I see no scenario in which GOP has a fillibuster proof majority.

And Dems will take back the senate in 2020 with CO, IA, NC and AK.

You can dream.  Portman isn't losing, Ernst will become a very popular Conservative figure, and Alaska surely isn't going to go blue again anytime soon.  Too early to tell for sure with Tillis and Gardner.  I would also say that you would have to at least include ND in 2018 vulnerable states.  I also think Toomey is also likely safe in 2016, as the Democrats can't get anyone other than Sestak, who isn't even liked by his own party, to run against him.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Anything is possible, if we're predicting three years in advance.

[Maxwell]

I can't see the party having 2 consecutive waves. If Hillary wins in 2016, I think Democrats will have a net gain in Senate seats. If a Republican wins in 2016, I don't think they'll get the 3 or 4 seats they'll need. Even if a Republican does win in 2016, I think they'll lose House seats, and they'll definitely lose more during the midterm, so their majority might be at risk.

They just did.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

The curse of being unable to win more than 55 seats during the past century that is bewitching the Senate Republicans will continue.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Dems will win IL, WI, PA and OH for a net seat 4 gain. At the very worse, I can see Dems losing MT, MO, IN, and WV or any 4 Romney state Dems for 46 senators, I see no scenario in which GOP has a fillibuster proof majority.

And Dems will take back the senate in 2020 with CO, IA, NC and AK.

You can dream.  Portman isn't losing, Ernst will become a very popular Conservative figure, and Alaska surely isn't going to go blue again anytime soon.  Too early to tell for sure with Tillis and Gardner.  I would also say that you would have to at least include ND in 2018 vulnerable states.  I also think Toomey is also likely safe in 2016, as the Democrats can't get anyone other than Sestak, who isn't even liked by his own party, to run against him.

Portman is tied with Strickland but Dems can also net 4 seats without that. As far as Toomey he is clearly only 2 pts ahead of Sestak and someone might run beside him.


The likely scenario of 4 seats switching back and forth from now until 2020, is clearly the most likely scenario, no supermajorities by either party.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

They just did.

Not in the Senate--2010 and 2014, sure, but 2012 was a good year for Democrats.

[MATTROSE94]

I think that it might be possible for the Republicans to come close to having a supermajority after the 2018 midterms. My gut feeling is that in 2016 the Democrats will pick up Illinois, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Ohio while the Republicans will pick up Nevada and Colorado, resulting in a 52-48 Republican majority. In 2018, I feel that the Republicans will easily pick up Missouri, Indiana, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia. The Republicans also have a chance at picking up Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania if they play their cards right as well. If the Democrats lose all of those seats, the Republicans would have exactly 60 Senate seats.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The Dems will win IL, WI, PA and OH for a net seat 4 gain. At the very worse, I can see Dems losing MT, MO, IN, and WV or any 4 Romney state Dems for 46 senators, I see no scenario in which GOP has a fillibuster proof majority.

And Dems will take back the senate in 2020 with CO, IA, NC and AK.

According to RCP, Toomey is up 10 in the only non-partisan poll in the last year and a half.

You can dream.  Portman isn't losing, Ernst will become a very popular Conservative figure, and Alaska surely isn't going to go blue again anytime soon.  Too early to tell for sure with Tillis and Gardner.  I would also say that you would have to at least include ND in 2018 vulnerable states.  I also think Toomey is also likely safe in 2016, as the Democrats can't get anyone other than Sestak, who isn't even liked by his own party, to run against him.

Portman is tied with Strickland but Dems can also net 4 seats without that. As far as Toomey he is clearly only 2 pts ahead of Sestak and someone might run beside him.


The likely scenario of 4 seats switching back and forth from now until 2020, is clearly the most likely scenario, no supermajorities by either party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Dems will win IL, WI, PA and OH for a net seat 4 gain. At the very worse, I can see Dems losing MT, MO, IN, and WV or any 4 Romney state Dems for 46 senators, I see no scenario in which GOP has a fillibuster proof majority.

And Dems will take back the senate in 2020 with CO, IA, NC and AK.

You can dream.  Portman isn't losing, Ernst will become a very popular Conservative figure, and Alaska surely isn't going to go blue again anytime soon.  Too early to tell for sure with Tillis and Gardner.  I would also say that you would have to at least include ND in 2018 vulnerable states.  I also think Toomey is also likely safe in 2016, as the Democrats can't get anyone other than Sestak, who isn't even liked by his own party, to run against him.

Portman is tied with Strickland but Dems can also net 4 seats without that. As far as Toomey he is clearly only 2 pts ahead of Sestak and someone might run beside him.


The likely scenario of 4 seats switching back and forth from now until 2020, is clearly the most likely scenario, no supermajorities by either party.

According to RCP, Toomey is up 10 in the only non-partisan poll in the last year and a half.

You seem to have typed your response inside one of the quote boxes from previous responses, by the way.

Toomey is a solid candidate and one of the most professional and disciplined candidates I have ever come across. I cannot think of a single gaffe he has ever made for instance. I am fairly confident that he will be reelected as well.

[IceSpear]

The Dems will win IL, WI, PA and OH for a net seat 4 gain. At the very worse, I can see Dems losing MT, MO, IN, and WV or any 4 Romney state Dems for 46 senators, I see no scenario in which GOP has a fillibuster proof majority.

And Dems will take back the senate in 2020 with CO, IA, NC and AK.

You can dream.  Portman isn't losing, Ernst will become a very popular Conservative figure, and Alaska surely isn't going to go blue again anytime soon.  Too early to tell for sure with Tillis and Gardner.  I would also say that you would have to at least include ND in 2018 vulnerable states.  I also think Toomey is also likely safe in 2016, as the Democrats can't get anyone other than Sestak, who isn't even liked by his own party, to run against him.

You're off your rocker if you think Toomey is safe. He's mildly favored at best.

[Vega]

Democrats didn't even hit 60 in 2008, so I doubt Republicans will in 2016.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I can't see the party having 2 consecutive waves. If Hillary wins in 2016, I think Democrats will have a net gain in Senate seats. If a Republican wins in 2016, I don't think they'll get the 3 or 4 seats they'll need. Even if a Republican does win in 2016, I think they'll lose House seats, and they'll definitely lose more during the midterm, so their majority might be at risk.

They just did.

Err...2012 wasn't a Republican wave.

[Maxwell]

I can't see the party having 2 consecutive waves. If Hillary wins in 2016, I think Democrats will have a net gain in Senate seats. If a Republican wins in 2016, I don't think they'll get the 3 or 4 seats they'll need. Even if a Republican does win in 2016, I think they'll lose House seats, and they'll definitely lose more during the midterm, so their majority might be at risk.

They just did.

Err...2012 wasn't a Republican wave.

My brain skipped the presidential year, my bad.

[Xing]

Not going to happen. If a Republican wins in 2016, 2018 is likely to be a rough year for Republicans. They'd be lucky to gain more than 2, maybe 3 senate seats. The only way in which Republicans could get a supermajority would be for a Democrat to win in 2016, while Republicans hold down their losses in the senate to three or four seats, and then get a wave in 2018, but even that's highly unlikely.

Ernst will become a very popular Conservative figure

LOLOLOLOLOLOL Dream on!

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Since the 2016, election will probably go in Dems direction, the GOP are looking ahead to 2018, to win. Dems will net at least 4 seats to regain majority in OH, Pa, WI and IL. Maybe five with NH or FL at stake.

The supermajority strategy wont work because there are moderates like Collins and King who win stand in way and prevent legislation that wont cross party lines. Bipartisanship works on both ends. As Dems found out even with Specter, they had 60, and they had to compromise.

[Mister Mets]

Given how well Democrats did in 2012, it's likely they'll lose seats in '18 even with a Republican President.

In '16, Republicans might pick up Colorado and Nevada. The top pick-up opportunities in 2018 include Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Wiconsin.

There are many scenarios under which Democrats keep Reublicans from gaining six seats in the next two cycles.

But there are other possibilities.

Scenario A) Republicans have a great 2016 and pick-up Colorado and Nevada, along with the White House. In 2018, McCaskill and Heitkamp lose, while open senate elections in Florida and West Virginia go to Republicans.

Scenario B) Hillary Clinton wins narrowly, and the 2016 Senate races have moderate Democratic gains (1 net seat.) A midterm electorate turns against Hillary Clinton, allowing for Republican wins in the conservative states of Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and West Viginia, in addition to two wins in the major swing states: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Virginia.

Republicans arguably have an institutional advantage with Senate elections, given the combination of the party's strength in smaller states, and the midterm electorate.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The only problem with your scenarios is that Dems are favored to pick up key governorships in big states in IL with Lisa Madigan, OH with Tim Ryan and MD. In conjunction with those pickups are seats where Dem senators Baldwin, Ben Nelson and Sherrod Brown are running.

I only caution the GOP, in 2018, should Dems do fairly well, in 2016, 2018 wont be as bad as GOP hopes. With ME and NV at risk, should Collins and Heller run for gov.

[Devils30]

Way too early to tell 2018, what if Hillary has 55% approval? Then the GOP won't get much further than an open North Dakota seat.