2018 Republican Supermajority?

[Virginiá]

To be fair, gaining 5 Senate seats is more than clawing back a handful, but it seems pretty clear that this general pattern is going to continue indefinitely until it's broken up by the next Republican presidential victory or some 2002-esque rally-round-the-flag effect.

I suppose, but 5 seats on the map Democrats currently have, against a character like Donald Trump, well, in that context it seems sort of weak. I just think predicting a wave of that order in 2018 seems premature, but I will admit pickups nearing double-digits for Republicans are certainly possible, without any stretch of the imagination.

I don't think indefinitely, though:



I'd say in about 6 - 10 years or less, when the silent generation has been more or less reclaimed by nature. They are the Republican Party's strongest voting bloc and the most likely to turn out for midterms. I'm still fully confident that by 2022, the 18 - 50 yr demographic will be +Democratic, at which point what Republicans have in the Boomer generation won't be able to deliver such waves. Especially considering that Republicans have been unable to make inroads among voters younger than 50 for a long time now.

[windjammer]

Well, democrats are going to have 51-53 seats and there is no way republicans could pick up more than 10 seats, so no.

Even if Democrats are at 53 seats, some outside possibility exists of adding 2 more seats to the 11 I listed in my previous post. If Democrats are at 51, then R-60-2019 is a totally reasonable result, if a little optimistic (I would expect 57-59).

EDIT: Here's a map of a Senate, with Democrats at 53 after 2016 (having gained the 5 usual suspects + MO and NC), and then Republicans gaining 13 seats in 2018, adding MI and NJ to the list of states in my prior post (both are big stretches, but hey, so is Democrats winning MO/NC/having 53 seats this year):

Dear god they aren't going to win in NM, MI or NJ Vosem,
+10 is their maximum

I mean, you're close to certainly correct, but Democrats also aren't going to finish 2016 with 53 seats

You want to bet?

I'd be down. Whoever wins gets to set their opponent's signature for, oh, the calendar year 2017?

You want to bet?

I swear, 2 back-to-back GOP midterm waves has really spoiled Atlas.  Without knowing anything else, I can pretty much assume a large number of people here are going to start their predictions along the lines of:

Presidential year: Democrats claw back a handful of seats here and there
Midterm: Republicans win everything

To be fair, gaining 5 Senate seats is more than clawing back a handful, but it seems pretty clear that this general pattern is going to continue indefinitely until it's broken up by the next Republican presidential victory or some 2002-esque rally-round-the-flag effect.

Well,
Let us make the conditions:
-If the democrats win less than 52 seats: you win
-If democrats get exactly 52 seats: It's a tie
-If democrats get more than 52 seats: I win.


But what could it be in play exactly?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Not gonna happen, VA won't flip back GOP; entrenched blue Dogg state state now should Bobby Scott be elected and most of Dem Senators like Tester have a higher approval than 2014 freshman class

[Heisenberg]

Not gonna happen, VA won't flip back GOP; entrenched blue Dogg state state now should Bobby Scott be elected and most of Dem Senators like Tester have a higher approval than 2014 freshman class

You're very optimistic. Comstock can beat Scott, he is a weak candidate since he's never faced real competition, and thus can sleepwalk through reelection a without much campaigning and fundraising. Atlas likes to exaggerate the Democratic strength in Vorginia. Tester will be difficult to take out, but he can be beat.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Here is the best-case 2018 scenario:

R+16

And, the best case 2016 scenario is R+1 (NV the only flip), but that would probably put Trump over the top, making this 2018 map impossible, so we will use 2016 being EVEN (with Kirk losing) as a benchmark.

That gives us a Senate for the 116th Congress of 70 Republicans and 30 Democrats, plenty enough to override any veto.  But, this would require us winning literally any conceivably winnable race.  With that said, the 10-seat margin of error is promising to me!

[Xing]

Here is the best-case 2018 scenario:

R+16

And, the best case 2016 scenario is R+1 (NV the only flip), but that would probably put Trump over the top, making this 2018 map impossible, so we will use 2016 being EVEN (with Kirk losing) as a benchmark.

That gives us a Senate for the 116th Congress of 70 Republicans and 30 Democrats, plenty enough to override any veto.  But, this would require us winning literally any conceivably winnable race.  With that said, the 10-seat margin of error is promising to me!

WA, NM, MN, and ME aren't going to happen, period. NJ is only possible if Menendez runs again, and his scandals come to the forefront. Even then, it'd still be a longshot. Republicans won't come within single digits of taking out Cantwell, trust me on that. TX is more competitive than WA.

[Vosem]

Here is the best-case 2018 scenario:

R+16

And, the best case 2016 scenario is R+1 (NV the only flip), but that would probably put Trump over the top, making this 2018 map impossible, so we will use 2016 being EVEN (with Kirk losing) as a benchmark.

That gives us a Senate for the 116th Congress of 70 Republicans and 30 Democrats, plenty enough to override any veto.  But, this would require us winning literally any conceivably winnable race.  With that said, the 10-seat margin of error is promising to me!

WA, NM, MN, and ME aren't going to happen, period. NJ is only possible if Menendez runs again, and his scandals come to the forefront. Even then, it'd still be a longshot. Republicans won't come within single digits of taking out Cantwell, trust me on that. TX is more competitive than WA.

NM is a long-shot possibility if we can find a talented candidate; Heinrich was held to a pretty narrow margin in 2012, for instance. You're correct that WA cannot flip, and that Klobuchar and King are utterly, utterly safe as long as they run for reelection.

As for NJ, considering that the candidates who've come forward as interested if Menendez steps aside are Donald Norcross and Bob Torricelli, I'd have to say that seat will be competitive for Republicans even without Menendez as the D candidate. Of course this one will strongly depend on who the Republican candidate is, too; an arch-conservative like Lonegan or Bell won't cut it, unfortunately.

[windjammer]

Dear god, what the hell is this map lol.

[Mr.Phips]

Here is the best-case 2018 scenario:

R+16

And, the best case 2016 scenario is R+1 (NV the only flip), but that would probably put Trump over the top, making this 2018 map impossible, so we will use 2016 being EVEN (with Kirk losing) as a benchmark.

That gives us a Senate for the 116th Congress of 70 Republicans and 30 Democrats, plenty enough to override any veto.  But, this would require us winning literally any conceivably winnable race.  With that said, the 10-seat margin of error is promising to me!

WA, NM, MN, and ME aren't going to happen, period. NJ is only possible if Menendez runs again, and his scandals come to the forefront. Even then, it'd still be a longshot. Republicans won't come within single digits of taking out Cantwell, trust me on that. TX is more competitive than WA.

Michigan isn't happening either as long as Stabanow runs for reelection (she better not pull a Tom Harkin on us and retire in Dem President midterm).  I think the case is similar with Casey in Pennsylvania.

[Orser67]

I'd say this is the Republican best-case scenario:

R+14

With this if King and Stabenow run and Menendez retires

R+11

Still a scary map

[Heisenberg]

Michigan isn't happening either as long as Stabanow runs for reelection (she better not pull a Tom Harkin on us and retire in Dem President midterm).  I think the case is similar with Casey in Pennsylvania.

Stabenow's former colleage Levin "did a Tom Harkin" the same year as Harkin did, and Democrats retained the seat. Dave Camp or Fred Upton should have ran.

[Figueira]

Aside from WA, Extreme's map could theoretically happen, but Clinton would probably have to declare war on babies. A 2014 style wave would result in maybe 7-9 Republican gains.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Aside from WA, Extreme's map could theoretically happen, but Clinton would probably have to declare war on babies. A 2014 style wave would result in maybe 7-9 Republican gains.

Republicans think the Clintons have been participating in a war on babies for decades!

[Frodo]

Anyone want to revise their predictions?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

The R+16 map isn't happening anymore, but a filibuster-proof majority is possible if President Trump has a good first two years.

[Orser67]

Granted Republicans have a great map, but since the ratification of the 17th amendment, the only time the president's party gained more than two Senate seats in a midterm election was 1934.

[morgieb]

I suppose it's possible on paper that the Republicans get to 60 (Democrats have to defend ten seats in Trump states), but I don't see it happening. Would require Trump to be extremely popular and him actually having Made America Great Again.

[Klartext89]

I really like that 2018 map. Never forget that it's the 1994 map that we're talking about. If Trumps does well (and I think he can easily do better than expected, because 2/3 of the Country doesn't really expect much from him), this could be a massacre for Democrats. A damage that they won't fix for years, cause there aren't many Blue State GOP Senators left.

[MT Treasurer]

Anyone want to revise their predictions?

All I'm going to say is that Democrats won't control the Senate in 2019/2020.