Predict Control of the Senate After 2018/20/22

[Free Bird]

R/D/D make sense on paper, but I don't get it considering the context of 18. Let's say that year is R+4. That's 56, so losing all of Tillis, Gardner, and Ernst, AND keeping Shaheen's seat, would STILL result in only 53. At that point, you have to wait for 2022 and pray to God Hassan survives without Day and you can pick up any of the competitives from this year.

[Vosem]

Honestly, R/R/R seems likelier than not, with R/R/D as an outside possibility. It's hard to see Democrats do well enough in 2018 to win the Senate in 2020, and if (as I think is likelier than not, though this is a total shot in the dark) a Democrat is elected President in 2020, the Senate probably won't wobble too much in 2022. So R/R/R.

[Hindsight was 2020]

R/D/D make sense on paper, but I don't get it considering the context of 18. Let's say that year is R+4. That's 56, so losing all of Tillis, Gardner, and Ernst, AND keeping Shaheen's seat, would STILL result in only 53. At that point, you have to wait for 2022 and pray to God Hassan survives without Day and you can pick up any of the competitives from this year.

Well I think it will be only +2 R in 2018 also 2018 the R's are defending 24 seats to 9

[Free Bird]

R/D/D make sense on paper, but I don't get it considering the context of 18. Let's say that year is R+4. That's 56, so losing all of Tillis, Gardner, and Ernst, AND keeping Shaheen's seat, would STILL result in only 53. At that point, you have to wait for 2022 and pray to God Hassan survives without Day and you can pick up any of the competitives from this year.

Well I think it will be only +2 R in 2018 also 2018 the R's are defending 24 seats to 9

McCaskill and Donnelly are DOA. Heitkamp, if she accepts Ag, will make it R+3. Only 2 R seats are remotely competitive in 2018.

[Klartext89]

2018: R, no serious discussion. Missouri and Indiana are easy pickups, ND with or without Heitkamp is also very possible GOP pickup. With Heller safe in a Midterm, Arizona not that competitive that Dems are dreaming about, we're at least at 55 GOP seats - and we haven't discussed about West Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and Montana yet.

2020:

1. Trump/GOP winning White House: Not much change in the Senate then. Only 2 GOP seats in Clinton States, one Dem seat in a Trump State. I assume there won't be much changes.

2. Dem win White House: Some Dem gains (maybe Collins retires and Dem take over, maybe they can sweep Gardner away, maybe Tillis in NC if they really run the table. But hard to imagine a deep Red State going Dem at this point). But the GOP will nevertheless have a majority in the regions of 52-55 seats.

2022:

1. GOP White House: Dem will pick up a few seats. I could imagine Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and maybe an uphill battle victory in North Carolina. But not even Close to 51 seats.

2. Dem White House: Good bye Maggie Hassan, hard fight for Nevada+Colorado, easy GOP going in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Nobody talking about North Carolina.

R/R/R in all cases.

[jamestroll]

2018: R, no serious discussion. Missouri and Indiana are easy pickups, ND with or without Heitkamp is also very possible GOP pickup. With Heller safe in a Midterm, Arizona not that competitive that Dems are dreaming about, we're at least at 55 GOP seats - and we haven't discussed about West Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida and Montana yet.

2020:

1. Trump/GOP winning White House: Not much change in the Senate then. Only 2 GOP seats in Clinton States, one Dem seat in a Trump State. I assume there won't be much changes.

2. Dem win White House: Some Dem gains (maybe Collins retires and Dem take over, maybe they can sweep Gardner away, maybe Tillis in NC if they really run the table. But hard to imagine a deep Red State going Dem at this point). But the GOP will nevertheless have a majority in the regions of 52-55 seats.

2022:

1. GOP White House: Dem will pick up a few seats. I could imagine Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and maybe an uphill battle victory in North Carolina. But not even Close to 51 seats.

2. Dem White House: Good bye Maggie Hassan, hard fight for Nevada+Colorado, easy GOP going in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Nobody talking about North Carolina.

R/R/R in all cases.

Not everything will be like 2016 forever.

And I refuse to vote in this thread. I know I am the mean and awful person for disagreeing, but we do not have enough information to predict 2020 or 2022 Senate races. Even 2018 is shaky. And no, at this early stage McCaskill and Donnelly are not DOA. lmao

[Figueira]

R/D/D make sense on paper, but I don't get it considering the context of 18. Let's say that year is R+4. That's 56, so losing all of Tillis, Gardner, and Ernst, AND keeping Shaheen's seat, would STILL result in only 53. At that point, you have to wait for 2022 and pray to God Hassan survives without Day and you can pick up any of the competitives from this year.

Well I think it will be only +2 R in 2018 also 2018 the R's are defending 24 seats to 9

McCaskill and Donnelly are DOA. Heitkamp, if she accepts Ag, will make it R+3. Only 2 R seats are remotely competitive in 2018.

I don't think Heitkamp will accept, but let's say she does, or she loses anyway along with Donnelly and McCaskill. Democrats beat Heller and Flake, that's R+1. 2020, Democrats take the presidency and take NC, CO, and one of GA/IA/AK/MT/ME/whatever. Not likely, but possible.

However I think we probably lose 2022 in that case, unless the gains in 2020 are huge.

[Mr. Smith]

For now:  Opt. 3

I'm skeptical of 2018 being a lock [just like 2010 was a Democratic lock...oops], but denying the GOP is favored is a recipe for disaster. That said, a Leftist's Tea Party is highly likely and only one seat besides AZ and NV is needed. All those "Ds in Red States" would hold on then, albeit with Roy Blunt numbers rather than anything comfortable, but still.

2020 is likely the big take-back, partially because of all the swing states and blue states the GOP has to defend, partially because trump's approvals will probably be in the drain.

And 2022 will suffer the usual post-'94 midterm problems, unless trump is re-elected or some other Republican pulls ahead.

[Klartext89]

R/D/D make sense on paper, but I don't get it considering the context of 18. Let's say that year is R+4. That's 56, so losing all of Tillis, Gardner, and Ernst, AND keeping Shaheen's seat, would STILL result in only 53. At that point, you have to wait for 2022 and pray to God Hassan survives without Day and you can pick up any of the competitives from this year.

Well I think it will be only +2 R in 2018 also 2018 the R's are defending 24 seats to 9

McCaskill and Donnelly are DOA. Heitkamp, if she accepts Ag, will make it R+3. Only 2 R seats are remotely competitive in 2018.

I don't think Heitkamp will accept, but let's say she does, or she loses anyway along with Donnelly and McCaskill. Democrats beat Heller and Flake, that's R+1. 2020, Democrats take the presidency and take NC, CO, and one of GA/IA/AK/MT/ME/whatever. Not likely, but possible.

However I think we probably lose 2022 in that case, unless the gains in 2020 are huge.

Heller survived Obama 2012. This year, Nevada was close - with a massive Hispanic turnout, you won't see again in 2018. I doubt that he will be beaten, but ok, let's say it is possible. One pickup.

Arizona... Ok, Trump only won with 3.5 points. But, McCain did with 14 points, 70% of Voters were still White, Latinos aren't Blacks and their turnout won't be that huge in a midterm. I'm sorry, but no way.

I won't comment again on Indiana, Missouri etc, because I only have to wait till Election Day and I'll smile about it ;-)

[Shadows]

R/R/R

The Senate is lost for a generation - You have to delusional if you feel ND, MT, MO, WV, etc will all be retained. You can't retain all unless Trump implodes (which is unlikely because he will get a pass for 1-2 years)

Look at the map in 2018 - Disaster. There are 10 seats up in states Trump won.

Look at 2020, there is little score for any gain or much.

There can be nothing till 2022 & even in 2022, it will require a big win, an anti-Trump wave where you win most of the swing seats!

[Pragmatic Conservative]

2018-Democrats pick up Nevada
Republicans pick up Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota.
R+2, 54-46 R Senate

2020-Democrats pick up Colorado, Georgia  
Republicans pick up New Hampshire
D+1, 53-47 R Senate

2022-Democrats pick up Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia.
D+5, 52-48 Senate (If Trump midterm)

Republicans pick up:New Hampshire
Democrats pick up: North Carolina
R/D + 0, 53-47 R Senate (If Democratic President Midterm)

[100% pro-life no matter what]

My current full projection:

2018: Republicans pick up Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin (R+7, 59-41 Senate)

2020: Republicans pick up Virginia (R+1, 60-40 Senate)

2022:
Trump midterm- Democrats pick up Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (D+4, 56-44 Senate)
Other Republican midterm- No changes (60-40 Senate)
Democrat midterm- Republicans pick up New Hampshire (R+1, 61-39 Senate)

[Heisenberg]

Sorry Extreme, the New Hampshire seats are gone. Would you be fine with pro-abortion Republican New Hampshire Senators?

[I’m not Stu]

Sorry Extreme, the New Hampshire seats are gone. Would you be fine with pro-abortion Republican New Hampshire Senators?

I support pro-abortion Republicans. Extreme, would you be fine with them winning in NH?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Sorry Extreme, the New Hampshire seats are gone. Would you be fine with pro-abortion Republican New Hampshire Senators?

I like how that's the problem you have with his projection.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

R/D/D  Cause Dems will regain the WH in 2020. Just in time for Justice Kennedy's replacement, since Clinton bungled the Scalia one

54-46 R control after 2018 with R's winning MO, IN, ND and Dems picking up NV

50/50 D control after 2020 with Dems winning AK, Iowa, CO and NC and Tillis is the weakest link.

[Dr. Arch]

Yes, of course, permanent R majority for the rest of eternity with a chance of super majority -eyeroll-

No, seriously, Ds were thought to be extremely favored this year and lost. The same could happen in 2018 or 2020, but for Rs instead.

Obama didn't get a pass in 2010, and I doubt Trump will in 2018, and our Twitter-obsessed president-elect is just a catastrophe waiting to happen.

[Hindsight was 2020]

R/D/D

2018: Bad year for Rs they pick up ND, IND but lose NV, ARI, an what for it UT that's right I'm calling for Huntmans or Evans running 3rd party splitting the R vote and Jim Matheson steals it in a perfect storm leading to the senate being only 51-49 Rs

[jamestroll]

If I had to guess. R/R/D

But that is only because I am assuming Trump wins a second term.

[peterthlee]

WILD GUESS (you may not believe in it, but I'll still go this way)
2018: 51-49 R (Dems hold onto ALL the vulnerable seats and dump Heller)
2020: 51-49 D (Dems capture CO and NC)
2022: 54-46 D (Dems recover WI, and destroy Toomey)

[jamestroll]

The Senate was designed in part to be insulated from public opinion. Hence why terms are for six years and every state gets two senators regardless of population. For today's world, considering the much greater differences in size of states, I would give each state one senator for a six year term and have as many senate districts as states based on population. Those senate districts could cross state lines. They would be four year terms. It would make more sense for today's America and it would still insulate the Senate from public opinion.

In addition to that reform, I would require districts to make geographic sense or increase the House of Representatives so every two years people vote for a party and the state gets an approximate proportion of each party. For instance, Wyoming would get three representatives. For Democrats to have one seat, they would need 1/3 of the vote. To get two seats, they would need to earn a majority of the vote. Still not perfect, but it would truly be more of the people's house. Based on public opinion. The former option would be simpler, the latter would be more fair.

But the above two paragraphs are well beyond the point of this thread.

Without that insulation, remember that the GOP would have likely took the Senate in 2010 and Democrats would have landslided it in 2006.

Trump is not going to enter office on much political capital. Even in Missouri, the Midwestern state most tailor made for Trump, he had underwater favorability ratings according to exit polls.

I can easily see two situations in 2018. The GOP could gain 8 to 11 seats because of the increasing partisanship of the US Senate or gains could be minimized none if Trump is unpopular.

Are Tester, Heitkamp, McCaskill, Manchin, Brown, and Donnelly dead on arrival in 2018? Maybe, maybe not is the best answer I can give.

Many users on here, even myself, have made arguments against those Senators being re-elected. I will make a few counter arguments for them being re-elected.

1) All of those above mentioned Senators won their states even as Romney won all those states easily, with the exception of Ohio. Those voters sent them to the US Senate knowing that sending them would lock control of the Senate to the Democrats that year. There was always a small chance that the GOP could have taken control of the Senate in 2012, though they blew it. Literally.

2) Machin is personally popular with his constituents in West Virginia. McCaskill would have likely won in 2012 irrespective of the legitimate rape comment, even if it would have been a single digit margin. Heitkamp obviously knew how to run a strong campaign and learned from errors of her previously failed governor bid.

3) Mandel, as of now, looks to be the front runner to face Sherrod Brown. I do not think Mandel is the one to take Brown out. He has Chris Murphy written all over him. Donnelly is really the only one who I could see as entirely vulnerable, but there is a path for him to win. He has not been high profile. That could be a blessing and a curse.

4) There will not be some idiot named Trump winning by 20+ points on top of the ticket in 2018. Coattials are overrated, but they can make a difference. If Trump won Missouri by 15 points, Kander would have likely pulled it out.

5) There seems to be a lot smug overconfidence by the GOP right now. Trust me, as a Democrat in 2016, I know that is a very good way to lose a winnable election!

6) It is easy to think that midterms naturally favor the GOP after the 2010 disaster and the unexpected 2014 disaster. Generally, angrier people vote. In 2018, I can assume that Democrats will be more angry.  It would take a disaster or national event that unifies the American people to have the GOP have an excellent midterm.

Now that Trump is President, it does not mean all those above mentioned Senators are going to win re-election in a walk. Lol, no.

One of those above mentioned Senators, or another Democratic Senator from a swing or blue state will probably lose. At least one. Some race is going to be unexpectedly competitive. It could be Mississippi for all we know. Some hyped challenger will fall short, maybe due to circumstances beyond their control.

As of right now, I think the Senate will be 54 Republicans to 46 Democrats/Independents after the 2018 elections. Of course, there is a path to get 60 Republicans to 40 Democrats, but not much path for a 51 D to 49 R. It still shows how insulated the Senate can be from public opinion. In a perfect world the House would not be insulated from public opinion at all. Remember that gerrymandering can backfire in a wave and it will be eight years since the lines were drawn.

2018- Republican 55 to 45
2020- Republican
2022- Democrat (I assume Trump wins re-election, though I could obviously be wrong).

[Pericles]

2018: R 52 R, 48 D

Both the Democrats and the Republicans lose one seat, cancelling each other our.  Given the map it is a GOP loss and Democrats gain the House.

2020: D 52 D, 48 R
Trump loses badly. Colorado, NC, Maine and Georgia are D gains
 
2022: R51 R, 49 D
Nevada, Colorado and New Hampshire go R in a backlash against the new D President.