2018: How many Senate seats do Democrats pick up?

[Suburbia]

How many Senate seats do the Democrats pick up in 2018? Do they pick up Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and maybe even Utah?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

They will almost certainly lose seats in 2018, given the map.  The big question is whether or not Republicans can get a filibuster-proof majority.

[The Other Castro]

Probably one, maybe two if they're lucky. But they will still probably experience a net loss.

[/]

They will almost certainly lose seats in 2018, given the map.  The big question is whether or not Republicans can get a filibuster-proof majority.

I honestly can't see the GOP netting eight.

[Mr.Phips]

They will almost certainly lose seats in 2018, given the map.  The big question is whether or not Republicans can get a filibuster-proof majority.

I honestly can't see the GOP netting eight.

Yeah, not gonna happen with Trump as President.  If Dems can hold the net loss to two or three, they should be quite happy.

[Suburbia]

They will almost certainly lose seats in 2018, given the map.  The big question is whether or not Republicans can get a filibuster-proof majority.

I honestly can't see the GOP netting eight.

Yeah, not gonna happen with Trump as President.  If Dems can hold the net loss to two or three, they should be quite happy.

I don't know. Some analysts think that the GOP could have a supermajority in the Senate in 2018. They can pick up OH, MO, IN, MT, WV, ND.

[Mr.Phips]

They will almost certainly lose seats in 2018, given the map.  The big question is whether or not Republicans can get a filibuster-proof majority.

I honestly can't see the GOP netting eight.

Yeah, not gonna happen with Trump as President.  If Dems can hold the net loss to two or three, they should be quite happy.

I don't know. Some analysts think that the GOP could have a supermajority in the Senate in 2018. They can pick up OH, MO, IN, MT, WV, ND.

I don't think Ohio will flip with Trump as President.  Trump will also allow Tester, Manchin, and Heithkemp independently without the weight of a Dem President.  Donnelly and McCaskill, however, I see as almost sure losers.

[Xing]

My guess right now is 1, but it'll almost certainly be 0-2 (not as in net gain, but how many individual seats held by Republicans that they manage to pick up.)

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Nevada and maybe if it is a good night Arizona. Everything else is basically off the table for pickup opportunities, except for possibly Texas(still a stretch). Though I expect Democrats to loose Indiana, Missouri and probably North Dakota at the very least.   

[Hindsight was 2020]

Can we "forget the map" Brown is not likely in danger in OH or Machin in WV or Tester in MT just cause Trump won those states doesn't mean they are in trouble case in point Obama wins Mass by like 20 in 08 then in 10 Brown wins Kennedy's seat there isn't a transition. In all likely hood the dems are looking at 2-3 seats in trouble in MO, IN, and ND as the people there are not overly popular while the GOP has 2 seats in trouble NV & AZ (maybe 3 with UT but that's due to third party rumblings)

[justfollowingtheelections]

Can we "forget the map" Brown is not likely in danger in OH or Machin in WV or Tester in MT just cause Trump won those states doesn't mean they are in trouble case in point Obama wins Mass by like 20 in 08 then in 10 Brown wins Kennedy's seat there isn't a transition. In all likely hood the dems are looking at 2-3 seats in trouble in MO, IN, and ND as the people there are not overly popular while the GOP has 2 seats in trouble NV & AZ (maybe 3 with UT but that's due to third party rumblings)

I tend to agree.  I think the Democrats will do way better than people are expecting in 2018.

[MarkD]

Counting King and Sanders as if they are Democrats (because they caucus with them and very, very often vote with them), there are 25 Democratic-held seats up and only 8 Republican seats up in 2018. I think it as inevitable that Democrats will have a net loss of seats.

[Nyvin]

I really don't think the Republicans will pick up 8 seats,  that's pretty much unheard of for a President's party midterm.

[Vosem]

I would say the median of likely results is R+4 (this comes from a result where every state votes exactly as they did presidentially, but you add 5% to the Democrats to simulate a midterm backlash), and any result gets progressively less likely the further from that you deviate.

Incidentally, the same method gets you D+30 in the House, which is a (very) narrow takeover. Would be hilarious watching Speaker Pelosi interact with a huge, once-in-a-generation Republican Senate majority (would be the largest since pre-Reagan if the 2018 result is R+4). And the Trump White House, of course.

[Figueira]

Assuming this is just gain without factoring in losses, 1-2. I think Democrats will probably pick up Nevada and/or Arizona. 0 is sadly more likely than 3.

[Figueira]

Tester and Brown aren't safe just because Trump is president (and neither are several other Democratic Senators). I see Democrats are still as overconfident as they were before the election.

They're not "safe," but where are Republicans getting these 8 seats? I guess the five Romney states plus OH and WI bringing them to 7, but then they have to pick up one of PA, FL, VA, and NJ (I think those are the only others that are really in play, although some others might flip if it's a real wave). And they need two of those if Democrats get NV.

So I'll admit that it's possible. But I'd say it's pretty unlikely. I'd say the "big question" is whether they can lock Democrats out of a realistic chance to win the Senate in 2020. (They basically did the equivalent in 2016.)

[Klartext89]

LOL.

If it's a Democratic year, they'll only lose net 5 because they pick up Nevada. ^^

[Figueira]

I think the big question is not how much people hate Trump, but how polarized people are. It's possible that even in an absolute Democratic tsunami year, people in WV and MO and places like that simply aren't willing to vote a Democrat to federal office. However it's also possible that that isn't the case. We'll wait and see, but my point is that Trump's popularity or lack thereof is not the only factor at stake here.

[Maxwell]

They'll probably lose a few seats, if they're lucky they'll hold even.

[LabourJersey]

I think the big question is not how much people hate Trump, but how polarized people are. It's possible that even in an absolute Democratic tsunami year, people in WV and MO and places like that simply aren't willing to vote a Democrat to federal office. However it's also possible that that isn't the case. We'll wait and see, but my point is that Trump's popularity or lack thereof is not the only factor at stake here.

I agree, I think polarization has increased so much over the past 10-15 years that certain states are going to be insulated.
I think it's quite possible that Trump's approval could be 25% as of November 2018 (I suppose it can also be 50%, and one can't predict the future but 25 is more likely), but that 25% could be concentrated in a few states, some of which have Dem senators up for re-election.

[windjammer]

From -1 to +1

[GlobeSoc]

The Democrats gain 8 seats through wizardry, completing the trend of Class 1 to 1000% Democratic

[KingSweden]

My expectation at this early stage is a net of 0 or -1 - Dems flip NV and AZ but suffer their own losses.

Though DKE posted rumblings that Wagner might not run... in which case, good news for Air Claire

[Hindsight was 2020]

This seriously feels like 08 (oh the GOP can't do anything in 2010 look at the map blah blah blah) Seriously in an anti-Trump year the map will mean nothing the dems for all we know could they could win AZ, NV, UT (due to third party), and TX (due to Ted not being liked) if Scott Brown can win in 2010 in Mass I don't see why a Dem in 2018 couldn't win in Texas

[jamestroll]

My expectation at this early stage is a net of 0 or -1 - Dems flip NV and AZ but suffer their own losses.

Though DKE posted rumblings that Wagner might not run... in which case, good news for Air Claire

Wagner is a good fit for the St. Louis suburbs that Blunt cratered in (he only won St. Charles County by 7! That's unheard of for an incumbent R), but she's persona non-grata among the Trumpists after her endorsement flip. I have my doubts she'd get a clear primary, and would probably lose one to a decently funded opponent.

I think the next Democratic statewide victory in Missouri will come from suburbs not rural areas. I would not be shocked if St Charles County voted for a Dem (even if barely) in the next statewide Democratic victory.  Ste Genevieve is probably the only rural county that would vote for a Democrat in a statewide victory.  But one has got to wonder if it is easier to flip rural voters in the lead belt or exurban voters in St Charles. You could really argue the former might be true because as you look at maps and election swings rural voters tend to swing a lot more.

Anyway, Wagner should run. She would be favored to over take McCaskill and I would be interested to see if Democrats could compete in an open MO-02 without a Democrat in the White House. Even this year, it was quite a split ticket district. Plus in 2010/2014 and 2016 there was always a State Senate seat that Democrats won within the district and they were all seen as sort of consolation prizes. 

Also if Trump implodes the fact that Wagner unendorsed Trump, even if briefly, could help her cause to be honest. Of course it is one of those issues that could very much go either way for her.

As for the topic of this thread:

I would recommend that Democrats not get too obsessed with taking over the Senate. Very unlikely to happen. Chances are better in the House and Governorships. After eight years of Obama, Democrats are in an awful position in state governments. Try to win House Seats back, even potentially take the US House. Try to win back some legislative seats, win back some governorships, win County Offices to create a bench for future statewide races.

A county Treasurer elected in a medium size GOP-leaning county could be a statewide Treasurer/CFO/Auditor candidate in the future for Democrats. A new State Senator from a light-gop leaning suburb who is an attorney could be a future state Attorney General candidate.

As far as Utah Senate 2018, I hope it is interesting. Utah needs some exciting race. I do wonder if Matheson may change his mind to try to get in. But I think his current career could well hurt him. He does not seem to mesh well with Democratic House Members but perhaps he can get along better with Democratic Senators.