What wil the next Senate look like?

[Sir Mohamed]

Flake is in danger I don't get why AZ isn't listed more

I think he’ll hold on by two or three points. If he loses the primary to a Tea Partier, I see Dems have a serious shot. NV? Not sure yet; Heller likely gets narrowly reelected as well.

In the end probably a net gain for the GOP by one or two seats. McCaskill and Tester will narrowly win, as will Manchin and Brown. Nelson is not in danger in my opinion. Heitkamp is almost certainly gone even if the Trumpster has very weak numbers. The same in IN.

[Hoosier_Nick]

I feel like Dems lose Heitkamp and Donnelly's seats while beating Heller. McCaskill, Brown and Tester win narrowly for Dems and Flake wins narrowly for Republicans. Ends as a 53-47 split. The risk of Manchin flipping parties will dissolve once Trump continues doing his crazy things, unifying the Democratic Party.

[RINO Tom]

60-40 R (all Trump-state Democrats except for Stabenow and either Casey or Nelson lose).  Manchin may become a Republican and win re-election that way.

Joe.  Manchin.  Is.  Not.  Becoming.  A.  Republican.

[jamestroll]

60-40 R (all Trump-state Democrats except for Stabenow and either Casey or Nelson lose).  Manchin may become a Republican and win re-election that way.

Joe.  Manchin.  Is.  Not.  Becoming.  A.  Republican.

This forum is basically Free Republic 2.0 now.

These 2016 forever people may be in for a big surprise in 2018 and 2020.

[RINO Tom]

60-40 R (all Trump-state Democrats except for Stabenow and either Casey or Nelson lose).  Manchin may become a Republican and win re-election that way.

Joe.  Manchin.  Is.  Not.  Becoming.  A.  Republican.

This forum is basically Free Republic 2.0 now.

These 2016 forever people may be in for a big surprise in 2018 and 2020.

You can be a huge Republican hack and not think that Joe Manchin is going to ditch the party he's been with for decades just because he likes guns.

[KingSweden]

I feel like Dems lose Heitkamp and Donnelly's seats while winning beating Heller. McCaskill, Brown and Tester win narrowly for Dems and Flake wins narrowly for Republicans. Ends as a 53-47 split. The risk of Manchin flipping parties will dissolve once Trump continues doing his crazy things, unifying the Democratic Party.

Yeah, I think this is reasonable

[Klartext89]

These 2016 forever people may be in for a big surprise in 2018 and 2020.

These 2016 was a surprise and won't happen again will be in for a big shock in 2018 and 2020.

These thinking that McCaskill, Tester, Heitkamp, Donelly and Manchin will survive are in for a big weak up call.

These thinking that Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida or Virginia will not be highly contested races, will also be very stunned.

These thinking that Heller or Flake will go down in a midterm with a much friendlier electorate will also search for the big Hispanic turnout that will bring Trump down.

But keep on dreaming. Long time to go, a lot will happen but I doubt that Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, Sharron Angle or Ken Buck, will become the GOP nominees again. I also highly doubt that GOP nominees will be lackluster campaigners like Rick Berg in 2018.

[Young Conservative]

Instead of wanting a majority can Republicans start wanting a #GOPSupermajority

[PMHub]

Instead of wanting a majority can Republicans start wanting a #GOPSupermajority

Doesn't mean they'll get one

[justfollowingtheelections]

I would just like to point out that there is no actual way the Democrats win control of the Senate. If they did actually win the Senate they would win the only two competitive GOP-held seats (Arizona and Nevada) and then they'd have to pick up a safe GOP state (Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah). There is no actual chance that the Dems would be able to pick up those seats. If they were to win Nevada and Arizona then it would be a 50-50 tie with Pence giving control to the GOP. The math absolute trash for Democrats. Expect a big gain for the Republicans .

Anything could happen.  Don't be so arrogant.
It's really difficult to predict anything when we don't know who the candidates.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I would just like to point out that there is no actual way the Democrats win control of the Senate. If they did actually win the Senate they would win the only two competitive GOP-held seats (Arizona and Nevada) and then they'd have to pick up a safe GOP state (Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming, Mississippi, Nebraska, Utah). There is no actual chance that the Dems would be able to pick up those seats. If they were to win Nevada and Arizona then it would be a 50-50 tie with Pence giving control to the GOP. The math absolute trash for Democrats. Expect a big gain for the Republicans .

Anything could happen.  Don't be so arrogant.
It's really difficult to predict anything when we don't know who the candidates.

Realistically the Dems don't have a chance in safe R states to begin with. They lack candidates that would make those seats competitive. It is a simple fact that the seat math for control of the Senate lies with the Republicans. They really only have two seats that are vulnerable compared to the Democrats' 10 or so seats. We won't get a super majority but our gains in 2018 will help solidify control come 2020.

BS as covered here the dems have only 3 seats in trouble. Nelson/Brown/Manchin/Casey are not in trouble and even Baldwin who could be doesn't have a heavy opposition as the Wisconsin GOP bench isn't that strong.  Also TX is trending an Ted is not liked in an anti-Trump wave he could loss to Beto or Catsro.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

BS as covered here the dems have only 3 seats in trouble. Nelson/Brown/Manchin/Casey are not in trouble and even Baldwin who could be doesn't have a heavy opposition as the Wisconsin GOP bench isn't that strong.  Also TX is trending an Ted is not liked in an anti-Trump wave he could loss to Beto or Catsro.

Mhm.

[Blackacre]

YT's equating "Dems have few opportunities for gains and can't gain the seats needed to retake the senate" (which I agree with) with "Expect big gains for the Republicans." This is a total non-sequitur. The GOP isn't guaranteed anything in a Trump midterm when their party's President has never been popular. Dems have few opportunities for pickups, but they also have a lot of incumbents and the advantages that come with it, incumbents who were last elected in 2012 in Romney states. Hietkamp, Tester, Donnelly, Manchin, and McCaskill all won their races while on the same ticket as Mitt Romney who went on to easily win their states.  Yes, McCaskill faced a terrible opponent, as did Donnelly, but they both still got majorities, meaning that their wins cannot be solely attributed to bad opponents. Brown, Baldwin, Stabenow, Casey, and Nelson represent Obama-to-Trump states, (so they're probably more vulnerable than Tester and company) but they will be aided either by a weak GOP Bench or simply by the fact that it's going to be a Trump midterm, these states all voted for Obama, and the people most motivated to vote are going to be the ones opposed to the incumbent President.

I will eat those words if most of the aforementioned incumbents go down to defeat in 2018, but I'm confident that most will keep their jobs. One or two might fall through the cracks; maybe ND trended too far right, or maybe Donnelly was a one-trick pony, or maybe McCaskill really did only get people to vote for her instead of skipping the race because Akin was bad. But Dean Heller is much, much more vulnerable, and Jeff Flake is only strong if he survives his primary. I will not be surprised if the senate numbers are unchanged (net neutral) in 2019 from 2017, or if Pence will actually have to start casting some tiebreaking votes in 2019.

Here's a comparison, with the same Class 1, no less: in 1982, the GOP had come off of a landslide victory in 1980 (that Trump didn't have) with a charismatic president who was popular for most of his tenure and was a good communicator. (none of which applies to Trump) They only had to defend 11 seats, and the Dems had to defend 22. 22 Senate seats from mostly Reagan states, like Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. In that midterm election, Democrats walked away with a net gain of one seat while the GOP broke even. I don't expect 2018 to be any harsher on the Democrats

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

YT's equating "Dems have few opportunities for gains and can't gain the seats needed to retake the senate" (which I agree with) with "Expect big gains for the Republicans." This is a total non-sequitur. The GOP isn't guaranteed anything in a Trump midterm when their party's President has never been popular. Dems have few opportunities for pickups, but they also have a lot of incumbents and the advantages that come with it, incumbents who were last elected in 2012 in Romney states. Hietkamp, Tester, Donnelly, Manchin, and McCaskill all won their races while on the same ticket as Mitt Romney who went on to easily win their states.  Yes, McCaskill faced a terrible opponent, as did Donnelly, but they both still got majorities, meaning that their wins cannot be solely attributed to bad opponents. Brown, Baldwin, Stabenow, Casey, and Nelson represent Obama-to-Trump states, (so they're probably more vulnerable than Tester and company) but they will be aided either by a weak GOP Bench or simply by the fact that it's going to be a Trump midterm, these states all voted for Obama, and the people most motivated to vote are going to be the ones opposed to the incumbent President.

I will eat those words if most of the aforementioned incumbents go down to defeat in 2018, but I'm confident that most will keep their jobs. One or two might fall through the cracks; maybe ND trended too far right, or maybe Donnelly was a one-trick pony, or maybe McCaskill really did only get people to vote for her instead of skipping the race because Akin was bad. But Dean Heller is much, much more vulnerable, and Jeff Flake is only strong if he survives his primary. I will not be surprised if the senate numbers are unchanged (net neutral) in 2019 from 2017, or if Pence will actually have to start casting some tiebreaking votes in 2019.

Here's a comparison, with the same Class 1, no less: in 1982, the GOP had come off of a landslide victory in 1980 (that Trump didn't have) with a charismatic president who was popular for most of his tenure and was a good communicator. (none of which applies to Trump) They only had to defend 11 seats, and the Dems had to defend 22. 22 Senate seats from mostly Reagan states, like Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. In that midterm election, Democrats walked away with a net gain of one seat while the GOP broke even. I don't expect 2018 to be any harsher on the Democrats

-Different party system.

[Hindsight was 2020]

YT's equating "Dems have few opportunities for gains and can't gain the seats needed to retake the senate" (which I agree with) with "Expect big gains for the Republicans." This is a total non-sequitur. The GOP isn't guaranteed anything in a Trump midterm when their party's President has never been popular. Dems have few opportunities for pickups, but they also have a lot of incumbents and the advantages that come with it, incumbents who were last elected in 2012 in Romney states. Hietkamp, Tester, Donnelly, Manchin, and McCaskill all won their races while on the same ticket as Mitt Romney who went on to easily win their states.  Yes, McCaskill faced a terrible opponent, as did Donnelly, but they both still got majorities, meaning that their wins cannot be solely attributed to bad opponents. Brown, Baldwin, Stabenow, Casey, and Nelson represent Obama-to-Trump states, (so they're probably more vulnerable than Tester and company) but they will be aided either by a weak GOP Bench or simply by the fact that it's going to be a Trump midterm, these states all voted for Obama, and the people most motivated to vote are going to be the ones opposed to the incumbent President.

I will eat those words if most of the aforementioned incumbents go down to defeat in 2018, but I'm confident that most will keep their jobs. One or two might fall through the cracks; maybe ND trended too far right, or maybe Donnelly was a one-trick pony, or maybe McCaskill really did only get people to vote for her instead of skipping the race because Akin was bad. But Dean Heller is much, much more vulnerable, and Jeff Flake is only strong if he survives his primary. I will not be surprised if the senate numbers are unchanged (net neutral) in 2019 from 2017, or if Pence will actually have to start casting some tiebreaking votes in 2019.

Here's a comparison, with the same Class 1, no less: in 1982, the GOP had come off of a landslide victory in 1980 (that Trump didn't have) with a charismatic president who was popular for most of his tenure and was a good communicator. (none of which applies to Trump) They only had to defend 11 seats, and the Dems had to defend 22. 22 Senate seats from mostly Reagan states, like Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. In that midterm election, Democrats walked away with a net gain of one seat while the GOP broke even. I don't expect 2018 to be any harsher on the Democrats

-Different party system.

An on schedule the "the dem party is now the party of terrorist and anti-American so they can never win again" shows up

[Pragmatic Conservative]

54-46 (Republicans +2)

Democrats Gain: Nevada
Republicans Gain: Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

YT's equating "Dems have few opportunities for gains and can't gain the seats needed to retake the senate" (which I agree with) with "Expect big gains for the Republicans." This is a total non-sequitur. The GOP isn't guaranteed anything in a Trump midterm when their party's President has never been popular. Dems have few opportunities for pickups, but they also have a lot of incumbents and the advantages that come with it, incumbents who were last elected in 2012 in Romney states. Hietkamp, Tester, Donnelly, Manchin, and McCaskill all won their races while on the same ticket as Mitt Romney who went on to easily win their states.  Yes, McCaskill faced a terrible opponent, as did Donnelly, but they both still got majorities, meaning that their wins cannot be solely attributed to bad opponents. Brown, Baldwin, Stabenow, Casey, and Nelson represent Obama-to-Trump states, (so they're probably more vulnerable than Tester and company) but they will be aided either by a weak GOP Bench or simply by the fact that it's going to be a Trump midterm, these states all voted for Obama, and the people most motivated to vote are going to be the ones opposed to the incumbent President.

I will eat those words if most of the aforementioned incumbents go down to defeat in 2018, but I'm confident that most will keep their jobs. One or two might fall through the cracks; maybe ND trended too far right, or maybe Donnelly was a one-trick pony, or maybe McCaskill really did only get people to vote for her instead of skipping the race because Akin was bad. But Dean Heller is much, much more vulnerable, and Jeff Flake is only strong if he survives his primary. I will not be surprised if the senate numbers are unchanged (net neutral) in 2019 from 2017, or if Pence will actually have to start casting some tiebreaking votes in 2019.

Here's a comparison, with the same Class 1, no less: in 1982, the GOP had come off of a landslide victory in 1980 (that Trump didn't have) with a charismatic president who was popular for most of his tenure and was a good communicator. (none of which applies to Trump) They only had to defend 11 seats, and the Dems had to defend 22. 22 Senate seats from mostly Reagan states, like Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. In that midterm election, Democrats walked away with a net gain of one seat while the GOP broke even. I don't expect 2018 to be any harsher on the Democrats

-Different party system.

An on schedule the "the dem party is now the party of terrorist and anti-American so they can never win again" shows up

-No. It's just that people who voted Trump are a lot less likely to vote for downballot Dems than in 1982.

[Virginiá]

Here's a comparison, with the same Class 1, no less: in 1982, the GOP had come off of a landslide victory in 1980 (that Trump didn't have) with a charismatic president who was popular for most of his tenure and was a good communicator. (none of which applies to Trump) They only had to defend 11 seats, and the Dems had to defend 22. 22 Senate seats from mostly Reagan states, like Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. In that midterm election, Democrats walked away with a net gain of one seat while the GOP broke even. I don't expect 2018 to be any harsher on the Democrats

Not to mention that in 1982, of all the Republicans who won reelection or picked up a seat, 7 races were pretty close, some very much so:

Missouri (John Danforth)   50.8% - 49.1%
Minnesota (David Durenberger)   52.6% - 46.6%
Nevada (Chic Hecht - Rep pickup)   50.1% - 47.7%
Rhode Island (John Chafee)   51.2% - 48.8%
Vermont (Robert Stafford)   50.3% - 47.2%
Virginia (Paul S. Trible Jr. - Rep pickup)   51.2% - 48.2%
Connecticut (Lowell Weicker Jr)  50.4% - 46.1%

-

@Eharding  - if you think it's impossible for Republicans to come up short in 2018 with that map, consider that Democrats won those races once before in the first place, and that a map that was supposed to be gold for Democrats last year didn't work out as well as it looked on paper. Sure, some Democrats in 2012 got real lucky, but now they have some more luck of their own by running as incumbents in a midterm of who will probably be an unpopular incumbent president. A large net gain is likely not in the cards for Republicans if what we've seen so far continues into the future.

For as bullish as people accuse us Democrats of being now, you guys sure have some hyper-optismistic views on your side, despite history showing time and again the pains an unpopular president inflicts on their party. They aren't running against an equally unpopular Clinton next time. There won't be a single target for deflection anymore.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Here's a comparison, with the same Class 1, no less: in 1982, the GOP had come off of a landslide victory in 1980 (that Trump didn't have) with a charismatic president who was popular for most of his tenure and was a good communicator. (none of which applies to Trump) They only had to defend 11 seats, and the Dems had to defend 22. 22 Senate seats from mostly Reagan states, like Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. In that midterm election, Democrats walked away with a net gain of one seat while the GOP broke even. I don't expect 2018 to be any harsher on the Democrats

Not to mention that in 1982, of all the Republicans who won reelection or picked up a seat, 7 races were pretty close, some very much so:

Missouri (John Danforth)   50.8% - 49.1%
Minnesota (David Durenberger)   52.6% - 46.6%
Nevada (Chic Hecht - Rep pickup)   50.1% - 47.7%
Rhode Island (John Chafee)   51.2% - 48.8%
Vermont (Robert Stafford)   50.3% - 47.2%
Virginia (Paul S. Trible Jr. - Rep pickup)   51.2% - 48.2%
Connecticut (Lowell Weicker Jr)  50.4% - 46.1%

-

@Eharding  - if you think it's impossible for Republicans to come up short in 2018 with that map, consider that Democrats won those races once before in the first place, and that a map that was supposed to be gold for Democrats last year didn't work out as well as it looked on paper. Sure, some Democrats in 2012 got real lucky, but now they have some more luck of their own by running as incumbents in a midterm of who will probably be an unpopular incumbent president. A large net gain is likely not in the cards for Republicans if what we've seen so far continues into the future.

For as bullish as people accuse us Democrats of being now, you guys sure have some hyper-optismistic views on your side, despite history showing time and again the pains an unpopular president inflicts on their party. They aren't running against an equally unpopular Clinton next time. There won't be a single target for deflection anymore.

-This entire post is projection.

[JerryArkansas]

Here's a comparison, with the same Class 1, no less: in 1982, the GOP had come off of a landslide victory in 1980 (that Trump didn't have) with a charismatic president who was popular for most of his tenure and was a good communicator. (none of which applies to Trump) They only had to defend 11 seats, and the Dems had to defend 22. 22 Senate seats from mostly Reagan states, like Montana, Wisconsin, Ohio, Tennessee, and Florida. In that midterm election, Democrats walked away with a net gain of one seat while the GOP broke even. I don't expect 2018 to be any harsher on the Democrats

Not to mention that in 1982, of all the Republicans who won reelection or picked up a seat, 7 races were pretty close, some very much so:

Missouri (John Danforth)   50.8% - 49.1%
Minnesota (David Durenberger)   52.6% - 46.6%
Nevada (Chic Hecht - Rep pickup)   50.1% - 47.7%
Rhode Island (John Chafee)   51.2% - 48.8%
Vermont (Robert Stafford)   50.3% - 47.2%
Virginia (Paul S. Trible Jr. - Rep pickup)   51.2% - 48.2%
Connecticut (Lowell Weicker Jr)  50.4% - 46.1%

-

@Eharding  - if you think it's impossible for Republicans to come up short in 2018 with that map, consider that Democrats won those races once before in the first place, and that a map that was supposed to be gold for Democrats last year didn't work out as well as it looked on paper. Sure, some Democrats in 2012 got real lucky, but now they have some more luck of their own by running as incumbents in a midterm of who will probably be an unpopular incumbent president. A large net gain is likely not in the cards for Republicans if what we've seen so far continues into the future.

For as bullish as people accuse us Democrats of being now, you guys sure have some hyper-optismistic views on your side, despite history showing time and again the pains an unpopular president inflicts on their party. They aren't running against an equally unpopular Clinton next time. There won't be a single target for deflection anymore.

-This entire post is projection.

Have you ever looked at your posting history and some of the things you throw up on this forum?  You're the last person who should be talking about projection.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Jerry, of course:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=257481.msg5494116#msg5494116

[Virginiá]

-This entire post is projection.

You can call it what you want, but at least I'm going off of history and known issues with midterms and not just the idea that my candidate is the second coming of Jesus, and he'll bring unprecedented gains to his party because he's going to, uh, make America great again.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

-This entire post is projection.

You can call it what you want, but at least I'm going off of history and known issues with midterms and not just the idea that my candidate is the second coming of Jesus, and he'll bring unprecedented gains to his party because he's going to, uh, make America great again.

-A two-seat gain in the Senate in a midterm is not "unprecedented". What were you going off of here?
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=225412.msg4844270#msg4844270
Florida was known to be trending GOP since 2000 when this was written.

[GlobeSoc]

Class 1 can be anywhere from 33-0 to 0-33. Wait for a little data.

[JerryArkansas]

-This entire post is projection.

You can call it what you want, but at least I'm going off of history and known issues with midterms and not just the idea that my candidate is the second coming of Jesus, and he'll bring unprecedented gains to his party because he's going to, uh, make America great again.

-A two-seat gain in the Senate in a midterm is not "unprecedented". What were you going off of here?
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=225412.msg4844270#msg4844270
Florida was known to be trending GOP since 2000 when this was written.

First off can I say you are very obsessed to try and go back through posting history to try and prove your point.  Second, what relevance does that have to the conversation?