What wil the next Senate look like?

[Blackacre]

Ds take NV and AZ, Republicans take 0-4 of Indiana, Missouri, West Virginia, and North Dakota. Senate ranges from 54-46 to 50-50

[Blackacre]

Assuming things continue at their current trajectory^, Democrats are overreaching, catering to their coastal base while continuing to alienate the interior. Likely losses in Missouri, Indiana, and Montana, probable loss in Ohio, West Virginia and North Dakota might be spared due to their incumbents' flexibility. One of the Trump-Obama states might also be peeled off. Expect 55R-45D.

^Which they almost never do

That was my point I made yesterday broadly speaking. Democrats in Republican states won't survive because of Democratic obstructionism. It will be their downfall.

You mean like how GOP senate candidates in NH, OH, IA, PA, FL, WI, and IL were all screwed in 2010 because of GOP Obstructionism toward Obama?

[Blackacre]

Assuming things continue at their current trajectory^, Democrats are overreaching, catering to their coastal base while continuing to alienate the interior. Likely losses in Missouri, Indiana, and Montana, probable loss in Ohio, West Virginia and North Dakota might be spared due to their incumbents' flexibility. One of the Trump-Obama states might also be peeled off. Expect 55R-45D.

^Which they almost never do

That was my point I made yesterday broadly speaking. Democrats in Republican states won't survive because of Democratic obstructionism. It will be their downfall.

You mean like how GOP senate candidates in NH, OH, IA, PA, FL, WI, and IL were all screwed in 2010 because of GOP Obstructionism toward Obama?

The economy was still in the toilet then. Right now business is good under Trump's reign. Of course that is likely to change if Yellen can do anything about it.

I agree with you there. The point I was trying to refute is YT's claim that Democrats' obstructing Trump will cause their downfall, because it didn't for Republicans in 2010. It was the economy that decided that election; I don't think Dems holding the line against Trump will hurt them.

[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

[Blackacre]

At the rate Trump is going 50-50 is looking likely

Pretty unlikely. I just don’t see how Dems are picking up NV and AZ while losing no seat; especially ND and IN. The very best scenario 51-49 GOP (picking up AZ and NV while losing ND). More likely is that Flake survives while IN and ND are gone for the Dems. NV will be a pure toss-up, so likely anything between 52-48 to 54-46 GOP. I wouldn’t be surprised if endangered Republicans distance themselves from the Trumpster like Dems have done in 2014.

Heitkamp is not the most vulnerable Dem in 2018. She may have won by only a hair in 2012, but it was against a noncontroversial opponent, and retail politics is stronger than party politics in states as tiny as North Dakota. (However, Donnelly, while not dead in the water, is in more trouble)

Also, dems distancing themselves from Obama did not help one Iota in 2014.