Is this the best case scenario for Senate Democrats in 2018?

[Confused Democrat]

They hold down every seat they currently hold that's up for re-election, and they manage to pick up Nevada and Arizona.
What could lead to this map?

[Kingpoleon]

That is my prediction if Giffords or Sinema runs, and if Nevada Democrats get a strong recruit.

[Blackacre]

That is my prediction if Giffords or Sinema Or Kelly runs, and if Nevada Democrats get a strong recruit.

FYFY

It's also the prediction I went with in my TL, and we might see it happen if Trump collapses and stays collapsed by that point.

[MT Treasurer]

Democrats aren't winning MO and IN but losing TX (or even UT), so no. 

[GlobeSoc]

Why is NM colored blue in this 'best case' scenario. Also TX or UT are plausible targets in a best case scenario.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Hate to be morbid but best case for dems is a specially election for Isakson's seat with Kasim Reed winning it along with AZ/NV/an an upset in UT while only losing MO leading to a 51-49 dem senate

[DPKdebator]

That's a very optimistic scenario for the Democrats, perhaps a little too so. I would say a map like this is more likely:

It should also be considered that this will be a midterm election (which tends to be better for Republicans), while the last time these senators were up for election was in a presidential election year with a popular Democratic incumbent.

[Blackacre]

That's a very optimistic scenario for the Democrats, perhaps a little too so. I would say a map like this is more likely:

It should also be considered that this will be a midterm election (which tends to be better for Republicans), while the last time these senators were up for election was in a presidential election year with a popular Democratic incumbent.

That is WAY too optimistic for Republicans in a Trump midterm, especially one in which the GOP incumbent is not likely to be very popular. Midterm electorates don't automatically favour the Republicans; they're more likely to favour the out of power party. Independents vote for the other party as a check on the President and it's the opposition that's more energised to turn out. Hell, this would be too optimistic in a Clinton midterm. (seriously, MA as an R pickup? Rs gaining 10 seats?)

[Chief Justice Keef]

That's a very optimistic scenario for the Democrats, perhaps a little too so. I would say a map like this is more likely:
-map-
It should also be considered that this will be a midterm election (which tends to be better for Republicans), while the last time these senators were up for election was in a presidential election year with a popular Democratic incumbent.

Midterms aren't successful just for Republicans but for the minority party in general. Democrats now have a much better chance of holding down Senate seats like OH, MT, WI, PA or WV than they would have in a Clinton midterm.

[Blackacre]

Why do people here pretend to know what will happen in 2018? The party out of the White House doesn't always lose seats in the Senate.

And yeah, Republicans picking up 10 seats is certainly not less likely than Democrats retaking the Senate.

We weren't, this was another speculation thread about what the absolute best case scenario for Dems would be, not the most likely outcome. And the best case scenario mentioned wasn't even a Democratic takeover, but a 50-50 senate with ties broken by the GOP VP, Mike Pence. (But it's also true that the opposition party has the advantage going in, all else being equal)

[Sven]

And yeah, Republicans picking up 10 seats is certainly not less likely than Democrats retaking the Senate.

Only in the sense that one is just numerically implausible, rather than numerically impossible.

[jamestroll]

I think the chances of a GOP super majority are only slightly more compared to a Democratic majority.

I feel like people on this board will not accept the results if they do not go in their favor though and that is scary.

[The Other Castro]

The absolute best case dream puff scenario for Dems is holding every seat, picking up NV and AZ, and picking up TX or UT in a 3-man race/winning a special election for a seat not in the class coming up.

[peterthlee]

I don’t see FL falling to R unless Nelson opts out.
History is looping itself: Nelson just got a hyped up, seemingly robust challenger called Rick Scott.
I fear that he will implode more severely than Mack IV.

[Stranger in a strange land]

That's a very optimistic scenario for the Democrats, perhaps a little too so. I would say a map like this is more likely:
-map-
It should also be considered that this will be a midterm election (which tends to be better for Republicans), while the last time these senators were up for election was in a presidential election year with a popular Democratic incumbent.

Midterms aren't successful just for Republicans but for the minority party in general. Democrats now have a much better chance of holding down Senate seats like OH, MT, WI, PA or WV than they would have in a Clinton midterm.

Manchin in particular would have gotten Blanched in a Clinton Midterm, but now he has a chance.

[R/H]

Maybe the Democrats could also get Orin Hatch's seat in Utah if Evan McMullin runs as an independent.

[catographer]

That's a very optimistic scenario for the Democrats, perhaps a little too so. I would say a map like this is more likely:

It should also be considered that this will be a midterm election (which tends to be better for Republicans), while the last time these senators were up for election was in a presidential election year with a popular Democratic incumbent.

The incumbent president's party gaining 9 Senate seats in a midterm election is unheard of (especially if Trump is unpopular in 2018).

[Xing]

Pretty much, yes, barring something crazy happening in Texas or Nebraska. And lol at the idea that McCaskill and Donnelly are more likely to lose than Cruz is to win. 2018 is a different year, and results aren't going to mirror 2016 any more than 2010 results mirrored 2008.

[jamestroll]

Pretty much, yes, barring something crazy happening in Texas or Nebraska. And lol at the idea that McCaskill and Donnelly are more likely to lose than Cruz is to win. 2018 is a different year, and results aren't going to mirror 2016 any more than 2010 results mirrored 2008.

Don't you know all states swing uniformly and mathematical equations determine elections?

[Xing]

Pretty much, yes, barring something crazy happening in Texas or Nebraska. And lol at the idea that McCaskill and Donnelly are more likely to lose than Cruz is to win. 2018 is a different year, and results aren't going to mirror 2016 any more than 2010 results mirrored 2008.

I'm no expert on Indiana, but where is this idea that McCaskill is a very strong lock on re-election coming from?

It seems that Ann Wagner is going to be her probable opponent, and she's the last person in this state who would throw the race by pulling an Akin. It's also going to be more difficult to tie her to Trump than your average Republican.

While midterms tend to be better for the opposition party, minority turnout decreasing has also been a rather constant feature. Any Democratic victory statewide in Missouri is going to rely on robust African-American turnout in Kansas City and St. Louis and that is not something that can be taken for granted.

McCaskill would have lost in 2012 if she had a non-Akin opponent, and Missouri of 2018 will be a more difficult state for her to win than Missouri of 2012 given how much the state is trending right.

McCaskill might very narrowly win in the end (though I'd be shocked), but I have no idea how one could draw the conclusion that Cruz is more vulnerable than she is.

I didn't say that she was a lock or even favored for re-election, simply that she's more likely to win than whoever the Democrats run in Texas. I'd rate Missouri Lean R, and Texas Safe R (barring some massive game changer.)

[Figueira]

That's a very optimistic scenario for the Democrats, perhaps a little too so. I would say a map like this is more likely:

It should also be considered that this will be a midterm election (which tends to be better for Republicans), while the last time these senators were up for election was in a presidential election year with a popular Democratic incumbent.

I think you need to reread the title of this thread.

Anyway, I agree with the OP, especially NM! Obviously Heinrich is dead in the water and will easily lose to whomever the Republicans nominate.

Seriously though, I agree except NM and TX (I know, I know).

[Vosem]

A universal swing from the 2016 election of 10% to the Democrats would result in R+2. They're exposed in so many places that I would think something around there would be the best-case scenario for Democrats.

[Figueira]

A universal swing from the 2016 election of 10% to the Democrats would result in R+2. They're exposed in so many places that I would think something around there would be the best-case scenario for Democrats.

I think "best case" means "everything that can possibly go right goes right." But you're right, R+2 is more likely (universal swing, but replace Texas with Montana and maybe Arizona with West Virginia seems plausible).

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

fwiw this far out, it's probably best to make different predictions based on Trump's approval rating. So Trump at Hollande/PGY level approvals (probably impossible under the American system) would lead to a result like in the OP, with the possible additions of Texas and Utah if decent candidates were to run. Trump at around mid- to high-thirties would probably lead to an under-performance and mean that all the endangered incumbents can make a decent fight - no blanching - and that Heller and Flake are still underdogs. Bump his approvals up to his current mediocre numbers, and well, there will be a greater chance that people like Donnelly and McCaskill are sacrificed early, and any attack strategy on the SW Republicans will be cooled. If he is at positive approvals, then essentially every Trump state Democrat (except Stabenow) starts as an underdog at best, to the extent Brown and Baldwin might end up being triaged early; people like Kaine, Klobuchar and King should start to be unnerved if Trump approvals further climb to high 50's. If somehow he is at 60 percent or above (also probably impossible) then you would start to see a fillibuster-proof majority as quite likely, and if the GOP had put serious candidates in places like New Jersey, Delaware and Massachusetts.

This is of course assumes that the Trump brand continues to be intertwined with the Republican one - which may not be the case.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Obviously a best case should be based more on predictable causes like approvals, or the economy etc. Like, there is a remote chance that the six Republicans in safe R states all get simultaneously busted with dead hookers three days before election day; which would probably lead to a "best case scenario" of completely sweeping the cycle, but is kind of ridiculous as a prediction.