Do Dems get a "working majority"?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lean D AZ, CO, IA, ME NC, SC 52/48
Tossup GA and KS 55/45
Lean R AL, AK,  KY, MT, MS and TX 60/40

51/55 seats are the probable scenario

[MargieCat]

I predict they will hit 52 seats. AZ, CO, NC, ME, and maybe IA. I also think there will be a shocker or two between TX, AK, MT, SC, KS, MS, AL, and a GA seat. Definitely not going to sweep all the states in the second bunch. I assume Gary Peters will hold his seat.

52 is essentially Sinema and Manchin proof.

Feinstein's on thin ice with the progressive California electorate. Tester needs to walk the tightrope if he wants to be re-elected in 2024, since Montana skews to the right.

Assuming Biden wins, Kamala can be a tiebreaker vote when needed.

Also, I suspect Greenfield will be Manchin/Sinema democrat.

[smoltchanov]

While I think the Dems getting a raw majority is a pretty decent chance of happening right now, the problem is getting a majority that doesn't rely on Manchin/Sinema, or (more significantly) relying on procedural hawks like Feinstein and King. I'm still a bit skeptical that they do so.

IMO if the Dems are under 52 Senate seats it's as good as a loss in the Senate as nothing will pass.

The only "good majority" is a "ultraliberal majority"?

[Former President tack50]

Voting yes, but with the big asterisk that it will be conditional on at least one of DC or PR becoming a state.

So initially they will lack said majority, but once DC and/or PR becomes a state they will get it.

[wesmoorenerd]

While I think the Dems getting a raw majority is a pretty decent chance of happening right now, the problem is getting a majority that doesn't rely on Manchin/Sinema, or (more significantly) relying on procedural hawks like Feinstein and King. I'm still a bit skeptical that they do so.

IMO if the Dems are under 52 Senate seats it's as good as a loss in the Senate as nothing will pass.

The only "good majority" is a "ultraliberal majority"?

yes

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah, TX, OK, AL, MS, SD, AR, TN, KY and LA aren't winnable

[Pollster]

Manchin will never cast the deciding vote against the Democratic party. Sinema has a much shorter track record but would in all likelihood do the same.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Manchin will never cast the deciding vote against the Democratic party. Sinema has a much shorter track record but would in all likelihood do the same.

The main problem isn't them casting votes against the caucus but persuading the Senate Democratic leadership to abandon legislation before it's even been tabled.

[ProgressiveModerate]

This is prolly the best Biden can hope for.

[MT Treasurer]

Manchin and Sinema aren’t casting the deciding vote against the Democrats OR persuading the Senate Democratic leadership to abandon any legislation. A 50/50 Senate under a Biden presidency is a working majority.

It honestly baffles me how easily people get conned by Manchin and Sinema even after everything they’ve done since 2019.

Also, I suspect Greenfield will be Manchin/Sinema democrat.

You’re actually right, just not in the way you intended to be.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Manchin and Sinema aren’t casting the deciding vote against the Democrats OR persuading the Senate Democratic leadership to abandon any legislation. A 50/50 Senate under a Biden presidency is a working majority.

It honestly baffles me how easily people get conned by Manchin and Sinema even after everything they’ve done since 2019.

Also, I suspect Greenfield will be Manchin/Sinema democrat.

You’re actually right, just not in the way you intended to be.

It is much easier to vote no on everything put forward by Republicans than spend political capital on reforms one's backers don't support. This is even truer for Democrats than it was for Republicans who were prepared to oppose all Democratic healthcare proposals but couldn't support skinny repeal when it was on the table.

[MT Treasurer]

It is much easier to vote no on everything put forward by Republicans than spend political capital on reforms one's backers don't support.

Manchin has nothing to lose because he’ll more likely than not retire and Sinema couldn’t get away with being the leading voice/deciding vote of opposition to major Democratic policy proposals in a left-trending Biden state in which there’s no shortage of credible primary challengers. She could pull that stunt/put on a show in a 51D-49R Senate, but certainly not a 50R-50D Senate.

What reforms contrary to the backers' interests are we talking about here, and who are the backers in this case? I don’t think ultra-wealthy "backers" of Sinema are all that different from or more opposed to expanding the court or nuking the filibuster (to give just one example) than Schumer's backers.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

Manchin and Sinema aren’t casting the deciding vote against the Democrats OR persuading the Senate Democratic leadership to abandon any legislation. A 50/50 Senate under a Biden presidency is a working majority.

It honestly baffles me how easily people get conned by Manchin and Sinema even after everything they’ve done since 2019.

Also, I suspect Greenfield will be Manchin/Sinema democrat.

You’re actually right, just not in the way you intended to be.

It is much easier to vote no on everything put forward by Republicans than spend political capital on reforms one's backers don't support. This is even truer for Democrats than it was for Republicans who were prepared to oppose all Democratic healthcare proposals but couldn't support skinny repeal when it was on the table.

Manchin's not running again so I don't think he cares. Sinema's state is rapidly blueing and she's likely to face a primary in 2024 if she doesn't toe the line. If we still had Heitkamp or McCaskill in the Senate caucus I would understand those concerns about them.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

It is much easier to vote no on everything put forward by Republicans than spend political capital on reforms one's backers don't support.

Manchin has nothing to lose because he’ll more likely than not retire and Sinema couldn’t get away with being the leading voice/deciding vote of opposition to major Democratic policy proposals in a left-trending Biden state in which there’s no shortage of credible primary challengers. She could pull that stunt/put on a show in a 51D-49R Senate, but certainly not a 50R-50D Senate.

Manchin has individual power to lose by nuking the filibuster. I'm actually a lot less worried about him than most here for the reason you mention, because that power (the theoretical ability to block bills even if one's own caucus is in the majority) appeals to a lot of Senators across the political spectrum given their egos.

As for Sinema, a primary could be a very heavy lift given the sort of fight Cuellar and Lipinski were able to put up, the latter with minimal support from the House Democrats. She can lean into 'but muh electability!' and primary voters would be more likely than not to buy it, I suspect. That argument probably works even for incumbents in bluer states like Bennet.

What reforms contrary to the backers' interests are we talking about here, and who are the backers in this case? I don’t think ultra-wealthy "backers" of Sinema are all that different from or more opposed to expanding the court or nuking the filibuster (to give just one example) than Schumer's backers.

They have a bit more sway over Senators who aren't in titanium D seats because they can threaten to do more to unseat them. I should have mentioned that several are just personally opposed on a lot of reforms their own ideological grounds - Cardin, Feinstein etc. - but you make a good point. In many cases, the leadership has insisted that they don't have the votes when, in fact, they do but just have no intention of marshalling them; Schumer might get a fair bit more scrutiny from the rest of his caucus and the wider party if he kept claiming this with a Manchin/Sinema-proof majority.

With respect to both parties' caucuses, it has generally been harder for outside interests to block bills when a majority is large because then it's no longer a matter of pressuring and picking off one or two members at a time. Among many other bills, Dodd-Frank and the ACA were both significantly watered down because of objections from an influential minority in the Democratic caucuses and though these have gotten a bit more ideologically homogenous since that time, there are still House Democrats who were willing to vote in favour of further weakening that act as late as 2018. On the Republican side, Paul Ryan's destination-based taxation reform (which had White House support) collapsed because the Koch brothers badgered enough Republicans into opposing it. There's also the aforementioned failed attempt at skinny repeal.

Even with polarisation at its current level, I predict divide-and-conquer will remain a significant feature of Senate legislation when it comes to obstructing the scopes and passage of major bills.

[GALeftist]

I'm a little confused as to what calculus would lead Feinstein and Manchin to vote against something like this (assuming that they care about self preservation). For Feinstein, it seems like voting against crucial measures is a good way to get a progressive in office, as the de Leon coalition plus people mad at Feinstein for not playing ball would probably sink her or her ideological successor. For Manchin, he has to keep the base turning out at the bare minimum, and if WV Dems see him being a blatant DINO they won't care enough to show up in 24. Obviously Manchin will almost certainly lose anyway but this calculus applies across the board. It's pretty much the reason all these so called moderate Republicans always fall in line.

[Wrenchmob]

I think 52 is their highest point, unless they can avoid a Georgia runoff.

[MillennialModerate]

I don’t even think they get a majority.

49 seats