The 2022 map is worse for Republicans than 2018 was for Democrats

[Politician]

No it isn't, lol. They don't have to defend seats in states that will go 20+ points for the Democratic nominee in 2020.

[scutosaurus]

Who do y'all think would be the best Democratic nominees for each potentially competitive race? These are my top picks:

AK: T. Knowles, S. Cowper, B. Sheffield, S. McAlpine
FL: B. MacKay, T. Mahoney, C. Brown, K. Meek
GA: R. Barnes, J.F. Harris, D. Majette, S. Nunn
IA: C. Culver, B. Braley, R. Fulton, M. Blouin
KS: M. Parkinson, N. Boyda, J. Carlin, J. Slattery
MO: C. McCaskill, J. Carnahan, R. Carnahan, R. Carnahan
NC: B. Perdue, M. McIntyre, L. Kissell, M. Easley
OH: T. Strickland, D. Celeste, J. Boccieri, D. Kucinich
PA: E. Rendell, M. Singel, M. Margolies, T. Holden
WI: D. Obey, J. Doyle, S. Kagen, R. Feingold

[Orser67]

The 2022 map is a tough map, but it's a normal level of toughness. By contrast, 2018 was arguably the most difficult map that either party has faced since the ratification of the 17th Amendment. The biggest differences between the two maps are that
a)Trump won ten states Democrats had to defend in 2018 even while losing the national popular vote, whereas the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee will win at most (barring a landslide) eight states Republicans have to defend (and all of those states may vote to the right of the national popular vote)
b)Democrats had to defend five seats in states where Trump won by 15+ points, whereas it's very unlikely that Republicans will have to defend any states that the Democratic presidential candidate won by more than 10 points.
c)The one advantage 2018 Democrats may have is that they had more pickup opportunities than 2022 Republicans. But 2018's AZ+TX+TN (excluding NV for a second) is probably worse, or at least no better than, 2022's NV+CO+NH. So that does leave 2018 NV, but that single seat is hardly enough to balance out factors a and b.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes, it is a horrible map for Republicans. But no, it is not as bad as 2018 was for Democrats. Not even close. Missouri, Alaska, and Ohio are not realistic targets, lol. And neither is Iowa if Grassley runs again.

And if Trump loses re-election, Dems would be lucky to break even, much less gain seats.

As usual, IceSpear is correct here.

Democrats path to take the Senate realistically goes through Trump winning in 2020 and then winning the Senate in 2022. It would be pretty difficult to do in 2020 alone when you account for the likely loss of Alabama. But then comes 2024, in which Republicans still have many outstanding targets in the rust belt and in the red states of West Virginia and Montana. The Senate will be a long-term problem for the Democrats going forward.

[Mr. Smith]

Republicans will go into 2022 defending Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and to a lesser extent Iowa, Ohio, Missouri, and Alaska.

They have virtually zero pickup opportunities.

Bolded are the only three with any chance of flipping. Rubio starts as Likely R...the Democrats in Florida seem to be awfully inept and Miami loves him. Georgia is NOT a Swing state.

Its heading there quickly. At the rate is going, its not hard to imagine a competitive senate race in 2022.

2022? It has a serious chance of being competitive in 2020 for both President and Senate.

s
But why?? Expanding the map in 2016 led Clinton to ignore key states. It doesn't matter if you win 270 votes or 400 YOU'RE THE PRESIDENT EITHER WAY.

Expanding the map is why Trump won, but he ignored critical states that could've been the end if Comey hadn't bailed him out and allowed his expansions to work.

2016 could've been determined by Arizona and Florida, and had Conway and Co. kept to the terms, that's exactly what would've happened.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Dems can win OH, should Tim Ryan or Sittenfield run, should Ryan be Veep. Voters in OH, wont be pro Trump after he leaves office.

Ryan would want out of House due to GOP gerrymandering

[Antonio the Sixth]

No it's not. Every Senate map is going to be bad for Democrats going forward as long as we keep the current political alignments.

[Virginiá]

No it's not. Every Senate map is going to be bad for Democrats going forward as long as we keep the current political alignments.

I'm not even sure a new alignment that is realistic can solve the party's Senate problems. Like even with the New Deal/FDR majorities, Democrats actually developed a Senate disadvantage as early as the 60s. It's just the electorate was depolarized enough that Democrats performed exceedingly well. Particularly given that a succession of Republican presidents through 1968 - 1992 gave Democrats a lot of openings.

The only viable option for the time being is to admit DC/PR as states. Any sane Democratic federal trifecta would do this, not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's extremely important for the party's fortunes in the Senate. Unfortunately I'm not sure they are sane enough right now. I don't hear too much about statehood, aside from the usual suspects.

[Technocracy Timmy]

The only viable option for the time being is to admit DC/PR as states. Any sane Democratic federal trifecta would do this, not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's extremely important for the party's fortunes in the Senate. Unfortunately I'm not sure they are sane enough right now. I don't hear too much about statehood, aside from the usual suspects.

It would almost certainly take an amendment to the constitution to grant DC statehood status.

Not sure if it’s a simple majority or 2/3’s majority to admit PR, but even if it’s a simple majority, rural white voters already uneasy about demographic transition of the US would likely get even more Republican at the admission of a 90%+ Hispanic state to the Union. It would be a pretty blatant power grab by the Democrats.

The last thing Dems need is for rural whites to get even redder with the senate lol.

[Beet]

The Democrats don't really have much of anything to lose, so the rule should be to do as much as they can. Anything is better than the status quo. California being broken up into smaller states would be the real dream, however.

[The Mikado]

It would almost certainly take an amendment to the constitution to grant DC statehood status.

I'm ignoring the PR part of your post because, while I disagree, it's a matter of opinion.

This is likely true only in that if you give DC statehood, you're going to do it by redefining the federal district to just count for actual government buildings in DC, and if you do that, you're going to have to repeal the 23rd Amendment giving the federal district 3 Electoral Votes. However, I think in a situation where DC had already gotten statehood, passing a Constitutional Amendment saying that a bunch of federal office buildings don't get 3 Electoral Votes all to themselves would be pretty simple. No one would want that.

[Technocracy Timmy]

It would almost certainly take an amendment to the constitution to grant DC statehood status.

I'm ignoring the PR part of your post because, while I disagree, it's a matter of opinion.

This is likely true only in that if you give DC statehood, you're going to do it by redefining the federal district to just count for actual government buildings in DC, and if you do that, you're going to have to repeal the 23rd Amendment giving the federal district 3 Electoral Votes. However, I think in a situation where DC had already gotten statehood, passing a Constitutional Amendment saying that a bunch of federal office buildings don't get 3 Electoral Votes all to themselves would be pretty simple. No one would want that.

I’m not sure this would actually hold up in court when brought to the Supreme Court.

[Virginiá]

It would almost certainly take an amendment to the constitution to grant DC statehood status.

I'm ignoring the PR part of your post because, while I disagree, it's a matter of opinion.

This is likely true only in that if you give DC statehood, you're going to do it by redefining the federal district to just count for actual government buildings in DC, and if you do that, you're going to have to repeal the 23rd Amendment giving the federal district 3 Electoral Votes. However, I think in a situation where DC had already gotten statehood, passing a Constitutional Amendment saying that a bunch of federal office buildings don't get 3 Electoral Votes all to themselves would be pretty simple. No one would want that.

You don't have to get rid of the 23rd amendment. I mean, ideally we should if DC is made into a state, but if it's not possible, Congress can simply pass a bill allocating the district's electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

Also, I don't see why this plan wouldn't hold up in court:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Re-sizing the district is clearly allowed, and the only limit imposed on its size is a maximum limit. I don't see how or why SCOTUS would say the district cannot be shrunk. That would be partisan af, given the context.

Even if challengers wanted to argue that Maryland needs to give it's say-so before their former land can be turned into a state, Democrats can easily get that done


-

Not sure if it’s a simple majority or 2/3’s majority to admit PR, but even if it’s a simple majority, rural white voters already uneasy about demographic transition of the US would likely get even more Republican at the admission of a 90%+ Hispanic state to the Union. It would be a pretty blatant power grab by the Democrats.

They'll get over it. If there is any substantial backlash, I'm not convinced it would last. Democrats can't live in fear of angry rural whites forever.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

It would almost certainly take an amendment to the constitution to grant DC statehood status.

I'm ignoring the PR part of your post because, while I disagree, it's a matter of opinion.

This is likely true only in that if you give DC statehood, you're going to do it by redefining the federal district to just count for actual government buildings in DC, and if you do that, you're going to have to repeal the 23rd Amendment giving the federal district 3 Electoral Votes. However, I think in a situation where DC had already gotten statehood, passing a Constitutional Amendment saying that a bunch of federal office buildings don't get 3 Electoral Votes all to themselves would be pretty simple. No one would want that.

You don't have to get rid of the 23rd amendment. I mean, ideally we should if DC is made into a state, but if it's not possible, Congress can simply pass a bill allocating the district's electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

Also, I don't see why this plan wouldn't hold up in court:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Re-sizing the district is clearly allowed, and the only limit imposed on its size is a maximum limit. I don't see how or why SCOTUS would say the district cannot be shrunk. That would be partisan af, given the context.

Even if challengers wanted to argue that Maryland needs to give it's say-so before their former land can be turned into a state, Democrats can easily get that done


-

Not sure if it’s a simple majority or 2/3’s majority to admit PR, but even if it’s a simple majority, rural white voters already uneasy about demographic transition of the US would likely get even more Republican at the admission of a 90%+ Hispanic state to the Union. It would be a pretty blatant power grab by the Democrats.

They'll get over it. If there is any substantial backlash, I'm not convinced it would last. Democrats can't live in fear of angry rural whites forever.

Agreed. Who cares what they think, they'll never vote for us anyway.

[pops]

Dems will probably flip AZ (assuming McSally wins in 2020), WI, IA (if Grassley retires), PA, and NC. Outside of that most pickup opportunities are longshots.

If the map is even in 2020 (very real possibility) and Dems flip those 5 seats, they'll have a slim majority. Honestly not worth ruling out GOP Senate control until at least 2024 though.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Dems will probably flip AZ (assuming McSally wins in 2020), WI, IA (if Grassley retires), PA, and NC. Outside of that most pickup opportunities are longshots.

If the map is even in 2020 (very real possibility) and Dems flip those 5 seats, they'll have a slim majority. Honestly not worth ruling out GOP Senate control until at least 2024 though.

Rubio and the GA seat*(I think Isakson will call it quits) are both more likely to flip then the open IA seat(it could flip too, but it would take a super big tsunami)

[Technocracy Timmy]

They'll get over it. If there is any substantial backlash, I'm not convinced it would last. Democrats can't live in fear of angry rural whites forever.

Uhhh when you combine them with evangelical suburban voters and non-rural/non-evangelical conservatives, it’s a pretty robust senate advantage. And I doubt any of these groups are wavering.

[pops]

Dems will probably flip AZ (assuming McSally wins in 2020), WI, IA (if Grassley retires), PA, and NC. Outside of that most pickup opportunities are longshots.

If the map is even in 2020 (very real possibility) and Dems flip those 5 seats, they'll have a slim majority. Honestly not worth ruling out GOP Senate control until at least 2024 though.

Rubio and the GA seat*(I think Isakson will call it quits) are both more likely to flip then the open IA seat(it could flip too, but it would take a super big tsunami)

I'm not sure Rubio is beatable barring a Trump-endorsed conservative challenger. Maybe the GA seat, but the question is who? Abrams will probably run in 2020 and if she loses it would be ill advised to run again that soon.

[Virginiá]

They'll get over it. If there is any substantial backlash, I'm not convinced it would last. Democrats can't live in fear of angry rural whites forever.

Uhhh when you combine them with evangelical suburban voters and non-rural/non-evangelical conservatives, it’s a pretty robust senate advantage. And I doubt any of these groups are wavering.

Yea but you're talking like it's a given that they'll get mad as hell and stay mad, neither of which I think is necessarily going to happen. I mean what you're saying is something that should come up in discussions, but it doesn't mean it should be weighed heavily. There are plenty of things that happen that piss people off temporarily but don't actually change voting behavior, and Democrats already have such a deficit that I think it's equally possible that the people that get pissed off are those who vote Republican anyway. If it were to play out differently, I'd at least like to see some polling first.

Besides, the right thing to do here is to bring PR into the fold or cut them loose. We don't need to be keeping territories with no federal representation that big anymore (or arguably any at all).

[Antonio the Sixth]

No it's not. Every Senate map is going to be bad for Democrats going forward as long as we keep the current political alignments.

I'm not even sure a new alignment that is realistic can solve the party's Senate problems. Like even with the New Deal/FDR majorities, Democrats actually developed a Senate disadvantage as early as the 60s. It's just the electorate was depolarized enough that Democrats performed exceedingly well. Particularly given that a succession of Republican presidents through 1968 - 1992 gave Democrats a lot of openings.

The only viable option for the time being is to admit DC/PR as states. Any sane Democratic federal trifecta would do this, not just because it's the right thing to do but because it's extremely important for the party's fortunes in the Senate. Unfortunately I'm not sure they are sane enough right now. I don't hear too much about statehood, aside from the usual suspects.

I'm soon going to post a detailed analysis on this, but as a little spoiler, let me just say that the amount of theoretical Senate seats that Democrats lost just by going from 2012's electoral alignment to 2016's is higher than the 4 Democrats would gain if DC and PR became States. So if the choice were between admitting DC and PR or turning the clock back to 2012, the choice is clear. Of course, the latter might not actually be possible.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I'm soon going to post a detailed analysis on this, but as a little spoiler, let me just say that the amount of theoretical Senate seats that Democrats lost just by going from 2012's electoral alignment to 2016's is higher than the 4 Democrats would gain if DC and PR became States. So if the choice were between admitting DC and PR or turning the clock back to 2012, the choice is clear. Of course, the latter might not actually be possible.

That would make sense looking at the absurd trend map of 2012-2018 in the senate especially in MO/IN/ND/WV/FL and of course the fact that the already deep red states of UT/WY/NE/TN/etc stayed bright red.

Dems if they don’t makeup ground with rural whites/suburban evangelicals/conservative voters in these states will have to pray that generational turnover shuts out the GOP in states like GA/NC/TX/AZ down the road.

[Virginiá]

I'm soon going to post a detailed analysis on this, but as a little spoiler, let me just say that the amount of theoretical Senate seats that Democrats lost just by going from 2012's electoral alignment to 2016's is higher than the 4 Democrats would gain if DC and PR became States. So if the choice were between admitting DC and PR or turning the clock back to 2012, the choice is clear. Of course, the latter might not actually be possible.

Why not both?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm soon going to post a detailed analysis on this, but as a little spoiler, let me just say that the amount of theoretical Senate seats that Democrats lost just by going from 2012's electoral alignment to 2016's is higher than the 4 Democrats would gain if DC and PR became States. So if the choice were between admitting DC and PR or turning the clock back to 2012, the choice is clear. Of course, the latter might not actually be possible.

Why not both?

I'm with you on that.

I'm glad you agree about needing to go back to our 2008-2012 coalition, though. I remember you didn't always think so.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I'm soon going to post a detailed analysis on this, but as a little spoiler, let me just say that the amount of theoretical Senate seats that Democrats lost just by going from 2012's electoral alignment to 2016's is higher than the 4 Democrats would gain if DC and PR became States. So if the choice were between admitting DC and PR or turning the clock back to 2012, the choice is clear. Of course, the latter might not actually be possible.

Why not both?

Probably cuz going back to 2012 style coalitions where Dems have some semblance of organization in rural areas is basically impossible. Bredesen did worse than Obama 08’ in rural TN this year and Vermont trended 13 points R from 2012-2018 with only the one county that Burlington is located in trending D. Even liberal rural areas are seeing Dems lose ground.

It’s far more likely that rural areas get redder rather than us going back to 2012 coalitions.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

I'm soon going to post a detailed analysis on this, but as a little spoiler, let me just say that the amount of theoretical Senate seats that Democrats lost just by going from 2012's electoral alignment to 2016's is higher than the 4 Democrats would gain if DC and PR became States. So if the choice were between admitting DC and PR or turning the clock back to 2012, the choice is clear. Of course, the latter might not actually be possible.

That would make sense looking at the absurd trend map of 2012-2018 in the senate especially in MO/IN/ND/WV/FL and of course the fact that the already deep red states of UT/WY/NE/TN/etc stayed bright red.

Dems if they don’t makeup ground with rural whites/suburban evangelicals/conservative voters in these states will have to pray that generational turnover shuts out the GOP in states like GA/NC/TX/AZ down the road.

When GA goes blue it will most likely stay blue. It's giving me Virginia vibes