Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Also not good.
Yeah I'm more worried about what the Baldwin news suggests for Kamala's prospects in Wisconsin (and also if Baldwin loses the Senate is definitely gone).I have to work with these ratings weekly for work. The Baldwin news isn’t great, but Dems are still in good shape for the House. More ratings have been moving in their favor than against.
The senate is written in red pen within my mental ledger.Dan Osborn is going to have to save us
Have any polls had her behind though?Man if she loses Wisconsin...
The problem is that's still not a majority for Republicans, and if Republicans gain control of the Senate and turn out to be as extreme as it appears - say pushing a national abortion ban - then I think the remaining 26 states might start voting just as blue as those states do red. Basically we're facing a collision of two facts - an antiquated political system that gives rural red states more power in the Senate than their populations would justify, and a society that is moving increasingly to the left on a whole host of issues like abortion, gay rights, etc. Something is going to have to give one way or another.Honestly I don't see how the Democrats take the Senate again for at least a decade, maybe two. Nearly all these states are baked in red.
1. Alaska
2. Idaho
3. Utah
4. Montana
5. Wyoming
6. ND
7. SD
8. Nebraska
9. Kansas
10. Oklahoma
11. Texas
12. Lousiana
13. Alabama
14. Mississippi
15. Indiana
16. Tennessee
17. Kentucky
18. WV
19. Ohio
20 South Carolina
21. Florida
22. Iowa
23. Missouri
24. Arkansas
And all you need is two pickups in any Swing state or blue state with Split Senate seats.
I know you can argue Texas and Florida are swing states, but I need to see it to believe it. Tester looks gone and they could lose Brown. Those would be two lost seats that are not coming back in probably at least 3 voting cycles or ever.
I'll choose to be optimistic here and note that politics are never static and coalitions are always changing. We seem to have been in a stasis in terms of trends for the past 10+ years with Obama -> Trump eras, but there is obviously a constant incentive on both sides to win elections and demographics will continue to shift.Honestly I don't see how the Democrats take the Senate again for at least a decade, maybe two. Nearly all these states are baked in red.
1. Alaska
2. Idaho
3. Utah
4. Montana
5. Wyoming
6. ND
7. SD
8. Nebraska
9. Kansas
10. Oklahoma
11. Texas
12. Lousiana
13. Alabama
14. Mississippi
15. Indiana
16. Tennessee
17. Kentucky
18. WV
19. Ohio
20 South Carolina
21. Florida
22. Iowa
23. Missouri
24. Arkansas
And all you need is two pickups in any Swing state or blue state with Split Senate seats.
I know you can argue Texas and Florida are swing states, but I need to see it to believe it. Tester looks gone and they could lose Brown. Those would be two lost seats that are not coming back in probably at least 3 voting cycles or ever.
We had the chance to fix America when we had a majority in both houses and the presidency. Alas, Sinema fucked us all. At a minimum we could have made DC a state and locked in two additional senate votes.The party is going to have to get creative. Either they can fashion a message that stays true to their core values as Dems while appealing to rural areas, or they can try running independent candidates who will caucus with Dems.
Obviously the first option is a tough ask for a number of reasons. The second option may bear fruit, we’ll see with Osborn in NE. The Democratic brand is just so toxic in these areas that independent or third-party candidates may be the only option.
Or abolishing the Senate of course.
If Trump wins and does what he says he's going to do -- round up the migrants and tariff everything -- then I would expect 2026 to be a bloodbath of such epic proportions that the Dems would pick up at least 6 Senate seats and possibly all of them save the most revanchist states like AL and WV.I'll choose to be optimistic here and note that politics are never static and coalitions are always changing. We seem to have been in a stasis in terms of trends for the past 10+ years with Obama -> Trump eras, but there is obviously a constant incentive on both sides to win elections and demographics will continue to shift.
Off of this list I could see AK, UT, KS, TX, and MT (yes, I know Tester is there now and will likely lose) as long term pick-ups. Younger, less (evangelical) religious, and/or higher 4-year degree levels. Throw in NC and those are 12 potential pick-ups in the next 5-10 years to offset slipping in other areas. In short, I agree it may be 3-4 cycles but don't expect two decades for the Dems to be in contention for the Senate
Have any polls had her behind though?
First, this measure would abolish Idaho’s party primaries. Under current law, political parties nominate candidates through primary elections in which party members vote for a candidate to represent the party in the general election. The initiative creates a system where all candidates participate in a top-four primary and voters may vote on all candidates. The top four vote-earners for each office would advance to the general election. Candidates could list any affiliation on the ballot, but would not represent political parties, and need not be associated with the party they name. Second, the measure would require a ranked-choice voting system for the general election. Under current law, voters may select one candidate for each office, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Under the ranked-choice voting system, voters rank candidates on the ballot in order of preference, but need not rank every candidate. The votes are counted in successive rounds, and the candidate receiving the fewest votes in each round is eliminated. A vote for an eliminated candidate will transfer to the voter’s next-highest-ranked active candidate. The candidate with the most votes in the final round wins.[7] |
UT? Seriously? There's not even a functioning Dem party in Utah. They've been nominating Republicans (e.g. Evan McMullin) to run for Senate.I'll choose to be optimistic here and note that politics are never static and coalitions are always changing. We seem to have been in a stasis in terms of trends for the past 10+ years with Obama -> Trump eras, but there is obviously a constant incentive on both sides to win elections and demographics will continue to shift.
Off of this list I could see AK, UT, KS, TX, and MT (yes, I know Tester is there now and will likely lose) as long term pick-ups. Younger, less (evangelical) religious, and/or higher 4-year degree levels. Throw in NC and those are 12 potential pick-ups in the next 5-10 years to offset slipping in other areas. In short, I agree it may be 3-4 cycles but don't expect two decades for the Dems to be in contention for the Senate