We're just over a year away from electing the next congress, and I'd rather focus on the future than the mess we have now.

33 senate seats will be up for election (the "Class I" seats). The current holders of those seats are 23 dems, 8 republicans, 2 independents (who both vote democrat most of the time).

States voting on a senator and current party holding the seat:
Arizona (R)
California (D)
Connecticut (D)
Delaware (D)
Florida (D)
Maine (I/D)
Maryland (D)
Massachusetts (D)
Michigan (D)
Minnesota (D)
Mississippi (R)
Missouri (D)
Montana (D)
Nebraska (R)
Nevada (R)
New Jersey (D)
New Mexico (D)
New York (D)
North Dakota (D)
Ohio (D)
Pennsylvania (D)
Rhode Island (D)
Tennessee (R)
Texas (R)
Utah (R)
Vermont (I/D)
Virginia (D)
Washington (D)
West Virginia (D)
Wisconsin (D)
Wyoming (R)

Projections as of last week predict 22 wins for democrats (including the two independents who will likely keep their seats), 6 wins for republicans, and 5 tossups.

11/2/2017 8:36:40 PM

Recent history with this group of senate seats:

2000, that other time more people voted for a Democratic presidential candidate who lost the electoral vote:
D - 18
R - 15

In the 2006 midterms, when Bush's approval was higher than Trump's is now:
D - 23 (including independent Bernie Sanders)
R - 9
Joe Lieberman - 1 (who couldn't be considered reliable to either party)

In 2012, coinciding with Obama's reelection campaign:
D - 25 (including the 2 democrat-loyal independents)
R - 8


History says that the opposition party always improves during a midterm (Dems lost their majority in 1994, Reps added to their majority in 1998, Reps lost majority in 2002 and again in 2006 after getting it back), and in a general year the Senate vote usually matches the presidential vote (Dems gained seats in 2016 shrinking the Rep majority down to only 2). So Dems need to keep the 25 they have now and add 2 to even the seats, 3 to take majority.

11/2/2017 8:55:56 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-democrats-taxes/index.html

Quote :

"Washington (CNN)Favorable views of the Democratic Party have dropped to their lowest mark in more than a quarter century of polling, according to new numbers from a CNN poll conducted by SSRS. Only 37% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Democrats, down from 44% in March of this year. A majority, 54%, have an unfavorable view, matching their highest mark in polls from CNN and SSRS, CNN/ORC and CNN/USA Today/Gallup stretching back to 1992."

Quote :

"The rating includes low favorable ratings from some core Democratic groups, including nonwhites (48%) and people under 35 years old (33%). The numbers come amid recent feuds and divisions in the Democratic Party, as former interim chair Donna Brazile's new book has unveiled new questions about infighting during the 2016 presidential campaign. But the Republican Party isn't doing any better, with just 30% of Americans holding a favorable view. That's essentially the same as September, when the rating hit its lowest point in polling back to 1992, but down from 42% in March. A broad 6 in 10, 61%, have an unfavorable opinion."

11/7/2017 5:12:13 PM

"People hate Republicans AND Democrats?!"



"Hold my beer, I'm going in"

11/7/2017 8:13:20 PM

pretty cool night

11/7/2017 9:09:39 PM

Gj, Virginia

11/7/2017 9:25:32 PM

Raleigh's mayoral race was split as fuck

11/7/2017 9:28:41 PM

^Raleigh could have majorly benefited from ranked choice voting.

11/7/2017 9:32:28 PM

Looks like at least 10 confirmed wins for various Democratic Socialist (DSA) candidates tonight, including Lee Carter of Virginia, who just unseated the House Majority Whip.

Small steps, but a good night for the Left.

11/8/2017 3:04:05 AM

Most exit polls show that Trumpism was rejected in last night's election in VA. It isn't surprising after we saw the worst of Trumpism on display in Charlottesville.

11/8/2017 8:59:31 AM

were there any actual battleground states up grabs last night? Pretending like NY, NJ, and VA weren't decidedly blue the last 8 years does nothing to indicate what is going to happen in 2018. If anything, the DSA candidates getting elected seems like more of an indication of the Democratic party shifting further left.

11/8/2017 9:40:46 AM

Can you follow the logic that some specific towns or counties within blue states can be red, and if they're flipped to blue that could be indicative of similar areas in other, possibly red, states?

11/8/2017 9:59:21 AM

he can not

11/8/2017 10:01:59 AM

NJ was so decidedly blue they voted for fucking Chris Christie as governor for the last 8 years.

11/8/2017 10:14:41 AM

There is literally no other take worth responding to other than it was a good night for Democrats (especially the more Bernie wing) and a bad night for the Trump GOP.

Doesn’t mean the House will flip and doesn’t mean the Democrats ills are cured but it’s the only real way to look at it.

11/8/2017 10:34:17 AM

No doubt this was a bad night for the GOP. And it's only going to get worse, so long as GOP candidates continue embracing Trumpism.

I mentioned it in other threads, but Trumps election will set back the GOP in local races for at least another 10 years. Our only hope is that the Dems continue putting candidates like Hillary on the ballot.

11/8/2017 11:55:54 AM

Looks like white people (50% of women, 60% of men) still voted with Trumpism-- it was turnout among young people (double digits for democrats) and minorities that pulled out these victories.

As the youth demographic grows, it's going to be increasingly harder for GOP to win on the Trumpist platform.

Considering Trump lost the popular vote, and these losses yesterday, GOP has to turn their back on Trump (and they have lots of levers here-- they could execute on the emoluments clause right now if they wanted to separate Trump from his businesses) or get further crushed.

Black women were 94% against Guillespie.

[Edited on November 8, 2017 at 12:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2017 12:22:00 PM

Yeah what we saw in Virginia last night was an energized Democratic coalition of poc, LGBT, women and people with college educations. The nativist bigots still turned out hard for Gillespie's Trumpian tactics (relatively in an off year election), but the numbers just weren't in their favor in a state like Virginia which has been trending bluer by the year.

The thing to remember is that not every state is like Virginia. The rust belt, for example, will only become harder for Democrats to win in as it becomes less educated and racially diverse. The future of the party will be places like North Carolina, which is demographically very similar to Virginia, and southern states with growing hispanic populations. I don't think it's ever getting Iowa or Ohio back. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin might still be winnable in a 2020 with a less unpopular candidate, but they will continue to trend red for the foreseeable future. The big prize for Ds long term to make up for those losses is obviously Texas, which is looking more and more purple as it's urban centers continue to grow.

11/8/2017 12:33:06 PM

Quote :

"As the youth demographic grows"

Spot on. Evolution favors a general slant towards liberalism. But this is also the reason the present time is relatively dangerous and unstable. You'll likely see even more fervor from the far right (and apparently, white majority, still) to try and keep the dying flame alive.

Next 10 years should be very interesting. Long term inevitability can certainly be delayed by a switch to authoritarianism.

[Edited on November 8, 2017 at 12:54 PM. Reason : a]

11/8/2017 12:54:16 PM

zomg a hillary state went left. this can only mean democrats will have a supermajority by 2020!

the beltway establishment republicans have turned on trump so they will certainly all become liberals now

11/8/2017 1:05:55 PM

Can you follow the logic that some specific towns or counties within blue states can be red, and if they're flipped to blue that could be indicative of similar areas in other, possibly red, states?

11/8/2017 1:19:13 PM

Yup, specifically the suburbs that Republicans worked very hard to gerrymander after 2010 are starting to turn blue thanks to a more diverse and educated population. If that trend continues and we get another anti-Trump wave in 2018/20, things could get ugly quick for the GOP majorities in Congress.

[Edited on November 8, 2017 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2017 1:28:49 PM

I suppose we'll see another raft of voting restrictions in the next few months.

11/8/2017 2:47:18 PM

Quote :

"As the youth demographic grows, it's going to be increasingly harder for GOP to win on the Trumpist platform."

Youth turnouts are notoriously fickle because they only turn out when they are energized. The average millennial voter has around 20-30k in student loan debt. They are voting and leaning to the Left because it directly affects their upward mobility. They don't just show up for party loyalty. If you want to count on their vote, then you need to give them a reason to show up. Poll after poll after poll shows that they will show up if they are energized by someone from the left, and that the enthusiasm gap is the largest when a centrist Democrat is on the ticket.

Quote :

"The rust belt, for example, will only become harder for Democrats to win in as it becomes less educated and racially diverse. The future of the party will be places like North Carolina, which is demographically very similar to Virginia, and southern states with growing hispanic populations. I don't think it's ever getting Iowa or Ohio back. Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin might still be winnable in a 2020 with a less unpopular candidate, but they will continue to trend red for the foreseeable future. The big prize for Ds long term to make up for those losses is obviously Texas, which is looking more and more purple as it's urban centers continue to grow."

What an awful, horrid, terrible take. Are you honestly (with a straight face) suggesting that the Rust belt is now more racist than the American South? Are you just ignoring the fact that alt-right demonstrations keep occurring in places like Charlottesville? Or that strong labor union states in the Midwest that have voted Blue for decades have now become unwinnable? And that Texas is now more winnable than Iowa or Ohio? And your rationale for this is what, exactly? That hispanic people will dutifully vote Democratic?

Goddamn, dude. Way to completely misread the room. Last night showed that the left can actually openly win on socialist policies with socialist candidates (you know, like labor issues -- the thing that kept the Rust Belt blue for decades after the New Deal). And your analysis is that those states are a lost cause and that Democrats should focus on gun-totin' rootin' tootin' Texas instead because hispanic people owe you their vote.
Of course, Democratic insiders will probably agree with your analysis, if only to secure their positions within the party, even at the risk of losing further elections.

11/8/2017 4:34:38 PM

Oh look, another dumbass fake progressive who thinks preaching "economic justice" to racists is going to win elections despite all evidence to the contrary. Yes, the rust belt has been trending red for years and you don't need to take my word for it. Similarly, southern states with growing hispanic populations have been trending blue. If you think I'm wrong, show me the data instead of just talking out your ass.

Also, the candidate who won big last night in Virginia was the centrist Democrat that beat the fuck out of Bernie endorsed Tom Perriello in the primary. Your precious DSA folks just rode his coattails in Virginia.

11/8/2017 4:51:21 PM

brainwashed "party first" idiots will believe anything as long as they don't have to accept any fault with the party or neoliberalism

11/8/2017 4:52:38 PM

Quote :

"Democrat Lee Carter, a red-haired, 30-year-old Marine veteran from Manassas, won a remarkable nine-point victory to oust Delegate Jackson Miller, a deep-pocketed Republican incumbent who serves as House Majority Whip. Carter ran openly as a socialist—he and his supporters crooned the union anthem “Solidarity Forever” after their victory—and he won with almost no institutional support from the state Democratic Party. The Richmond Times-Dispatch’s Patrick Wilson reported last month that party leaders “abandoned” Carter after he declined to report campaign metrics like the number of doors he’d knocked and the amount of money he’d raised. Carter told Wilson he “ceased reporting to the House caucus after multiple information security lapses in which confidential information that we reported to the House caucus was leaked outside of the party infrastructure.” But he also said the party leaders “wanted a bit more editorial control over my messaging than I was comfortable with.” Wilson wrote that “Democratic Party leaders were not eager to discuss Carter, preferring to promote other candidates.” In fact, Wilson called Carter “the kind of rogue candidate that gives an apparatus like the Democratic Party of Virginia a fit.”"

https://newrepublic.com/article/145727/socialist-beat-one-virginias-powerful-republicans



or as Shrike puts it, this precious DSA member just "rode the coattails of Democrats"

[Edited on November 8, 2017 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2017 5:00:08 PM

^Nice job falling for fake news dumbass,

https://twitter.com/ZachWahls/status/928254002868998144

God no wonder you fell for Bernie's pie in the sky bullshit, you're all a bunch of fucking marks.

11/8/2017 5:03:15 PM

he received $13,000 from Democrats. I never said he received zero. The article i cited didn't say Zero (it even stated the amount).


The only thing that stated Zero is the tweet you just posted. But good for you for getting your news from a twitter handle.

11/8/2017 5:05:50 PM

Quote :

"Can you follow the logic that some specific towns or counties within blue states can be red, and if they're flipped to blue that could be indicative of similar areas in other, possibly red, states? "

No because that is more wishful thinking and not really logic. Logic would be suggesting lastnight is an indication that virginia and NJ are shifting blue. Its a huge fucking leap that is being made with a conclusion in mind that this night can be applied to a national conversation. Logic isn't scripting a narrative and then cherrypicking the evidence to fit into your narrative and no one has provided an explanation of how the reasoning that led to this democrat winning red counties in virginia would apply to red states flipping in general.

1. virginia is an educated, elitist, "coastal" state.
2. virginia politics is highly influenced by establishment politics of dc because of NOVA
3. the virginia economy isn't in relatively bad shape from the obama years
4. gubernatorial electorate is different than the midterm and presidential electorate. apples and oranges

11/8/2017 7:18:46 PM

Looks like Brooke Park, Ohio (suburb of Cleveland) Mayoral race just went to a former UAW union rep.


But y'know.....Ohio can't be won by democrats or the left wing anymore because all the plants shut down. Well, all of them except for the racism factory, that is.

11/8/2017 7:42:03 PM

I'm going to run for Township Board and to be a delegate in the state party's convention next year.

11/8/2017 8:20:54 PM

Of course it can be won. Anywhere can be won but that doesn't mean this is an indication that it HAS been won already. The tide very well could be changing but these elections are not an indication of that.

Its an important distinction to make because democrats are trying to proclaim victory without doing any of the actual work that needs to be done. They are counting on winning simply because people are fed up with Trump and that is a terrible miscalculation. If they think they can just wash and repeat, they will be in for a rude awakening.

[Edited on November 8, 2017 at 8:29 PM. Reason : trump has 33% of the nation in the bag forever. he only has to get a small % of the rest to win. ]

11/8/2017 8:22:31 PM

^ this

You have to start running good candidates and actually be an organized party, which they're not in a LOT of places. If I get top 3 in the Republican primary for Township Board for example, I'm guaranteed to win because looking at elections going back to 2000, no one ever files to run for the Democrats where I live. There's literally no bench. In the Indiana 3rd congressional district in 2016, a borderline homeless guy that said he was a Trump supporter won their nomination. He appeared on the local news where they interviewed him at a bar drinking a beer smoking a cigar. When that's your candidate that's of the same quality as 3rd party gadflies, you're not going to win elections. I remember what a college professor once said, that him and 20 of his students could takeover their local Democratic Party, and he's not kidding. Non-Democrat Bernie Sanders is taking advantage of this now and doing a level of entryism that trots would be proud of.

[Edited on November 8, 2017 at 8:35 PM. Reason : /]

11/8/2017 8:32:11 PM

^^If Democrats learn the right lessons, they can win, sure.

But if the message they learn is "We're awesome, fuck labor issues, and we don't need to change and we should focus on Texas because that's where all the Mexican's are" then they'll be in for a rude awakening as you just described.

11/8/2017 8:34:38 PM

^I don't understand this line you keep pounding on.

You act like Dems are flipping their entire platform to be more welcoming to Mexicans in Texas. They aren't. In fact it's a clear instance where they only need to take a sane position juxtaposed to the Republican "they're sub-human" position which seems to prevail there these days. You're also leaving out the fact that "Human Rights" was one of the top 3 platform points of your boy Lee Carter. Protecting immigrants, LGBTQ, and women was literally plastered on all of his mailers, right next to all his "socialist" platform points. You're also leaving out the instances of DSA actually being on the ground in Austin Tx, this very year, to protest anti-immigrant bills coming out of that legislature (SB4, sanctuary city stuff).

So I don't understand why you are so dismissive of immigrant issues, especially in the sense that Dems have to somehow choose between the issues. Lee Carter openly supports them and so does the DSA. They both, rightly, understand that both labor and immigration/human rights are intertwined and we should be able to address both.

11/9/2017 7:04:52 AM

that post just demonstrates how much you are missing the point

progressives and democratic socialists aren't saying that you can't run on social issues and identity politics, they are saying that you can't run on social issues and identity politics only while supporting neoliberal economic policies that the people have rejected.

progressives and the DSA are active in support for equal rights, that is part of the progressive platform, they just don't believe that progressive politics should stop at identity politics.

[Edited on November 9, 2017 at 8:32 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2017 8:32:09 AM

When you move the goal posts to there, it's like we agree!

The argument was Dems should forgo a 50 state effort (forget "rootin-tootin Texas") in order to chase the skeleton of Big Labor in the rust belt. Basically a reverse southern strategy where Dems downplay identity issues so that maybe angry white working class men would consider voting for them again. Ain't gonna happen.

11/9/2017 8:49:53 AM

I don’t think that his point was to ignore the Trump culture war but rather diversify current party thought on labor.

And two things can be true at the same time. SOME (maybe even a lot) Trump rust belt supporters are unreachable — see Politico story yesterday. However, a lot have real concerns that the Democratic Party as structured have ignored and taken for granted. He didn’t run roughshod in these states no matter how often he lies about his margins. To think they are gone forever is just silly.

Quote :

"trump has 33% of the nation in the bag forever. "

This is probably overstating it but a certain percentage, sadly, it is true for. But those people don’t need to be won and likely retreat from politics with Trump.

[Edited on November 9, 2017 at 9:04 AM. Reason : X]

11/9/2017 9:02:22 AM

Trump didn't run roughshod in those states but several of their recent governors did: Scott Walker, Rick Snyder, Mike Pence, John Kasich, and Tom Corbett. All of whom basically ran on explicit "right-to-work" laws as a part of their platform, all of whom rode the tea party wave. You're telling me working class people voted for explicitly anti-union governors because they were concerned Dems weren't addressing labor issues?

11/9/2017 9:23:58 AM

you don't need to change the mind of trump supporters, you need to convince democrats that you have a message that's worth going out and voting for.

nothing about rejecting neoliberalism is capitulating to racists

11/9/2017 9:35:59 AM

Quote :

"No because that is more wishful thinking and not really logic. Logic would be suggesting lastnight is an indication that virginia and NJ are shifting blue. Its a huge fucking leap that is being made with a conclusion in mind that this night can be applied to a national conversation. Logic isn't scripting a narrative and then cherrypicking the evidence to fit into your narrative and no one has provided an explanation of how the reasoning that led to this democrat winning red counties in virginia would apply to red states flipping in general."

Here's a nuance you fail to understand, and it's really important because it's what makes you one of the most insufferable people on this message board. Go back and read my post, which I posted twice, and see the words "can", "if", "could", and "possibly". Go back and read the rest of this thread, nobody is declaring Virginia an ultimate victory that means democrats will win by a landslide in 2018 and then in 2020. People have used phrases like "small steps" and "doesn't mean the House will flip".

These are terms you never use, and when you post this way you appear to be under the impression you're always right and there's no room for another opinion. What's truly amazing about it is that you've been monumentally wrong and you don't seem to learn to be any more humble. You were one of a couple people on this board who absolutely KNEW that Hillary was going to win, so it didn't matter who you voted for. You knew it so hard and acted like such a dick about it I came after you, basically offering to front money for you to bet on it happening. And then when you were wrong did you come to some realization that maybe you don't know as much as you think you know? Of course not, now you act like you're the most enlightened person on this board and everyone is stupid and getting tricked. YOU were wrong, act as such.

11/9/2017 9:38:37 AM

People can harp on "identity politics" all they want, but it's no coincidence that so many of the VA HoD seats flipped from white men to women, minorities, and commie gingers, including a transgender lady.





[Edited on November 9, 2017 at 10:11 AM. Reason : o]

11/9/2017 10:10:50 AM

All of the exit polling suggests that people were making a statement against Trump just as much as they were supporting the candidate they voted for. Trump was definitely a factor in VA.

11/9/2017 10:16:04 AM

Some Democrat executives out there are right to work, they're just more sly and suck-uppy about it because they want campaign donations. Sure as hell describes the Fort Wayne mayor.

Organized labor is an entity that really has no party to vote for at the moment in most of the country.

11/9/2017 10:23:15 AM

Quote :

"You act like Dems are flipping their entire platform to be more welcoming to Mexicans in Texas. They aren't. In fact it's a clear instance where they only need to take a sane position juxtaposed to the Republican "they're sub-human" position which seems to prevail there these days... So I don't understand why you are so dismissive of immigrant issues, especially in the sense that Dems have to somehow choose between the issues..."

As others have stated, I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that immigration issues are not important, they clearly are. A key component of Socialism is uniting all of the world's workers ("Workers of the WORLD, UNITE!"). You seem to think that I am suggesting a platform of protectionism and isolationism. I assure you I am not. I was simply responding to Shrike's notion that Ohio is somehow more racist and unwinnable going forward than Texas, because more hispanics are in Texas. That is his strategy for moving the Democratic platform forward. He constantly suggests going after demographics as a strategy moving forward without pushing policy that will attract those demographics will somehow magically attract their votes. He is forced to do this, because he is incapable/unwilling to critique the system of capitalism that allows the super rich to exploit the working poor for their own financial gain/profit. This is obvious, as he holds the left wing of his own party (those who are antagonistic toward capital) in such contempt.

Quote :

"All of whom basically ran on explicit "right-to-work" laws as a part of their platform, all of whom rode the tea party wave. You're telling me working class people voted for explicitly anti-union governors because they were concerned Dems weren't addressing labor issues?"

Scott Walker is loathed in Wisconsin by the working class. Google "2011 Wisconsin Protests" if you need to see images of the united front against him.



But the implicit logic Shrike put forth that I was attacking him for was to suggest that the midwest, which was proudly pro-union for decades suddenly switched because of racism. And he suggested, without a hint of irony, that Democrats should focus on SOUTHERN STATES BECAUSE THEY'RE LESS RACIST. C'mon, man. Who can offer that suggestion with a straight face?

The only way you can come to that conclusion is if you think racism/xenophobia/religious intolerance/sexism/masculinity/patriachy/militarism/etc. are all independent issues that people hold that are somehow completely independent from one another rather than the tool that the ruling class uses to divide the working poor. You cannot fix those societal issues without a radical redistribution of economic and political power.


Those who are currently in control of the Democratic Party (who hold the same opinions as Shrike) seem to believe that the marginalized and the dispossessed will vote for Democrats because they have nowhere else to go. They believe that these voters are a lock, and that they can pick up moderate Republicans along the way. This theory of voter triangulation has failed. They DON'T pick up the moderate Republicans who are disgusted by Trump. And the marginalized and dispossessed working voters don't dutifuly go to the polls, either. Instead, the Republicans pinch their nose and vote for party (or abstain), and the working poor are not energized to go out and vote. So this idea that Democrats need to focus on Texas because that's where hispanic people are is laughably stupid if you don't actually OFFER THEM SOMETHING

Quote :

"The argument was Dems should forgo a 50 state effort (forget "rootin-tootin Texas") in order to chase the skeleton of Big Labor in the rust belt."

Again, I think you may have missed my point. I was actually arguing the exact opposite. Shrike was suggesting that Dems forgo the midwest because he thinks they're unwinnable and gone forever. I'm suggesting that the same issues that can win over the working class of Texas immigrants also can apply to working class people in Ohio. And that issue is labor. I was just being snarky with him because of his absurd notion that Texas is somehow less racist than the midwest.

[Edited on November 9, 2017 at 11:04 AM. Reason : ]

11/9/2017 10:45:41 AM

ITT I've learned that elections started in 2010 and the feckless Democrats have lost every single one. Also that changing demographics is a myth and states never change political leanings. Also a socialist wave of commie gingers is on the cusp of sweeping a nation where most people said Obama was too liberal.

11/9/2017 11:03:14 AM

the fact that you don't understand the difference between liberalism and socialism actually might explain why you have such a poor understanding of political theory

11/9/2017 11:05:46 AM

It's pretty telling that the only way you people are able to "attack" me is to twist what I actually said into some farcical stance and then attack that instead. You've learned well from Fox News and Trump.

[Edited on November 9, 2017 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2017 11:14:32 AM

Says the man who on this very page accused me of falling for "Fake News" and then cited a Tweet

11/9/2017 11:21:20 AM