Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, most governors that will be in power in 2020, when the next census happens, will be decided during the 2018 elections. Governors typically have four year terms.
So the Democrats need to find a way to win back some of these governors mansions in 2018, and state legislatures in 2020, or when all the political districts are again withdrawn, the lines will again be favorable to the Republicans for another decade, until 2030. Of course this "gerrymandering" (which they also do when they are in power) has been a major reason why the Democrats have been unable to win back the House.
After the current year elections, the Republicans hold 34 governors mansions, while the Democrat's hold 15, with one race still being counted. As far as legislatures, Republicans will control 68 out of 99 legislative chambers, an all-time high for the GOP. And they will have full control of 33 legislatures, up from 31. (That includes Nebraska, which has a technically nonpartisan, single-chamber legislature.) Democrats will be in full command in just 13 states.
So the Democrats have a lot riding on the 2018 elections, to say the least.
What are the Democrat's prospects for retaking the Senate in 2018?
Depends almost entirely on what the Republicans do in the next two years. Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Nebraska are all solidly red states, so it'd take a huge catastrophe to win those. Nevada is a maybe, but it's also not overwhelmingly Democrat either. Meanwhile, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana and West Virginia are all very red states. Missouri is a fairly red state too. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin are toss-ups. Michigan and others might be vulnerable depending on how Trump and Congress perform in the next 2 years. To me, that map shows greater vulnerability on the Democrat's side than the Republicans side.
Still, if the GOP screws up mightily, then anything is possible.
Other then Nevada those are all really Republican states that are getting more and more Republican.
Alot of the states the Democrats have to hold in 2018 are swing or Republican states.
It looks the senate has a good chance of getting more Republican in just two years.
When you look at it, it will be a mid-term by then. Dems never go out and vote at that time. Republicans can gain potentially as many as four to six Senate seats.
Depends almost entirely on what the Republicans do in the next two years. Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee and Nebraska are all solidly red states, so it'd take a huge catastrophe to win those. Nevada is a maybe, but it's also not overwhelmingly Democrat either. Meanwhile, Montana, North Dakota, Indiana and West Virginia are all very red states. Missouri is a fairly red state too. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin are toss-ups. Michigan and others might be vulnerable depending on how Trump and Congress perform in the next 2 years. To me, that map shows greater vulnerability on the Democrat's side than the Republicans side.
Still, if the GOP screws up mightily, then anything is possible.
While you have some good point keep somethings in mind. All of these seats the democrats won in 2012 Montana, N. Dakota, Indiana, W. Virginia, Missouri were all states Obama LOST in 2012 but dems won the senate seats. In fact Obama's closest loss was a little over 9% in Missouri...Obama lost all those states by over 10% some even close to 20%.
Now bring up rape and pregnancy as good things or impossible from legitimate rape did give boost to the dems of course (mo and in specifically) but incumbency is a powerful thing. Some of these senators are going for a 3 term or more (Montana, PA, OH, FL) Plus it depends of the caliber of candidate. For Example, The W. Virginia senator was a popular former governor before becoming a senator and W. Virginia is so red it can be seen from space.
Sometimes politics is truly local. and Historically the party out of the white house does better with the mid-terms.
Since 1910 only 3 times has the presidents party gained in the house (just barely the highest being 9)
In the senate the presidents part gained in the senate 5 times with 2 break evens other wise lost every other mid-term since 1910.
Now the senate will be tough and odds are stronger the GOP gains then loses due to sheer lopsided defense.
But I'm thinking the Dems could make gains in the house and all-important governorship...Many won due to anti-obama sentiment in 2010 and 2014 and many are now term limited...with re-drawing of lines coming in that terms the dems can do a "turn-about" in gerrymandering...if they show up and vote which they do not have a good history of doing.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,548 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713
Coming into the 2016 with the Republicans defending 24 seats, in a presidential election year, with the Republican presidential candidate being either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and with the media not even really trying to pretend not to be totally in the tank for Hillary Clinton, Dems had to be shooting for a net pickup early on of around 10 seats or maybe even more. Considering this was probably the last chance for the Democrats to make gains until at least 2020, this really was a big lost opportunity for the here.
Why are people rewriting history this quickly ???
Indiana, Ohio, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
Those are the states people thought would be competitive for democrats. That is only 11. A net gain of 10 would be a virtual sweep, and no one predicted that.
Pa has a bad track record of re electing incumbents so Casey has a good chance of staying on. Of course, he's a toady who follows the party line and was close to Obama. Now without anyone to follow, he may or may not start worrying about his constituents.
While you have some good point keep somethings in mind. All of these seats the democrats won in 2012 Montana, N. Dakota, Indiana, W. Virginia, Missouri were all states Obama LOST in 2012 but dems won the senate seats. In fact Obama's closest loss was a little over 9% in Missouri...Obama lost all those states by over 10% some even close to 20%.
Now bring up rape and pregnancy as good things or impossible from legitimate rape did give boost to the dems of course (mo and in specifically) but incumbency is a powerful thing. Some of these senators are going for a 3 term or more (Montana, PA, OH, FL) Plus it depends of the caliber of candidate. For Example, The W. Virginia senator was a popular former governor before becoming a senator and W. Virginia is so red it can be seen from space.
Sometimes politics is truly local. and Historically the party out of the white house does better with the mid-terms.
Since 1910 only 3 times has the presidents party gained in the house (just barely the highest being 9)
In the senate the presidents part gained in the senate 5 times with 2 break evens other wise lost every other mid-term since 1910.
Now the senate will be tough and odds are stronger the GOP gains then loses due to sheer lopsided defense.
But I'm thinking the Dems could make gains in the house and all-important governorship...Many won due to anti-obama sentiment in 2010 and 2014 and many are now term limited...with re-drawing of lines coming in that terms the dems can do a "turn-about" in gerrymandering...if they show up and vote which they do not have a good history of doing.
The repeating cycle of things we keep seeing looks like this:
Clinton gets elected President in 1992.
Both houses of Congress goes Republican two years later in 1994.
W gets elected President in 2000.
Congress goes full red in 2002 but gradually goes blue before W's presidency ends.
Obama gets elected President in 2008.
One house Congress goes Republican two years later
The American people seem rather keen on putting gridlock back in place whenever it's lost. That's significant and interesting. It means that as soon as either party starts doing anything significant, the American people don't like it and try to stop them.
Let me rephrase what I said before: It depends on how badly Trump and the GOP **** off the American people in the next two years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
