October 23, 2016

IT'S A NATURAL MAJORITY:

Even if Democrats win the Senate in 2016, their majority is unlikely to endure (Chris Cillizza October 23, 2016, washington Post) 

What few people talk about -- but should -- is that this could be a very short-lived majority for Senate Democrats, as the 2018 field is remarkably bad for them.

The numbers for that year are stunning: 25 Democratic or Democratic-affiliated independents are up for reelection, compared with just eight Republicans. That's as lopsided an election cycle as you will ever see.

But a look inside the numbers makes the Democrats' challenge in 2018 all the more daunting. Fully 20 percent of the 25 Democratic seats are in states that then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney carried in 2012 (and even Trump is likely to carry on Nov. 8): Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

All five Democratic incumbents in those states are expected to run for reelection, a prospect that gives Democrats a chance in each. But with 2018 looking almost certain to be the first midterm election of a Hillary Clinton presidency, it's hard to see how her party avoids major losses in red states. [...]

Some important historical context: In the first midterm election of President Obama's term, in 2010, Democrats lost 63 House seats and six Senate seats. In Bill Clinton's first midterm as president, in 1994, Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight Senate seats.

Posted by at October 23, 2016 6:20 PM

  

« ...AND CHEAPER...: | Main | ...AND CHEAPER...: »