Odds of the Dems flipping the Senate?

[trenchfoot]

The composition of the HOR is because of the greatest gerrymanders in history in the wake of the 2010 census & elections. That's true of many State legislatures as well. It was the first redistricting of the modern computer age & Repubs exploited it as much as they could. Dems received more votes in 2014 yet remain a minority.

There is a structural gerrymander in the Senate that favors low population more conservative States, also ruthlessly exploited. There was a time when Senators from over represented States dealt constructively with their advantage, respected the fact that they do not represent a majority, something Repubs discarded over 20 years ago.

In regards to how the Repubs built a wall around themselves via gerrymandering, if I were Reince Priebus, looking forward to the 2020 Census/re-districitng with a Dem president up for re-election, a Senate controlled by the Dems, and a Supreme Court with a liberal majority, I'd be having feelings of impending doom 24/7.

I'm thinking this coming election is a pivotal turning point in favor of the Dems if only they can take full advantage of the opportunities that will present themselves in the aftermath.

The Dem leadership have always been a step or two behind the Repubs in this regard, but maybe this time around things will change.

 

[IronWing]

^^ To reverse the gerrymandering, the Dems have to take the state houses. In my fair state, they don't even seem to be trying.

 

[Jhhnn]

In regards to how the Repubs built a wall around themselves via gerrymandering, if I were Reince Priebus, looking forward to the 2020 Census/re-districitng with a Dem president up for re-election, a Senate controlled by the Dems, and a Supreme Court with a liberal majority, I'd be having feelings of impending doom 24/7.

I'm thinking this coming election is a pivotal turning point in favor of the Dems if only they can take full advantage of the opportunities that will present themselves in the aftermath.

The Dem leadership have always been a step or two behind the Repubs in this regard, but maybe this time around things will change.

Clinton is a strategic thinker with enormous clout in the Party & with donors. I think we'll see a very strong effort to take statehouses & the midterms. 2010 & the aftermath was a lesson not easily forgotten.

 

[JEDI]

It says something when the Dems haven't a prayer of taking the house and only a slim chance of taking the Senate even when Trump is the nominee and the party is imploding all around.

can you say Gerry mandering?

 

[skyking]

for the first time, 538 has a senate flip at over 70 %
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

 

[woolfe9998]

Maher is vastly underestimating how partisanship has changed over the last 20 years. Split ticket voting and crossover voting used to be very common, now it's almost unheard of. If you don't have anyone crossing over, you basically guarantee results for about 70% of states one way or the other, regardless of how bad a candidate is.

We will never have another 49 state election unless that changes back.

I agree with this but perhaps not the last sentence. Partisanship is way up, but national demographics are shifting blue. While the GOP could adjust, in this election cycle it has gone in the opposite direction. We're seeing states like Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Alaska and Utah way closer than they have ever been. Clinton probably won't win any of those states. But I can see a democrat winning 40+ states in the foreseeable future if the GOP does not adapt.

 

[Sonikku]

can you say Gerry mandering?

Yep.

 

[dullard]

for the first time, 538 has a senate flip at over 70 %
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

More importantly, it has the most likely outcome as 52 senators for the democrats. That is important since in last elections it has been more and more common for a senator to switch parties (or one could possibly die). So, a 2-senator majority would be far more stable for the winning party.

It isn't enough to get things done unless they end the filibuster rule. But, it would likely keep the Democrats in power.

 

[dullard]

I agree with this but perhaps not the last sentence. Partisanship is way up, but national demographics are shifting blue. While the GOP could adjust, in this election cycle it has gone in the opposite direction. We're seeing states like Georgia, Arizona, Texas, Alaska and Utah way closer than they have ever been. Clinton probably won't win any of those states. But I can see a democrat winning 40+ states in the foreseeable future if the GOP does not adapt.

Shifting demographics are a powerful way to combat gerrymandering. Those "safe" 53%/47% seats suddenly aren't safe any more if the population changes.

 

[Blackjack200]

More importantly, it has the most likely outcome as 52 senators for the democrats. That is important since in last elections it has been more and more common for a senator to switch parties (or one could possibly die). So, a 2-senator majority would be far more stable for the winning party.

It isn't enough to get things done unless they end the filibuster rule. But, it would likely keep the Democrats in power.

Plus, assuming Clinton wins, Kane will be the tiebreaker. So 52-48 could actually survive two flips. Not that I really expect anyone to suddenly start calling themselves a Republican these days...