After the way my 2016 predictions went,
I’m in no hurry to begin making predictions about 2018. But that being said,
Senate Republicans could be looking at a majority of upwards of sixty seats—a
number never-before achieved by the GOP in the chamber, rarely achieved by the
Democrats, and one which would allow Republican bills and nominees alike to
pass easily against unified Democratic opposition.
Five Democrats will be up for reelection
in states Donald Trump won by double digits. Another is in a state (Ohio) Trump
won by a solid single-digit margin. And another seven are in states Trump
either won narrowly (such as Florida and Pennsylvania) or lost narrowly
(Virginia).
By comparison, only two Republican
senators are in states even remotely competitive—Dean Heller in Nevada and Jeff
Flake in Arizona. Both, as of right now, are reasonably popular in their
states. Trump won Arizona narrowly, and lost Nevada by only a couple of points.
None of this is to say that Republicans
will definitely gain the eight seats necessary to have a filibuster-proof
majority when the 116th Congress convenes. Republicans typically do
better in midterm elections, but the incumbent President’s party also usually
suffers—as we saw in 2010 and 2014. It is also far to know which Senators, from
both parties, are running for reelection. Defending an open seat is usually
much harder than defending an incumbent with high name recognition and
legislative accomplishments. And, circumstances could change dramatically over
the next two years, making Republican seats in Tennessee, Texas, or Utah
unexpectedly come into play. In 2012, Republicans were certain of picking up seats
in Missouri and North Dakota, and both stayed blue in the end.
But, given what we know now, GOP gains
of some sort are likely, with two or three seats being the conservative
estimate. That much I feel confident predicting (though not which two or three seats will flip.) And
if the next two years are successful, and Trump voters feel validated, then the
Senate could become a bastion of one-party rule seen only rarely in its
history.
Whether that’s a good thing, regardless
of the party in charge, is a discussion for another day.
No comments:
Post a Comment