General Election Update 3:

A Post-Debate Look at the Senate Map

Folks, sorry for the delay this week but I wanted to wait to see how much Harris whooped Trump’s ass in the debate because it would give me a final, vital piece of information I need to give you a sense of what will happen in the Senate.

As prospects for Democratic success for both the presidential and the House map have increased significantly from The Switch, it has also impacted the Senate map, turning it from being all but certain pick up for the GOP to a situation that gives Democrats a real, but exceedingly narrow, opportunity to hold the chamber.

To give you a sense of how difficult the Senate map is this year let me give you some non-mathematical probabilities I pulled out of my ass:

Probability of Democrats winning:

The Presidency: 75%

The House: 75%

The Senate: 40%

See the issue?

This is why I’ve been arguing all year that strategy will make or break us on the Senate map.

So, why is it so hard for Democrats to hold the senate?

The issue comes from the particular senate seats Democrats have to defend this cycle, combined with almost non-existent pick up opportunities.

This cycle Democrats have no choice but two defend senate seats in two states Trump carried by 8pts (Ohio) and a whoppin’ 16 pts (Montana), respectively.

Although Montana has long been out of reach for Democrats at the presidential level (the last Democrat to win Montana was Bill Clinton in ‘92) Ohio’s story is very different. Over the course of the last 20 years Ohio shifted from THE bellwether swing state (a role the press has anointed to Pennsylvania in the modern period) to reliably electing nothing but Republicans aside from one senate seat: the one Sherrod Brown sits in.

This is because of realignment/dealignment: as states like Arizona and Georgia have moved Left, states like Ohio and other lower midwestern states like Iowa have moved significantly to the Right.

Now, we do have two statewide Democrats serving in the senate in these two states, but I think its important for you to understand how we have them.

The 2018 midterms were the last time both men faced their hostile electorates, and that cycle was especially good in terms of fundamentals for Democrats.

The first way in which the fundamentals were especially good was the massive Midterm Effect that benefitted Democrats across the board from negative partisanship effects from Trump’s surprising Electoral College win in an election people were assured he could not win.

The second aspect favorable to Democrats that cycle was the differential between presidential cycle turnout and midterm cycle turnout. Because far less voters participate in midterms, an electorate like Montana with a vast preference for Republicans can produce a turnout that mitigates the size advantage Republicans hold, especially now that college educated voters have realigned to the Democratic Party. This cycle, the full electorate will cast ballots.

We have also added another 6 years of education realignment that will help Tester, but the presidential election turnout and the need to get a sizable amount of ticket-splitters is why I can’t sleep at night when my thoughts are on Montana.

And its the same story for Sherrod Brown in Ohio. 6 years of additional dealignment among working class voters is going to complicate his reelection efforts, which will also require a significant amount of ticket splitting.

Enter the importance of strategic approach: