If Republicans hold the senate

[shabby 1,958]

which is more likely than not, is that really something republicans should feel good about. With the map so skewed in the Republican's favor this should have been the year to pick of 5 or 6 seats minimum. Should breaking even or picking up a seat be seen as a republican triumph or a complete and utter failure? 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

16 minutes ago, shabby said:

which is more likely than not, is that really something republicans should feel good about. With the map so skewed in the Republican's favor this should have been the year to pick of 5 or 6 seats minimum. Should breaking even or picking up a seat be seen as a republican triumph or a complete and utter failure? 

Holding the Senate is a big deal to me if nothing else to be able to approve another conservative to the SCOTUS if another vacancy occurs. Losing the House is not that big of a deal except for seeing more of the likes of Pelosi, Waters, etc., wasting their time on crap like impeachment.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

I think it should be seen as relatively standard for a first term, midterm election.  Historically the electorate goes hard in the direction against the incumbent White House party during midterms.

The map in 2020 isn't overly encouraging for them w/ regards to flipping seats (best case would be a net gain of 3).  But in 2022, Republican seats in Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri are all due for voting.  I would imagine Dems are looking at those years hard.

[TitanTiger 20,479]

18 minutes ago, shabby said:

which is more likely than not, is that really something republicans should feel good about. With the map so skewed in the Republican's favor this should have been the year to pick of 5 or 6 seats minimum. Should breaking even or picking up a seat be seen as a republican triumph or a complete and utter failure? 

How can a Senate map be skewed toward Republicans?  They're all statewide races.  No amount of gerrymandering affects that.

[shabby 1,958]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

How can a Senate map be skewed toward Republicans?  They're all statewide races.  No amount of gerrymandering affects that.

The fact that only 8 republicans are up for reelection vs, twice as many democrats. That and the democrats that hold office ion Trump states are all coming up for reelection. Skewed was admittedly the wrong word. I should have said with such a favorable map.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

9 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

Holding the Senate is a big deal to me if nothing else to be able to approve another conservative to the SCOTUS if another vacancy occurs. Losing the House is not that big of a deal except for seeing more of the likes of Pelosi, Waters, etc., wasting their time on crap like impeachment.

While you're right about the Senate, losing the House is still a huge deal.  It stalls/negates any legislative agenda that Trump/Republicans may have.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

21 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

While you're right about the Senate, losing the House is still a huge deal.  It stalls/negates any legislative agenda that Trump/Republicans may have.

True but I'm not aware of any significant agenda they have near term except maybe the border wall and there are ways to get that done. We are likely to see a lot of budget fights leading to continuing resolutions. That can be a good thing since it limits gov't growth. JMO but with a Dem controlled House, nothing much will be accomplished and that can be a good thing.

If the Dems only get a small majority (5 or so) they may have trouble passing anything even in the House since they are so fragmented in philosophies these days.