After Midterm Results, Republicans Stand a Good Chance of Holding Senate

Updated:

Despite Republicans losing control of the House of Representatives last night, it came as part of a “blue splash” rather than the “blue wave” so many pundits predicted. Republicans solidified their control of the Senate, and they may have made their position so strong that there’s little risk of losing it in the 2020 elections.

Republicans solidify Senate control

At the day’s outset, Republicans controlled 51 seats to the Democrats’ 46 (counting two Independents who caucus with the Democrats). One race is still pending: Martha McSally in Arizona, and she is currently favored to win. Rick Scott also won his race in Florida on the first vote count, but it’s being contested. There was another contested race between incumbent Democrat Jon Tester and challenger Matt Rosendale, but Tester ended up winning.

So in sum, with McSally and Scott victories, Republicans could hold as many as 53 Senate seats.

Here’s why that is important:

While these gains in the Senate will obviously help Republicans confirm future judges, and possibly even another Supreme Court Justice, there’s a bigger reason why it’s so important. Based on the races that will occur in 2020, the GOP could be poised for almost-guaranteed victory.

Why? Because only some Senate seats are up for grabs during elections, and some seats are essentially impossible to flip (absent an act of God). In the 2020 elections, there should be only three Senate seats that Democrats can reasonably attempt to flip, in Colorado, North Carolina, and Indiana.

But Republicans should have a 53 seat majority, meaning that the best-case-scenario for Democrats, is a split Senate – Democrats and Republicans each holding exactly 50 seats. But then there’s the kicker: if President Trump is re-elected in 2020, Vice President Pence would be able to break any 50-50 tie.

In other words, we know for a near-certainty that after tonight there cannot be a “blue wave” in the Senate in the immediate future.

Introducing the “Senate popular vote”

If you think the Senate doesn’t matter, just look at how upset liberals are, despite their House win.

In reacting to Republicans strengthening their control of the Senate, liberals coined a new term; the “Senate Popular Vote.” Now, isn’t every Senate race determined by a popular vote? Yes – but wait till you see what liberals are trying to argue.

Here’s one comment from Salon writer Amanda Marcotte, who apparently just learned today that the United States isn’t a democracy. “Republicans lost the popular vote in Senate races by over 15 percentage points, but still gained two seats” she wrote. “Our country is not a democracy,” she concluded by pointing out a fact that’s been true for over two centuries.

Now, how did Republicans “lose” in the popular vote, but still win Senate seats? Because Marcotte (and other liberals making this argument) are looking at the overall vote tally from all the Senate races across the country, and adding it up. In other words, she apparently thinks that California’s votes should have an impact on the Senate races of the 49 other States.

Her analysis is entirely wrong, too. Democrats actually did win more Senate races, but they didn’t win more seats.

Even Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman seemed to be under the impression that the Founding Fathers could have never conceived that different States would have different populations.

If only there was another chamber of Congress that accounted for different State populations in the number of representatives they receive.

Oh, wait.

By Matt

Matt is the co-founder of Unbiased America and a freelance writer specializing in economics and politics. He’s been published... More about Matt

Mentioned in this article::