The question is how many seats republicans gain. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/29/politics/senate-2018-chuck-schumer/index.html A quick count produces this: Democrats are defending a whopping 25 seats as compared to just eight for Republicans. But it gets worse -- much worse -- for Democrats. Of their 25 seats, 10 of them are in states that Donald Trump won in the 2016 presidential election. Five of those 10 -- North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia and Indiana -- are states Trump carried by double digits. By contrast, only one Republican -- Dean Heller of Nevada -- represents a state that Hillary Clinton won last November. Only one other Republican-held state -- Arizona -- was even marginally competitive in the presidential contest. Still, the seats up in 2018 are tilted as heavily toward Republicans as any time in recent memory. The real goal for Democrats should be to minimize their losses in 2018 and keep the majority within shouting distance for 2020 when 22 Republicans and just 11 Democrats are up.
I agree, the Senate isn't favorable for the Democrats in 2018. The House is where they have a much better chance to make big gains and potentially flip control. Flipping is tall order, but one that Trump is making more and more likely. Of course, if the Republicans don't win many, or any, extra Senate seats in 2018, that'll be really bad news for them, given how historically tilted the map is for them this cycle.
All it takes is ONE more republican vote. Just one. I think they might get close to a 60 vote supermajority.
Assuming they don't lose the House, or enough of it to make passage in the House impossible. Turn a bunch of the "moderate" Republican House members who eventually voted for it into Democratic no votes and that's that. Not to mention, if in a year's time, public opinion has swung even more strongly against repeal, it may take significantly more than one more vote even to pass the Senate. That's pretty unlikely. If they weren't trailing Democrats by a significant amount on the generic Congressional ballot, and dealing with a historically unpopular (for this point in a Presidency) President, it would be plausible.
Lose the house. hahahahahahahahaha No way. Talk about wishful thinking. Heard it before: Democrats said they'd win in a series of special elections this year. How'd that work out? http://www.npr.org/2017/07/24/538618779/americans-prefer-democratic-house-candidates-in-2018-for-now And yet: there are a few reasons why Americans' seeming preference for a Democratic House shouldn't get Democrats too excited just yet. One is the simple benefits of incumbency. In any given race, the incumbent often has natural advantages in terms of fundraising potential and name recognition. Considering that Republicans hold more districts than Democrats, that's one simple hurdle to retaking the House for Democrats. It's also true that votes don't necessarily equal seats. In every election since 2010, Democrats have won a smaller share of congressional seats than votes. This is a relatively new trend — as the Brookings Institution found in November, Democrats used to regularly win a "seats bonus." In other words, even assuming Democrats lead decisively in the generic ballot in November 2018, and assuming that lead translates to a greater vote share, it won't necessarily mean a similarly sizable gain in House seats. And, of course, it is more than 15 months until Election Day 2018. At this point in 2013, Democrats had a lead of around 3.5 points in the generic ballot. They would go on to slip behind Republicans by around 2.4 points just before Election Day 2014 — and lose 13 seats. One final point: Democrats generally have a tougher time turning out voters in midterms than Republicans do. It's true that recent special elections in Georgia, Kansas and Montana showed that Democrats could mobilize — if not win — in some heavily Republican districts. But at least for now, Democrats nationwide don't look particularly energized for 2018. While Democrats lead by 14 points in the generic ballot, Trump supporters, in particular, are far more likely than Democrats to say they are "absolutely certain" to vote in midterms, as the Washington Post's Mike DeBonis and Emily Guskin wrote. Seventy-two percent of Trump supporters said this, compared to 65 percent of all Republicans and Republican-leaners, and just 57 percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaners.
Pretty well, actually. OK, I can already feel the “FAKE POLLS!” tweets coming. But it’s not just in polling where we see the negative effect of Trump’s unpopularity on Republicans. You can also see it in the special elections held so far this year — actual voters actually voting. There have been 30 special state legislature and U.S. congressional elections3 since Trump was sworn-in as president. Democrats, as a group, have been outperforming the partisan lean in these districts — tending to come close in ruby red districts, winning swing districts and romping in light blue districts. More specifically, Democratic candidates have done about 16 percentage points better, on average, than you’d expect in a national environment in which no party held the advantage. (Imagine a world in which the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates tie 50-50 in the popular vote).4 This overperformance holds as well for the smaller subset of congressional elections.
Show me where in my post I said anything about socialized medicine. President Trump didn't say anything about socialized medicine when he made his promises. I'm asking to identify and discuss all available ideas and options.
