It looks like Republicans may not take the Senate after all. The reason? Montana
www.independent.co.uk
A poorly managed scandal response could once again prevent the GOP from ousting the ‘most vulnerable’ Democrat of 2024. John Bowden reports after a warning that ‘the meltdown is about to begin’ among Trump campaigners nationally

Summary

The 2024 race for Montana’s Senate seat, once seen as a near-certain Republican gain, has tightened unexpectedly, with Democratic incumbent Jon Tester showing a late polling advantage over GOP challenger Tim Sheehy.

Sheehy’s lead has diminished amid scrutiny of his story about a bullet wound he claims to have suffered during a deployment in Afghanistan. Discrepancies in his account, including conflicting explanations about a 2015 incident in Glacier National Park, have cast doubt on his credibility.

This polling shift has unsettled Republicans, with former Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci describing their reaction as a “meltdown.”

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      11·
      16 days ago

      Practically speaking, this election cycle is the hardest for Democrats in the Senate. There are 23 seats currently held by Democrats (and Independants organizing with them) up for reelection, vs. only 10 Republicans.

      In the 2026 election, barring any additional vacancies due to retirements or deaths, there will be 13 Democrats defending seats vs. 20 Republicans. In 2028, the split is 15 - 19.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_United_States_senators

      If the Democrats do keep the Senate and reform the Filibuster, then unless there is some radical change in political alignments Democrats will be favored to hold on to the Senate until at least 2030. There is a lot of work Democrats can do during those 6 years that might be impossible with the Filibuster in place, as it currently is implemented.

      I would argue that keeping the Senate is just as important as winning the Presidency. Perhaps more so. If Trump wins but Democrats keep the Senate, they can use their power to ratify Cabinet officers to keep the worst of the worst appointments out. Likewise, if Harris wins but Republicans take the Senate, I doubt any of Harris’s judicial appointments will be approved at all.

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
      16·
      16 days ago

      They already killed it for Supreme Court nominees when it suited them. If they really wanted something they’d kill it for that

      By 2017, roles had reversed — Republicans held the majority in the Senate, and President Donald Trump sat in the Oval Office.

      After Senate Democrats, now in the minority, filibustered the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch — Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court — McConnell engineered his own “nuclear option.”

      The Republican-controlled Senate voted 52-48 to reduce the vote threshold for confirming nominees to the Supreme Court from 60 to 51, per The New York Times.

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

    • mriguy@lemmy.world
      14·
      16 days ago

      We know exactly how they’d act, since they eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees so they could pack the court. Holding ourselves to some standard they will immediately violate when they can get any advantage is stupid.

    • JaymesRS@literature.cafeEnglish
      1·
      16 days ago

      Then make them own their choices. As long as they can stick with this limbo there’s plausible deniability that no one sees. Or require it to be a speaking filibuster. In Minnesota, the conservatives had control of all the levers until they “caught the car” on banning marriage equality. At a state level, that woke a bunch of complacent people up and now we have a democratic trifecta after a lot of work since then. That can happen at the federal level too and that’s what we are learning from Dobbs.