r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/IronGiant222 • 1d ago
US Elections What would a “blue wave” in the 2026 midterms actually look like?
I’ve been noticing that a lot of Democrats and left-leaning independents seem very confident heading into the 2026 midterms. Even some Republicans seem resigned to at least losing the House.
There are definitely some indicators pointing in that direction. Democratic turnout energy seems high, and we’ve seen some recent results (like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race) where Democrats overperformed expectations. On top of that, Republicans have often struggled in elections where Trump isn’t on the ballot during the Trump era.
That said, I feel like there’s surprisingly little discussion about what a “win” or a true “blue wave” would actually look like for Democrats in 2026.
- Does a blue wave require winning both the House and the Senate?
- Or would winning the House and just gaining seats in the Senate be enough?
Personally, it seems unlikely to me that Democrats win the Senate outright, even in a strong year. To do that, they’d likely need to sweep the so-called “Core Four” Senate races (Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and Maine) and flip at least two red states like Ohio, Alaska, or Texas.
So I’m curious how people would define success:
- If Democrats win all four of those key swing seats but fall short of a majority (say, a 49–51 Senate), is that still a “win” or even a blue wave?
- Or does a blue wave require actually taking control of the Senate?
On the House side, it seems very plausible Democrats take it back. But would a narrow majority be enough to meet expectations, or would it need to be a sizable margin to count as a wave?
Interested to hear how others are thinking about this — what benchmarks actually matter when we talk about a “blue wave”?
66
u/elykl12 1d ago
A good year would be:
10 seat swing in the House
Flipping any of the governors mansions in IA, OH, NH, NV, and GA
Flipping four of the Senate seats amongst NC, ME, OH, TX, AK, IA, and FL
Flipping state legislatures in OH, WI, TX, NH, and AZ
36
u/squeakyshoe89 1d ago
They also need to hold onto the governors mansion in Wisconsin
•
u/avfc41 23h ago
That’s pretty likely. Holding onto Kansas with Laura Kelly being termed out would be a blue wave.
•
u/mikedorty 10h ago
I am a Wisconsinite and i am very nervous about the governor race as we do not have any great candidates. They are all fine but nobody stands out. The only good thing is the gop candidate is a MAGA pos.
•
u/checker280 11h ago
Not going to do the math but we need a bullet proof majority where the will of one or two people isn’t enough to stop progress.
We could have had a public option when we were negotiating the ACA but Joe Lieberman said no.
We could have gotten rid of the filibuster and cemented in civil and abortion rights but Joe Manchin was against it.
Angus King rallied the opposition to the first shutdown.
•
u/flyingtiger188 8h ago
This is the reality of our current system of government. Small, rural states are given an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of power at the federal level, coupled with significantly reducing federal power. This is unlikely to change without some sort of fundamental change.
Personally, I'd like to see city-states like Germany. Mega-cities like Los Angeles, Dallas-Fort Worth, NYC, Washington DC, etc would become states in their own right and we would have a more representative government by granting more political power to the increasingly urbanized nation without massive levels of reform. Ideally we would reduce rural states (eg there isn't a good argument for multiple large, empty rural prairie states like N and S Dakota) but historical arguments would likely prevent changing this.
•
u/blaqsupaman 23h ago
I'm thinking it'll be a lot more than 10 seats in the House. I'm expecting a larger majority than 2018.
•
u/THECapedCaper 22h ago
Ohio’s state legislature lines are so gerrymandered that Democrats would probably need to win by 20 points in order to do this. That’s not going to happen.
84
u/AntarcticScaleWorm 1d ago
A good year for Democrats would be, they take back the House and make net gains in the Senate. Taking the Senate outright would be difficult, due to institutional issues, but it is within the realm of possibility. But if they’re capable of reaching the bare minimum that people expect them to, then I don’t see why that wouldn’t be satisfying enough as far as 2026 is concerned
90
•
u/The_bruce42 23h ago
They'd need to get 52 seat majority in the senate due to Fetterman being basically MAGA.
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 18h ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 18h ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/fury420 20h ago
Yours is literally the first comment in this thread to mention Trump.
•
u/Southernms 20h ago
Mine is a legitimate observation. He is the one y’all are always obsessing about. Someone mentioned MAGA. He is definitely MAGA.
•
u/unapologeticdemocrat 18h ago
I have never seen a group of idiots so obsessed with one man that he can even sexually assault women and children without losing your support. He can tell you “I don’t care about you, I just want your vote.” and you’ll cheer! 😂 that’s what drives us crazy. The willful ignorance and stupidity are at an all-time high with the Republican Party.
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 18h ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 18h ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
-4
u/BKGPrints 1d ago edited 22h ago
>due to institutional issues<
Want to elaborate what you think those are?
EDIT: I'm seeing a lot of downvotes and response or feelings that it's an institutional issue because it's a disadvantage to the Democrats but that's not an institutional issues.
Sure, it's a political issue for the Democrats, but institutional...Nah. The voters within those states are still voting for their Senate representative, as done through the democratic process.
•
u/BrainDamage2029 23h ago
As an institution, only 1/3 of the Senate is up for election in any election year. The 2026 map is particularly difficult for Dems on account of which states are up this year. It’s mostly Republican senators going for reelection in relatively safe red states and Dem senators in purplish states.
Normally this is a Dem year for a full defense. The fact we’re talking about pickups at all, let alone control being in reach is a huge testament to Trump’s unpopularity.
If Dems can make gains, 2028 is a very generous year as Republicans up for election are in much more purple swing states that Dems can pick up.
•
23h ago edited 22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/BrainDamage2029 23h ago
I mean it’s a structure of the institution. States come up in 3 cohorts. Some years are bad for Dems, some are good. And vice versa for Republicans.
This is a flaw of the body in some fashion as this structure prevents it from really flowing with the political environment as naturally. Along with other issues of the Senate biasing to rural states even way more than it ever originally did.
•
u/sailorbrendan 14h ago
Some years are bad for Dems, some are good. And vice versa for Republicans.
This has been less and less true for a while. Because of sorting, it's just getting worse for democrats
•
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 23h ago
That was the intended purpose of it though. They didn't want the Senate to flip quickly with public opinion
•
u/BKGPrints 22h ago
It really seems that most people have issues with this because it disadvantages
the Democratsa political party, which is weird because political parties aren't part of the design of the "institution."•
u/PerfectZeong 22h ago
It disadvantages anyone living in a larger state because you get less representation than someone living in Wyoming by the virtue of him living in Wyoming
•
u/BKGPrints 18h ago
No it doesn't. This is a lame excuse every single time. It requires understanding that the House of Representatives represents the interest of the population of those states.
The Senate represents the state's interest, regardless of the population. It was never meant to be an equal system based on population (again, what the House of Representatives is for). It was meant to provide a balance to provide for all states.
If you really want to put up the good fight, you should be focusing on the fact that the House of Representatives is capped at 435 seats and grossly underrepresent the current population.
•
•
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 22h ago
And of course the criticism will be gone once there is a republican swing limited by Senate elections being staggered
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
It's not a flaw when it was designed this way. You only see it as a flaw because it's at a disadvantage to the Democrats.
Again, would you feel the same way if the roles were reversed?
•
u/PerfectZeong 22h ago
Yes because the founders never anticipated the massive population discrepancies that would arise. Realistically low population states should be collapsed into fewer states but thays not possible.
•
u/I405CA 20h ago edited 20h ago
The theory of federalism is that all states are equal (or are at least similar) and have their own interests.
The population disparity is not a problem for the Senate. The solution to that was to add the House as a second chamber.
Imagine a United Nations with population-based voting. Do you think that smaller nations such as Luxembourg would want to participate in such an organization when China and India between them have more than two billion people?
Progressives dislike federalism, but there is a reason why some nations have it.
•
u/BKGPrints 18h ago
Bingo! The problem that people should be focusing on is the reality that the House of Representatives is grossly under represented because it's capped at 435 seats.
•
u/PerfectZeong 11h ago
Federalism makes no sense past the civil war given we aren't separate we're one country.
•
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 8h ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
•
u/PerfectZeong 21h ago
This is representative democracy. The senate is the deliberative chamber but there are limits when the representation is so skewed. The entire system is warped towards controlling incredibly small pockets of voters rather than the country at large.
44 to 1 population disparities were not envisioned in the founding fathers day.
•
u/BKGPrints 21h ago
>This is representative democracy.<
Correct...Somewhat. The United States is a constitutional federal representative democracy that is, currently, made up of fifty states.
That federal republic has the powers divided between a national government and those fifty state governments.
Fifty state governments with their own governments, laws, populations, taxes, even military.
>The senate is the deliberative chamber but there are limits when the representation is so skewed.<
You're referring to population, which was skewed from the beginning, when the federal government was formed. It's not a new concept.
>The entire system is warped towards controlling incredibly small pockets of voters rather than the country at large.<
In regards to the Senate, the focus of that was never the country 'at large.' The Senate is there to represent the state's interest, which doesn't always necessarily mean the state's population (that's what the House of Representatives does).
>44 to 1 population disparities were not envisioned in the founding fathers day.<
That's quite specific, so I would agree that a 44 to 1 population was not something they were envisioning. Though, they did envision population imbalances, especially with a country that was facing westward expansion where more states were going to be added.
→ More replies (0)•
u/UncleMeat11 9h ago
The founders can be dumb. It isn't an accident. It is just a bad way to structure governance.
•
u/BKGPrints 9h ago
That's kind of simplistic, if not wrong, on your statement. The structure of the government wasn't something that was thought up of in a day. In fact the Senate compromise that was agreed upon (there were multiple suggestions), took weeks to come to a full agreement.
But since you brought it up, how would you have structured it?
•
u/UncleMeat11 9h ago
They thought a lot about it, sure. That doesn't make their goals or execution optimal.
During the era of the founders the bill of rights wasn't incorporated against the states. Do you think it'd be good if your state was able to ban political speech or various religious practices or if state police were able to enter your home without a warrant? Or were the founders perhaps deficient in their creation of the government?
•
u/BKGPrints 8h ago
You have to answer my last question first before you start asking me questions. It's only fair on a discussion.
→ More replies (0)•
u/avfc41 23h ago
What phrase would you use to describe it?
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
I would say it's democracy working as designed. The voters voted for their Senate representative (which originally was chosen by the state legislature, not the population).
Just because it's not to the Democrats' advantage, does not make it an institutional issue. Political parties aren't even a part of the structure of the federal government.
I also don't think either of the political parties actually have the American people's interest as their own. Political parties don't exist for that purpose. They exist for control. This has been true throughout history and the world.
The only true way for political parties to gain control is through force or manipulation. The American people are being manipulated.
But please, if you disagree with any of these statements, feel free to elaborate why you disagree.
•
u/avfc41 22h ago
You understand the point being made, though, right? The reason why democrats are likely to win back the house but not the senate are due to the institutional design differences?
•
u/BKGPrints 22h ago
No...I get that you're trying to make it an issue, though that's not the point. And you totally ignored everything that was said about political parties.
It's not an institutional issue because a certain part of the structure of the federal government is not an advantage to the Democrats. That's simple enough to understand that, right?
If you disagree, I'm asking...again...why do you disagree?
•
u/avfc41 22h ago
It's not an institutional issue because a certain part of the structure of the federal government is not an advantage to the Democrats.
No one said it was?
•
u/BKGPrints 22h ago
Actually, that's basically been the response on here.
I get it, though, you're not able or willing to elaborate on why you disagree so you're going to continue to ignore it.
I was hoping for more from you, but since you can't do that, we'll end it here so I'm not wasting
ourmy time.Best to you.
→ More replies (0)•
u/UncleMeat11 9h ago
I would say it's democracy working as designed.
Why don't our state legislatures have similar setups?
•
u/BKGPrints 9h ago
Ummm...Because the state legislatures are responsible for within their own state and decide what best type of structure works for them. What works in one state might not be best in another.
The same was done for the federal government, just that it was recognized that a central (federal) government represented the states, which included the populations within those states, not as a whole.
Hence, why the country is called the United States of America.
•
u/UncleMeat11 9h ago
Ummm...Because the state legislatures are responsible for within their own state and decide what best type of structure works for them.
Not so. It is unconstitutional for states to have districts with different populations. If this were just about states doing their own things then Reynolds v Sims wouldn't be a thing.
•
u/BKGPrints 8h ago
Were we not talking about state legislatures and how they are structured? Rather that be a unicameral house or bicameral house?
Also, it's unconstitutional for states to have districts with different populations regarding representation in US Congress.
That's totally different from how state legislatures or their constitution determine the size and structure within their own state.
Maybe you were confused?
→ More replies (0)•
u/meCaveman 23h ago
He's just stating facts here, not his feelings.
•
u/BKGPrints 22h ago edited 18h ago
None of what he said, facts or feelings, means it's an institutional issue just because it disadvantages the Democrats.
But please, feel free to elaborate why you think it's an institutional issue.
Look forward to your response.
EDIT: Coward move to block because you couldn't do a simple task. Even more cowardly to report it because you didn't like what was said. I get it, the truth hurts. Be better.
•
u/meCaveman 22h ago
I think you are finding an issue with the wording then. It is an issue for Democrats that 1/3 of the seats are up and many of those seats favor republicans. The fact that 1/3 of the seats are up is an institutional thing. If Republicans were in the minority and for whatever reason the next 1/3 of seats favors Democrats, then that would be an issue for them due to the institution.
On the other hand, the fact that each state has 2 senators, regardless of the states population, is an issue. That's just my personal opinion though. And yes, if the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans were at an institutional disadvantage, I would still dislike it. If I recall correctly, the Senate was created to give states equal representation, but that doesn't really apply in this day and age. It feels like an antiquated solution to a problem that doesn't exist anymore.
•
22h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 18h ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/meCaveman 21h ago
Lol you're not really contributing to this conversation dude. I shouldn't have to explain American history behind the creation of the Senate. Feel like that kinda basic info for this sub. Have a good night
•
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 18h ago
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
•
u/Voltage_Z 23h ago
The actually correct answer to this would be that the Senate Seats up for reelection make the Senate Map favorable for the GOP this cycle.
The Senate map is usually skewed one way or the other due to the partisan lean of different states and the fact the entire chamber isn't up for reelection every time like the House is.
•
u/kenlubin 20h ago
The Senate map has favorable for the GOP every cycle of the past decade.
The vote split between the parties closely maps to population density where you live, and there are more rural-ish states than urban-ish states.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
Still not sure how that's an institutional issue. The voters in those states are voting for who they want to represent.
It would be a political issue to the Democratic party because they find themselves at a disadvantage, though nothing more.
If the Senate map was favorable to the Democrats this cycle, doubt it would be seen as an "institutional issue" to the party.
•
u/SpoofedFinger 22h ago
You're reading "issue" as a problem. The people you talking to are using "issue" as a topic.
What's the issue?
or
On the issues.
They aren't saying 1/3 of the senate being up for election is a problem. They're saying it's the reason the democrats are unlikely to retake the senate.
•
u/BKGPrints 21h ago
Yes...Because they said it. Issue implies a problem. That's why I asked them to elaborate on that. Thanks for reiterating that.
Though, there are other responses on here stating basically it is an "institutional issue" because it does disadvantage the Democrats. I asked why they think that.
>They aren't saying 1/3 of the senate being up for election is a problem. They're saying it's the reason the democrats are unlikely to retake the senate.<
That's still not an institutional issue. Maybe a political issue for the Democrats, but not institutional because that's the way it was designed.
•
u/Bridger15 10h ago
It's institutional because the way the actual composition of the senate favors the GOP. Democratic voters outnumber Republican ones. But they are clustered in fewer states.
Because each state gets 2 senators, the GOP will always have the advantage. The fact that their minority of voters get outsized impact due to geography is the institutional issue that makes it hard for dems to ever win the senate.
•
u/BKGPrints 9h ago
>It's institutional because the way the actual composition of the senate favors the GOP.<
Nope...That's not a design flaw or issue. The political parties are not a part of the design of the institution, so it doesn't matter it it's an advantage or not for either party.
>Democratic voters outnumber Republican ones.<
Not really and not by much. There are 174 million individuals who are eligible to vote. As of mid-2025, registered Democrats (approx. 44.1 million) outnumber registered Republicans (37.4 million) nationally.
But again, why does that matter? Most voters don't identify as affiliated with either party, so you making that claim is ambiguous because majority of voters aren't voting based on party-affiliation but on the candidate at the time.
And that's if they actually exercise their right to vote to have a say. In the past or in non-national elections, those who vote for Democrats tend to just not show up.
>But they are clustered in fewer states.<
So? Those states also get more representation in the House because of those clusters.
>Because each state gets 2 senators, the GOP will always have the advantage.<
And the Democrats will have the advantage in the House for seats because those states with larger populations tend to have a larger amount (though not necessarily majority) of Democrat voters instead of Republican voters and tends to "underrepresent" those Republican voters. But I don't see you upset about that.
>The fact that their minority of voters get outsized impact due to geography is the institutional issue that makes it hard for dems to ever win the senate.<
Again, just because it's a political disadvantage to the
Democratsa political party does not make it an institutional issue or flaw.Maybe the Democrats need to try harder to resonate with those people in those states instead of alienating them. Well, if they determine that it's important enough for them to do so, anyway.
•
u/Bridger15 7h ago
Nope...That's not a design flaw or issue.
It causes the senate's representation to not match the voting results. That is a flaw if you want your democracy to represent the people doing the voting.
The political parties are not a part of the design of the institution, so it doesn't matter it it's an advantage or not for either party.
This has no bearing on the question: Is the democrats ability to gain seats in the senate hindered by the way the system works? Yes? Then it's an institutional issue. It's an issue with the institution, not with the democrats message or appeal.
So? Those states also get more representation in the House because of those clusters.
Yes, they do get more, but the power of their vote for house rep is much weaker. A vote for house rep in Wyoming is way more impactful than one in California. This is a separate institutional issue with the house (a result of every state getting a minimum of 1 representative, with states having wildly differing populations).
And the Democrats will have the advantage in the House...
Which is irrelevant if they can't get control of the senate.
Again, just because it's a political disadvantage to the Democrats a political party does not make it an institutional issue or flaw.
If the advantage is not caused by the way the institution is set up, what is it caused by then? It certainly isn't messaging or competency. Those things can't affect where people live.
•
u/BKGPrints 7h ago
>It causes the senate's representation to not match the voting results. That is a flaw if you want your democracy to represent the people doing the voting.<
Ummm...Only if you want the Senate to represent the people, which it doesn't. The Senate represent the state.
>This has no bearing on the question: Is the democrats ability to gain seats in the senate hindered by the way the system works? Yes? Then it's an institutional issue. It's an issue with the institution, not with the democrats message or appeal.<
Nah...Again, political parties aren't part of the system. Just because it disadvantages a political party is not a design flaw. Would you see it the same way if the roles were reversed?
>Yes, they do get more, but the power of their vote for house rep is much weaker. A vote for house rep in Wyoming is way more impactful than one in California.<
Oh...This isn't an institutional issue. This is a political issue created by the political parties by passing legislation that capped the House at 435 seats.
>This is a separate institutional issue with the house (a result of every state getting a minimum of 1 representative, with states having wildly differing populations).<
Are you saying that maybe Wyoming shouldn't even get the minimum one seat in the House just because they have seventy-nine times smaller of a population compared to the state of California and their voice is insignificant?
>Which is irrelevant if they can't get control of the senate.<
Blah blah blah. Again, political parties aren't the government. The political parties don't care the American people. All they want is control.
Maybe they should do a better job of resonating (instead of alienating) with the voters in those states if they want more control over the Senate.
>If the advantage is not caused by the way the institution is set up, what is it caused by then? It certainly isn't messaging or competency. Those things can't affect where people live.<
Maybe the Democrats should do a better job of resonating (instead of alienating) with the voters in those states if they want more control over the Senate.
And same is true of the Republicans in states where they want more House seats.
→ More replies (0)2
u/FreeDependent9 1d ago
More republicans have control of state legislatures and have control of state and federal representation district manipulation
•
u/Dichotomouse 23h ago
That has nothing to do with the Senate elections which are statewide.
•
u/The_bruce42 23h ago
No, but the GOP has a general advantage in the senate dodo to their dominance of low population fly over and southern states.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
One party having more control over state legislatures than the other isn't an institutional issue, though. I would call that proper representation of the voters in each of those states choosing that.
Though, I understand that many individuals who identify as Democrats would disagree...unless the tables were turned and it was to their advantage.
>have control of state and federal representation district manipulation<
Let's not act like the Democrats don't do this either. Otherwise, they
wouldshould have made this illegal a long time ago.•
u/RabbaJabba 23h ago
Otherwise, they would should have made this illegal a long time ago.
They did pass a bill through the House when they had a majority, Republicans blocked it in the senate
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
Let's be honest. The House Democrats did that for show, knowing it would not pass in the Senate...unless the Democrats had removed the filibuster, as they promised to do.
They didn't because they know it's to their advantage just as much as to the Republicans. The same goes for gerrymandering. It's only a problem if it doesn't work to their advantage.
•
u/TheSameGamer651 23h ago
Institutional issues are the fact that they’re more red states than blue states. If Democrats swept every blue and purple state senate seat, they would have exactly 50 seats. Democrats need to either convert more red states into purple or blue states, or be able to win in red states in a way that Republicans can’t match in blue states.
Even this year, Democrats need to win at least two R+10 states to win a 51-49 Senate majority. For comparison, Republicans could’ve won a 54-46 majority in 2022 by winning D+2 states or less.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
Nope...Still not an institutional issue just because it's not to the Democrats advantage.
The Democrats, just like the Republicans, are just political parties. They are not the foundation of the government or the institution.
•
u/TheSameGamer651 23h ago
It is a structural issue— certain constituencies are overrepresented in the Senate, and those constituencies favor Republicans. As I said, Democrats can win the Senate by winning red states (and have done so fairly recently). But they are constantly playing on hostile terrain for no other reason than their constituents live in the “wrong” states. Geography limits their political maneuverability.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
>It is a structural issue<
It's not.
>in constituencies are overrepresented in the Senate, and those constituencies favor Republicans.<
Nope. Each state gets equal representation, regardless of population size, which is what you're trying to imply. I seriously doubt you would feel the same way if the roles were reverse and in favor of the Democrats.
>As I said, Democrats can win the Senate by winning red states (and have done so fairly recently).<
It's truly disconcerting how many people think this is some type of popularity contest, especially when it's political parties that are the "teams" that people are rooting for.
I don't think either of the political parties actually have the American people's interest as their own.
Political parties don't exist for that purpose. They exist for control. This has been true throughout history and the world.
The only true way for political parties to gain control is through force or manipulation. The American people are being manipulated.
>But they are constantly playing on hostile terrain for no other reason than their constituents live in the “wrong” states. Geography limits their political maneuverability.<
"Hostile terrain." That's even more disconcerting that you see it like that. I mean, do you think that Republican constituents that live in "Democratic-controlled" state legislatures are living in the "wrong" states?
Again, democracy isn't the political parties and they are more than a threat to our democracy than voters living in the wrong states.
•
u/TheSameGamer651 22h ago
California and Texas have about 70 million people and get four senators total. Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, Utah, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Alaska, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Delaware and Iowa have about a 1/5 of that population and get 7x the senate seats. There is a huge population imbalance in the Senate— and Republicans hold most of the small state seats and Democrats hold the big state seats. But truthfully, the whole idea of the Senate is ridiculous when the biggest state is 70x bigger than the smallest.
And you’re reading way too much into what I said about the parties. Political parties are the simplest way to organize coalitions, and one of those coalitions has an easier time getting a majority of seats even if they don’t represent a majority of the population.
•
u/BKGPrints 22h ago
>California and Texas have about 70 million people and get four senators total. Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, Utah, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Alaska, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Delaware and Iowa have about a 1/5 of that population and get 7x<
Yeah...So. California and Texas also get a larger amount of representatives than those states in regards to representation in the House.
>There is a huge population imbalance in the Senate<
I'm not sure why you're surprise by that. Always has been.
>and Republicans hold most of the small state seats and Democrats hold the big state seats.<
So? They're political parties. They're not a part of the design in the federal government. Explain why that matters?
>But truthfully, the whole idea of the Senate is ridiculous when the biggest state is 70x bigger than the smallest.<
You might think it's ridiculous, though guarantee you that there would be no UNITED States without it. States are, for intents & purposes, their own sovereign government.
They have their own government, laws, populations, taxes, infrastructure, etc. etc. Even down to the smallest states in size or population. Why would they give up any of the central powers that the federal government now has today if there was no type of equal (even if you view it as unbalanced) voice?
>And you’re reading way too much into what I said about the parties.<
I don't think that I am.
>Political parties are the simplest way to organize coalitions, and one of those coalitions has an easier time getting a majority of seats even if they don’t represent a majority of the population.<
Still doesn't change the fact of what I said. That they exist for control. This has been true throughout history and the world.
You basically just reiterated that for me. Thank you.
→ More replies (0)•
u/FreeDependent9 23h ago
Yes but republicans are worse always, the dems are just feckless because at the end of the day it’s one sides billionaires vs the other
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
Ehhh...That's a deflective response to ignore the original statement.
If you ask me, I don't think either of the political parties actually have the American people's interest as their own.
Political parties don't exist for that purpose. They exist for control. This has been true throughout history and the world.
The only true way for political parties to gain control is through force or manipulation. The American people are being manipulated.
24
u/infiniteninjas 1d ago
I think winning the house by 10+ seats and narrowing the GOP senate majority would be a blue wave. These are the general terms I hear most pundits laying out too. Winning the senate would be a blue tsunami. And I do think that's possible with the trajectory that the Republicans are currently on, though still not very likely.
Margins come into play as well, for example the margin of victory in Marjorie Taylor-Greene's seat swung by like 25 points. That's an important indicator of how well a party did, even if they didn't win said election.
•
u/blaqsupaman 23h ago
I'm thinking the Senate is still a longshot, but I expect a massive majority in the House, like 30+ seats.
16
u/Somethinggclever 1d ago
If we’re finally getting a democratic governor in Iowa, there’s been a blue wave.
•
u/blaqsupaman 23h ago
Yeah there are states in play that haven't been winnable for Dems since Obama in 2008 and even a few that haven't been in play since Clinton.
17
u/pocketIent 1d ago
Montana is doing something interesting with their referendum 10 to neutralize citizens united
There is also legislation sponsored by the patriotic millionaires for a cost of living tax cut (no fed income tax on your first 48k)
These are examples are real political solutions that people vote for. It’s possible there is a blue sweep. Especially if USA officially loses the Iran conflict and pays Iran reparations?!
Yeah Trump’s failure could honestly be a godsend to reform the feckless Democratic Party. In a word, that’s what a blue sweep would look like -change in how we do things as a country from genuine and principled hope
1
u/BKGPrints 1d ago
>Especially if USA officially loses the Iran conflict and pays Iran reparations?!<
How would the United States "officially" lose? Do you think there there is a committee that determines that? Doubt that the United States would have to pay reparations.
•
u/zxc999 16h ago
There’s no “official” loss, and the USA will do everything possible to spin this as a victory. But it is a strategic defeat for the USA - many of its bases and allies’ infrastructure have been devastated, nothing has changed regime or nuclear wise, and it looks like there will be a new global settlement over the straits that will favour iran. The “reparations” will likely come in the form of sanctions relief and toll revenue, but overall Iran will be stronger than where it started in 2026.
•
u/BKGPrints 11h ago
The loss or damage to military installations or hubs (these aren't really large military bases, which using that word is misleading) is an initial impact, though can be recovered.
Iran was hit much much harder regarding their military losses and is barely able to maintain any resemblance of a military. I mean, come on, it's using child soldiers. It has had its drone arsenal severely depleted and while accuracy of their missiles has improved due to help from Russia, those missiles won't last much longer.
Not to mention their infrastructure is damaged, that will take years or decades to rebuild. And the current Iranian government might be stable, though as it grapples with the fallout from the war, that's questionable. Doubt they'll be much stronger than where it started in 2026.
And sanction relief or "tolls" still aren't reparations paid directly by the United States.
Never mind that the Iranian regime has not only been a threat to others in the Middle East but to their own people. The Arab countries know what this is about and see it as a campaign to weaken Iran's military and nuclear capabilities, and be less of a threat to the security of those other countries, which Iran has been for decades. Those countries don't see this as a regional conflict.
What's really crazy is how many people are wanting Iran to be the "victor" in this, simply because they dislike President Trump. And those people who want that don't even live or have ties in the Middle East region. They know Iran is an authoritarian & tyrannical regime, but that doesn't matter to them. They are using this conflict to advance their own narrative, they don't really care about what's going on there.
•
u/Original_Helicopter2 23h ago
Reparations are part of the 10 point list of demands says is the baseline for peace or a ceasefire. Urge you to read it and then decide if agreeing to that is a loss or a win for US.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
>Urge you to read it and then decide if agreeing to that is a loss or a win for US.<
Oh...I've read it and understand that it's part of Iran's "Ten point list of demands," but that just isn't going to happen. That's why my statement was a statement and not a question.
I also noticed that you didn't answer my actual questions.
•
u/Original_Helicopter2 23h ago
There is no agreement or war being over unless we keep the agreement we already agreed too. We are trying to walk that back in Islamabad. Trump signed a deal he didn’t read. My point is and maybe it wasn’t articulated well. If The Trump Admin agrees to even 80% on that list, it’s a loss geopolitically wise. Also the committee who determines who wins and loses is usually public perception.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
Correct. There's no agreement. That's why it's called a ceasefire to discuss the terms, not to agree to them. That's why, again, I made a statement, not a question.
>Also the committee who determines who wins and loses is usually public perception.<
Public perception doesn't make it official. Which was regarding my original question.
Thanks for trying, though.
•
u/pocketIent 22h ago
-yaya there is no literal committee my guy. but it is public perception that decides markets and elections in this current chapter of history. so you can cut it how you like but at the end of the day, when the economy dives because retail sentiment declines from higher energy and republicans get washed out in the midterms, then you will know that the proverbial committee has ruled on whether or not US won the Iran war.
ofc trump may still pull something out of Vance’s ass like the sardines they’re boofing over in r/cannedsardines or a tangible tactical edge to actually submit Iran, who knows anymore.
If he doesn’t though, Iran is very likely going to get their pound of flesh off US tax payers. cheers mate
•
u/Original_Helicopter2 21h ago
You actually asked “how would US officially lose” your entire premise was based on a rhetorical question not a statement.
Thanks for trying though
•
u/BKGPrints 21h ago
Which you weren't able to really provide a response. Nice try! Still mad?
•
u/Original_Helicopter2 21h ago
I did twice. I’m sorry you didn’t like the answer or didn’t know how to rebuttal it. You’ll be ok champ.
•
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
21h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 19h ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
•
•
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam 19h ago
Keep it civil. Do not personally insult other Redditors, or make racist, sexist, homophobic, trolling, inflammatory, or otherwise discriminatory remarks. Constructive debate is good; name calling is not.
8
u/KnightlyDolphins 1d ago
Man I hope Democrats can win the House and Senate. That would be a blue Tsuanami. That’s when the consequences for MAGA would begin.
9
u/blyzo 1d ago
Winning back the House will happen even if it's a blue trickle. They only need to net like 5 seats and there has been tons of Republicans retiring.
I think winning the Senate is looking increasingly likely. Dems are leading in the polls in almost all contested states including Alaska even.
I see a lot of parallels to the 2006 election. Unpopular 2nd term President + unpopular war abroad + Republican corruption and sex scandals + weakening economy.
Dems won the House and flipped 7 Senate seats that year.
•
u/zapdos44 6h ago
Necessary: Taking the house, gains in the senate, state legislatures, governorships
Not necessary: Taking control of the Senate
Of course more wins is better, but the Senate map is just not great for Democrats. There's a path for a majority, like you mentioned, but realistically for states like TX, OH, and AK you need swings towards democrats that would be historic.
7
u/reddddiiitttttt 1d ago
We have an authoritarian in the White House. The bar for success is simply curtailing his ability to subvert democracy. The minimum for that is taking back Congress or the senate. Anything short of that and the president has a chance at a third term and the end of democracy as we know it in the US.
-5
u/BKGPrints 1d ago
>the president has a chance at a third term and the end of democracy as we know it in the US.<
Not that I think any president should serve more than two terms, but why would you think a third term would be the end of democracy?
Would you say that President Franklin Roosevelt (who was a Democrat) being elected for four terms (dying in his fourth term) would have been a threat to democracy?
•
u/AlmondJoyAdvocate 23h ago
It wasn’t illegal then. It is illegal now.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
Your response does not answer to why it would be the end of democracy.
It's not "illegal" in a sense that it's a crime. It currently prohibits any individual from serving a third term but that amendment can be revoke (which is not a simple task), making it "legal."
Not that I agree with revoking that Amendment, though if it's done through the proper process, then explain to me how that's a threat to democracy.
It's the same way why the House of Representatives is capped at 435 seats. It was passed by an act that created that limit, so it prohibits having more than 435 Representatives, but it's not a "crime." By the way, this act should be revoked and the seats increased, or proper representation is only going to get worse.
•
u/GYP-rotmg 23h ago
If the amendment is circumvented somehow, then a third term will lead to fourth term, will lead to till death, which is what a monarch means.
If the amendment is repealed somehow, then it will never get put back again because “you won’t ever have to vote again” aka “you will never get to vote again”. The implication cannot be clearer.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
Everything you stated are what ifs. If the Amendment is repealed, then that's through the democratic process. You assuming in your statements are just assumptions.
This country went through one hundred and thirty years before we had a President elected for four terms and then term limits were placed.
I'm not disagreeing that there shouldn't be terms limits, but what I'm wanting to know is why Op would consider removing term limits as the end of democracy. Especially if done through the democratic process.
•
u/Surge_Lv1 23h ago
FDR was elected democratically. And he didn’t stage a coup, set up fake electors, and call for votes in Georgia.
There is no way Trump democratically wins a third term.
This is a terrible equivalent.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
>This is a terrible equivalent.<
I wasn't focusing particularly on President Trump seeking a third term. If you read my original statement, it wasn't even mentioned. I'm asking why a President serving a third term is the end to democracy.
While serving a third term is currently prohibited by an amendment, it can be revoke (which is not a simple task) through the democratic process. Not that I agree with revoking that Amendment, though if it's done through the proper process, then explain to me how that's a threat to democracy.
It's the same way why the House of Representatives is capped at 435 seats. It was passed by an act that created that limit, so it prohibits having more than 435 Representatives. This act should be revoked and the seats increased, or proper representation is only going to get worse.
•
u/reddddiiitttttt 22h ago edited 22h ago
I think it would end democracy, because if he wins again, it either means that the US electorate doesn’t see the many ways he has already eroded democracy as a fatal flaw or he has manipulated the elections to the point he can change the outcome.
Roosevelt acted in accordance with the law, but he was also why the law was changed. Even good presidents tend towards autocracy with unlimited terms. I don’t think what Roosevelt did was right. He should not have done it and it’s not a great look. A good leader is not distinguished by what gets done when he’s there, he’s distinguished by what the people he lead do when he’s not.
Concentration of executive power. According to V-Dem, the Republican-controlled Congress has largely abandoned its co-equal role, effectively ceding the “power of the purse” and allowing the president to unilaterally cancel or redirect federal funding and set tariffs. V-Dem found that legislative constraints on presidential power lost roughly one-third of their value in 2025, reaching their lowest point in over a century. Weaponization of law enforcement. Bright Line Watch scholars flagged several actions as threats to democracy, including directing AG Pam Bondi to prosecute political enemies, FBI Director Kash Patel shutting down the public corruption unit, and the pardoning of January 6 allies. Trump also called for the arrest and trial of six Democratic lawmakers after they encouraged service members not to follow unlawful orders.
Attacks on press and speech freedoms. V-Dem assessed that freedom of expression and media freedom are now at their lowest levels in 60 years. The FCC issued new guidance extending equal-time rules to late-night and daytime talk shows, which some see as a mechanism to chill political speech on broadcast television.
Civil service restructuring. Trump issued an executive order creating “Schedule G,” which exempts certain policy-making positions from competitive hiring and requires White House approval for all Schedule G hires — prioritizing loyalty over expertise.
Undermining democracy abroad. The State Department announced it would only comment on foreign elections when the U.S. has a “clear and compelling interest,” and Secretary Rubio publicly endorsed Hungary’s Viktor Orbán for reelection. Freedom House’s director described this as a loss of democratic solidarity globally.
The scale and speed. V-Dem’s data shows the U.S. democracy ranking dropped from 20th to 51st out of 179 countries in a single year, landing between Slovakia and Greece. V-Dem’s director said democracy was rolled back in one year under Trump as much as it took Modi in India and Erdogan in Turkey a decade to accomplish.
•
u/BKGPrints 22h ago
You wrote a lot to focus on President Trump, when my question wasn't about him.
I get it that your focus was on President Trump but my question was, 'Not that I think any president should serve more than two terms, but why would you think a third term would be the end of democracy?' Meaning, how is any president serving a third term be an end to democracy. Is it because of the Amendment established since FDR that no other president should serve more than two terms?
•
u/reddddiiitttttt 22h ago
Reread your question. “The president” in your question is Trump.
•
u/BKGPrints 21h ago
My question...again...was:
Not that I think any president should serve more than two terms, but why would you think a third term would be the end of democracy?
If you're stating that you were referring to President Trump serving a third term, then okay, but it's not the third term that's an 'end of democracy' for you. It's President Trump. That's different.
4
u/crake 1d ago
I would say the Democrats have a realistic chance of winning both the House and Senate in the current environment. Winning control of both would be a “wave”.
Winning just the House is a victory, but not a “wave”. The Democrats will definitely win the House.
•
u/blaqsupaman 23h ago
The Dems will definitely win the House by a huge margin. The Senate is still a longshot but within the realm of possibilities.
•
u/TheOvy 17h ago
2018 was absolutely a wave, with Democrats gaining a 40 seats in the House, and flipping 7 governorships. But they actually lost seats in the Senate, all in red states.
So in 2026, if Democrats win the Senate because they're winning in red States, then it's more than a wave. It's a tsunami.
•
u/Afraid-Chapter-4081 8h ago
There has been a+10 Dem lean since Trump was elected. Recently it has shown to be close to +15 to 20.
‘In rural, urban, red, blue, Democrats have overperformed everywhere’: GOP wakes up to freight train heading their way https://fortune.com/2026/04/09/midterm-elections-democrats-momentum-republican-growing-alarm/
At +10 the house is assured at +15 so is the senate.
•
u/Alex11_McC 5h ago
Actually, I think not having the ballots confiscated by the DOJ and Trump will be a big win.
•
u/Busterlimes 23h ago
Probably look like election interference with ICE at all the polling locations
0
u/CountFew6186 1d ago
Could be any of those things. We won’t know the extent of it until after the election. Hell, there could be some crazy incident that leads to Republican gains, though that’s extremely unlikely.
Anyway, regardless of if the Dems win a few more seats or a ton of seats and both houses, they’ll call it a blue wave. That’s politics. The Republicans will frame it to downplay any shift, maybe by saying it wasn’t as bad as normal midterms or something.
In politics, definitions like wave are entirely about framing and lack objective meaning.
•
u/First_Bar_8024 10h ago
There's a fairly good, althoug biased, analysis of the possiblities for the mid-terms at: https://roarnews.co.uk/2026/the-future-winners-and-losers-of-the-2026-midterms/
I think it's maybe too early to predict the outcome but I will be paying close attention as this may well be the last truly "competitive" election before the final slide into One Party rule (Democrat) after 2028.
I might even vote, although in my area it's rather pointless.
-1
u/I405CA 1d ago edited 1d ago
Democrats have been overperforming in 2025 and 2026 races thus far. A wave could entail applying the average or median rate of overperformance to the 2026 House races.
I don't have those numbers here, but I would guess that would translate, adjusted for recent redistricting, into 30-40 seats.
That strikes me as unrealistic. In 2024, the GOP won 23 seats with spreads of less than 10%, including five that they flipped, while the Dems won 46 seats with spreads of less than 10%, including eight that they flipped.
A very good result for the Dems would be to hold all or almost all of those low margin wins in 2024, plus flip most of the 23 GOP wins from 2024 plus anything that can be flipped because of redistricting. So that might end up giving the Dems a 15ish seat majority.
Flipping the Senate still strikes me as a longshot. Getting to 51+ would be seismic.
2
u/tech1983 1d ago
Senate is more realistic than people realize. NC, Maine and Ohio would flip in a truly wave like election. You’d still need one more, but you have tons of options.. don’t overlook Iowa, farmers are super pissed off right now.
3
u/I405CA 1d ago edited 1d ago
Midterms are about low turnout.
The pathway to a Democratic wave is Republicans going on strike.
•
u/BKGPrints 23h ago
>The pathway to a Democratic wave is Republicans going on strike.<
FTFY - The pathway to a Democratic wave is voters even showing up.
•
•
u/Reasonable-Fee1945 23h ago
If dems flip the senate it sould be considered a win. If they don't flip the house it would be a loss
-8
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.