Discussing Francesca Fiorentini on the Leftist Mafia

 So, FF, after her uncerimonious booting from TYT, went on the Leftist Mafia with like 5 other creators, some of whom I follow. And...I know I'm beating a dead horse, but once again, I feel like I need to defend TYT here and explain why these guys are wrong.

It's the "leftist" thing. "Leftists" are some of the most obnoxious, insufferable people in the world, and no one outside of their little clique likes them. They are gatekeepy buttholes to put it bluntly. They loudly virtue signal their moral superiority and crap on everyone else, claiming TYT are "centrists" now, as if they're mainstream democrats. Quite frankly, they think they own the term "left" and are just like "well you're not REALLY a leftist!" if you're not as left wing as them. 

 I mean, it's kinda hard to be a sane leftie these days. TYT are a lot like me these days, walking this line between being more left wing and more populist than democrats, so DEFINITELY not a centrist, but also not THESE guys, who crap on people like us for not being as left as them. Maybe being more willing to pick our battles and compromise, especially on their precious little social issues.

When TYT compromises on issues like transgenderism and crime, here's what Cenk is thinking. "Okay, we need to meet normies where they're at." Like with Cenk's 2024 run, he looked at polling and he said, okay, I'm going to run on a platform explicitly supported by over 50% of the country. He ran, for example, on a public option, which had like 65% support, but not single payer, which has like 45% support. He didn't embrace UBI, my big purity test, which also has like 45% support. So there are flaws to this, but still, I get it, I respect it. The democrats, for all they speak of electability, are REAL centrists. And they will be like, ignoring issues with like overwhelming majority support and saying "no, we cant do that, that's not electable" when in reality, THEYRE out of sync with the country, being so far right they're not in touch with voters. And I do think the big takeaway from the 2024 election is to be more progressive and populist on economics. This doesn't mean we have unlimited latitude, and again, my biggest key issues are actually slightly under 50% approval, somewhere in the 40s, which I see as still good. Honestly, I think we can still win elections even with approval in the 40s on certain issues, and we can gain and increase support if we want to, but okay, yeah, I do understand where TYT is coming from.

But...here's where the left IS out of sync on the issues, it IS on things like crime, and trans issues, which is where TYT are triangulating. They're looking at the normies, and they're like okay, this is where these guys are at, I'm going to triangulate on these specific social issues to meet them where they are. Again, you can dislike this, there are arguments to be had both ways, but I believe that this is a respectable opinion. Ana was assaulted by a homeless person, I can see her, and normies, not wanting homeless people harassing them and contributing to crime. Sure, from the left, we can point out that this is an issue with capitalism and blah blah blah, again, I'm the UBI guy, I'm willing to have that discussion, BUT, leftists and their obsession with virtue are like HOW DARE YOU SPEAK THAT WAY ABOUT THE "UNHOUSED", as if, merely admitting that a problem exists and that peoples' feelings are invalid for thinking the way they do and they need to be CORRECTED, and yes, they do use the word "unhoused" because they think calling them "homeless" is too mean and politically incorrect. Ya know, because these are the language policers.

Which is how Ana got going on her shift to the center on trans issues. Again, "birthing persons". Normies think "what the hell?" but the left is like HOW DARE YOU NOT LIKE THAT WORD and act like it's a mortal sin to not be morally pure on trans issues. Even though, as TYT pointed out, only like 20% of people actually support trans people in sports of their preferred gender.

 I mean, again, I'm willing to fight with 45%, but 20?! Let it go, man. We ain't gonna win that one. And that's what TYT thinking. They're picking their battles. Now, I get the left wing perspective that we should try to shift that. And I do think there's an argument for that. Like, people are also opposed to minors transitioning. I think it's just basic medical science that we should let them. If anything wading into the trans people in sports thing made me more firm on that, because the sooner people can transition, the closer to their preferred gender their final outcome will be. If you make someone transition post puberty, you're dealing with an adult body that went through massive changes and not all of those changes can be fully undone. So...it makes sense to allow that, but yeah. I can see both sides here. 

 And here's the thing. TYT and Cenk and Ana arent crapping on what they call the "max left" or what I call SJWs because of a simple disagreement. Some wanna push for more rights regardless of unpopularity, believing in shifting the overton window, and some wanna play it more safe. I get it. These are real debates our side should have. BUT....for all the toxicity that the left acts like Cenk and Ana are throwing at them, the reality of the situation is that the left probably fired first. Because they almost always do. TYT is a huge channel, and being fairly active in forums surrounding these kinds  of content creators, I can tell you that the toxicity I dealt with is off the charts. The second Ana failed to pass the purity test of accepting the term "birthing persons", they probably got hundreds, if not thousands of comments dogpiling onto them. I would know, I've read these kinds of comments on forums. And if I were them I'd be pissed too. hell just interacting with this segment of weirdos online really sours my view of them. If one reads my blog and sees the tone I had toward SJWs in 2016, it was relatively cordial and charitable compared to where I am today. It used to be "we're all on the same side" and now I'm more "F these guys." I'm like that for a reason. Because I realize I'm arguing with a bunch of ideological radicals who won't compromise and who have nothing but seething hatred toward those who don't agree with them.

Even the way FF was talking on the leftist mafia tonight kind of let on to that fact. She was like "I only called him a ##### and said he was brain damaged, it's not like I called him a racial slur or something." I mean, REALLY?! And again, shows the insularity of these people. Apparently insulting your boss to his face multiple times and being kindly asked to stop multiple times before he fires you is a huge offense and he's totally being the meany here....but at least i didn't use a racial slur? That's your defense? GTFO of here...

Here's the simple reality here. NO ONE LIKES YOU. It isn't JUST that you have extreme positions. It's that you guys are a bunch of toxic ###hats who have burnt bridges with anyone who isn't you, and most of the country HATES you for it. Like, seriously, if there's one thing that me, TYT, and even MAGA can all agree on, it's that you guys are jerks and that we all hate you for varying but similar reasons. For me and TYT, it's more a tone thing, it's more a toxicity thing, more a purity thing. MAGA, it runs deeper, they're an ideological foe, and they hate you for THAT. But either way, most people REALLY DONT LIKE YOUR BRAND OF POLITICS. 

 So when people like me, or TYT are trying to excommunicate you from our movements, it's because we understand that you're a toxic element that needs to be buried as quickly as possible before it contaminates the rest of us. I admit, there is a lot of room for America to move "left." There is a huge wide ideological swath between say, centrist democrats, and the far left, TYT is a little to my right, but still left of the dems. I'm maybe a little to the left of them, more in line with, say, Kyle Kulinski overall. I'd say he's the closest analogue to me in the left wing YT space right now. Even then, Kyle is maybe a little to my left at times. Again, it's hard to say and it varies by issue.

But then you have the "leftists", who talk weird with their politically correct speak, and get absolutely toxic toward even social democratic types for not being as far "left" as them, and go on and on about their little virtues and values and theories, and honestly, no one likes you. NO ONE LIKES YOU! And that's why your approval rating is in the 20s. 

 Again, when people say we need to move the country left, they DONT mean YOU. They actually mean TYT. Or alternatively me, although even then, again, my biggest hills to die on are just under 50% approval to my knowledge. So maybe not AS far left as me, but going in that direction. TYT errs on the positive side of 50%, I'm willing to fight for policies I strongly believe in that are in the 40s, but these guys? The "max left?", you're at 20% or worse. Seriously. And while many of us would likely be willing to have honest and civil conversations about things, and I think even TYT would probably tolerate a difference in opinion if it's respectful, as there is some truth to those unpopular stances at times, it's the toxicity, the purity testing, and the complete and utter dogpiling onto those who aren't as extreme, that really makes that brand of politics unpalatable to Americans. 

Again, America needs to move left, but that doesn't mean they like "leftists." Learn the difference. There IS a huge difference there, after all. And that difference is the difference between what TYT is doing, and what the far left is doing. I'm sorry, Cenk is right, FF and the far left are wrong here.

Explaining how Musk/Trump are sabotaging government agencies

 So....social security is a third rail of American politics. It's kinda like basic income for seniors. Not quite, it is contribution based social insurance, but it tends to serve that function past a certain age for many people. You dont wanna touch this program. The public will go after you. But...let's face it, people like Musk have long sought to dismantle it and they're giving it their best shot.

So, how do they do this...without doing this? Well, first they claim that there's all of this fraud. There's no evidence of fraud, but they start going on about 150 year olds on social security. Then, they start cutting payments to random people, which they are doing. Ya know, claiming they're committing fraud. As Lutnick once said, "well the ones who complain are the ones committing fraud", which is nonsense, but they gotta play these games with people to push their agenda. In reality anyone who needs that money, which is virtually everyone over 66, is gonna raise hell if their benefits are cut.  

But...then DOGE is cutting the phone lines. Because old people dont know how to use computers well. So they're gonna complain on the phone. But because they're getting rid of the phone line, you're gonna have to go to an office or do it online to fix it.

But wait, then the website isn't working and keeps crashing from being overloaded. 

And then they fire tons of people working for it due to budget cuts. So they cant handle the load of seniors calling to complain.

End result, benefits cut, and then seniors cant get them restored. And then the right will say "government doesnt work, look at how bad this is" while pushing to privatize stuff further. It's all part of their plan. Kyle Kulinski covered this today, and I just wanted to give my analysis on it.  

But it's not just this, it's everything. They're trying to do it with stuff like voting too. They claim there's fraud, they kick people off of the rolls for being suspicious, they struggle to get back on and oh, would you look at that, now republicans win elections in a landslide.

Again, they're breaking democracy, and breaking our institutions. If we had checks and balances in congress, perhaps we could impeach this MFer, but without the house AND the senate, it will never pass. 

So...we're screwed for now, but I did want to give people an idea of what the game plan is, and how to see through it. Dont trust ANYTHING this administration says. They lie in order to justify pushing an extremist agenda most americans wouldnt agree to otherwise. Just giving people a heads up.

Can't keep up with the sheer amount of BS that Trump has done? We got you

 So...Trump is basically gish galloping his way to doing whatever he wants, as I discussed briefly last night. The thing is, if Trump does so many bad things in a short period of time, it overwhelms the human mind and they cant react to it all. I sure as heck ain't even keeping up with everything he does, although i do cover some of it. Well, if you want a more complete picture, have I got the site for you. It's TrumpFile.org, and it basically covers the entire life of the president and every messed up thing he's EVER done. It seems well documented, and yeah. Someone has to do it and I tip my hat to this guy. Just spreading the word...

Discussing Francesca Fiorentini getting booted from TYT

 So, Cenk Uygur kicked an unruly contributor off of his network in a recent bout of left wing infighting. This contributor has been a thorn in his side for a while, and I know many left wing circles I participate in are defending FF here, but honestly, I largely take Cenk's side.

This is a fight between Cenk being a moderate on social justice issues, and FF, who is basically a MAJOR SJW. Cenk has decided to moderate on trans issues in particular post election, and try to do outreach to the right on different topics, which has caught him flak, with some saying he will sit down with right wingers, but not with the social justice left. 

 First of all, I dont agree with Cenk much on the actual issue of going on right wing programs. I've discussed this previously, but do not believe that Cenk is actually doing anything productive there, and playing paddycakes with right wingers is actually not doing the left any favors, it just makes us look weak. Unless we discuss issues on our terms, we're just letting ourselves be used by the right, and while I agree that the establishment is the problem, it's a problem because it's right wing. Even the left side of it. 

On the other hand, on trans issue...I see where Cenk is coming from. Cenk is following public polling. He understands that things like trans women in sports is a losing issue, while FF argued in the above segment in favor of some heavyweight boxer becoming trans and fighting women. 

I mean, on the whole trans people in sports thing, I admit I dont have a strong opinion because of the complexities of the issue and it requiring far more research than I'm willing to do on it, BUT...I'll say this. The science should be followed, and the science is mixed. I do not take the FF position of we should be "inclusive" regardless of how people identify. If there are actual physical differences between trans women and cis women in womens' sports, that should be addressed. I am not of the opinion we should just force "inclusivity" no matter what. Which is why i dislike SJWs on the matter and believe FF is one. SJWs have their little ideas and doctrines of forcing acceptance for the sake of inclusivity at all costs, and if you disagree with them, you're a transphobe and a bigot. My own outlook is dependent on a mix of science, and a mix of libertarian principles. 

I'm going to be frank, I think that while trans women should be legally treated as cis women as much as makes sense, as i have those libertarian principles that support allowing people to just do what they wanna do, I DO recognize that there are some significant differences between trans women and cis women in terms of biology, and that despite whatever treatment they go through, they are not necessarily going to be the same as a cis woman. And in sports, yeah, sometimes they have different bone structures, hormone levels, strength levels, speed and stamina levels, etc. They're not completely and 100% the same as cis women. People dont wanna hear that, but it's true. And I'm normally willing to tell the little white lies we tell around trans people to make them feel accepted, BUT....let's be frank here, it's just white lies we tell in the name of acceptance. But...sometimes, when that stuff doesnt make sense, we gotta push back. Like I've had people say im a transphobe if i wouldnt sleep with a trans woman. Again, we're talking someone who was born a man, and decided to become a woman later on and got hormone treatments and surgeries and blah blah blah. No, I don't wanna do that. And neither do most cis straight men. Sorry, we don't like that stuff sexually. There's nothing wrong with that, other than the fact that it goes against some extremists' stance on inclusivity. Same with sports. Sometimes, biologically, we gotta admit that trans women arent the same as cis women. We can admit, maybe in 90% of situations, yeah, we should treat them as such, because, again, we wanna be inclusive, and we wanna let people live as they want, BUT....again, push comes to shove this debate comes down to whether you get so blinded by ideology you accept the lie to the bitter end, or, do you push back in the handful of situations where pushing back makes sense? And I will push back, push comes to shove. Cenk will too. And that's why Cenk wasn't accepted by the SJW left. 

But Cenk is right in a lot of ways. And Cenk tried to be cordial about it, but FF kept going after him and calling him out and trashing him, and then FF asked to be removed, so she was kicked off the network. Idk why so many people are siding with her over Cenk. Again, Cenk is RIGHT. This is an issue that is kinda killing democrats. I mean, he showed poll numbers and we're talking an issue were on the losing side of in a 20-80 kind of way (see timestamp 3:40 or so on that). And that's the thing. That's why "wokeness" is bad. We got this weirdo minority of people who are extremists and have views well outside of the American majority opinion on the matter...and she's going all in with that 20%, while Cenk is like, no, we need to win elections, let's go with the MAJORITY. 

Also, the reason Cenk won't sit down with SJWs and continually bashes them is because, well, you CANT sit down civilly with these people. It's their way or the highway. They're extremists who will scream at anyone for not toeing their line, and push comes to shove, we gotta actually push back. This drama has been going on for MONTHS now, I remember this issue was addressed previously. I even kind of remember discussing it before. If FF wants to continue to trash her boss openly despite him constantly asking her to tone it down, well, she brought it on herself. As I see it, most SJWs aren't reasonable people. It's their way, and if you dont agree with them 100% of the time, you're bad. You can agree with them like 80-90% on these issues, but if you disagree on that last 10-20%, you're just as bad in their eyes as someone who disagrees with them 100% of the time. There isnt much you can do about these people other than to say no, and to fight them and take the narrative back from them, because let's face it, if you let them, they'll just hijack your entire movement and drive it into the dirt in the name of their moral purity. It's what I realized back in 2016 when I wanted to push for economic progressivism and they decided to turn everything into identity politics and started attacking "Bernie bros" as class reductionists and the like. It's not that there isn't room in the movement for them. It's that they wanna be the star of the show, have the entire discussion center around them, and then they destroy whatever issues the movement was originally about. They did it to occupy wall street. They did it to bernie twice, they do it. They use their issues as a cudgel and purity test, and they bash anyone who isnt on board with them...even though 80% of the country isn't. And if anything, I'm finally happy to see sane lefties push back. Enough is enough. We're past peak wokeness. The era of wokeness is over. If there's any silver lining of 2024, it's that this crap is done, it's over, and while there are holdouts who remain, the spell has been broken and maybe the left can heal, recover, and focus on the issues that ACTUALLY win elections. 

So, to FF, bye Felicia. Wouldnt even know who you were if not for you constantly picking fights with Cenk. Have fun being as irrelevant as my own blog is now. Let the adults in the room talk. And for reference, I'm not a Cenk stan either. I've criticized him a lot too over the past year in particular. There's room for it. Just not when you are demonizing him as literally as bad as an alt righter for not agreeing with you 100% of the time.

Discussing the deportation of pro Palestine protesters

 So....Trump is going through with his campaign promise of trying to deport people who protested in favor of Palestine and against Israel, specifically at Columbia university. First if was Mahmoud Khalil who led protests there and was a bit more die hard, but now they're trying to deport a South Korean student who just casually attended protests and didnt even break the law. And then there's another case of a Muslim PHD student being deported at another university. None of these guys were American citizens, although they were legal green card holders and in the case of the South Korean student, she's been here since she was 5.

This ridiculous, and a violation of free speech. Trump aint' deporting American citizens so far, at least not native born ones, but he is targetting immigrants, and as the saying goes first they came from X group, and i said nothing because i wasnt X group, then they came for Y ground, and Z group, and then they came for me and there was no one to speak for me. So...this is messed up. This is fascism 101. This is the kind of crap Hitler did, and he's starting with relatively safe groups, but if we dont stop him here, he might eventually come for us here. So it's important this gets called out and stopped now. The courts keep ruling against Trump, but he doesnt seem to care and just does what he wants anyway. Again, because the dude is a dictator. Told ya guys he was gonna be worse this time. Last time, he had checks and balances, this time, he's figuring out how to break stuff where he can get away with literally whatever. He needs to be held accountable. Of course, he's trying to break the institutions that normally would do that. So...this is bad. This is really bad.

Also, let's face it, this El Salvadorian prison Trump is deporting people to sounds like a fricking concentration camp.  Seriously, none of this should be legal. And it isn't legal. It's a blatant violation of so much of the constitution its ridiculous. F this guy. He's a dictator.

Discussing signalgate

 So....Im obviously not going to cover everything that the republicans do on here. They're "flooding the zone" as Steve Bannon would say, which is to say, they're gish galloping. Theyre overwhelming us with too many issues to respond to all at once so they get away with most stuff. So I encourage people to pay attention themselves. But I will address a few things tonight. 

First being this leak. As Pete Buttigieg says, this is a massive F up. First of all, you shouldnt be running your national security chats on the equivalent of a discord server. That's basically what this seems to be to me. They just got everyone on an app, invited everyone, oops, invited the wrong person, and said person leaked it. Thankfully it seems inconsequential this time, it wasnt like they fricking leaked the D day plans in WWII or anything, it was just some bombing of some houthi terrorists, something that most americans would probably either be supportive of, or at least apathetic to. And most americans if accidentally invited probably wouldnt leak that.

But still, a security breach is a security breach. And the trump administration needs to stop deflecting over it. Yall F-ed up. Next time, keep this on security internal servers/apps/computers. Ya know? This isn't your Thursday night WoW raid. This is national security and should be top level highly classified. Don't F around. 

A sneak peek at what we're up against in 2026 (senate)

 So...I started getting my model together for the 2026 senate elections. Yeah, it's early, but some political nerds are already doing 2026 predictions, and I wanted to join them. So I dusted off the old model from 2024 and recalibrated it for 2026. The data in it is all placeholder, and is intended to be a relatively neutral map. This is not a formal prediction with data. It's more....a forecast.

 

 

 Okay, so let's go over it. This is more of a baseline map. It generally assumes the status quo. Whatever seats the parties have, they win, and then I assigned the points based on how left/right leaning I feel like they are according to this baseline. Polling can shift either way making the map more or less competitive. If anything, I would expect the map to lean more toward the democratic side than it shows here. While 2020 was a rather blue year itself, I expect this 2026 to be 2018 or 2022, ie, blue wave, democratic overperformance.

With that said, let's ask the obvious question: can democrats retake the senate?

And let me respond with the obvious answer: probably not, it's gonna be an extremely difficult and hostile map to them. They would need to flip four seats, and the path of least resistance still involves winning some states that in recent elections have been quite hostile to democrats. HOWEVER, given this is likely to be a blue wave year, let's not count it out. Let's have an honest discussion about all of the states involved.

 

Solid Blue States (>12 points)

 

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Delaware

 

Oregon

 

I mean...is any of this controversial? I don't think it is.

 

Solid Red States (>12 points)

 

Idaho

 

Wyoming

 

South Dakota

 

Oklahoma

 

Arkansas

 

Louisiana

 

Mississippi

 

Alabama

 

Tennessee

 

Kentucky

 

West Virginia

 

Again, I don't think any of these are controversial. I know Mississippi was like marginally in the "safe" (8-12) category in 2020 due to a special election there, but generally speaking, come on, man. It's Mississippi, you're on crack if you think that has any reasonable chance of going blue at this point. 

 

Safe Blue States (8-12 points)

 

These states are almost definitely going blue but there is an ever so slight chance of an upset in a very red year. 

 

I included:

New Jersey

 

Colorado

 

Illinois

 

NJ and IL are two states that were uncomfortably close in the 2024 election, and senate elections seem to have closer margins sometimes.  I still think these states are relatively safe, but who knows? Upsets can happen. As the map indicates, we're talking like a 0.1% chance though. Still, that's, 1 in 1000 and statistics does crazy things sometimes. As for Colorado, that's a former swing state that seems to be getting safer and safer for dems in every election cycle. 

 

Safe Red States (8-12 points)

 

South Carolina

 

Nebraska

 

Kansas

 

Alaska

 

If any normally solid red states are flirting with turning, it's those four. Still, again, we're talking like 1 in 1000, but statistically, I feel like I should include them as sometimes they can be more competitive than they look. 

 

Likely Blue States (5-8 points)

 

New Mexico

 

New Hampshire

 

I expect both of these to essentially go blue, but say in a really red year, maybe they can be threatened. Who knows? Still, I'd say the democrats have a high chance here, like 90%+ generally. So...only 1 in 10 chance of an upset, and given this is a blue year...eh....

 

Lean Blue States (2.5-5 points)

 

Minnesota

 

Virginia

 

These are states that are kinda swingy but still reliably blue. I wouldn't expect them to be under threat in what I expect to be a blue year, but we still gotta keep an eye on them....

 

Tossups (2.5 Blue-2.5 Red)

 

 Michigan

 

Georgia

 

North Carolina

 

Maine

 

So....these are the ones that I think are really interesting, and where I think the real tossups lie. Now, you might notice I'm doing margins a little different here. It's because we have ZERO polling data at this point for 2026 and I'm just making wild guesses here. But....I'd say MI and GA have been swing states in recent election cycles, both have democratic senators from the 2020 election, and while I would expect these seats to be threatened in a red year, in a blue year? Well, democrats should maintain them. Still, I'm considering them swing for now. Michigan is what i consider a slightly blue leaning swing state. Georgia used to be more red but the growth of Atlanta has actually made it swing more blue. Keep in mind it is the one swing state in the sun belt that surprised me a bit relative to the others. it looks like it's starting to turn into WI/MI/PA honestly, and it's the one place the whole fiscally moderate but socially progressive thing the dems are doing seems to be bearing fruit. Georgia is slowly turning from being a lean red state to being a purple one. So...yeah. I do think dems have >50% odds at maintaining their seat there given this is gonna be a red year. 

 

So...with that said, let's talk about the others. North Carolina and Maine are the two states that democrats have a good shot at flipping I think. NC regularly is a swing state, but then it persistently stays red. Still, given this is going to be a blue year probably...don't count it out. It's one of the dems' best chances at flipping ANYTHING. 

 

So is Maine. Maine is a state that regularly ends up being blue leaning, but varies in how much. Sometimes it becomes swingy, but other times it's pretty safe blue. Maine in general is a pretty weird state for the northeast. It has urban areas in the south but then the north is just all yeehaw country (see: Maine CD2). Currently, their senators are in a weird place. We got Angus King, who is an independent, and Susan Collins, one of the most moderate republicans. Susan Collins is up in 2026 and she's a republican. Given this is a blue year, in a blue state, I view her as vulnerable. However, she's also not THAT vulnerable. She was able to hold her seat in 2020 when Biden was elected, and ultimately it really comes down to how Maine perceives her going into 2026. Is she the rational voice of the republicans and moderate enough to save her seat? Or will she end up losing because Trumpism sours in the American people so hard that the democrats can run anyone with a pulse and win? Who knows. I mean, I think her seat is possibly vulnerable, but it is an uphill battle. Hence why I put her in the more "lean red" column traditionally. 

 

If the democrats can win these seats, they won't take the senate, but they can narrow the republicans' lead from 4 seats to 2. In order to WIN the senate outright, they need to take some other seats. 

 

Lean Red States (2.5-5 points) 

 

Ohio

 

The next most vulnerable seat for republicans to focus on is basically Ohio. If Sherrod Brown runs again (he lost his seat in 2024), I DO think the democrats have a shot here. JD Vance's old seat is up for reelection here. Brown won in 2018 and is the one democrat who I think has a shot here. Given this is going to likely be a blue year, I think Brown has some play here. Otherwise I'd expect the republicans to win. Ohio hasn't been friendly to democrats in recent years.

 

If democrats win here, it would bring the senate down to 50-50, making JD Vance the tiebreaker. 

 

Likely Red States (5-8 points)

 

Montana

 

Florida

Texas

 

Iowa

 

And finally, the next crop of states for democrats to focus on would be the above group. Not gonna lie. This is a hard and hostile map for democrats. They won in 2020 big and now they need to maintain or expand on their wins, and now they need to expand deep into republican territory to retake the senate.

 

Of these four states, Montana I think is the easiest one to crack. Just run the Ohio strategy with Tester instead of Brown. Jon Tester won in 2018 there, showing it is possible for the democrats to win here if it is a very blue year. If Trump messes up and really destroys his approval, we could see this becoming a possible weak spot for democrats to exploit. 

 

The other states I would largely consider to be borderline unwinnable. Blorida and Blexas are memes. I mean, statistically they can theoretically happen, but we're talking a 2% chance or so. Iowa is also a hard sell for democrats. 

 

With all of that said, can the democrats retake the senate?

 

On a purely academic level, they have a slim chance if EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING goes right for them. If they maintain ALL of their seats, and are then able to flip North Carolina, Maine, Ohio, AND Montana, yes, they can win. If someone wants to see a map of this happening, this is basically it.

 

 Of course, this is basically "here's how Bernie can still win in May 2016" level delusion. It probably ain't gonna happen. I wanna believe. I believe it's possible on an academic level, but as the OG map would suggest, I generously give that like a 7% chance of happening.

 

Still, it is early, and we don't really know. We don't have polling yet. If the atmosphere goes hard enough toward democrats (and it might given Trump is going full steam ahead with project 2025), MAYBE we can eek out a win here?

 

In all likelihood though, we'll flip a couple seats and the republicans will still retain a majority though.

 

Honestly, I'm far more optimistic about the house. That only went 215-220 republican and even a slight change in the political winds could blow that back to the democrats. So we can at least reestablish some checks and balances over Trump in 2026 if democracy isn't destroyed by then. 

 

Simulation talk

 

 I did run a simulation based on the odds in the first graphic above. I got 99 republican wins and 1 tie, which, given the GOP controlling the white house, is still a republican win. If you wanna see the map, here it is:

Honestly though? That's one out of 100 simulations. And that's the best one for democrats. Democrats maintain all of their seats, and then manage to win 3 long shots, only missing North Carolina. 

I had other simulations going 45-55 GOP or even 43-57 GOP. That's the range. Of course, again, I would put the republicans on the defensive and the democrats on the offensive here. I actually do see the democrats gaining seats to be more likely than them losing them. Again. Blue year. People are gonna be pissed and outraged at republicans. This is gonna be 2018 or 2022. Which is why I at least have SOME hope for democrats to do something here, as improbable as it may seem. 

Also I just realized Illinois isn't on the above map. That was because I originally included it in the super safe section before deciding to put it in the 8-12 section based on prior performance and it being in a precarious situation in 2025. So just ignore that. I'll fix that bug in my model. 

Conclusion

But yeah, real talk? I think an 84% chance of a republican win, a 9% chance of a tie, which is also a republican win, and a 7% chance of a democratic win is about accurate. I think that realistically reflects our chances here. They're not very good. Republicans will likely retain the senate, although I could see us possibly sniping a seat or two and bringing it down to 48-52 or 49-51. That's what I think would be the most likely outcome in practice, if not just sticking with the status quo at 47-53. It's a tough map. Democrats have to do everything right to maintain their gains from 2020 and THEN make even further gains. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't count on it.

Still, I would expect 2026 to be a blue year. I think it will mirror 2018 or 2022, where democrats turn out in large numbers, outraged at the trump administration, and we manage to make SOME gains. And keep in mind, in 2018 we won both Ohio and Montana, and those incumbents who lost their seats in 2024 could just run for the above seats in 2026. So, don't count it out. Just don't count on it either. 

I will come back to this when we actually get polling data next year. This is just a sneak peek.