Oh, Republicans likely will lose the Senate, but don't blame Trump. Ronald Reagan would have had a hard time holding this Senate. Let us review.
First, the set-up. From the Hill on June 18:
Senate Republicans are deeply concerned that Donald Trump will cost them their majority, despite private assurances from leaders that voters opposed to the presumptive GOP presidential nominee will split their ballots.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll published last week shows Trump’s unfavorable rating has hit new a high, with 7 out of 10 respondents nationwide viewing him negatively.
One Republican senator facing a competitive re-election said he and his colleagues are “very concerned.”
“There’s deep, deep concern,” he added.
Republicans have to defend 24 seats while Democrats only have to protect 10. Six of the vulnerable GOP seats are in states that President Obama won in 2008 and 2012.That key number is 24-10.
Thanks to the Tea Party, in 2010, Republicans had their best showing in the Senate in 64 years, winning 24 seats, while Democrats won 13, which is why this year Republicans have 24 seats to defend, while Democrats have to defend only 10. Three of the 2010 races were to fill partial terms that expired in 2012 or 2014.
The 2010 showing was the best Republican showing since 1946, when they also went 24-13.
That both of these elections were mid-term should say something about the impact of a presidential campaign on Senate races.
If that doesn't this does not convince you, this will: Nixon took 49 states in 1972. Republicans had a net loss of two Senate seats. That was in a year Republicans had to protect 20 seats, Democrats 14.
Reagan took 49 states in 1984. Republicans had a net loss of two Senate seats. That was in a year Republicans again had to protect 20 seats, Democrats 14.
And Trump is supposed to protect 24 seats?
This does not mean that presidential candidates have no pull. In 1980. Reagan took 44 states and Republicans had a net gain of 12 seats. But Republicans had to protect only 10 seats. Democrats had to protect -- wait for it -- 24 seats.
Republicans now are buoyed by Senate polls.
From Hot Air:
Believe it or not, after months of doomsaying about Trump’s effect on Republicans down-ballot, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that the GOP will retain its Senate majority in 2017. That majority will be reduced, of course: Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson are likely goners, and beating a brand-name former senator like Evan Bayh in Indiana will be a heavy lift for Republicans even in a red state. If those three seats go blue, the GOP’s advantage will fall to 51/49 with no fewer than seven seats — all but one of which is currently held by a Republican — still toss-ups. That’s the bad news. The good news is that the party is holding its own in the battle for those toss-ups even though Trump is reliably a few points behind Hillary in most swing-state polls. The New Hampshire and Nevada Senate races are dead heats right now, and if you believe the new data from Quinnipiac, the Republican incumbent is leading in every one of the “big four” — Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and, yes, even Pennsylvania. If Republicans take all six and Roy Blunt holds on to his seat in Missouri, which seems likely, they’re at 51. Difficult, but doable.But the bottom line is no matter who the nominees were, Republican control of the Senate was precarious because Republican leadership failed to fulfill promises to the Tea Party, not because of Donald Trump.
A net loss of two seats right now is the best-case scenario. That would be a 22-12 win.
Or what Reagan did in 1980.
My new book on how the media blew the Republican nomination, "Trump the Press: Don Surber's take on how the pundits blew the 2016 Republican race," is now on sale. It is a fun book that you can read in one setting.
Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space. It is a subsidiary of Amazon.
The book also available in Kindle and as a paperback on Amazon.
Autographed copies area available. Email me at DonSurber@GMail.com for details.