An Ignoble Experiment: Whole Hog Politics: They’re all ‘bad’ Senate maps for Democrats, but they still might win

By Chris Stirewalt | Friday, January 16

© Adobe Stock

They're all 'bad' Senate maps for Democrats, but they still might win

We hear the refrain again this year from and about Democrats' chances to retake the Senate: "It's a bad map."

It was a bad map in 2024, 2020, 2018, 2014 and 2010, too. So maybe it's time to stop imagining some kind of parity in the parties' chances for controlling the Senate and that this year's options are somehow unusual for Democrats.

The Democratic electorate is tightly packed in urban and suburban areas and Republicans dominate across the fruited plain, so it wouldn't make much more sense to say that Democrats have a "bad" Senate map than it would to say that Republicans have a "bad" chance at winning the mayoralties of most of the 50 largest cities (Democrats control 41) or of the chief executives of the 50 counties with populations of 1 million or more (Democrats control 40).

The difference in our federal system is that Democrats can't really be a national party if they're always shut out of the Senate. Republicans won control of the Senate in 1980 for the first time in 28 years, and since then, it's been a pitched battle. Republicans have held the Senate 12 times, Democrats 11 times (though one involved a switcheroo).

Some of the Democratic victories were with "good" maps, but that's often been an expression of the circumstances of getting to run on the same ticket as former President Clinton or former President Obama. Defeating the inherent Republican advantage in the Electoral College makes the work of winning the Senate a lot more palatable.

It might be better to just stipulate that all the Senate maps are "bad" for Democrats, but they still find ways to win anyway. Like picking a lock, Democrats have to find the right candidates in the right places at the right moments to win in places they're not supposed to. You can bet if those 50 mayors and 50 county executives had the power together to confirm Supreme Court justices, set tax rates and approve $7 trillion budgets, Republicans would find a way to do the same in urban America.

With that all in mind, you can't really call 2026 a bad map for Democrats at all.

There are four states with Democratic-held Senate seats that are at least potential pickups for the GOP, starting with the most vulnerable — Georgia and Michigan — and then including the reaches — New Hampshire and Minnesota.

Republicans, meanwhile, are playing defense in eight states, ranging from North Carolina and Maine, where it will be hard for the GOP to hold on, to Alaska and Ohio, where the Republicans have the edge, but not securely, to Nebraska, Iowa, Texas and Florida, where it's a long shot, but with the right conditions and the right candidates, surprises could happen.

As the arrival of former Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola in Alaska's Senate race demonstrates, even a solidly Republican state on the presidential level can be competitive with the right candidate in a midterm year. With ranked-choice voting and a nominee who has won statewide before, Democrats can give Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan a run for his money.

Or take the surprise poll from Emerson College on the Texas Democratic primary. The initial surveys taken before Rep. Jasmine Crockett officially entered the race suggested that the Texas Senate contest would be at best a lost cause for Democrats or, at worst, a sinkhole for contributions that produced lots of misery for the party nationally as the attention-hungry Crockett campaigned. But in the first poll after her entry, Crockett is trailing state Rep. James Talarico widely.

If Texas Democrats reject Crockett and, as polling suggests might happen, Sen. John Cornyn doesn't make it through a runoff in the Republican primary, Talarico would certainly be able to make a race of it with Attorney General Ken Paxton. It would be tough, but Paxton is as bad a candidate as Crockett, and very odd things happen in midterm cycles.

Republicans have similar situations in New Hampshire and Minnesota — tough states that in the right climate and with the right candidates could produce a win. Though the Trump administration seems to be moistly kissing off Minnesota with hard-line tactics there, Democrats would have to treat New Hampshire seriously if former Sen. Chris Sununu outlasts former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown in the Granite State GOP primary.

The point in all this is that we've understandably been focused on the four states where it's been clear for months that there would be big battles — North Carolina, Maine, Michigan and Georgia — and start thinking about the places where circumstances could create significant battles.

Looked at that way, it's not an unusually bad map for Democrats, but one in which they can take the Senate if they win eight of the 12 potential races. It's still not the most likely outcome, but provides a better way to think of what's happening as primary season gets ready to kick off.

[Programming alert: Watch The Hill Sunday with Chris Stirewalt — Tensions remain high across the country as the president continues to grapple with a frosty economic outlook and red-hot protests in Minnesota. We'll talk to members on both sides of the aisle about how their party is handling the moment and what to do next. Plus, we'll have a live report from Davos, Switzerland, as world leaders converge to tackle issues such as the war in Ukraine, protests in Iran and the future of Greenland. And, as always, we'll have expert analysis from our best-in-the-business panel of journalists. Be sure to catch us on NewsNation at 10 a.m. EST / 9 a.m. CST or your local CW station.]

Holy croakano! We welcome your feedback, so please email us with your tips, corrections, reactions & amplifications: WholeHogPolitics@TheHill.com.

If you'd like to be considered for publication, please include your name and hometown. If you don't want your comments to be publicized, please specify.

NUTRITIONAL INFORMATION

TRUMP JOB PERFORMANCE

Average Approval

38.8%

Average Disapproval

57.8%

Net Score: -19 points

Change from one week ago: ↓ 3 points (-16 points)

Change from one month ago: ↓ 4.8 points (-14.2 points)

[Average includes: Reuters/Ipsos 41 percent approve - 58 percent disapprove; Quinnipiac University 40 percent approve - 54 percent disapprove; AP-NORC 40 percent approve - 59 percent disapprove; American Research Group 35 percentapprove - 62 percent disapprove; Susquehanna Polling & Research 38 percent approve - 56 percent disapprove]

More Americans than ever are independent

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?

Independent: 45 percent

Republican: 27 percent

Democrat: 27 percent

Buuuttt ...

As of today, do you [as an independent] lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?

Republican: 15 percent

Democratic: 20 percent

[Gallup poll of 13,000 adults in 2025]

ON THE SIDE

Good nervous or bad nervous?

Jon Ryan's 12-year career as an NFL punter was a great success, including a Super Bowl win with the Seahawks. But it wasn't the kind of job you could leave at the office. The Athletic: "Almost every night before a game, I had the same dream. … I would play the whole game, and then, when I woke up, I would think the real game was over — but I still had to get up and play. It was always stressful waking up to that. The pressure was always there, 24 hours a day. Even in my sleep I couldn't escape it. I still have punting dreams — sometimes nightmares — a couple of times a week. My last game was over three years ago. … I learned during my career there were two kinds of nerves. There was being nervous because you cared so much and you wanted so badly to succeed. And there was being nervous because you weren't ready. In my whole career, I was never, ever nervous because I wasn't ready. I was always nervous because I cared so much. I'd always say: 'If those are my nerves then I'm fine.'"

SHORT ORDER

Cornyn has deep pockets in Texas — The Hill

Republican Rogers beats all Dem contenders in Michigan Senate poll — WDIV

Cooper starts with commanding cash lead in North Carolina — The Hill

Pennsylvania Dems look to control of both houses of state Legislature, with major 2028 implications — The Downballot

TABLE TALK

"I am open to a southern state, but I don't believe I am necessarily open to South Carolina. I am all about the Electoral College. Period. End of sentence." — Donna Brazile, a member of the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws Committee and former DNC chair, making the case to The Atlantic for potentially restoring New Hampshire, and its large population of independent voters, to its first-in-the-nation status among 2028 primaries.

"Some people say you may outdrive him, but you're not going to outdrive his caddy. It is what it is." — Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on whether President Trump cheats at golf in newly released grand jury testimony from a 2022 session about Trump's effort to overturn Georgia's 2020 presidential election result.

MAIL BAG

"Let's say there is a group of 32 people who decide to align against common foes in their neighborhood. … Of the 32, one is far and away the largest, toughest, and richest of the group. Let's call him Sam. The other 31 bring value to the relationship as well, through safety in numbers. They agree that if any of them are attacked, the other 31 will treat it as if they were attacked. Deal! Fast forward to a day when one of the other 31 is threatened. Let's call that person Denny. The aggressor- a large, tough, rich dude demands Denny to give him what he wants or he'll attack. If Sam attacks Denny, with the group's agreed upon charter in place, the question is this.... Aren't the other 30 people obligated to assist Denny? Why or why not?" — Russ Sohr, Green Bay, Wis.

Mr. Sohr,

Why, whatever could you mean, sir?

So, would the rest of NATO go to war with the United States if the United States invaded and occupied Denmark's possession, Greenland?

The first dependent question would be how that came about.

As the kids would say, it's giving Spanish-American War. Could President Trump contrive some claim sufficient to win popular support for a war against a European power over control of a Western Hemispheric colony? Might Americans be whipped into a war frenzy as they were in 1898 over control of Cuba? It seems hugely unlikely, given that no sane American feels the Danes pose any threat to our national sovereignty and dignity. And unlike 130 years ago, Americans are notably not interested in expanding our imperial girth, but rather trimming it.

But let's say Trump and Vice President Vance managed to sell such a war and Congress approved. In that case, no, I do not think that NATO would throw itself against the U.S. military to protect a Danish colonial holding. It would certainly be the end of NATO, though. You can't have a treaty organization where the members invade each other's territory. There'd be a European successor organization and then the U.S. would scramble to try to keep Britain on our side.

The more plausible scenario is one in which the president tries to provoke a confrontation, again, as the McKinley administration tried to do with Spain, but this time without considerable domestic support. This is the scenario in which Trump is having the Coast Guard board and harass Danish shrimp trawlers, etc. in hopes of drawing some kind of response which allows him to order military action without congressional authorization.

There, I think the answer is again, no. I doubt Europeans are eager to die for Greenland any more than Americans are. Only Greenlanders would do that. But in that scenario, it's less clear to me that it would mean the certain end of NATO. Trump would be under a great deal of pressure at home to back down and would be operating on a tight timeline given the likely rebuke from Congress that would be looming. If Trump tried to do in Greenland what he did in Venezuela, it would be such a disaster for him and his party at home that Europeans might be inclined to wait and see about the future of the alliance depending on how it played out in U.S. domestic politics.

All best,

FOR DESSERT

How rich is America? Cat Ozempic rich

ABC News: "A biopharmaceutical company is looking for ways to slim down household pets. Okava Pharmaceuticals, a San Francisco based company, plans to introduce on Tuesday a new GLP-1 clinical weight loss study for cats. MEOW-1, as the study is called, will look to use OKV-119, a miniature implant, in cats which will deliver the GLP-1, continuously for up to six months. According to Okava, MEOW-1 is the first-ever weight loss trial using this approach on household pets. … The company says weight is a particularly important issue among felines as over 50% of domestic household cats are overweight or clinically obese. Okava will use exenatide as its GLP-1 for the study, a different ingredient than is used in popular weight loss drugs for humans. Ozempic uses semaglutide and Mounjaro uses tirzepatide."

EMAIL US!

Write to WholeHogPolitics@TheHill.com with your tips, kudos, criticisms, insights, rediscovered words, recipes, and, always, good jokes.

Please include your real name — first and last — and hometown. Make sure to let us know if you want to keep your submission private.

My colleague, Meera Sehgal, and I will look for your emails and then share the most interesting ones and my responses here. Clickety clack!

Chris Stirewalt is political editor for The Hill and NewsNation, the host of "The Hill Sunday" on NewsNation and The CW, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of books on politics and the media.