Contributor: A Democratic takeover of the Senate is now imaginable

I’ve seen enough. It’s time to revise our expectations for midterms.

For more than a year, the general consensus was that Democrats would take back the House of Representatives (but not the Senate) in the November midterm elections.

That’s because this year’s Senate map calls for Democrats to win a lot of seats in red states.

In fact, if you had asked me a few months ago, I would have said that yes, the Democrats have a chance in the Senate, but equally my teenage son also has a chance to date Sydney Sweeney one day. So it’s technically possible, but not cosmically possible.

However, recent developments (eg. President Trump’s approval ratings for the economy are falling) encourages me to examine my thoughts.

I’m not alone. independent journalist Chris Cillizza recently observed Prediction markets like Polymarket and Kalshi showed a narrow lead for the Democrats for the first time.

Prediction markets are not scientific. Neither of them lick your finger and hold it up; but both have outperformed political polls at various times over the last few years.

The difference is that in prediction markets, people bet real money; this tends to sharpen the mind in a way that answering an interviewer’s call during dinner cannot.

Of course, you probably haven’t heard much about this revised political perspective. Because no one has the incentive to shout it from the rooftops.

Democrats don’t want to inflate expectations and risk a solid win turning into a perceived disappointment. Republicans, meanwhile, are less than eager to advertise that the Senate majority is wobbling like a shopping cart with broken wheels. And we experts, suffering from burnout, are reluctant to venture too far on our skis.

Even Cillizza still has confidence in the Republican balance. But if I had to bet today – which I describe as a “regret it later” bet – I would put my chips on the Democrats. Not because there is anything certain, but because almost every political and economic development is in their direction.

History helps. In midterms, the “outside” party usually does well. Current events help. Policies include: War in Iran and rising gas pricesIt tends to demoralize voters about who is in charge. Candidate quality also helps. From time to time, voters realize who is actually on the ballot, and Democrats offer a semi-respectable bid.

Let’s pause for a moment to understand what is at stake. Control of the Senate isn’t just about who gets the nicer office furniture. It determines judicial confirmations, including the possibility of Trump filling the fourth Supreme Court vacancy (if it opens in 2027 or 2028).

Now, it would be irresponsible for me to abandon this idea without going into some logistical details.

Democrats need to win four seats to flip the Senate. That means defending everything they have while winning four more. The encouraging news (if you support Democrats) is that there are at least eight plausible opportunities for this to happen.

In North Carolina, Democratic incumbent Governor Roy Cooper is expected to win. In Maine, Republican Senator Susan Collins once again finds herself embroiled in a political knife fight; its natural environment, although perhaps not its preferred location. He’ll face Maine’s current governor or a flamboyant and controversial oysterman. I’m not sure who would be the tougher opponent.

In Ohio, former Sen. Sherrod Brown enjoys the rare political skill of being a Democrat who still seems at home in Ohio.

The Democrat running in Alaska is a former member of Congress (and the first Alaska Native elected to Congress). And for the open seat in Iowa, Democrats appear likely to nominate a two-time Paralympic gold medalist who represents the reddest state House seat ever held by a Democrat.

Then there’s Texas, the perennial Democratic mirage that’s always shining on the horizon. However, it may emerge clearly this year. James Talarico sided with DemocratsRepublicans, on the other hand, are struggling with scandals. has to choose between. General Ken Paxton and incumbent Senator John Cornyn; a process that now resembles a family feud being waged through malicious attack ads.

Meanwhile, in Nebraska and Montana, Democrats aren’t even pretending to compete. Instead, they’re counting on independents like Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King to likely caucus with them.

In Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn has already proven he can pull it off: He lost in 2024; It was a bad year to run against a Republican. And in Montana, the suddenly announced retirement of Senator Steve Daines has created an opening that didn’t exist five minutes ago (in political time).

Let’s not get carried away. The idea that Democrats could sweep all these races is still the kind of thing you say after your third drink. But winning half of it? This is no longer a fantasy. This is… reasonable. Maybe it’s more likely than not.

This is not a safe bet. It’s not even a comfortable situation. But for the first time, it’s starting to look like the smart money isn’t laughing at the idea anymore; He slides the chips silently across the table.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of:Filthy Rich Politicians” And “too stupid to fail.”