There's no way around the numbers here
In order to hold the Senate, Dems must win two of Ohio, Montana, Florida, or Texas. Nebraska's special election is in that ballpark as “possible,” but there's no guarantee that the Independent there would caucus with Dems.
That's assuming they hold in all the swing states where they're being challenged, and that's not a guarantee.
There are some unlikely possibilities in places like Missouri (about a 5% chance Dems flip it) but in that scenario they've likely held in Ohio and Montana anyways.
Long story short, Dems can only play the cards they're dealt, and they don't have great cards.
Ohio, with Sherrod Brown, Dems are better than a coinflip favorite (about 65-35, in my forecast).
Montana was the likeliest 50th Senate seat, with a probability south of 35%…and fading.
Florida and Texas have both ticked upward…but nothing substantial. Low 20s and high teens win probability respectively. Florida might end up as Dems best bet to get to 50. Which tells you the position we're in.
That being said, it's not all doom-and-gloom.
A thirty-something percent chance of holding the Senate implies a thirty-something percent chance of a Dem trifecta: there are very few scenarios in which they hold the Senate but don't win the House and Presidency.
But we should do what we can to fight for these Senate seats. All I can do is forecast based on what I'm seeing.
R51 is the most likely outcome right now, followed closely by R52 and D50.
Any realistic chance of a Dan Osborn (Independent) senate win in Nebraska? You mentioned Dems have a 5% chance in Missouri, would his odds be lower or higher?
Are you one of those forecasters who falsely claim that it’s the “end of democracy” if Trump wins the White House and Republicans win Senate? Rachel Bitecofer lies and lies