Democrats Fail to Take Senate

President Donald Trump will have a Republican Senate to work with on Supreme Court appointments.

Alex Brandon/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Democrats fell short in their bid to take a majority in the US Senate, leaving Republicans in control of both branches of Congress and giving them a decisive say in Supreme Court appointments.

Going into Tuesday, Republicans held a four-seat lead over Democrats in the Senate. Democrats did gain a seat early in the night, in Illinois. But the nail in the coffin for their hopes of taking the Senate was a late-night call for incumbent Republican Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, who had been reluctant to support Donald Trump. Toomey held off on announcing that he was voting for Trump until the last minute, but he seemed to ride Trump’s coattails as the Republican swept Pennsylvania broadly.

New Hampshire remained too close to call, but even if Republican incumbent Kelly Ayotte loses to challenger Maggie Hassan, it would not be enough to give Democrats control of the Senate.

Very little went right for Democrats in their pursuit of the Senate, though a handful of victories were better than the rest of the political map.

In Illinois, Democratic challenger Tammy Duckworth, a decorated combat veteran, defeated GOP incumbent Ron Kirk, even though he ran as an anti-Trump Republican. In fact, if one minitrend emerged in the Senate results, it was that Republican candidates who disavowed Trump lost. Aside from Kirk, in Nevada, Republican Joe Heck lost his bid to steal outgoing Sen. Harry Reid’s seat, with Catherine Cortez Masto keeping the seat in the blue column. Cortez Masto is the first Latina woman to be elected to the US Senate.

But the bright spots for Democrats were few and far between. Following Trump’s path to victory in North Carolina, incumbent Richard Burr kept his seat in a narrow win.

As Clinton’s “firewall” crumbled in the upper Midwest, incumbent Republican Ron Johnson easily pushed back what was once thought to be a strong challenge from his Democratic opponent, former Sen. Russ Feingold.

In Missouri, Jason Kander had excited Democratic hopes with a memorable campaign ad where he assembled a rifle while blindfolded, emphasizing his familiarity and comfort with guns, but incumbent Roy Blunt pulled off a win.

In Florida, where Trump eked out a narrow but pivotal win, Democrats once had high hopes to pick up a seat, but onetime GOP presidential hopeful Marco Rubio easily won reelection, despite having fought bitterly with Trump and telling presidential primary voters that he couldn’t stand serving in the Senate. This preserves Rubio’s political career, although a Trump presidency would make Rubio’s presumed 2020 presidential run less likely. Similarly, Ohio, which once seemed a promising spot for a Democratic pickup in the Senate, was called for incumbent Republican Rob Portman by the Associated Press shortly after 7:30 p.m.

While the race for the White House was clearly the main event, the fight for the Senate was a heavyweight bout that drew many conservative big donors after it became clear that Trump would become the GOP nominee. But it wasn’t just the Republicans; both parties poured everything they had into the handful of competitive Senate seats that would determine control of the chamber. Including money spent by candidates, the parties, and outside groups, Republicans may have spent as much as $422 million this election, and Democrats spent another $383 million.

In the Pennsylvania Senate race alone, the campaigns for the two major-party candidates dropped just over $40 million on the race, with Toomey outspending Democrat Katie McGinty by about $16 million, and super-PACs and other outside groups spent at least another $115 million. In tiny New Hampshire, where there are just 919,000 registered voters, super-PACs spent $90.6 million on the Senate race. The groups backing Republicans appear to have accomplished their mission.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate