The Strategic Imperative: Democrats and the High-Stakes Battle for the Senate

In her piece "Another Race to Run," Amy Davidson Sorkin explores the critical intersection between the 2020 presidential primaries and the urgent necessity for the Democratic Party to reclaim control of the U.S. Senate. As the political landscape shifts toward the 2020 elections, the focus on the White House often overshadows the legislative battlefield, yet the Senate remains the ultimate arbiter of the nation’s future.

The Beto O’Rourke Phenomenon and the Call for Local Focus

The article highlights a telling moment in Texas politics where a Dallas Morning News poll revealed that 19% of Texas Democrats preferred Beto O’Rourke for the Senate, despite his focus on a presidential bid. This "shadowy figure"—as Sorkin describes the hypothetical O’Rourke candidacy—represented a broader desire among voters for high-profile candidates to return home and challenge vulnerable Republican incumbents like John Cornyn. Despite the Houston Chronicle urging him to "come home," O’Rourke steadfastly refused, citing a desire to fight on a national stage. This highlights a recurring tension: the personal ambition of presidential candidates versus the strategic need to flip seats in "deep red states."

The Mathematical Urgency of Senate Control

The urgency of winning the Senate cannot be overstated. Sorkin points out that even if a Democrat defeats Donald Trump, the party needs a net gain of three seats to control the chamber—or four if Trump wins, given the Vice President’s power to "break any tie." The stakes involve nothing less than the future of the Supreme Court. With Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in their 80s, the potential for Trump to remake the Court in his "constitution-defying image" makes every Senate seat a firewall against executive overreach.

Strategic Opportunities: Colorado, Georgia, and Arizona

While the path to a majority is difficult, clear opportunities exist. The success of John Hickenlooper in Colorado, who abandoned his presidential campaign to run against Senator Cory Gardner, turned a "likely Republican win into a possible Democratic one." Similar potential exists in Georgia, where Stacey Abrams—despite her focus on "voting rights work"—remains a formidable, albeit reluctant, contender for seats vacated by Johnny Isakson or held by David Perdue. Meanwhile, in Arizona, Mark Kelly, an astronaut and advocate for gun control, is positioned as a strong challenger to Martha McSally, leveraging his personal narrative and the "strong message" he carries in a state that is arguably ready to listen.

Vulnerabilities and the Reality of "Legislative Politics"

Democrats face significant risks, particularly in states like Alabama, where Doug Jones must defend his seat in a state where Trump’s approval rating is "above 60%." The looming threat of candidates like Roy Moore adds volatility to these races. Furthermore, in Michigan, Senator Gary Peters faces a tough challenge from John James, an Iraq War veteran, underscoring that "the candidates matter" regardless of the national climate.

The Scorn for the Senate and the Path Forward

Sorkin concludes by addressing the reluctance of some politicians to run for the Senate. Figures like Governor Steve Bullock have described the Senate as a "miserable place," yet Sorkin argues that this "present morass only underscores how important it is to elect better Senators." The rejection of the legislative process in Washington, even under the obstructionist era of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, is a dangerous trend.

Ultimately, the fight against "Trumpism" is not merely a presidential contest. It is a multi-front battle where the Senate serves as a vital "safety net for our democracy." As Senator Kirsten Gillibrand noted when exiting the presidential race, one must know "how you can best serve your community and country." For many Democrats, that service may not be found in the Oval Office, but in the halls of the Senate, which currently "needs saving."