Rural influence could keep Dems from gaining the Senate even with a 'Blue Wave' in the midterm elections

New York Times map; click the image to enlarge it.

In the upcoming November elections, the battlegrounds for the House and Senate lie in different arenas. Only 14 of the most competitive House races are in states with highly competitive Senate races. "The Senate hinges on red, rural states where Democrats are on defense. But the House will be decided by swing, suburban seats where Republicans are highly vulnerable," David Wasserman writes for The New York Times. Wasserman is an editor at The Cook Political Report. 

That dichotomy could yield strange results in the midterms: "If every state’s and district’s election results on Nov. 6 were a uniform eight-point swing in the Democrats’ direction from the 2016 presidential result, Democrats would gain 44 House seats — almost twice the 23 they need to control the chamber," Wasserman writes. "But with that same eight-point swing, the party would lose four Senate seats, leaving them six seats short of a majority."

Wasserman concludes with a reference to the Senate as the rural chamber: "Whereas most House seats have roughly the same number of constituents, a majority of the Senate now represents just 18 percent of the nation’s population. And this fall, the Senate will come down to seats that are much whiter, more rural and pro-Trump than the nation as a whole. In effect, geography could again be Mr. Trump’s greatest protector: After all, the Senate — not the House — would have the final say on any impeachment proceedings."