If you see a fix in 2000, which it is indisputable, then that's five out of six losses for the Republicans. (That is the correct interpretation: Losses for the Republicans.) If you see a steal in 2004, which I think is clear enough, that's six straight, about to be seven. But their base is still huge, if now clearly in decline for 20 years and very clearly demarcated from a very large and diverse/apathetic majority that mostly fuels D wins in response to terror of Rs. R base will continue to be served, and to make the rise of an electoral left very hard absent proportional voting (for US, left would be social democracy a la Sanders, though antiwar/anti-empire could also pull a section).
And yeah, do they have a stranglehold on the gerrymander and state machinery, though theirs are so much smaller than the D's. A 50-50 vote split or slight loss translates into a 60-40 seat advantage. Absolutely no reason to move in any way for 10 years yet, except on the presidential they might try.
California, 2 senators = population of the 22 least populous states, which in turn means 44 senators and 20+ extra electoral college votes for those.
I'm hoping Clinton implodes and we get a newcomer who does the Sanders and wins in 2020. If the Republicans keep both houses, who says HRC will still be in office. (God no, not another impeachment over bullshit by right-wingers who think Clintons are communists.)
Tulsi Gabbard is the closest visible candidate, one might have to deal with what is rather than what could/should be.
.
