You have to understand this is difficult for Dpareja. If the Dems do as good as is projected, he can't go on about needing to follow Sanders' example and Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2018_generic_congressional_vote-6185.htmlFirst: Current projected margin for Democrats, 6.8--not enough, if the Brennan Center's projections are correct.
Second: It's still not enough, because the Democrats can't use Congress's Art. 1, Sec. 4 power to redraw their own maps unless they have the Presidency, the House, and a supermajority in the Senate--which last they literally cannot get in this cycle. That means that the same problems that apply for the House in 2018 will apply in 2020 as well.
Third: A lot of Democrats are not, on many issues, that much better than the Republicans. Oh, when it costs them nothing to oppose them (House minority, Senate minority facing reconciliation or similar procedures), they'll do so. But consider the recent banking deregulation bill, where a third of Senate Democrats joined Republicans in voting to loosen regulation on banks with assets of up to $250 billion (which includes some really really big banks)--what's the use of electing Democrats who are, on many issues, going to pass the same policies that Republicans do? You see the same with foreign policy and military spending.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00052https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00053Republicans are bad. Democrats who are Republican-lite are also bad.
And what you have to remember about the Tea Party is that it worked, insofar as it allowed Republicans to stymie the Democrats for six years and then put them in a position to roll back 15 Obama-era executive orders via the Congressional Review Act (requiring only a simple majority in the Senate), barring further executive changes to such policies and subjecting them to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, not to mention ripping out the key component of the ACA (itself in origin a Richard Nixon and Heritage Foundation plan, of course) thanks to Roberts only finding the individual mandate constitutional under the Taxation Clause rather than the Commerce Clause.