4 seats would make a huge difference right now. That is, if the Republicans held 56 seats, they need just 4 votes and had like 3 pretty much right off the bat. That puts the Democrats in a spot where defection of just one or two more votes and the shutdown ends.
Your argument hinges on a hypothetical 4-seat swing delivering Republicans a filibuster-proof supermajority (60 votes) to bulldoze a shutdown-ending bill, but this math crumbles under even basic Senate realities and ignores the procedural pitfalls that have defined shutdown fights for decades.
Start with the numbers: Republicans currently hold 53 seats (including caucusing independents), leaving them 7 short of 60, not "just 4". Even if a 17th Amendment repeal magically netted four extra GOP senators (a stretch, as prior analysis showed simulations peg the shift at 2-4 at best, often offset by deadlocks or moderates), you'd land at 57. That's enough for a stronger filibuster carve-out fight or easier cloture on party-line votes, but hardly a slam-dunk "3 pretty much right off the bat".
In shutdowns, Dems don't defect en masse for clean CRs; they hold the line against imaginary perceived poison pills (e.g., ACA subsidy cuts or unrelated riders, as in the Schumer shutdown).
Historical precedents, like the 2018-19 shutdown, where Turtle Boy McConnell's GOP majority (53 seats) still dragged on for 35 days amid Democrat unity show that raw numbers don't guarantee quick breaks.
With 57, Republicans might peel off one or two vulnerable Democrats (say, from red states like Montana's Tester or West Virginia's Manchin successor), but that's far from ending the crisis overnight; it would likely prolong negotiations, not shortcut them.
The "one or two more votes" bit is a stretch. Shutdown resolutions aren't simple up-or-down affairs. They're riddled with policy demands.
The Schumer shutdown stemmed from Senate Democrats rejecting 14 House-passed CRs over extra demands; ACA subsidy extensions and Inflation Reduction Act provisions.
Even at 57-43, Thune couldn't ram through a bill without 60 votes or a rules change, which risks intra-GOP revolt (e.g., from fiscal hawks like Rand Paul or populists eyeing Trump's demands).
"Pretty much right off the bat" assumes bipartisan buy-in that hasn't materialized in any modern shutdown, where the minority party leverages filibusters precisely to force compromises.
A mere 57-seat edge might pressure Democrats, sure, but it puts Republicans in the "spot" of owning the stalemate if aviation chaos (e.g., FAA delays closing airspace) or SNAP/WIC disruptions (hitting 40 million low-income families) turn public fury their way. Democrat voters are stupid.
Polls already show 60% blaming congressional Republicans more than Democrats, and stupid people believe the polls.
In essence, four seats would amplify GOP leverage but would not "make a huge difference" in dissolving shutdowns like magic; it would just redistribute the gridlock, potentially entrenching longer fights over concessions rather than swift resolutions.
Your optimism overlooks how the Senate's design e.g. filibusters, holds, and amendment trees turns arithmetical majorities into pyrrhic battles, repeal or not.
