Would Obama Win Re-Election While Losing The Senate?

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

I know that it's mathematically possible that Obama wins re-election while losing the Senate, but do you think that it would actually happen? My gut tells me it wouldn't.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It depends A LOT... if there are suddenly a lot of open seats that emerge... then likelihood is yes.

Mind you, the seats the Dems could lose are in seats I'm currently predicting Obama would lose at a national level in 2012 regardless.

I think it's an even-money bet right now.

[Skill and Chance]

A gain of +4 seats by the out party hasn't happened since the 17th Amendment in an incumbent president reelection year.  Historically it has either been fought to a draw or there have been massive gains for the president's party.  That doesn't mean it's impossible, but there are certainly a large number of senate democrats whose seats would be saved if Obama wins their states.

The way I see it, getting that 4th net seat to flip will be the big obstacle.  They probably beat Ben Nelson and Claire McCaskill and someone else in a reddish state retires, but with an Obama win the Dems probably pick up MA or NV.   

[Mr.Phips]

Highly unlikely.  If Obama is winning reelection, he's probably winning most states where Democrats are in tough contests and that will probably give them enough of a boost to win reelection.  The worst a President's party did when winning reelection was in 1940, when FDR's party lost three seats.  A loss like that would give Democrats a 51-50 majority. 

In 2004, Bush's party won four seats.
In 1996, Clinton's party lost two.
In 1984, Reagan's party lost two.
In 1964, Johnson's party gained two. 
In 1956, neither party gained.
In 1948, Truman's party gained nine.
In 1944, FDR's party lost one.
In 1936, FDR's party gained five.

This amounts to an average gain of one seat.  If Democrats match the average, they will have a 54-46 majority.  This would probably happen by losing Nelson in Nebraska, but beating Brown in New Hampshire and Ensign in Nevada. 

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

My guess is that if Obama wins re-election, he'll do so with fewer electoral votes than in 2008. The only other time this has happened is 1916, where the Democrats lost 2 seats.

[Skill and Chance]

My guess is that if Obama wins re-election, he'll do so with fewer electoral votes than in 2008. The only other time this has happened is 1916, where the Democrats lost 2 seats.

I will hazard a guess that there is a strong correlation between Obama's vote share and how many senate Dems are left, more so than a win vs. a loss.  Ex:

Blowout Obama loss (<40% of the PV): ~GOP+11 (basically everything outside of the Northeast/West Coast falls)
Narrow loss (GOP <300 EV): ~GOP+5
Statistical Tie or EV/PV split: GOP +2-4
Wilson-style narrow win (<300 EV, PV closer than 2008): ~GOP+3 to Dems +1
Blowout Obama win (>58% of the PV): ~Dems +6 or better (this is where they start winning in AZ, TX,TN, etc. because Obama carries those states)

Also, remember that Nelson and Lieberman will likely go down, so 50-50 would likely mean true D control under Obama's VP.

[pbrower2a]

There's little wriggle room for the Democrats holding onto the Senate.  Any Democrat who won with less than 57% of the popular vote in 2006 or later  should be considered vulnerable for now except perhaps  Cardin and Whitehouse. There just aren't any easy GOP targets; the Democrats picked up about everything possible in 2006.  The only imaginable Democratic pickups are MA, ME (should Olympia Snowe face a teabag challenge), NV (should the Republicans either stick with Ensign or go with someone as dreadful as Angle), or IN (should right-wingers tea--bag Lugar).

The right-wing hate machine will be out in 2012, every bit as loud and vile as in 2010, and it is as easy for me to see the Democrats losing six seats as picking up even one.

[Eraserhead]

It's not impossible. Remember how the House was never supposed to flip without the Senate? Yeah...

[minionofmidas]

Remember how the House was never supposed to flip without the Senate? Yeah...

When was that said? Not after the 2008 election was resolved, I hope?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, Republicans picked up several Senate seats.

[Mr.Phips]

When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, Republicans picked up several Senate seats.

Republicans picked up two that year. 

[feeblepizza]

Certainly.

[Franzl]

If Obama wins re-election, it's not an unlikely event.

[dmmidmi]

In 2004, Bush's party won four seats.
In 1996, Clinton's party lost two.
In 1984, Reagan's party lost two.
In 1964, Johnson's party gained two. 
In 1956, neither party gained.
In 1948, Truman's party gained nine.
In 1944, FDR's party lost one.
In 1936, FDR's party gained five.

This amounts to an average gain of one seat.

These results tell me that there isn't really any apparent trend to be found here, or any hint of what we can expect should Obama win in 2012.

To answer the question: Yes, there is a very real possibility that Obama could win re-election while the GOP takes control of the Senate.

[Skill and Chance]

In 2004, Bush's party won four seats.
In 1996, Clinton's party lost two.
In 1984, Reagan's party lost two.
In 1964, Johnson's party gained two. 
In 1956, neither party gained.
In 1948, Truman's party gained nine.
In 1944, FDR's party lost one.
In 1936, FDR's party gained five.

This amounts to an average gain of one seat.

These results tell me that there isn't really any apparent trend to be found here, or any hint of what we can expect should Obama win in 2012.

To answer the question: Yes, there is a very real possibility that Obama could win re-election while the GOP takes control of the Senate.

The "other" party gaining 4 seats during a presidential re-election would be a new phenomenon since the 17th Amendment, but the House flipping without the Senate was also a new phenomenon in 2010.  So who knows?

[Brittain33]

From what I can tell, 1936 is the only case where the President's party was defending a class previously elected in a big favorable wave.

[Mr.Phips]

From what I can tell, 1936 is the only case where the President's party was defending a class previously elected in a big favorable wave.

1964, 1940, and 1956 as well. 

[J. J.]

I would say it is probable that the Democrats will lose Senate seats in 2012, even with a healthy Obama victory.  I'd give it about a 50/50 chance, if Obama wins.

[albaleman]

It's very possible considering that it would only take a few seats, and the Dems will be defending a number of seats they won narrowly in the 2006 wave. I'd put it at about a 40% chance right now.