GOP or Dems: Doomed if they win in '16

[Skill and Chance]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another.  


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

Well if you think an economic crash during 2018-20 is self-evident, an interesting corollary would be whether Democrats would have traded 2 terms of President Obama for Kerry winning in 2004 and getting to appoint Rhenquist's successor (albeit with a GOP senate) when he died in 2005, but then getting wiped out by McCain in 2008?  Presumably Stevens would have also left the court in 2005-06 under a President Kerry, cementing a moderate left SCOTUS majority.  I lean left and my answer would be no, but as you noted that's primarily because Roberts provided a 5th vote for Obamacare anyway.

Also, it's worth noting that confirming a pro-life nominee to Ginsburg or Kennedy's seats or confirming a pro-choice nominee to Scalia's seat would require killing the SCOTUS filibuster for all time.  That's something serious to consider for any partisans who wouldn't want to see Mike Lee or Kamala Harris on SCOTUS in the near future.

[Skill and Chance]

Like it or not, Republicans can't win in 2016. Period. I do expect them to do extremely well in 2018 and 2020 (when they oust Clinton), though. The Democratic realignment that began in 2006 will end in 2018.

12 years is a tad short for a "realignment period" - 1932 - 1964/8 is an example of one such period, and 1980-2004 is another. 


There is one flaw with the OP's argument........SCOTUS.  Whoever wins might get up to 3 Supreme Court picks from 2017-2021.  That being said, if the Senate stays GOP, and becomes even moreso in 2018, then Hillary/Sanders/Biden might be forced to choose ideologically somewhat-similar replacements to gain the needed Republican votes.

Your right about scotus. Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and brewer are all in their 70s. That is a lot of appointment chances. A GOP win, and senate but that's almost guarantied if they win the POTUS, could lock down the Supreme Court. A dem win would flip it.

Most conservatives now feel the Court is already "flipped" as many of them see John Roberts & Anthony Kennedy as traitors to the cause on at least some issues, but yeah, the next President will be able to sway the Court in a very significant direction ideologically. 

Well if you think an economic crash during 2018-20 is self-evident, an interesting corollary would be whether Democrats would have traded 2 terms of President Obama for Kerry winning in 2004 and getting to appoint Rhenquist's successor (albeit with a GOP senate) when he died in 2005, but then getting wiped out by McCain in 2008?  Presumably Stevens would have also left the court in 2005-06 under a President Kerry, cementing a moderate left SCOTUS majority.  I lean left and my answer would be no, but as you noted that's primarily because Roberts provided a 5th vote for Obamacare anyway.

Also, it's worth noting that confirming a pro-life nominee to Ginsburg or Kennedy's seats or confirming a pro-choice nominee to Scalia's seat would require killing the SCOTUS filibuster for all time.  That's something serious to consider for any partisans who wouldn't want to see Mike Lee or Kamala Harris on SCOTUS in the near future.

You're supposing that both sides will vote in such a way to lock in the ideological affiliation of those seats? Not that I think you're wrong, just that I think it's an enormous perversion of the process. Also that the process is stupid in the first place.

No, it's just that there will be massive resistance to a major sea change in SCOTUS's ideology that would happen if someone appointed was radically different than who he or she was replacing. 

This is exactly what I was getting at.  Remember that in 2005, Democrats only caved on Alito after Republicans came within inches of nuking the judicial filibuster that year.  Also, due to the unfortunate timing of O'Connor's retirement with Rhenquist's death, Alito and Roberts were seen as something of a package deal.  While Alito was clearly right of O'Connor, Roberts was seen as (and really has been) clearly left of Rhenquist. 

Suppose the president of the "opposite" party has a 51 seat senate majority when Ginsburg or Scalia leaves the court.  In today's environment, they would have to pick someone very, very moderate (and presumably with the same views on abortion) to get them confirmed without going nuclear.  I think the outer edge of what either party could get away with would be a Democratic president appointing Joe Donnelly to Scalia's seat or a Republican president appointing Brian Sandoval to Ginsburg's seat, to use high profile examples.