That's kind of a silly thing to assume, when you consider that Democrats have a chance to win back more than half the gains Republicans made this year, plus win some blue seats that Republicans hold late on in the decade. That might not result in a the House flipping, but the Republicans are more likely to lose seats than gain them in 2016.
Still trying to commit a fraud. If a Democrat won the popular vote by something like, 51-47, but Republicans got the most electoral votes and the Presidency, the backlash would be enormous, considering that gerrymandering would be responsible.
I think it would be best if presidential and congressional elections were held once every 4 years, at the same time. More stability in government would help get things done and midterms create less stability.
Udall is not more liberal than Gardner is conservative, so their support makes no sense. Gardner sold himself as a non-partisan, pro-choice moderate, but the opposite is true, he's a conservative Republican. I don't blame Manchin.
Possibly, 50-47 is not a strong win. In 2012, her grasp of local issues was incredibly weak and the district's partisan numbers are less Republican than the 67% that Romney took, which was heavily inflated due to a home state effect of sorts.
That's really not going to translate into gains for a presidential nominee, though. Midterm turnout is never a good place to draw conclusions about demographics. At 3% of the electorate, Asian voters can be prone to wide swings between electorates.
Considering that Beshear became Governor after losing to McConnell, I think Grimes has a good chance. Democrats did hold the Kentucky House, so there is a good chance that they can still compete at the state level.