GOP or Dems: Doomed if they win in '16

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

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.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

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. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

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. 

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The risk for the Democrats losing in 2016 is that the Republicans get lockstep control of American politics, and with that they can entrench themselves so that they never lose a free election -- ever. They can turn the political system into a system of nearly pure patronage. They can change election laws to the detriment of any but the rich. They will not be able to fully knock the Democrats out, but they can make the Democrats about as relevant as the tame, formal opposition in China. On the other side, if the Republicans really muck up, they may foster social unrest like any unknown since the 1960s -- and in a time of far greater dangers. ISIS makes the Vietcong look like saints.

It's impossible to take you seriously with garbage like this.  Empirically, there is no evidence that such a scenario is even remotely likely in the United States, given its long small-d democratic traditions.

[RFayette 🇻🇦]

The Presidential Penalty in the midterms seems to hurt Democrats more than Republicans. If Hillary wins in 2016, then 2018 will be an even bigger disaster than 1994, 2010, and 2014 combined. You may see a GOP filibuster proof majority in the Senate, and possibly even a veto-proof majority in the House.

That said, if a Republican wins in 2016, you'll certainly see some governorships flipping, and possibly even some state legislative chambers, which make us a lot more relevant in the redistricting process, putting us on the path to eventually taking back the House.

Doubtful.   If a 2017-2018 recession occurs or Hillary wins in a landslide, takes the Senate, and keeps it close in or takes the House (and could get a few Republicans to support her proposals), then we can start talking.  But otherwise, I don't think there'd be the requisite anger for Republicans to take control.  Hillary would have to implement something unpopular for there to be that kind of a backlash, unless the economy went majorly south.