Little discussed scenario- could this happen in 2010 and 2012?

[DemocratsVictory2008]

2010: The GOP wins back the House with a narrow majority of 5-10 seats, gains 8 senate seats to cut Dems majority to 51 or so. They run on a very conservative message and the older, whiter electorate delivers them a huge victory.

2012: However, the economy begins to improve in 2011 and unemployment falls to around 6% by mid 2012. The far right is emboldened by the midterms and nominates Sarah Palin for President. The result is an Obama landslide with 57% and close to 420 electoral votes. The Democrats regain the House with 25-35 pickups and take NV, AZ, MA senate seats. Not to mention Maine if Snowe retires and/ or Indiana if Lugar doesn't run again.

[Psychic Octopus]

Little discussed? We discuss this every day!

Now, no, I don't see it happening. The Democrats are overextended from their Senate victories in '06 and '08, and when the election strikes in '12 and '14, they should expect to maintain, if not lose, seats. The same case can be made for the '16 elections, because if the Republicans pick up eight or nine seats, they will be highly vulnerable then.

[DemocratsVictory2008]

I was mainly talking about the House in 2012....wouldnt be shocked if it changes hands this year and then again two years later. In a Democratic year they can hold senate seats in VA, FL, MO, MT and if ME, NV opened up there is no reason why they cant be won.

[Mr.Phips]

If Republicans win the House this year, I dont see how they hold it again in 2012.  Since 1996, the Democrats popular vote percentage for the House has tracked almost identically with their popular vote percentage in the Presidential race. 

[nkpatel1279]

looking at the Freshman DEM senators elected in 2012- id say McCaskill-MO-assuming Talent or Kinder or Emerson runs, Tester-MT assuming Rehberg runs, or Webb-VA- assuming Bolling or Forbes-runs are goners plus we get the Nelson brothers FL and NE to retires. -5 Dems offset those loses with MA(Brown-R loses to either Capuano or Lynch), and IN- Lugar retires- gets replaced with Hill or Roemer.

looking at the Freshman DEM senate class in 2014- Begich-AK is more of a worrisome. that balances out with DE(OPEN-Castle-R)- either Beau Biden or John Carney will pick up the DE seat.

[Lief 🗽]

Seems a reasonable enough scenario.

[Bo]

Seems a reasonable enough scenario.

Exactly. It is similar to Clinton in 1994, and if it happened back then, why can't it happen now?

[Mr.Phips]

Seems a reasonable enough scenario.

Exactly. It is similar to Clinton in 1994, and if it happened back then, why can't it happen now?

Democrats didnt regain the House in 1996. 

[Bo]

Seems a reasonable enough scenario.

Exactly. It is similar to Clinton in 1994, and if it happened back then, why can't it happen now?

Democrats didnt regain the House in 1996. 

And the GOP didn't nominate a completely moron in 1996.

[Badger]

Little discussed? We discuss this every day!

Now, no, I don't see it happening. The Democrats are overextended from their Senate victories in '06 and '08, and when the election strikes in '12 and '14, they should expect to maintain, if not lose, seats. The same case can be made for the '16 elections, because if the Republicans pick up eight or nine seats, they will be highly vulnerable then.

True, but on paper this should be a horrible year for Republicans with the number of seats they need to defend, particularly open seats in swing states. Obviously the national mood is trumping that by making what should be safe D seats competative and competative seats likely R. If the national mood improves as DV 08 hypothosizes (and I also expect/hope, though I don't believe we'll ever be lucky enough to run against Palin), that would likely determine congressional races more than Dems having a larger number of seats (especially freshmen) to defend.

[Dan the Roman]

Little discussed? We discuss this every day!

Now, no, I don't see it happening. The Democrats are overextended from their Senate victories in '06 and '08, and when the election strikes in '12 and '14, they should expect to maintain, if not lose, seats. The same case can be made for the '16 elections, because if the Republicans pick up eight or nine seats, they will be highly vulnerable then.

True, but on paper this should be a horrible year for Republicans with the number of seats they need to defend, particularly open seats in swing states. Obviously the national mood is trumping that by making what should be safe D seats competative and competative seats likely R. If the national mood improves as DV 08 hypothosizes (and I also expect/hope, though I don't believe we'll ever be lucky enough to run against Palin), that would likely determine congressional races more than Dems having a larger number of seats (especially freshmen) to defend.

As a conseqeunce, I would not be shocked if the Democrats picked up 12-15 seats in 2016. If the GOP gets a 7 seat gain they will be going into 2016 with 26 of 33 seats.

[pragmatic liberal]

Regarding the House: I think it's quite possible that Democrats could regain the House in 2012 if they lose it by only a narrow margin. Let's say that at the opening of 2011, Republicans have something like a 222-213 margin in the House (a 43-seat pickup). Democrats would only need to pick up 6 in 2012 to return to the majority. I wouldn't even be surprised if, with a narrow margin, Pelosi stays on as leader.

It's true that Democrats didn't retake the House in 1996, but the differences are that we're talking about a relatively narrow Republican majority, not the 30+ seat majority they had after 1994. Moreover, party-line voting has increased dramatically over the past decade, and I imagine that *IF* Obama wins reelection, the vast bulk of his voters will also be voting for congressional Democrats.

Of course, if Republicans make something like a 50-60 seat pickup, then retaking the House in 2012 is much less likely.

Keep in mind that these rapid swings have one precedent which is the late '40s/early '50s. Republicans had a 50+ seat pickup in the House in 1946, retaking that body, then lost 70+ seats just two years later. They made steady gains in 1950, then retook control in 1952 before losing it again in 1954.

Regarding the Senate in 2012: I wouldn't be so quick to say Democrats face certain losses here. It actually wouldn't shock me if Democrats hold all but one or two of their vulnerable seats and make up for that by 2 or 3 pickups.

The reason is that, except for Nebraska, ALL the vulnerable Democratic seats are in states that Obama won in 2008 or just barely lost (MT, MO). Keep in mind that every president except Wilson that won a second term won it with more electoral votes than their first term. That means that IF Obama wins reelection, the historical record suggests that he will carry states like OH, PA, VA, FL, and quite possibly MO and MT. If he carries those states, the incumbents should be fine.

Also, Democratic recruitment in 2006 and 2000 was pretty strong; there aren't any especially weak senators from that batch - the nonentity types you often see in wave elections (like Rod Grams) who get swept in unexpectedly.

ALL of this, however, depends on Obama winning reelection with at least as much as he won his first term by. If he loses reelection, or if he has a historically atypical narrow reelection then many of those incumbents will lose their seats.

So basically, long story short, it all depends on Obama. If he wins a solid reelection then Dems will probably hold the Senate, increase their numbers by 1-2, and maybe even retake the House if they lose it in 2010. If he only barely wins reelection or loses, then Republican gains will climb.