If Dems lose Senate in 2014, will GOP win Presidency in 2016?

[milhouse24]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-special-elections-really-arent-special-predictors-for-midterm-elections/2014/03/12/969b6c54-aa23-11e3-9e82-8064fcd31b5b_story.html

So, at least according to Dana Milbank, the Democrats were likely to lose big in the 2014 midterm elections anyways, regardless of the outcome in the Florida special election.  Despite the better known democratic candidate Sink, who also spent millions more, in the losing effort.  Should the Democrats in congress just roll-over in 2014 and not waste the money in a losing effort?  Would Nate Silver say that in almost every mid-term election, the opposing presidential party always wins? 

In 2006, the Democrats swept into power in Congress (for an impressive 4 year window), and the momentum helped elect Obama in 2008. 

Now would Republican wins in 2014, give momentum to the Republican presidential candidate for a victory in 2016?

Of course, it will depend on the "personality" of the Republican candidate, and the "personality" of the Democrat candidate to determine the outcome presidential election.  But the political climate might favor the Republicans, at least on the political issues, such as repealing Obamacare. 

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[Bureaucat]

Yep.  That Tea Party landslide in 2010 was a harbinger of the huge Romney victory in 2012.

[milhouse24]

Yep.  That Tea Party landslide in 2010 was a harbinger of the huge Romney victory in 2012.

Well, Obama was the first president to actually "LOSE MORE VOTERS" in his re-election win. 

[Liberalrocks]

No, three names that hold the presidency for the democrats:

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[hurricanehink]

Yep.  That Tea Party landslide in 2010 was a harbinger of the huge Romney victory in 2012.

Well, Obama was the first president to actually "LOSE MORE VOTERS" in his re-election win. 

I forgot FDR wasn't reelected in 1940. Anyway, no, this year has little bearing on 2016 IMO. 2 years is an eternity in politics. 1994 GOP revolution didn't allow a win in 1996, after all.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

If Obama's current trajectory holds, the election will be the GOP's to lose, even against Hillary.

However, they are very capable of doing that with several of their top candidates.

[Suburbia]

Yes, only if the Republicans nominate a credible presidential nominee.

[milhouse24]

Yep.  That Tea Party landslide in 2010 was a harbinger of the huge Romney victory in 2012.

Well, Obama was the first president to actually "LOSE MORE VOTERS" in his re-election win. 

I forgot FDR wasn't reelected in 1940. Anyway, no, this year has little bearing on 2016 IMO. 2 years is an eternity in politics. 1994 GOP revolution didn't allow a win in 1996, after all.

You do realize that there is a difference with open elections, 2nd term re-elections, and 3rd term re-elections, and 4 term re-elections.  

Sure HRC has some momentum (from the media for a historic story).  But at the same time, are their political issues that voters care about?  Would Obamacare drag down HRC, instead of helping her?  Should Gore have won if Clinton was never impeached or never had an affair?  There are many issues or scandals that could hurt the incumbent Democrats or help them.

[IceSpear]

No. 2010 (and probably 2014) were big GOP wins because the Democratic coalition does not turn out in midterms/off years. In addition, Hillary is a stronger candidate than any of the GOP presidential candidates could ever hope to be. The two are not correlated at all, anymore than 2010 signaled a Romney landslide, or 1994 signaled a Dole landslide.

[Skill and Chance]

No.  In fact, the president's party doing well in a midterm if anything makes the following presidential election tougher.  1998 and 2002 were great midterms for the incumbent party.  And the presidential elections following them both came down to one state.

Here are the cases when the president's party lost a chamber in a midterm since WWII: Truman loses both chambers in '46, wins in '48, Ike loses both chambers in '54, still wins big in '56.  Reagan arguably loses conservative control of the House in '82, wins huge in '84, Reagan loses the Senate in '86, Bush still wins in '88, Bush loses both chambers in '06, McCain loses big in '08, Obama loses the House in '10, still wins in '12.  

So 4 of the 5 times (ignoring '82) the president's party lost control of a congressional chamber in a midterm, the incumbent party won the next presidential election.  If there is any meaningful relationship, it appears to help the incumbent party win the next presidential race.  This makes some sense if the presidency is the only thing keeping the opposition from full control.  Suppose the GOP takes the senate and then Obama gets to veto ridiculous legislation nonstop for 2 years.  That likely helps the 2016 Democrat.

[TDAS04]

It would make a Democratic presidential victory in 2016 more likely.

[pbrower2a]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-special-elections-really-arent-special-predictors-for-midterm-elections/2014/03/12/969b6c54-aa23-11e3-9e82-8064fcd31b5b_story.html

So, at least according to Dana Milbank, the Democrats were likely to lose big in the 2014 midterm elections anyways, regardless of the outcome in the Florida special election.  Despite the better known democratic candidate Sink, who also spent millions more, in the losing effort.  Should the Democrats in congress just roll-over in 2014 and not waste the money in a losing effort?  Would Nate Silver say that in almost every mid-term election, the opposing presidential party always wins? 

In 2006, the Democrats swept into power in Congress (for an impressive 4 year window), and the momentum helped elect Obama in 2008. 

Now would Republican wins in 2014, give momentum to the Republican presidential candidate for a victory in 2016?

Of course, it will depend on the "personality" of the Republican candidate, and the "personality" of the Democrat candidate to determine the outcome presidential election.  But the political climate might favor the Republicans, at least on the political issues, such as repealing Obamacare. 

No, because the Republicans will turn up the extremism and offend even more voters. People would see the GOP agenda for what it is (make American labor cheap, ravage the environment, promote monopoly pricing, privatize anything in sight, and of course return to profits-first medicine at its crudest). We would likely see a revived expansionism in the foreign policy advocated by the GOP.

Republicans would lose their Senate majority in 2016 as one after another Republican falls in liberal-to-moderate states... and probably the House as well.   

[NewYorkExpress]

Democrats should rollover this year (Congress only) (the climate has potential of being worse than 2010) ... and then play agressive Presidential and Senate Offense in 2016, while playing hyper-aggresive House Offense.

We have a much better shot if husband our resources for years when our voters actually turnout.

[Bojack Horseman]

No, and in fact Dems actually have a really big chance of gaining seats/winning back the Senate in 2016. There are 23 GOP seats up for election in 2016, and 10 D-held seats. In other words, all the Tea Party lunatics elected in 2010 are up for re-election.

The main plan for Democrats to take back the Senate if they lose it in 2014 is along the same lines as the Republican plan for 2014: Defeat blue-state Republicans like Mark Kirk, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, and Kelly Ayotte.

[pbrower2a]

No, and in fact Dems actually have a really big chance of gaining seats/winning back the Senate in 2016. There are 23 GOP seats up for election in 2016, and 10 D-held seats. In other words, all the Tea Party lunatics elected in 2010 are up for re-election.

The main plan for Democrats to take back the Senate if they lose it in 2014 is along the same lines as the Republican plan for 2014: Defeat blue-state Republicans like Mark Kirk, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, and Kelly Ayotte.

Also figure that Senate seats in Iowa (should Grassley reach the sell-by date) and Arizona (McCain is losing it fast) become open.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, because the senate races were in the Deep South where Dems are far less electable. With a better senate map, with bright prospects in IL and WI for pickups, we stand an even chance, holding the 272 firewall in winning in 2016.

[BaconBacon96]

No.

[milhouse24]

No. 2010 (and probably 2014) were big GOP wins because the Democratic coalition does not turn out in midterms/off years.

In addition, Hillary is a stronger candidate than any of the GOP presidential candidates could ever hope to be.

The two are not correlated at all, anymore than 2010 signaled a Romney landslide, or 1994 signaled a Dole landslide.

Umm, didn't 2006 signal the Obama landslide in 2008   It certainly gave the Democrats a lot of momentum heading into 2008. 

Hillary certainly has a lot of popularity, and it could be enough to beat any unpopularity with political issues like Obamacare. 

But a generic no-name Democrat like O'Malley, could have a far more difficult time if issues like Obamacare remain unpopular; and Obama's popularity remains below 40%. 

I don't know why "young people and minorities" don't turn out in mid-terms, maybe they just don't care about voting or politics unless there is a cool, handsome bi-racial handsome man running for president.  They didn't really come out for Gore or Kerry, who is to say they will come out for Hillary

[Likely Voter]

If you believe in the "Keys to the White House" model, then "Party Mandate" is one of the 13 keys, but that one is if the incumbent party gains seats in the House in the midterms. The Senate is different because only 1/3 are up, and this year is a particularly bad one for the dems with so many red state seats to defend. In 2016 the shoe will be on the other foot with blue state GOPers defending.

So in short, no the 2016 Senate race isn't all that indicative.

[MurrayBannerman]

Barring an economic recovery, yes. But that's attributable to the lack of a recovery.

[Mister Mets]

It doesn't guarantee a GOP win, but it does help in a few ways.

First, it's better for the Democrats if the party's reputation is stronger.

Obama is also more restricted with a Republican Senate which limits his ability to get the accomplishments that would raise his approval rating.

It could also force Obama to veto a lot of legislation. If Republicans are smart, they'll force him to veto legislation with broad support. Of course, Republicans can also overreach, which would result in Obama gleefully vetoing unpopular legislation that passed through party line votes. And base disappointment with a Republican led to Congress could also lead to the party nominating someone far-right.

If Republicans win Senate elections in every state Romney won, this would result in the party getting a majority in the Senate. But these states wouldn't be enough to swing a presidential election. Even wins in swing states (which Romney tended to lose) wouldn't demonstrate that the same electorate will show up in a presidential election.

[senyor_brownbear]

It could also force Obama to veto a lot of legislation.

Which 9 Democrats are going to pass legislation Obama would be forced to veto?

Remember this Senate (probably) no longer has Baucus, Begich, Landrieu, Hagan, Pryor, etc.

Presumably, the 9 most conservative Dems still around would be:

Manchin, Donnelly, McCaskill, Heitkamp, Tester, Warner, King, Casey, and Heinrich.


I think a President Obama in his last two years, desperate to do anything really, is going to go ahead and pass any law Martin Heinrich approves.

If Majority Leader McConnell nuked the filibuster on legislation, I would blow the guy in celebration.

[Skill and Chance]

It doesn't guarantee a GOP win, but it does help in a few ways.

First, it's better for the Democrats if the party's reputation is stronger.

Obama is also more restricted with a Republican Senate which limits his ability to get the accomplishments that would raise his approval rating.

It could also force Obama to veto a lot of legislation. If Republicans are smart, they'll force him to veto legislation with broad support. Of course, Republicans can also overreach, which would result in Obama gleefully vetoing unpopular legislation that passed through party line votes. And base disappointment with a Republican led to Congress could also lead to the party nominating someone far-right.

If Republicans win Senate elections in every state Romney won, this would result in the party getting a majority in the Senate. But these states wouldn't be enough to swing a presidential election. Even wins in swing states (which Romney tended to lose) wouldn't demonstrate that the same electorate will show up in a presidential election.

You love to cite the post-WWII history of parties running for 3rd consecutive terms being handicapped.  However, the post-WWII history on congressional and presidential elections suggests just as strongly that an opposition takeover of congress in a midterm helps the incumbent president's party win the next presidential election. 

The examples are: 1946-48, 1954-56, 1986-88, 1994-96, 2006-08 and 2010-12.  We could also suggest that 1982 constitutes an opposition takeover of the House based on conservative Democrats voting with Republicans to pass Reagan's agenda in 1980-82 (although this calls into question whether a liberal Democratic majority operated in 1955-56).  So in 5/6 or 6/7 recent cases, the next presidential election was a robust incumbent party win.

[Skill and Chance]

Correction: it's actually 5 out of 7.  Republicans flipped congress in 1950 and then elected Ike in 1952.