Could a Republican Senate be good for Mrs. Clinton?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:29:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Could a Republican Senate be good for Mrs. Clinton?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Could a Republican Senate be good for Mrs. Clinton?  (Read 1121 times)
progressive85
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,312
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 26, 2014, 04:58:09 PM »

In 2015, the Republicans will have control of the House and Senate (yeah, it's very very possible) but that might not exactly be so bad for Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will likely base at least some part of her campaign on running against an unhinged, right-wing Tea Party Congress.

She could take a cue from Harry Truman's 1948 campaign and run against Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader McConnell and launch a very populist campaign against Washington, while at the same time trying to succeed President Obama.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 26, 2014, 05:30:12 PM »

If the Republicans seem crazy enough they set her for a sure win.
Logged
Chunk Yogurt for President!
CELTICEMPIRE
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,235
Georgia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 26, 2014, 05:34:58 PM »

Hillary running a campaign against Washington doesn't seem to fit her.
Logged
henster
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,975


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 26, 2014, 06:03:27 PM »

She will dumb not to campaign against the Senate if they retake it Obama has done it with House.
Logged
Bull Moose Base
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,488


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2014, 06:23:26 PM »

She's been running against congress for over a year and will continue to do so for the rest of this year and the two years after that whether or not Republicans take back the senate.
Logged
Potatoe
Guntaker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,397
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 26, 2014, 06:49:46 PM »

If the Repub Senate is as big government as her of course.
I don't get it, are you calling her fat or something?
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 26, 2014, 07:59:12 PM »

There was another discussion about this. I do think Hillary Clinton would be happier if Democrats beat expectations and held onto the Senate, just because of what it means for the party's strength in campaigning. It wouldn't be bad for her if Harry Reid stays on as Senate majority leader, and the party picks up one of the potentially competitive Southern Seats and holds on to Alaska and North Carolina.

It may end up being a wash.

If congressional Republicans do well, that may make President Obama more popular. This is good for Clinton.

If things go badly, President Obama can blame congressional Republicans. This is good for Clinton.

The worse scenario for Clinton is congressional Republicans passing moderately popular legislation that Obama vetoes, but that requires fairly good organization for a party that hasn't done well in that category.

If the Repub Senate is as big government as her of course.
I don't get it, are you calling her fat or something?
He seems to be talking about the size of government rather than Hillary Clinton's size.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2014, 04:14:27 AM »

If the Repub Senate is as big government as her of course.

George W. Bush was a big-government right-winger. Although Republicans have been wise enough not to show the catastrophic failure of a President as a model they have yet to renounce his political philosophy.   
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2014, 09:11:15 AM »

If the Repub Senate is as big government as her of course.

George W. Bush was a big-government right-winger. Although Republicans have been wise enough not to show the catastrophic failure of a President as a model they have yet to renounce his political philosophy.   

all Republican presidents have been "big-government" statists since at least Coolidge.
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2014, 06:29:40 PM »

If the Repub Senate is as big government as her of course.

George W. Bush was a big-government right-winger. Although Republicans have been wise enough not to show the catastrophic failure of a President as a model they have yet to renounce his political philosophy.   

Several have. Namely Cruz, Lee The Paul's and have done so quite emphatically.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 28, 2014, 12:38:36 AM »

If the Repub Senate is as big government as her of course.

George W. Bush was a big-government right-winger. Although Republicans have been wise enough not to show the catastrophic failure of a President as a model they have yet to renounce his political philosophy.   

Several have. Namely Cruz, Lee The Paul's and have done so quite emphatically.

Any Republican truly against big government will have the military industrial complex take them down.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2014, 02:02:26 AM »

Arguably, a Republican House could be good, but I think Hillary would be best off having Democrats in control of the Senate so she could at least get people appointed. Having to deal with a GOP majority would be a nightmare. She might literally be unable to fill her cabinet.
Logged
Mister Mets
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,434
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2014, 09:47:43 AM »

Arguably, a Republican House could be good, but I think Hillary would be best off having Democrats in control of the Senate so she could at least get people appointed. Having to deal with a GOP majority would be a nightmare. She might literally be unable to fill her cabinet.
The question is about whether a GOP controlled Senate in 2015 and 2016 would be good for Clinton's campaign.

There is an argument that Democrats are favored to make gains in the Senate in the 2016 elections as the group that came in with the tea party wave faces a friendlier (to the Democrats) electorate, as Republicans are expected to defend 24 seats compared to ten for Democrats.

Pick-up opportunities for Democrats include Arizona (if McCain retires or loses a primary), Florida, Illinois, Iowa (Grassley's popular but in his eighties), New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Republicans might hope for competitive elections in Colorado and Nevada.
Logged
Orser67
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2014, 04:27:19 PM »

I think it would very likely be good for her 2016 campaign, in addition to her hypothetical re-election campaign. For whatever reason, a lot of voters still prefer a divided government. I think especially given the unpopularity of the Republican brand, a lot of voters would be reluctant to give total control to Republicans.

It would be bad for her presidency, though, since if nothing else it would constrain her choice in nominees. Also, obviously she'd probably prefer to negotiate with only one Republican house of Congress, instead of two, in order to pass legislation (although she'd still have to worry about the filibuster). With that said, I can't imagine a Republican Senate being to the right of the House. I guess I'll also note that it's possible, though unlikely, that we could see a Democratic house but a Republican senate during her presidency if Democrats do relatively poorly in the 2014 and 2016 senate elections.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2014, 04:29:31 PM »

There's not going to be a Republican Senate in a big Hillary win, even if they were to pick it up in 2014.  2016 is the re-election point of the 2010 Tea Party midterm and there's going to be a ton of wave pickups on Hillary's back.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 28, 2014, 04:48:31 PM »

There's not going to be a Republican Senate in a big Hillary win, even if they were to pick it up in 2014.  2016 is the re-election point of the 2010 Tea Party midterm and there's going to be a ton of wave pickups on Hillary's back.

I feel like Hillary is going to be a bit like Nixon in that sense: Democrats may not benefit so much from her victory. Of course, that's just a feeling, so ignore me.
Logged
Potatoe
Guntaker
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,397
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2014, 08:30:11 AM »

Arguably, a Republican House could be good, but I think Hillary would be best off having Democrats in control of the Senate so she could at least get people appointed. Having to deal with a GOP majority would be a nightmare. She might literally be unable to fill her cabinet.
The question is about whether a GOP controlled Senate in 2015 and 2016 would be good for Clinton's campaign.

There is an argument that Democrats are favored to make gains in the Senate in the 2016 elections as the group that came in with the tea party wave faces a friendlier (to the Democrats) electorate, as Republicans are expected to defend 24 seats compared to ten for Democrats.

Pick-up opportunities for Democrats include Arizona (if McCain retires or loses a primary), Florida, Illinois, Iowa (Grassley's popular but in his eighties), New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Republicans might hope for competitive elections in Colorado and Nevada.

The Republicans will probably lose a few Senate seats in 2016, but some of those blue-state Republican senators are probably strong enough to win despite a Hillary victory. Personally, I think that Kelly Ayotte in NH would be hard to beat if she runs again, and if the presidential election became pretty close and Hillary barely won FL, Marco Rubio would probably end up winning by a decent margin. Portman also seems like a great fit for OH, so I don't believe he would be that easy to unseat. All three of these candidates seem uniquely suited to their states the way that Dean Heller was a great match for NV in 2012 even though Obama won there. Further, if Republicans somehow manage to win significantly more than six seats in 2014, and end up with 55-56 Senate seats, I could see the election shaping up to be like 2000, when the Republicans still lost several seats but managed to hold control.

I'll put myself on the record as saying if Hillary wins by less than 5 points, I think she will have a hard time delivering the Senate to the Democrats, but if the current polls actually accurately show the reach of Clinton, and she wins by 10 points, she will have a Democratic Senate.
Both Rubio and Ayotte are largely hurt by the fact that they are quite unpopular, and Rubio's getting crazier by the day.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2014, 03:09:54 PM »

She'll do the same thing her husband did: portray Congressional Republicans as extremists and run as the only adult in the room. It worked in '96, and I think if the GOP does win the Senate, it will cost them the 2016 election, as America as a whole will get a two year taste of what it would be like if the Tea Party had full control of the government.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.