Could a President Hillary have a Republican Congress for her entire Presidency?

[progressive85]

It hasn't happened since George H.W. Bush was President, but that was also the last time a party won three elections in a row.  Hillary Rodham Clinton will run and has a very good chance of winning, but it may be impossible for Democrats to get control of either house during her Presidency, which means that she would, unlike Bill, George W., and Barack Obama, be constantly dealing with a Republican Congress.  What is the possibility of this happening and what do you think would happen?

[Free Bird]

In this case, just a repeat of the 90's. Can't complain if this is the case

[Blue3]

I can't see the Senate being GOP-majority in 2017 unless something huge and unpredictable happens.

The House is more up in the air. If Hillary's the nominee and wins by a healthy margin, she could help tip the scales in the Democrats favor.


To answer your question... hypothetically, yes, it's possible. But I think it's unlikely. And if the GOP does control Congress in the beginning of her terms somehow, I can see her using that to motivate people who are sick of Republicans in Congress in 2020. That would be 10 years of GOP control, if the House doesn't flip back in 2016.

[TDAS04]

Not likely. 

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I really only see Dems potentially controlling the House for two years after the 2016 elections. If Dems keep the Senate majority this year, I see them holding on to it for a while, possibly her entire presidency.

[Free Bird]

I really only see Dems potentially controlling the House for two years after the 2016 elections. If Dems keep the Senate majority this year, I see them holding on to it for a while, possibly her entire presidency.

[ShadowRocket]

I think the House would likely remain GOP-controlled for the duration of her tenure. While her coattails could grab some pick-ups, I don't see her winning by a large enough margin to flip the chamber.

The Senate would be more likely to be held/won by the Democrats due to a favorable 2016 map and Hillary's coattails once again pulling some candidates across the finish line.

[Dixie Reborn]

I really only see Dems potentially controlling the House for two years after the 2016 elections. If Dems keep the Senate majority this year, I see them holding on to it for a while, possibly her entire presidency.

I can't see how this reasoning is anything other than wishful thinking.

[pikachu]

It's possible, but I don't see how the Senate isn't Dem after 2016 unless there's a massive GOP wave this year (+8 or 9). The only vulnerable Democratic seats in 2016 are Nevada and Colorado and if Hillary wins, I think they're both safe (unless Sandoval runs in Nevada).

[Bull Moose Base]

I really only see Dems potentially controlling the House for two years after the 2016 elections. If Dems keep the Senate majority this year, I see them holding on to it for a while, possibly her entire presidency.

I can't see how this reasoning is anything other than wishful thinking.

That her congress is the same as Obama's?

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

I really only see Dems potentially controlling the House for two years after the 2016 elections. If Dems keep the Senate majority this year, I see them holding on to it for a while, possibly her entire presidency.

I can't see how this reasoning is anything other than wishful thinking.

It's very plausible:

Senate: Dems have 50 or 51 post 2014. Dems make enough gains (WI, PA, IL, NC, etc.) in 2016 to pad 2018 losses (IN, MO, ND, FL, etc). 2020 shows no large change for either party. And finally in 2022 we're back at a tossup majority like this year and you flip a coin, therefore having the potential of holding it her entire presidency (provided in this thread's scenario it's two terms).

House: Republican hold in 2014. Dems barely scrape together a couple seat majority in 2016 before immediately losing it in 2018. Don't have another chance at House until presidential year post redistricting (2024).

[Never]

This scenario is definitely possible, but it depends on so many factors. For the most part, I'm going to put more focus on the Senate to answer this question, because that body seems more likely to switch control from one party to the other in the near future compared to the House (which could still flip by all means).

The Republicans could very well end up with at least 51 Senate seats this midterm, and Hillary Clinton's victory might end up being very close in 2016, but if Republicans just achieve a bare majority as a result of gaining six seats this year, there are plenty of Republican targets in 2016 will be up for reelection for the very first time. If Republicans lose just one of those seats (likely Sen. Kirk's in Illinois) without picking up any Democratic-held seats, it would give Democrats control of the Senate in a 50-50 tie, since the party would have the tie-breaking vice president's vote. Even if Republicans have 52 Senate seats going into 2016, there would still be the risk of losing the majority (Johnson could be the second Republican to fall that year). While Republicans could manage to pick up Nevada's seat if Sandoval decides to challenge Reid, that might not help the party keep control. On the other hand, a Republican Senate majority of 53 seats seems more able to withstand a Clinton presidency. Of course, if Republicans fail to take the Senate this year, it is nearly impossible for them to do so in 2016 during a Clinton victory. Regarding the House, a convincing win by Clinton could deliever it to her party, but this far out, I still suspect that Democrats winning the House in 2016 is not likely.

Now, if the Democrats do not win control of the Senate in 2016 along with a Clinton presidency, it is highly likely that Republicans will control both houses of Congress for the duration of the presidential term. For one, the president's party tends to do poorly in midterms, so the Democrats gaining control of the Senate would be difficult from the onset. The Democrats are quite overextended in the Class 1 Senate map for 2018, and there are five Democratic senators up for reelection in Romney 2012 states (WV, IN, MO, ND, MT). All of them could conceivably face tough fights to keep their seats (this might apply less to Manchin and Heitkamp than the other three), and it is not out of the question that Republicans could put races in states like Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and perhaps even Wisconsin into play. The only Republican seat that is at real risk of flipping to the Democrats is Dean Heller's in Nevada.  With this is mind, a narrow Republican majority in the Senate after 2016 could turn into a sizable one after it is all said and done in 2018. It would probably require a "rally around the flag" effect like a terrorist attack on U.S. soil or a very popular war abroad for Democrats to limit their losses in the midterm to a below-average number, and even if an event like this happened, there is still the chance that one or two Democratic-held Senate seats could fall into Republican hands.

In 2020, Senate control will depend on a few things. First, how many Senate seats will Republicans have to defend in unfriendly territory? If Ernst or Gardner win in Iowa and Colorado this midterm, they will probably have very difficult reelection races from the start. If Clinton proves to be a popular president, potential Republican senators in the South like Tillis and Perdue could have a tough fight, not to mention Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, who often has a difficult time in elections. On the other hand, a very good Republican midterm in 2018 could end up being a buffer in the Senate against a good Democratic year. Regarding House control, 2020 could be the year that Democrats win it if they haven't already, especially if Clinton is popular heading into her reelection campaign. The potential for this to happen could be muted by a lack of coattails affecting congressional races and Democrats being more prevalent in a smaller number of densely populated districts while Republicans hold the upper hand in less populated districts of greater quantity. Though the premise of Clinton being reelected to the presidency is certainly plausible, it is not a sure bet. It is also important to keep in mind that as of late, political parties have had trouble keeping the White House for three terms in a row, let alone four. 2020 is where the scenario of a Clinton presidency could end with the election of a Republican to the presidency.

Still, even if Clinton did win a second term in office, it could be all downhill from there relating to her party's strength in Congress. A president's second midterm usually hurts their party, and taking control of either house of Congress would be a herculean task if the Democrats haven't done so already. If they did hold the House and/or Senate after 2020, they could easily flip Republican depending on the circumstances surrounding the midterm. Republican's lost control of the Senate in the 2006 midterm after Bush 43's reelection, in 1986 after Reagan's landslide, and in 1958 after Eisenhower's reelection. It is definitely possible that Democrat's will lose control this year during Obama's second midterm. Similarly, I would expect Democrats to lose ground in 2022 if Clinton is halfway through her second term.

In short, there is a chance Hillary Clinton could experience four to eight years of Republican control of Congress, but the set of circumstances that would cause that are quite specific in my view. I could actually see Democrats winning control of the Senate in 2016, losing it in 2018, regaining the majority in 2020 provided Clinton is relected, and then losing it again in 2022, but it also isn't troublesome to envision the Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2016 and then losing it for the duration of Clinton's presidency after the first term, similar to her husband's loss of Congress in 1994. For Republicans to keep control of the House and Senate for her entire term in office, it would require a pretty good performance by the party this year and in 2018.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I really only see Dems potentially controlling the House for two years after the 2016 elections. If Dems keep the Senate majority this year, I see them holding on to it for a while, possibly her entire presidency.

I can't see how this reasoning is anything other than wishful thinking.

It's very plausible:

Senate: Dems have 50 or 51 post 2014. Dems make enough gains (WI, PA, IL, NC, etc.) in 2016 to pad 2018 losses (IN, MO, ND, FL, etc). 2020 shows no large change for either party. And finally in 2022 we're back at a tossup majority like this year and you flip a coin, therefore having the potential of holding it her entire presidency (provided in this thread's scenario it's two terms).

House: Republican hold in 2014. Dems barely scrape together a couple seat majority in 2016 before immediately losing it in 2018. Don't have another chance at House until presidential year post redistricting (2024).

We need a 20/20 vision for Congress, which is to win big in the state races in 2020, and take the redistricting back.

[Mister Mets]

It's possible.

If Republicans run the table with the six closest races, they'll start 2015 with 54 Senate seats.

In 2016, their best pick-up opportunity is Nevada. If that goes well, Democrats would need to flip five seats to offset that.

2018 would be a midterm, which tends to be bad for the party in the White House, and also brings out an electorate more amenable to the GOP. It's likely that Republicans would pick up a few seats here.

2020 would need Hillary's coattails to be significant enough to do more than to offset the wins in 2018.

2022 is again an election in which Republicans would be favored in the Senate.

As a minor note, it's possible that Angus King will decide to join whatever party has the majority, but he'd likely join the Democrats if he determined the majority, so he doesn't count for these purposes.

[IceSpear]

Nah, since if she wins in 2016, it's very likely Dems will take (or retain) the Senate as well.

[pbrower2a]

There will be plenty of R Senate seats in moderate-to-liberal states up for grabs in 2016. That could include Arizona and Iowa should Senators McCain and Grassley call it quits.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

As a minor note, it's possible that Angus King will decide to join whatever party has the majority, but he'd likely join the Democrats if he determined the majority, so he doesn't count for these purposes.

Regarding Angus King specifically, I can't imagine a pro-choice/pro-ACA/pro environment politician joining the Republican caucus, but that's the benefit of the "I" next to his name I guess.

[SWE]

Republicans are probably guaranteed the House until 2020, given hiw tightly gerrymandered most districts are now. Democrats will almost certainly have a senate majority after the 2016 election, though

[Mister Mets]

It seems that the main thing it comes down to is how many seats Republicans win in this cycle.

A few races are clustered together so the political environment that make Republicans the favorites in Colorado would probably do the same in North Carolina and Iowa.

If Clinton is a two term President, 2018 and 2022 would be years that favor the Republicans. 2016 would be a chance to undo some wins in 2010, although it doesn't seem that any of the incumbents has become a Rick Santorum. 2020 might help undo pick-ups in 2014, but those are likely to be in states that Clinton's probably not going to win (IE- Alaska, Arkansas, West Virginia, North Dakota, Montana, Louisiana) unless Republicans have a really awesome '14, which would require more incumbents to be defeated.