Should the Democrats just throw the 2016 Presidential election?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't think having some centrist 3rd way President is worth having us getting destroyed in the House, Senate, Governorships, and local races. I think the Democrats might be best losing, but not too badly. They can probably net a couple of Senate seats, keep the House about the same. Then spend the next 2 years attacking the Republicans non-stop for everything they do. If all goes right, 2018 and 2020 can be good years for the Democrats, and they can ungerrymander the states.

I know this sounds crazy, but this last election calls for drastic action.

[IceSpear]

No, that's retarded. If Democrats lose the presidency in 2016, the Republicans will abolish the filibuster and ram the entire Tea Party wishlist down the country's throat. In addition, we need to have a Democratic president to replace Ginsburg and Breyer at the least (and hopefully one of the conservatives too, but that may be hoping for too much) otherwise we're really up sh**t's creek. Imagine Ted Cruz with a Republican Congress appointing Ginsburg's successor.

[Landslide Lyndon]

As someone said here a few years ago, you don't win by losing.

[Nichlemn]

LOL, we're having this thread again. No, it's a terrible idea. It probably wouldn't even work so far as winning more seats in Congress goes - you might win more in the midterms, but you'd be more likely than not to suffer in the Presidential year. Also, the midterm bonus is in part a reversion to the mean, it may cease to exist if you tried to game it by throwing elections.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, we're having this thread again. No, it's a terrible idea. It probably wouldn't even work so far as winning more seats in Congress goes - you might win more in the midterms, but you'd be more likely than not to suffer in the Presidential year. Also, the midterm bonus is in part a reversion to the mean, it may cease to exist if you tried to game it by throwing elections.

There's more than just Congress. The 2018 and 2020 state elections are important for redistricting.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The idea that 2018 can be a good year is ludricious. Democrats will lose senate seats on that year's map (their only real pickup opportunity is NV, they probably won't have enough money to contest AZ with all the seats they have to defend.) - the question is simply how many. The states in green on the map below are democratic seats up in 2018 that are something less than Safe D at this very early stage:

[IceSpear]

The idea that 2018 can be a good year is ludricious. Democrats will lose senate seats on that year's map (their only real pickup opportunity is NV, they probably won't have enough money to contest AZ with all the seats they have to defend.) - the question is simply how many. The states in green on the map below are democratic seats up in 2018 that are something less than Safe D at this very early stage:

Minnesota? Klobuchar is completely safe. Even Dayton and Franken just won easily in a GOP tsunami, and they're nowhere near as popular as Klobuchar is.

NM/CT/WA are also stretches, but yeah, that still leaves ten vulnerable Dem seats compared to two vulnerable Republican seats. I think the OP was referring more to the House/governorships, but I don't see how regaining one half of Congress and some governorships is worth tons of far right legislation and Scalia-clone SCOTUS picks.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The idea that 2018 can be a good year is ludricious. Democrats will lose senate seats on that year's map (their only real pickup opportunity is NV, they probably won't have enough money to contest AZ with all the seats they have to defend.) - the question is simply how many. The states in green on the map below are democratic seats up in 2018 that are something less than Safe D at this very early stage:

Minnesota? Klobuchar is completely safe. Even Dayton and Franken just won easily in a GOP tsunami, and they're nowhere near as popular as Klobuchar is.

NM/CT/WA are also stretches, but yeah, that still leaves ten vulnerable Dem seats compared to two vulnerable Republican seats. I think the OP was referring more to the House/governorships, but I don't see how regaining one half of Congress and some governorships is worth tons of far right legislation and Scalia-clone SCOTUS picks.

MN was based on a hypothetical Klobuchar retirement. Unlikely, but not impossible.

[NewYorkExpress]

We're going to lose in 2016, that's true... But it's better to go down fighting than to just surrender.

[Suburbia]

We're going to lose in 2016, that's true... But it's better to go down fighting than to just surrender.

Anything could happen in 2016.

[pbrower2a]

If the democrats give up in 2016, then there will be no meaningful opposition to the Republican Party for a very long time.

The Soviet Union existed for 74 years, in case you were thinking of that.

[DrScholl]

Only if you want nuclear war with Iran. If you allow Republicans to win in 2016, we'll end up with another 9/11 and more wars.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's too early to know what will happen in 2016, let alone 2018.

[KCDem]

Except Democrats will never fight Republicans as hard as Republicans fight Democrats. Democrats are neither aggressive nor politically astute.

[MurrayBannerman]

Yes, please. Do that. Yes.