Predict the Next Democratic Wave

[ClimateDem]

What election year will be the next democratic wave year?

[ElectionsGuy]

2022

[NewYorkExpress]

At least 2020, and probably later than that.

[Kevin]

2018 if the GOP wins in 16.

[Frodo]

2020 is the magic year. 

[Xing]

If a Republican wins in 2016, then 2018 (though Democrats won't make big gains in the senate). If a Democrat wins, then 2020 or 2022.

[SPC]

Sometime between 2022 and 2026.

[IceSpear]

How are we defining wave? Do Dems have to take the House?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I am predicting a wave in new governorships in 2018. I think Dems will finally break through with Lisa Madigan running and I predict Tim Ryan to be nxt Ohio gov.But Dems in 2016 will make modest gains in House and Senate.

[TDAS04]

2026

[Vega]

2026

Depending on who's elected President, but if it's Hillary.

[SWE]

2022

[The Other Castro]

2022 or 2026
Rough guess:
2016- Lean Dem year, Dems win Presidency, win some Senate seats
2018- Neutral/tilt Republican year, Dems lose some Senate seats, win some Governorships
2020- Neutral year, GOP wins Presidency, either way on Senate
2022- Dem wave, unpopular GOP administration at the time

OR

2016- Lean Dem year, Dems win Presidency, win some Senate seats
2018- Neutral/tilt Republican year, Dems lose some Senate seats, win some Governorships
2020- Neutral year, Dems wins Presidency, either way on Senate
2022- Lean GOP year
2024- GOP wins Presidency
2026- Dem wave, unpopular GOP administration at the time

[MATTROSE94]

If a Republican wins in 2016, then 2018 (though Democrats won't make big gains in the senate). If a Democrat wins, then 2020 or 2022.

The Republicans might still have a net gain of Senate seats in 2018 even if they control the Presidency. The only Republican Senator who is vulnerable that year is Dean Heller, while on the Democratic side Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly  and Heidi Heitkamp are definately underdogs in their respective races and the right Republican candidates could take them down easily. In addition, Joe Manchin's senate seat would easily go Republican in 2018 if he retires that year. Assuming that the Republicans lose Nevada, but pick up Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, they would end up with a net gain of 4 seats in the 2018 Senate elections.

[NewYorkExpress]

If a Republican wins in 2016, then 2018 (though Democrats won't make big gains in the senate). If a Democrat wins, then 2020 or 2022.

The Republicans might still have a net gain of Senate seats in 2018 even if they control the Presidency. The only Republican Senator who is vulnerable that year is Dean Heller, while on the Democratic side Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly  and Heidi Heitkamp are definately underdogs in their respective races and the right Republican candidates could take them down easily. In addition, Joe Manchin's senate seat would easily go Republican in 2018 if he retires that year. Assuming that the Republicans lose Nevada, but pick up Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, they would end up with a net gain of 4 seats in the 2018 Senate elections.

Honestly, the only reason Byrd and Rockefeller lasted as long past 2000 as they did was seniority. Manchin isn't going to win re-election (or anything else). Also, I happen to think we're favored with Tester running (and Heller is probably safe).

[IceSpear]

If a Republican wins in 2016, then 2018 (though Democrats won't make big gains in the senate). If a Democrat wins, then 2020 or 2022.

The Republicans might still have a net gain of Senate seats in 2018 even if they control the Presidency. The only Republican Senator who is vulnerable that year is Dean Heller, while on the Democratic side Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly  and Heidi Heitkamp are definately underdogs in their respective races and the right Republican candidates could take them down easily. In addition, Joe Manchin's senate seat would easily go Republican in 2018 if he retires that year. Assuming that the Republicans lose Nevada, but pick up Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, they would end up with a net gain of 4 seats in the 2018 Senate elections.

Flake would be vulnerable in a wave.

[SWE]

If a Republican wins in 2016, then 2018 (though Democrats won't make big gains in the senate). If a Democrat wins, then 2020 or 2022.

The Republicans might still have a net gain of Senate seats in 2018 even if they control the Presidency. The only Republican Senator who is vulnerable that year is Dean Heller, while on the Democratic side Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly  and Heidi Heitkamp are definately underdogs in their respective races and the right Republican candidates could take them down easily. In addition, Joe Manchin's senate seat would easily go Republican in 2018 if he retires that year. Assuming that the Republicans lose Nevada, but pick up Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, they would end up with a net gain of 4 seats in the 2018 Senate elections.

Tester and Heitkamp wouldn't start out as underdogs with a Republican in the White House

[Xing]

If a Republican wins in 2016, then 2018 (though Democrats won't make big gains in the senate). If a Democrat wins, then 2020 or 2022.

The Republicans might still have a net gain of Senate seats in 2018 even if they control the Presidency. The only Republican Senator who is vulnerable that year is Dean Heller, while on the Democratic side Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly  and Heidi Heitkamp are definately underdogs in their respective races and the right Republican candidates could take them down easily. In addition, Joe Manchin's senate seat would easily go Republican in 2018 if he retires that year. Assuming that the Republicans lose Nevada, but pick up Missouri, West Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, they would end up with a net gain of 4 seats in the 2018 Senate elections.

With a Republican president who's somewhat unpopular, I can't see the Republicans gaining any more than three seats, and even that might be generous. In addition to Heller, Flake would be vulnerable in a wave year. The best the Democrats could hope for in the senate in 2018 would be D+1, or maybe D+2, but the wave would be in the house and in gubernatorial races. We could see more than 10 governships flip in a Democratic wave.

[LeBron]

I'm surprised nobody has said the obvious 2016 yet. Yes, there is the fact that a party doesn't tend to benefit when their President leaves office after the 8th year, but Obama's approval is/will be around a nice 50% in 2016 with an even stronger Democrat running in Hillary to replace him all in a year where turnout will be very strong.

That and the Presidential map and congressional map favor Democrats. Dems should expect at least 237 in the electoral college and all they need are Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Nevada and Virginia to get to that 270 which shouldn't be much of a problem (especially when they have plenty of other options beyond that).

As for the Senate, it's already guaranteed there's a net gain for Democrats here. It's a matter of how many. But keep in mind, in 2012 Democrats had a terrible map and still made net gains. In 2016, the GOP is defending seven Obama 2012 seats and more like NC and AZ. It will probably be a sizable gain enough to regain the majority. And in the House, I don't think it will flip, but even 2012 which was considered a small kind of wave only saw a handful of House gains. Democrats might get more votes in the whole state itself but gerrymandering will screw Democrats over here. Still, the party should be able to do even better than 2012's House gains given where some of these Republican-held seats are located, and Republicans are nearly maxed out right now in the House.

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

LeBron, don't assume two years out that the president's approval rating will be at ~50% come election night 2016. You might point to his ongoing bump, but I would point to the fact that the president had a bump after the 2010 midterms as well - in fact, that boost was larger than the one he had right now (he was at 49/44 Approve at this time four years ago). It happens for a very simple reason - Obama's not perceived as a hero of some sort or as an indisputable embarrassment - so his approval is based on the rhetoric around him. When candidates are attacking him, it goes down into the low 40's, when it's the off season, it gets to the high 40's or low 50's.

Now, what happened with the 2011 bounce? It went away. In the summer of 2011, once republicans began running for president and started actively criticizing Obama again, Obama's approval cratered to the low 40's (Eventually, Obama's great campaign and Romney's terrible one got it to 50/47 Approve by election day 2012, but that's beside the point.).

So, basically, you're assuming either the bump Obama's getting now will last from now until 2016, which, if the last campaign means anything, probably won't happen, or you're assuming that Hillary will be such a great campaigner that she'll lift Obama's approval as she's lifting her own.

Bottom line - Don't use the word 'will', as it implies a chance painfully close to 100% of an event, which you can never use two years out politically, barring things like Senate Races in AL going republican (because AL residents would vote for a dog with an R next to its name over any democrat).

[IceSpear]

Bottom line - Don't use the word 'will', as it implies a chance painfully close to 100% of an event, which you can never use two years out politically, barring things like Senate Races in AL going republican (because AL residents would vote for a dog with an R next to its name over any democrat).

Shelby is not inevitable. The election is still 21 months away, and Anything Can Happen In Politics™.

[Xing]

I doubt 2016 will be a Democratic wave. If Hillary wins, I think it'll be more of a "status quo" election. Also, I don't feel comfortable claiming that Democrats will definitely gain seats, though it's certainly more likely than not. I felt pretty confident that Democrats would gain governorships in 2014, but we all know what actually happened...

[Del Tachi]

2020

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I'm surprised nobody has said the obvious 2016 yet. Yes, there is the fact that a party doesn't tend to benefit when their President leaves office after the 8th year, but Obama's approval is/will be around a nice 50% in 2016 with an even stronger Democrat running in Hillary to replace him all in a year where turnout will be very strong.

That and the Presidential map and congressional map favor Democrats. Dems should expect at least 237 in the electoral college and all they need are Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Nevada and Virginia to get to that 270 which shouldn't be much of a problem (especially when they have plenty of other options beyond that).

As for the Senate, it's already guaranteed there's a net gain for Democrats here. It's a matter of how many. But keep in mind, in 2012 Democrats had a terrible map and still made net gains. In 2016, the GOP is defending seven Obama 2012 seats and more like NC and AZ. It will probably be a sizable gain enough to regain the majority. And in the House, I don't think it will flip, but even 2012 which was considered a small kind of wave only saw a handful of House gains. Democrats might get more votes in the whole state itself but gerrymandering will screw Democrats over here. Still, the party should be able to do even better than 2012's House gains given where some of these Republican-held seats are located, and Republicans are nearly maxed out right now in the House.

OH, WI, PA, FL, NH and IL 2-6 net senate seats maybe even 7 should Hilary duplicate the Obama 2012 map.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Well, I was a little optimistic but clearly, the Democratic nominee will be able to put together a 272 map that will give Dems the needed 4-5 seat majority to clinch the Senate and that includes OHIO, PA, CO, IL, WI and NV.