Hillary and 2018

[bobloblaw]

So if Hillary wins in 2016, how badly will the Dems do in 2018? Given that Obama has decimated the Dem party at every level of govt except the WH, there isnt much more to lose.

But I could see the Dems losing all the 15-20 House seats they might win 2016, 3-4 Senate seats (I assume the Dems will win 3-7 seats in 2016) and a few more Governor's mansions (MN, VT, NH, CO) . The GOP will likely win MO, WV, KY and possibly VA while the Dems will likely win NJ in the next cycle. 35 GOP govs isnt out of the question.

Far from being close to permanent majority status, the Dem party under Obama/Clinton is like the GOP under Ford. They have the WH and nothing else.

[Ebsy]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

[bobloblaw]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

Even if the economy is good?

[Likely Voter]

it could be that the dems lose any gains they make in 2016, but can't imagine it can get any worse than 2014.

[Matty]

2014 was not worse than 2010. Colorado and North Carolina, hardly examples of dark blue states, were decided by less than 2% each, and that was with an older, whiter turnout.

[Brewer]

Potential Democratic Governor losses would be offset by probable wins in states like MD and IL. Also, MN is not going to flip.

[Likely Voter]

it could be that the dems lose any gains they make in 2016, but can't imagine it can get any worse than 2014.

No one thought that 2014 would be worse than 2010 (some were even predicting a Democratic gubernarial wave), and look what happened...

The seats held by the Dems was definitely worse after 2014 for House, Senate and Governors
Dem  House/Senate/Gov
2010   193   53   20   
2014   188   46   18

So as I noted, I suspect the Dems to make some gains in 2016, but they will likely lose ground in 2018, but there isn't much more space to get worse than 2014. It's possible, but for the Dems things are pretty bad now. So to the OP's point, I cant see it getting much worse really. I think the OP is forgetting that along with a Dem win for prez in 2016, they will also make gains in House, Senate and Govs, so they aren't starting from the 2014 low point.

[retromike22]

I think in 2010 and 2014, it was bad for districts and states that were not "Obama-areas" as opposed to Democratic areas. In 2018, it would be bad for non-Clinton districts and states, and I think what makes the difference is that there are more non-Obama areas that non-Clinton areas.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bloodbath

[bobloblaw]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

Even if the economy is good?

1966,1986, 1994, 2006, 2014. A good economy doesnt help the incumbent party much but does hurt if it is bad.

[bobloblaw]

Potential Democratic Governor losses would be offset by probable wins in states like MD and IL. Also, MN is not going to flip.

Ill bet N is more likely to flip than IL or MD. Unless Lisa Madigan runs, Rauner will probably win in 2018. She cant run as long as Daddy is the House Speaker. He might retire by 2018 and then she can run.

[Sumner 1868]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

Even if the economy is good?

1966,1986, 1994, 2006, 2014. A good economy doesnt help the incumbent party much but does hurt if it is bad.

The economy wasn't good in 1966 or 2014.

[bobloblaw]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

Even if the economy is good?

1966,1986, 1994, 2006, 2014. A good economy doesnt help the incumbent party much but does hurt if it is bad.

The economy wasn't good in 1966 or 2014.

Are you serious? 1966 was the middle of the 1961-69 boom. GNP growth was 4% or higher that year. 2014 was pretty decent, the best year since 2006 for GDP growth and for jobs the best year since 1999.

[Sumner 1868]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

Even if the economy is good?

1966,1986, 1994, 2006, 2014. A good economy doesnt help the incumbent party much but does hurt if it is bad.

The economy wasn't good in 1966 or 2014.

Are you serious? 1966 was the middle of the 1961-69 boom. GNP growth was 4% or higher that year. 2014 was pretty decent, the best year since 2006 for GDP growth and for jobs the best year since 1999.

Yes, I'm serious. To me, and evidently to voters, cost and standard of living determine whether a economy is good as much as GDP. 1966 was the beginning of the 1970s inflation crisis, and 2014 has seen lower wages than before the recession.

[Mr. Illini]

Potential Democratic Governor losses would be offset by probable wins in states like MD and IL. Also, MN is not going to flip.

Ill bet N is more likely to flip than IL or MD. Unless Lisa Madigan runs, Rauner will probably win in 2018. She cant run as long as Daddy is the House Speaker. He might retire by 2018 and then she can run.

Considering how much his approvals have already taken a nosedive, I'd guess no under most circumstances.

[Xing]

Totally depends on her popularity. If she ends up being decently popular, it might not be that bad for Democrats. If her approval rating is under 45, though, it'll probably be pretty bloody for the Democrats, especially in the senate.

[Brewer]

Potential Democratic Governor losses would be offset by probable wins in states like MD and IL. Also, MN is not going to flip.

Ill bet N is more likely to flip than IL or MD. Unless Lisa Madigan runs, Rauner will probably win in 2018. She cant run as long as Daddy is the House Speaker. He might retire by 2018 and then she can run.

Lol, no, MN is nowhere near more likely to flip than those two, especially IL. You obviously don't realize how weak the MN Republican bench is.

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

Potential Democratic Governor losses would be offset by probable wins in states like MD and IL. Also, MN is not going to flip.

Ill bet N is more likely to flip than IL or MD. Unless Lisa Madigan runs, Rauner will probably win in 2018. She cant run as long as Daddy is the House Speaker. He might retire by 2018 and then she can run.

Lol, no, MN is nowhere near more likely to flip than those two, especially IL. You obviously don't realize how weak the MN Republican bench is.

Also, the strongest of the Minnesota bench are tucked in safe house districts/the world of retirement and won't come out. The republican leadership begged, begged, and begged Paulsen/Kline/Pawlenty/Coleman to run for Senate or Governor, but they all steadfastly refused, and so the party ended up with a little known Businessman (McFadden) and a Tea Party County Commissioner (Johnson). Honestly, the only guy who actually tried to run last year that MIGHT have won was Seifert, and even he would have been a significant underdog.

Besides, Rauner's honeymoon is already over, Hogan will probably be the next Ehrlich (win surprisingly one election, and lose narrowly the next) because Maryland is well ... Maryland, and Dayton is still fairly popular (no term limits in MN).

[Brewer]

Potential Democratic Governor losses would be offset by probable wins in states like MD and IL. Also, MN is not going to flip.

Ill bet N is more likely to flip than IL or MD. Unless Lisa Madigan runs, Rauner will probably win in 2018. She cant run as long as Daddy is the House Speaker. He might retire by 2018 and then she can run.

Lol, no, MN is nowhere near more likely to flip than those two, especially IL. You obviously don't realize how weak the MN Republican bench is.

Also, the strongest of the Minnesota bench are tucked in safe house districts/the world of retirement and won't come out. The republican leadership begged, begged, and begged Paulsen/Kline/Pawlenty/Coleman to run for Senate or Governor, but they all steadfastly refused, and so the party ended up with a little known Businessman (McFadden) and a Tea Party County Commissioner (Johnson). Honestly, the only guy who actually tried to run last year that MIGHT have won was Seifert, and even he would have been a significant underdog.

Besides, Rauner's honeymoon is already over, Hogan will probably be the next Ehrlich (win surprisingly one election, and lose narrowly the next) because Maryland is well ... Maryland, and Dayton is still fairly popular (no term limits in MN).

Dayton has said that he would not run for a third term, but even then the Dems have strong potential candidates (Tina Smith, Lori Swanson, Paul Thissen, etc.).

[bobloblaw]

Potential Democratic Governor losses would be offset by probable wins in states like MD and IL. Also, MN is not going to flip.

Ill bet N is more likely to flip than IL or MD. Unless Lisa Madigan runs, Rauner will probably win in 2018. She cant run as long as Daddy is the House Speaker. He might retire by 2018 and then she can run.

Considering how much his approvals have already taken a nosedive, I'd guess no under most circumstances.

Pols who make tough decisions after see their approvals nose dive at the beginning of their terms. But they often win re-election. Walker, Snyder, Kasich.

Erlich in MD was defeated in the best Dem mid term election since 1986. If 2018 is another 2014 or 2010, Hogan will likely win.

[bobloblaw]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

Even if the economy is good?

1966,1986, 1994, 2006, 2014. A good economy doesnt help the incumbent party much but does hurt if it is bad.

The economy wasn't good in 1966 or 2014.

Are you serious? 1966 was the middle of the 1961-69 boom. GNP growth was 4% or higher that year. 2014 was pretty decent, the best year since 2006 for GDP growth and for jobs the best year since 1999.

Yes, I'm serious. To me, and evidently to voters, cost and standard of living determine whether a economy is good as much as GDP. 1966 was the beginning of the 1970s inflation crisis, and 2014 has seen lower wages than before the recession.

No 1966, was not the beginning of 1970s inflation. 1968 was and that was not until the end of the year. In 1966 inflation was 3%. 1968 was 4.8%.

[Thunderbird is the word]

Trying to predict the results of the next election before a single vote has been cast in the current one is a fool's game.

Not really. It is almost a certainty that the Dems would lose seats in 2018 if they win in 2016.

Even if the economy is good?

1966,1986, 1994, 2006, 2014. A good economy doesnt help the incumbent party much but does hurt if it is bad.

The economy wasn't good in 1966 or 2014.

Are you serious? 1966 was the middle of the 1961-69 boom. GNP growth was 4% or higher that year. 2014 was pretty decent, the best year since 2006 for GDP growth and for jobs the best year since 1999.

Yes, I'm serious. To me, and evidently to voters, cost and standard of living determine whether a economy is good as much as GDP. 1966 was the beginning of the 1970s inflation crisis, and 2014 has seen lower wages than before the recession.

I think that Republican gains in 1966 had more to do with "law and order" type issues then the economy.

[Devils30]

If Hillary's approvals are decent, Dems can gain open Gov seats in MI, WI, FL and OH.

[Clermont County GOPer]

If Hillary's approvals are decent, Dems can gain open Gov seats in MI, WI, FL and OH.

Wisconsin doesn't have term limits Walker can run for another term