Talk Elections

Suppose that the Republicans take the House this year, gaining House seats.
Suppose that the Republicans end up with 49 or 50 Senate seats, not quite enough to take control of the Senate.

2012 comes around and Obama gets re-elected, and Democratic turnout is higher, which results in the Democrats retaking the House.

As for the Senate, there are 23 Democrats and 10 Republicans up for re-election, so the Republicans net a couple of Senate seats.

So the Democrats would pickup the House while the Republicans simultaneously pick up the Senate.

Its certainly possible. If Obama gets reelected though. You would likely face a blowotu againts the Dems in 2014 in the Senate (so a possible strong majority from 2012 could reach 60) and regaining the House.

I think it would be premature to predict the results of the 2014 House elections. As for the Senate, yes the Republicans would be almost certain to have a majority after the 2014 elections, but I don't know about 60.

In any case, the chances of progressive legislation passing the Senate in the next 6 years are virtually zilch. Great job, Obama.

Yes. I think they'll both be flipping fairly often in the coming years ftr.

I dont see the Senate flipping in 2012 if Obama gets reelected.  Republicans will probably pick up Nebraska, but Democrats would likely cancel that out by picking up either Massachussetts, Nevada, or an open Maine seat.  

I have a hard time seeing the House not going back to Democrats in 2012 if Obama gets reelected.  Democratic turnout will be far higher and many of the Democrats who lose this year will probably try to run for their old seats.  There will also be some freshman who are very poor fits for their districts(i.e Duffy in WI-07, Barletta in PA-11, possibly West in FL-22). 

Since when is the words "possibly" and "could" not sufficient. ::)

It's interesting how much volatility we could be in for in the next few years. Not only is a GOP House likely this year, but a GOP senate is likely in 2012 and basically assured in 2014 barring a GOP president with 35% approval that year.  Conversely, the size of the wave this year virtually assures a Democratic senate majority in 2016 unless the GOP can get over 60.  Consider this scenario:

2010: House- barely GOP, Senate: barely Dem

Obama gets re-elected, but by less than his 2008 margin

2012: House-Dem, by approximately the 2006 margin (at least 230), Senate: barely GOP

2014: House- barely Dem, Senate: GOP (a solid majority)

If Obama is succeeded by a Republican

2016: House- barely GOP, Senate: barely Dem

If Obama is succeeded by a Democrat

2016: House- Dem, Senate: Dem (probably 60+)

Don't be too down about legislation.  With an Obama re-election and a split Congress, a compromise climate bill would be quite likely in 2013.  If Obama improves his position enough to be re-elected, he will probably be much wiser about 2014.  It is also much less likely to be a 2010 repeat if there is partial GOP control of congress.

Change 2012 Senate to barely Dem and I agree with you. 

Would that make it the first time ever that the House and Senate have flipped party control in opposite directions, or has it happened before?

Obama would have to get awfully close to 60% of the 2012 PV for Dems to actually make net gains in the Senate.  I think you underestimate the size of the natural GOP advantage from the Dem wave in 2006.  Even if Obama still squeaks by 51-49, every Dem incumbent in a state to the right of VA would be in grave danger.

An interesting thought experiment: Give Obama FDR's 1936 re-election margin in 2012.  Are there now more Republicans in the 2018 senate class or more Democrats in the 2016 senate class?  

If Obama wins reelection, it will likely be by a larger margin than in 2008.  He will likely carry Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and possibly Missouri and run close enough in Montana and North Dakota so that he isnt a drag.  The only seat I see as a loss for Democrats if Obama wins reelection is Nebraska.

Incumbents dont lose in states their Presidential nominee carries unless they are involved in a scandal(Ted Stevens in 2008). 

Obama doesn't need to be a drag for Tester, Nelson and maybe even Conrad (he was in the freinds of angelo thingy) to be in trouble. Also, McCaskil is in the mid 30's right now in approvals.

Better keep your eyes out for retirements in Nebraska, Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Michigan. Currently the only opportunities for the Dems are in NV, MA and ME (Only if Snowe retires or gets primaried). West Virginia could join the list but it will be difficult to knock of an incumbent Republican in a state that Obama will be lucky to get over 43% in.


Incumbents dont lose in states their Presidential nominee carries unless they are involved in a scandal(Ted Stevens in 2008). 

John Ashcroft did in 2000, granted there was a death involved.

In 1972 there were several Republicans who lost reelection.

A Republican incumbent, Larry Pressler I think, lost reeleciton in South Dakota to Tim Johnson in 1996 despite Dole carry the state. I don't rememeber a scandal just that the state grew weary of him. Sounds like something that could happen to Webb or McCaskil in 2012.

If Obama carries Florida and Missouri or comes close, Nelson and McCaskill will be fine.  For Conrad, Republicans already used their main candidate this year. 

1972 was in time where there was still a lot of ticket splitting.  The days of that are pretty much over.

Also, If Obama is getting reelected, it likely means that the economy has turned around significantly, making people far less likely to vote out incumbents.   

Here's how I see it based on the presidential numbers:

GOP 58% or better: GOP picks up NE, ND, MT, MO, FL, OH, and VA.  MI, WI (lean GOP if open), MN, NJ and WV (if Manchin wins in 2010) are the toss-ups.  Jodi Rell would make CT lean GOP and Pataki would make NY a toss up.  All GOP incumbents survive, including Scott Brown.  Even if a tea partier is running in ME, he/she would win the general.

GOP by 52-58%: GOP picks up NE, ND, MT,  MO, and OH.  FL, VA and WI (if open) are toss ups.  Manchin would be slightly favored to win a full term in WV, and Scott Brown would be favored to hold on in MA.

GOP by 51% or less: GOP picks up NE, MT, ND, and MO.  OH, FL, VA, and MA are toss-ups.  ME is lean Dem if a tea partier beats Snowe.  NV is lean GOP even if Ensign is the nominee.

Obama by 51% or less: GOP picks up NE, MT, ND, and MO.  NV, OH, MA and FL are toss-ups.  VA is lean Dem, and so is ME if the nominee is not Snowe. 

Obama by 52-58%: GOP picks up NE, MT and ND.  MO and NV are toss ups.  NV is lean D with Ensign.  OH and FL are lean D .  VA is likely Dem (assuming Obama wins VA by at least his 2008 margin), MA is likely Dem, and ME would be likely Dem without Snowe.

Obama by 58% or more: The only scenario with net Dem gains.  Obama +15-20 polls would be used to recruit top tier candidates in hard line GOP states.  NE (assuming Obama would be winning NE outright), MT and ND are lean D.  Every other Dem incumbent would be safe.  NV would be lean D, ME would be safe D without Snowe, and MA would almost be safe D.  Toss-ups: AZ, TX, and IN (with Lugar retirement),  TN (with Bredesen) or UT (with Matheson), or WY (with Freudenthal).   

If Obama is winning 55%, he will probably be carrying Montana and might even carry North Dakota. 

The chances of them passing during the past 2 years were virtually zilch as well and yet he managed to get a health care bill passed.

I think people in this thread are underestimating the degree to which Senate races are independent of Presidential ones. They're correlated, sure, but not excessively. Remember the coattails in 1972 and 1984? Thought not.

Speaking of whether this has ever happened before, have either chamber of congress and/or the Presidency flipped in opposite directions? The closest is in 2000, where the Democrats gained the Senate for the lame-duck period only (and then when Jeffords defected, but that doesn't really count).

In 1916, The Republicans won the most seats in the House, but the Democrats held control thanks to a few minor-party candidates. Aside from that, it appears not to have happened since the beginning of the 20th century.

Those were in the days where ticket splitting was far more prominent. 

Ok, how about 1996? And is there really much of a decline in ticket-splitting outside the South? Looking at say, the 2008 Senate races, even when a state's Senate vote was for the same party as the President there was often a gap of over 5 points. And ticket splitters don't unanimously break one way - even when Biden was simultaneously running for President and Senator, a decent number of voters split their tickets both ways.

The two Republican pickups in 1996 were open seats in states where Clinton did quite badly(Nebraska and Alabama).  In 2012, the only state where those factors will likely be in play is Nebraska. 

Actually, there was a third Republican pickup (in Arkansas, which Clinton won) and a Democratic pickup (in South Dakota, which Gore won). Republicans also won open seats in states Clinton won comfortably (Maine and Oregon).

1992 and 1996 are a little more difficult because of the Perot vote.  In 1996, the Perot vote was heavily Republican downballot. 

Republicans out performed Obama significantly in Oregon, Minnesota, Maine.

Incumbents almost always outperform the top of the ticket absent a scandal(Ted Stevens) or general weakness(Jim Bunning).