Will Hillary be better off if Republicans take the Senate?

[IceSpear]

Congress is currently extremely dysfunctional and has horrible ratings. However, because Congress is split between the parties, Republicans can easily blame Democrats for the gridlock and dysfunction, and vice versa. This is also why the 2014 election hasn't materialized into as big of a wave as 2006/2010 when one party was completely in control. However, if Republicans take the Senate in November, they'll completely own Congress and its horrible approval ratings. It's not too difficult to see them overreaching by refusing to negotiate on anything, shutting down the government again, or possibly even impeaching Obama. This would definitely help Hillary going into 2016, as she'd be able to run against the "do nothing" and/or "do horrible things" GOP Congress.

[The Mikado]

Nothing is going to happen in Congress for the next two years whether the GOP takes the Senate or not.  The only real difference would be if Ruth Bader Ginsburg (or another Justice, but let's be serious here) retires.  A Democratic Judiciary Committee will have a far easier time getting the replacement to the Senate floor while a Republican Judiciary Committee will just start serial-Borking Obama's picks and hope that the seat remains vacant until they can get a Republican president elected.

[bedstuy]

No.

I'm of the opinion that the Republicans' disgraceful behavior actually just drags down our whole system.  Republicans blame Obama regardless, Democrats realize that Republicans are insane and independents just tend to get angry at everyone.  You get these fake moderate news people saying, "what's wrong with Washington?  Why can't President Obama compromise with Republicans?"

And it's just a fact that the more Republicans get power, the more they'll use it to attempt to ruin the country and pass retrograde Tea Party legislation.  We can't afford to lose bargaining power on budgets and the ability to confirm judges.  Plus, Senators get elected to 6 year terms, these Republicans will be voting against any type of sane agenda for six years.  We need every Senator we can get, even if we can take back the Senate in 2016 anyway. 

All that to potentially help a candidate that will most likely win anyway?  No thanks.

[IceSpear]

No.

I'm of the opinion that the Republicans' disgraceful behavior actually just drags down our whole system.  Republicans blame Obama regardless, Democrats realize that Republicans are insane and independents just tend to get angry at everyone.  You get these fake moderate news people saying, "what's wrong with Washington?  Why can't President Obama compromise with Republicans?"

And it's just a fact that the more Republicans get power, the more they'll use it to attempt to ruin the country and pass retrograde Tea Party legislation.  We can't afford to lose bargaining power on budgets and the ability to confirm judges.  Plus, Senators get elected to 6 year terms, these Republicans will be voting against any type of sane agenda for six years.  We need every Senator we can get, even if we can take back the Senate in 2016 anyway. 

All that to potentially help a candidate that will most likely win anyway?  No thanks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want Republicans to take the Senate. Keeping it is extremely important for judicial nominations, as you said. I'm just saying that GOP overreach helping Hillary in 2016 could be a potential silver lining if they do control Congress.

[bedstuy]

No.

I'm of the opinion that the Republicans' disgraceful behavior actually just drags down our whole system.  Republicans blame Obama regardless, Democrats realize that Republicans are insane and independents just tend to get angry at everyone.  You get these fake moderate news people saying, "what's wrong with Washington?  Why can't President Obama compromise with Republicans?"

And it's just a fact that the more Republicans get power, the more they'll use it to attempt to ruin the country and pass retrograde Tea Party legislation.  We can't afford to lose bargaining power on budgets and the ability to confirm judges.  Plus, Senators get elected to 6 year terms, these Republicans will be voting against any type of sane agenda for six years.  We need every Senator we can get, even if we can take back the Senate in 2016 anyway. 

All that to potentially help a candidate that will most likely win anyway?  No thanks.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I want Republicans to take the Senate. Keeping it is extremely important for judicial nominations, as you said. I'm just saying that GOP overreach helping Hillary in 2016 could be a potential silver lining if they do control Congress.

If Republicans take the Senate, I'll probably convince myself that you're right.  But, that will take a bunch of sadness, whiskey and glumly refreshing election results on election night.

Certainly, if Republicans in Congress impeach Obama, I think Hillary Clinton is a stone cold guarantee to win.  But, that doesn't take Republicans controlling the Senate anyway.

[Mister Mets]

It depends.

Republicans might be able to pass a lot of legislation, putting Obama in the position having to veto it.

But there could be a lot of infighting given the conservative Republicans who have disagreed publicly with the leadership.

It's also possible that Republicans will nominate a legislator (IE- Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan) so an ineffective Republican controlled Congress can be blamed on that guy in the General Election.

[7,052,770]

Republicans might be able to pass a lot of legislation, putting Obama in the position having to veto it.

Unless Republicans nuke the filibuster, they won't pass anything that Obama would veto.

[Likely Voter]

probably yes as she can run against the (now fully republican) congress, which will have lower approval than Obama, likely much lower

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Who cares?  The country will be worse off!

[Mister Mets]

Republicans might be able to pass a lot of legislation, putting Obama in the position having to veto it.

Unless Republicans nuke the filibuster, they won't pass anything that Obama would veto.

They'll still have some procedural advantages.

And if Democrats filibuster something, Republicans can still blame them for the failure to pass laws.

[IceSpear]

Republicans might be able to pass a lot of legislation, putting Obama in the position having to veto it.

Unless Republicans nuke the filibuster, they won't pass anything that Obama would veto.

They'll still have some procedural advantages.

And if Democrats filibuster something, Republicans can still blame them for the failure to pass laws.

Probably getting too inside baseball there. It certainly didn't work for the Dems in 2010. The public saw them as having complete and total control, even though that wasn't the case.

[IceSpear]

Coincidentally, I just happened to come across this article: http://www.ibtimes.com/midterm-elections-2014-how-republican-senate-victory-could-help-hillary-clinton-1690589

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[andrew_c]

If the GOP takes control of the Senate, they'll do a lot of crazy things.
That would make the GOP very unpopular, and they would get punished by voters in 2016.

Both Hillary and congressional Democrats will be better off in 2016 if the GOP wins Senate control this fall.  In fact, voter backlash in this case could be bad enough for the GOP to lose both the Senate and the House in 2016.

[Senate Minority Leader Lord Voldemort]

A GOP Senate after 2014 would help Hillary get elected, but not govern.

It's all about margin. Dems can't just throw this election away, if Hillary becomes President and gains seats in the Senate in 2016 as is widely expected, a Senate loss this year would make it much harder to have a solid margin of control after 2016. The closer Dems get to 60 seats the better. You really can't do anything in the Senate anymore without 60 votes.

[IceSpear]

A GOP Senate after 2014 would help Hillary get elected, but not govern.

It's all about margin. Dems can't just throw this election away, if Hillary becomes President and gains seats in the Senate in 2016 as is widely expected, a Senate loss this year would make it much harder to have a solid margin of control after 2016. The closer Dems get to 60 seats the better. You really can't do anything in the Senate anymore without 60 votes.

That's assuming the filibuster isn't nuked.

[Bojack Horseman]

A GOP Senate after 2014 would help Hillary get elected, but not govern.

It's all about margin. Dems can't just throw this election away, if Hillary becomes President and gains seats in the Senate in 2016 as is widely expected, a Senate loss this year would make it much harder to have a solid margin of control after 2016. The closer Dems get to 60 seats the better. You really can't do anything in the Senate anymore without 60 votes.

That's assuming the filibuster isn't nuked.

I don't think they'd nuke the filibuster, they'd just pass every single bill on reconciliation, so you'd only need a simple 51-vote majority to pass the bill. Obviously nowhere near a majority to be able to override Obama's vetoes, but I think that's how they'll get around the filibuster. Makes me wonder why Democrats haven't used that over the last four years like Republicans would nowadays.

[Chilltown]

The Republicans walking away from 2014 with 7-8 pick-ups in the senate (which is looking to be the case) will in my opinion create a scenario where Republicans lose by winning. They have to sort out a lot of issues inside the party to have a chance of defeating Clinton and be viable in elections in the long-term. A good result in the 2014 midterms will probably allow them to think that everything is fine and they can just continue to bob along.