IceSpear explained pretty well why dems shouldn't go for this scenario:
No.
Setting themselves up for an even more GOP senate and congress!
This doesn't even make sense. Do you think it makes more sense for Democrats to throw the presidential election and potentially risk a right-wing majority on SCOTUS, repeal of most legislation passed during the Obama presidency, forfeiting all executive power, etc. for the sake of MAYBE winning Congress in 2018?
How much is hillary going to pass when the GOP supermajority going to come around?
First of all, I highly doubt there will be a GOP "supermajority" (either 66% or 60%) in the House or Senate even after 2018. Secondly, even if there was, it still makes no sense whatsoever to throw a presidential election and hand the GOP a trifecta on a silver platter for a MINIMUM of 2 years. Dems gain nothing in this scenario. There's only two possible Senate pickups for Dems in 2018, even in a massive wave. Assuming they win the presidential election, the GOP probably has 52 seats or more after 2016. So taking back the Senate is likely a nonstarter. The House is gerrymandered to hell, but in a wave Dems could take it back. But it's no sure thing that 2018 would be a Democratic wave even if the incumbent Republican is unpopular, particularly because of turnout issues which plague Democrats in midterms. So the stategery here is apparently to throw a presidential election, hand the GOP all the executive power, let them possibly replace Ginsburg and some of their own justices on the SCOTUS, let them repeal countless pieces of legislation passed since 2009, all for...an outside shot at taking the House? Uh, no thanks on that deal.
