If Dems lose Senate in 2014, will GOP win Presidency in 2016?

[pbrower2a]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-special-elections-really-arent-special-predictors-for-midterm-elections/2014/03/12/969b6c54-aa23-11e3-9e82-8064fcd31b5b_story.html

So, at least according to Dana Milbank, the Democrats were likely to lose big in the 2014 midterm elections anyways, regardless of the outcome in the Florida special election.  Despite the better known democratic candidate Sink, who also spent millions more, in the losing effort.  Should the Democrats in congress just roll-over in 2014 and not waste the money in a losing effort?  Would Nate Silver say that in almost every mid-term election, the opposing presidential party always wins? 

In 2006, the Democrats swept into power in Congress (for an impressive 4 year window), and the momentum helped elect Obama in 2008. 

Now would Republican wins in 2014, give momentum to the Republican presidential candidate for a victory in 2016?

Of course, it will depend on the "personality" of the Republican candidate, and the "personality" of the Democrat candidate to determine the outcome presidential election.  But the political climate might favor the Republicans, at least on the political issues, such as repealing Obamacare. 

No, because the Republicans will turn up the extremism and offend even more voters. People would see the GOP agenda for what it is (make American labor cheap, ravage the environment, promote monopoly pricing, privatize anything in sight, and of course return to profits-first medicine at its crudest). We would likely see a revived expansionism in the foreign policy advocated by the GOP.

Republicans would lose their Senate majority in 2016 as one after another Republican falls in liberal-to-moderate states... and probably the House as well.   

[pbrower2a]

No, and in fact Dems actually have a really big chance of gaining seats/winning back the Senate in 2016. There are 23 GOP seats up for election in 2016, and 10 D-held seats. In other words, all the Tea Party lunatics elected in 2010 are up for re-election.

The main plan for Democrats to take back the Senate if they lose it in 2014 is along the same lines as the Republican plan for 2014: Defeat blue-state Republicans like Mark Kirk, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, and Kelly Ayotte.

Also figure that Senate seats in Iowa (should Grassley reach the sell-by date) and Arizona (McCain is losing it fast) become open.

[pbrower2a]

No. 2010 (and probably 2014) were big GOP wins because the Democratic coalition does not turn out in midterms/off years.

In addition, Hillary is a stronger candidate than any of the GOP presidential candidates could ever hope to be.

The two are not correlated at all, anymore than 2010 signaled a Romney landslide, or 1994 signaled a Dole landslide.

Umm, didn't 2006 signal the Obama landslide in 2008   It certainly gave the Democrats a lot of momentum heading into 2008. 

Hillary certainly has a lot of popularity, and it could be enough to beat any unpopularity with political issues like Obamacare. 

But a generic no-name Democrat like O'Malley, could have a far more difficult time if issues like Obamacare remain unpopular; and Obama's popularity remains below 40%. 

I don't know why "young people and minorities" don't turn out in mid-terms, maybe they just don't care about voting or politics unless there is a cool, handsome bi-racial handsome man running for president.  They didn't really come out for Gore or Kerry, who is to say they will come out for Hillary

1. Hillary Clinton already has the Obama campaign apparatus.

a. That is the slickest campaign apparatus in decades. It is as savvy about the technology of electioneering as ever.

b. The campaign apparatus is not shoring up the President's approval rating. President Obama needs no longer campaign for the Presidency.  Thus the President's approval rating need not be close to 50%.

2. Most of the vulnerable D seats are in the states that Barack Obama lost badly in 2008 and 2012 -- Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, South Dakota...

3. Although midterm elections usually constrict D voting, Presidential elections usually give a sharp D advantage.

4. So far, President Obama has done nothing that discredits himself or his Party. There are no scandals, no diplomatic or military debacles, and no economic collapse. The President has done nothing to make an economic collapse likely. He isn't Dubya on economics, he isn't Carter in foreign policy, and he isn't Nixon in ethics.

5. Should the Republicans win the Senate, then expect the Republican Party to bring about dozens of pieces of right-wing legislation from a nationwide Right To Work (for much less) law, abolition of the minimum wage law, tax shifts that punish everyone but the super-rich, abolition of welfare, privatization of everything that some monopolistic profiteer could want, educational 'reforms' to impose school prayer and creationism, and maybe wars for profit.

People seeing the prospect of a Christian and Corporate State might decide that such is to be stopped, by elections if necessary and possible because other methods are more dangerous or difficult. 

[pbrower2a]

If Obamacare is such an albatross, why do polls after polls have people want to keep it and improve on it? The anti-Obamacare sentiment is coming from people from the right, who will never vote for Democrats anyway.

Anyway barring any kind of scandal or massive screw up by Obama in the next two years, the Democrats are going to win the WH in 2016.

Just keep telling yourself Obamacare is popular. 
Besides, nothing is really being "fixed" in Obamacare - no Democrat has made suggestions on how to "actually fix Obamacare"

Pose a GOP reform of medical insurance as 'raise the rates at leisure, and die when the money runs out', and people think differently.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The seat had been Republican for a long time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Stoners?