Which situation would be better for the United States?

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Well? I say Republican President, Democratic Congress.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Pick your poison.

[IceSpear]

First one for sure, just because Congressional Republicans are a complete joke.

[SWE]

Depends on whether they have veto proof majority

[Randy Bobandy]

Easily Option 1. Republican congressional majorities have a habit of being destructive.

[H. Ross Peron]

The second assuming the Republicans don't have a supermajority

[MATTROSE94]

Probably the first option, as Republican Presidents such as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. actually got some stuff accomplished with Democratic congressional majorities.

[IceSpear]

Probably the first option, as Republican Presidents such as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr. actually got some stuff accomplished with Democratic congressional majorities.

Though I wonder if Republican treatment of Obama has poisoned the well for future divided government cooperation. The rank and file are certainly going to be screaming for vengeance if Dems control the Senate with a Republican president in 2017.

[bedstuy]

In the broad view, both should be somewhat equally likely to lead to legislative gridlock.  But, the President has more power to act unilaterally through running the administrative state, making appointments (especially to the Supreme Court!), foreign policy and the military, so clearly option 2.

[TNF]

Option 1, since controlling Congress is far more important than holding the White House.

[TDAS04]

I voted option 1.

[Vega]

Dem Congress, Republican President.

It's the only way things will get done.

Off topic, but, I always dislike when Republicans say about how Reagan worked with Congress. I'd argue that Congress worked with Reagan.

[Paul Kemp]

I want it all.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

With hindsight, I would have voted for McCain in '08 if that meant at least four years of a Republican president and a Democratic congress.

Then again, if that were the case, we might be occupying Libya, Syria and Iran at this point...

[Mordecai]

Option 1 because Congressional Republicans have a habit of threatening the economic stability of the United States.

[politicallefty]

Option 1, since controlling Congress is far more important than holding the White House.

I agree. If you doubt the power of Congress over the Presidency, just look at the kinds of legislation that were passed during each setup. From a Democratic standpoint, we've had great legislation passed with a Democratic Congress and a Republican President. I can't recall any good legislation during a Republican Congress with a Democratic President. (All of that assumes the President doesn't have an effective majority in either House, like Reagan had in the Democratic House during part of his tenure.)

[Franzl]

Everyone voting for option one should imagine the consequences of having someone like McCain, Goldwater, or W. Bush in office during something like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Indeed, I'd say a Democratic President is far more important because foreign (and military) policy is one of the only things that can literally be controlled by one person.

Republicans simply have too many crazies for me to say it's a fair trade...

[Vosem]

Option 12, since controlling Congress is far more important than holding the White House.

My reasoning is the same as TNF's, though strangely it leads me to the opposite conclusion.

Their members are gerrymandered into hyper-conservative districts, and feel they are "carrying out their constituents' wishes" by attempting to destroy the Democrats at all costs.

Well...they are...

[IceSpear]

Everyone voting for option one should imagine the consequences of having someone like McCain, Goldwater, or W. Bush in office during something like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Indeed, I'd say a Democratic President is far more important because foreign (and military) policy is one of the only things that can literally be controlled by one person.

Republicans simply have too many crazies for me to say it's a fair trade...

Well the thing is, it only takes a single Republican president to not be crazy to have an effective partner in government. But there will NEVER be a majority of non-crazies in a Republican controlled Congress.

[bedstuy]

Option 1, since controlling Congress is far more important than holding the White House.

How is this true? 

If you have the Presidency, you can block almost any piece of legislation with a veto.  If you have congress, you can block almost any piece of legislation by inaction.  It's a wash.

But, if you have the Presidency, you have foreign policy, war, administrative lawmaking, enforcement and appointment powers.  Just look at the new EPA rules on climate change.  That's an executive branch action that could have been stalled for years under a Romney administration.  Then, there's the federal judiciary especially the Supreme Court.  The Presidency is clearly more powerful in actual terms.

[SWE]

Option 2

[RosettaStoned]

Option 1, since controlling Congress is far more important than holding the White House.

 But, which is more important to control; the House or the Senate?

[morgieb]

Pick your poison.

[AggregateDemand]

Option 2, without a doubt.

Republican presidents tend to be cavalier regarding foreign policy. Democratic Congresses tend to assemble legislative timebombs.

Republicans should be running everything in DC, but Reps need the threat of Democratic veto power and slight left-lean in SCOTUS, to make sure the hardline right-wing don't try to privatize the entire government or send us back to the stone age with onerous social restrictions. Democratic diplomacy is preferable foreign policy, but Dems need a Republican congress to build up a military that can enforce diplomacy, if necessary.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

R Pres, D Congress. 

Whatever results in less Republicans overall.