Hillary's Coattails?

[Thank you for being a friend...]

If she wins the presidential election, do you think that she could bring enough Democrats in with her to take back the House?

[NewYorkExpress]

A lot depends on who gains in 2014 and by how much... The Democrats will make gains in the house in 2016 with Hillary atop the ticket, but it probably won't be enough to retake the House.

[Kevin]

Any coattails for Hillary are far from guaranteed at this point.

Given the way things are now  I would have to say no let alone a Hillary win if Obama's approval's don't get better in time.

[Maxwell]

Bill won by 8 against Bob Dole, but showed no coattails. I think, if she wins, the same will occur.

[bluedogsam]

i hope the gop keeps the us house if she runs and does win--this way its a good balance--i think she and John Boehner could work well together.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bill won by 8 against Bob Dole, but showed no coattails. I think, if she wins, the same will occur.

1996 was basically 2012. Democrats won the House popular vote in 1996, but didn't come close to winning a majority of the seats, although they won it by less and won more seats than they did with the supreme 2012 gerrymandering.

[bedstuy]

Extremely unlikely.  When was the last election when you could truly argue there was a Presidential coattail effect?  1980? 

If the Democrats retake the House in 2016, it will be because of general election environment and other factors, not Clintons' coattails (pant-suittails?).

[RosettaStoned]

 Hillary will not run in 2016.

[Nichlemn]

More like, a pro-Democratic environment could simultaneously elect Clinton and a Democratic House majority, causing many commentators to erroneously attribute the cause of the House majority to Clinton's coattails.

[Fritz]

Hillary will not run in 2016.

You're joking, right?

[Maxwell]

Bill won by 8 against Bob Dole, but showed no coattails. I think, if she wins, the same will occur.

1996 was basically 2012. Democrats won the House popular vote in 1996, but didn't come close to winning a majority of the seats, although they won it by less and won more seats than they did with the supreme 2012 gerrymandering.

You're kind of right and kind of bullsh**t. House popular vote was basically tied, in spite of Clinton winning by 8, and the gerrymandering was already there from the 1990 census, unlike 2012. I see your point somewhat but it's still kind of fallacious.

[Flake]

Hillary will not run in 2016.

You're joking, right?

[IceSpear]

Any coattails for Hillary are far from guaranteed at this point.

Given the way things are now  I would have to say no let alone a Hillary win if Obama's approval's don't get better in time.

If the election was held in mid September 2008, McCain would've won. Even while Bush's approval was in the 20s.

[Skill and Chance]

Any coattails for Hillary are far from guaranteed at this point.

Given the way things are now  I would have to say no let alone a Hillary win if Obama's approval's don't get better in time.

If the election was held in mid September 2008, McCain would've won. Even while Bush's approval was in the 20s.

Even when Obama was 1-2% down in the popular voter, he was still ahead in CO and NM.  So Obama would still have won Bush 2000 style.  The point stands that it's possible to make an open seat presidential election into a toss-up regardless of term-limited president's approval.  1960, 1968 and 2000 should not have been competitive based on Ike/LBJ/Clinton's approval ratings.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I recall McCain took the lead in OH, VA, FL, NC, IN and NV but was still short. There was only poll that claimed he lead in NM, but no others backed it up.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Not if it's against Christie.  But maybe his hype will be over by then.

[Skill and Chance]

I recall McCain took the lead in OH, VA, FL, NC, IN and NV but was still short. There was only poll that claimed he lead in NM, but no others backed it up.

I don't very many people appreciate how strong McCain was, given what he was up against.  Just staying competitive that year was huge.  Had he pulled off a win it would almost be equivalent to Hoover being reelected.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Hillary will not run in 2016.

You're joking, right?

Wishful thinking on his part.

[Mister Mets]

It seems unlikely that her coattails will be better than that of the party's 2012 nominee.

She might help in slightly different regions, which could result in a few House wins, but due to a combination of gerrymandering and geographic sorting, it would have to be a lot of seats to win back the House.

Republicans are also expected to win more House seats in '14 (the party in the White House usually performs worse in midterm elections, the midterm electorate is more favorable to Republicans) which makes the task even tougher.

Historically, the circumstances under which Democrats would have a good shot of taking back the House would be a midterm with an unpopular Republican president, or a presidential election in which the Republican party is kicked out of the White House.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Hillary will not run in 2016.

If she does, I'll put a pic of her in my sig for a month.

[Skill and Chance]

It seems unlikely that her coattails will be better than that of the party's 2012 nominee.

She might help in slightly different regions, which could result in a few House wins, but due to a combination of gerrymandering and geographic sorting, it would have to be a lot of seats to win back the House.

Republicans are also expected to win more House seats in '14 (the party in the White House usually performs worse in midterm elections, the midterm electorate is more favorable to Republicans) which makes the task even tougher.

Historically, the circumstances under which Democrats would have a good shot of taking back the House would be a midterm with an unpopular Republican president, or a presidential election in which the Republican party is kicked out of the White House.

If she could engage rural Dems in particular, a lot of those gerrymanders could give out though.  If a Democrat with a rural base won by anything better than 50/48, the House would likely flip IMO.

[Conflicted Progressive]

Coattails are more likely in an open seat race like 2016. Incumbent presidents don't generate broad coattails.

[Mister Mets]

It seems unlikely that her coattails will be better than that of the party's 2012 nominee.

She might help in slightly different regions, which could result in a few House wins, but due to a combination of gerrymandering and geographic sorting, it would have to be a lot of seats to win back the House.

Republicans are also expected to win more House seats in '14 (the party in the White House usually performs worse in midterm elections, the midterm electorate is more favorable to Republicans) which makes the task even tougher.

Historically, the circumstances under which Democrats would have a good shot of taking back the House would be a midterm with an unpopular Republican president, or a presidential election in which the Republican party is kicked out of the White House.

If she could engage rural Dems in particular, a lot of those gerrymanders could give out though.  If a Democrat with a rural base won by anything better than 50/48, the House would likely flip IMO.

I don't see it working that way.

For one thing, the overwhelming majority of Hillary voters will be those who went with Obama in 2012. She'll get the standard partisans.

Geographic sorting/ gerrymandering also means that Democrats need to have massive improvements over 2012 numbers to win seats.

Looking at Alabama, Republicans won six seats with more than 63% of the vote. Democrats won one majority-minority seat with 75%.

If Hillary's coattails gave a ten point boost (which would be astounding since 2012 was not a bad year for the Democrats) it wouldn't change a congressional seat there.

Pennsylvania's a bit better since it's more of a swing state, and one which has more vulnerable Republicans playing defense, although they all remain favorites two cycles from now. The closest race had a Republican beating a Democratic incumbent, so he'll probably be better positioned in 2016. The two other most vulnerable Republicans won with 54.8%, so it's not insurmountable, but it still requires a significant boost for the Democrats. And due to redistricting, incumbent Republicans were at a slight disadvantage in that they had to deal with voters who were unfamiliar with them. They won't have that problem four years from now.