Why winning in 2016 will be bad for both parties

[Old School Republican]

Here's a problem which will affect the winner. No economic expansion in American history has lasted more then 10 years which means the current expansion which end between 2017-2020 which could cause the party in power to  all the blame.


For Democrats they most likely take back the Senate with a tie breaker with the Vice President but in 2018 they get slaughtered in the Senate and House like 2010 and 2014 and then with an economic recession, and likely high deficits, and foreign policy troubles in their term they will most certainly get all the blame as it is their third term and they don't have the ability to Blame Bush just like Bush Senior couldn't blame Carter for his woes and most likely be swept out of office in a realigning election just like 1992 was for the Democrats and lose the advantage they had in the Electoral College and the republicans would have filibuster proof majorities in Congress.


For Republicans it depends when the recession hits. If it hits early in his presidency they will be able to deflect some of the blame on Obama. But their advantage in 2018 congress will Disappear as despite a favorable map they wont gain any seats. If it hits late in their term  they will be swept out of Office in 2020 just like Carter was in 1980 and The democrats will go from having an advantage in the Electoral College to a lock just like what happened in 1980 to the republicans

[Flake]

For someone who's a computer, you certainly have a bad spell checker.

[Beet]

Yeah, the Turing test failed dude, try harder.

[Lincoln Councillor Dwarven Dragon]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

[Old School Republican]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

Only times a party has maid gains in congress in the last 100 years has been 1934 and 2002

[Old School Republican]

For someone who's a computer, you certainly have a bad spell checker.

Fixed

[retromike22]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

Only times a party has maid gains in congress in the last 100 years has been 1934 and 2002

I need maid gains so my house will be cleaned faster.

[Lincoln Councillor Dwarven Dragon]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

Only times a party has maid gains in congress in the last 100 years has been 1934 and 2002

Lolol. Now if you had said 'party holding the presidency' instead of just 'party' you might be right (too lazy to go through wikipedia and check),but since you just said party you're hilariously wrong.

And please learn correct grammar and spelling.

[Old School Republican]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

Only times a party has made gains in congress in the last 100 years has been 1934 and 2002

Lolol. Now if you had said 'party holding the presidency' instead of just 'party' you might be right (too lazy to go through wikipedia and check),but since you just said party you're hilariously wrong.

And please learn correct grammar and spelling.

[LeBron]

Okay, which one of you guys invited OC's brother here?

[Old School Republican]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

Only times a party has maid gains in congress in the last 100 years has been 1934 and 2002

Lolol. Now if you had said 'party holding the presidency' instead of just 'party' you might be right (too lazy to go through wikipedia and check),but since you just said party you're hilariously wrong.

And please learn correct grammar and spelling.

A Republican win in 2018 wont happen if a Republican is in the white house no matter how favorable the map is as the party controlling the white house will lose in midterm elections unless there is national security threat like Terrorism was in 2002 or the president inherited a catastrophic economy which caused the other party to be really unpopular like the Republicans were in 1934

[Lincoln Councillor Dwarven Dragon]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

Only times a party has maid gains in congress in the last 100 years has been 1934 and 2002

Lolol. Now if you had said 'party holding the presidency' instead of just 'party' you might be right (too lazy to go through wikipedia and check),but since you just said party you're hilariously wrong.

And please learn correct grammar and spelling.

A Republican win in 2018 wont happen if a Republican is in the white house no matter how favorable the map is as the party controlling the white house will lose in midterm elections unless there is national security threat like Terrorism was in 2002 or the president inherited a catastrophic economy which caused the other party to be really unpopular like the Republicans were in 1934

I have a very hard time seeing Heitkamp and/or Donnelly getting re-elected. Donnelly only got elected because Mourdock imploded, and Heitkamp is good, but she's not skilled enough to pull off two miracle
elections in a blood-red state absent a huge democratic wave.

I really lIke both of them and want them to win again. But I realize it's probably not going to happen.

[jaichind]

Another factor is elected offices at the local level.  The 2008-2014 period has been especially harsh for the Dems at the state legislative level.  This is on top of a fairly harsh 8 1994-2000 period for the Dems (although nowhere as bad as 2008-2014) at the state legislative level followed by a relatively mild set of losses by the GOP in 2000-2008.  The best way for the Dems to recapture ground at the state legislative level is to make sure they do not win in 2016 and the best way for the GOP to cement its domination at the state legislative level is for it to lose in 2016 (although it has to be at a narrow non-wave margin.)  The reason why this is important is the state legislature sort of a farm league for higher offices and the GOP domination of these these lower offices means its farm league will be better than the Dems for years to come.  Of course the winner of 2016 will get it certain preferred policy mix, but that comes at a cost.

[dmmidmi]

For Democrats they most likely take back the Senate with a tie breaker with the Vice President but in 2018 they get slaughtered in the Senate and House like 2010 and 2014 and then with an economic recession, and likely high deficits, and foreign policy troubles in their term they will most certainly get all the blame as it is their third term and they don't have the ability to Blame Bush just like Bush Senior couldn't blame Carter for his woes and most likely be swept out of office in a realigning election just like 1992 was for the Democrats and lose the advantage they had in the Electoral College and the republicans would have filibuster proof majorities in Congress.

This is too long to be one sentence.

[bobloblaw]

Here's a problem which will affect the winner. No economic expansion in American history has lasted more then 10 years which means the current expansion which end between 2017-2020 which could cause the party in power to  all the blame.


For Democrats they most likely take back the Senate with a tie breaker with the Vice President but in 2018 they get slaughtered in the Senate and House like 2010 and 2014 and then with an economic recession, and likely high deficits, and foreign policy troubles in their term they will most certainly get all the blame as it is their third term and they don't have the ability to Blame Bush just like Bush Senior couldn't blame Carter for his woes and most likely be swept out of office in a realigning election just like 1992 was for the Democrats and lose the advantage they had in the Electoral College and the republicans would have filibuster proof majorities in Congress.


For Republicans it depends when the recession hits. If it hits early in his presidency they will be able to deflect some of the blame on Obama. But their advantage in 2018 congress will Disappear as despite a favorable map they wont gain any seats. If it hits late in their term  they will be swept out of Office in 2020 just like Carter was in 1980 and The democrats will go from having an advantage in the Electoral College to a lock just like what happened in 1980 to the republicans

This is what Ive argued.

[Old School Republican]

Lol this take of mine turned out to be pretty accurate

[Lincoln Councillor Dwarven Dragon]

Unless a Republican President has <40% approval, 2018 will result in an increased number of republican senators. The only plausible democratic pickup is NV (AZ isn't going atlas red in a midterm absent an absolute democratic tsunami), ND/IN will almost certainly flip, MO/MT will start with a definite republican advantage, if Manchin retires WV will almost certainly flip (if Manchin runs for reelection he should be okay), and OH/WI/VA/PA/MI/FL/MN (if Klobuchar retires)/NM could all flip in the right situation/climate. Remember, midterm turnout skews republican naturally, so even a republican president at 44/53 approval (or thereabouts) wouldn't be toxic, and republicans would still net at least 1 senate seat.

Some errors here (AZ and MT) but overall this take was solid.