2018 under President Hillary

[Lamda]

Final results.
Ann Wagner +9
Susan Brooks +6
Dean Heller +5
Martha McSally +4
Kevin Cramer +4
Rick Scott +3
Barbara Comstock +2
Ryan Zinke +1
Manchin + 2
Baldwin + 3
Brown + 5
Casey Jr + 8

R+6

[Politician]

R+6 (+7 if you count Virginia)

Closest races:
Wisconsin
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Montana
Nevada
Arizona

[mcmikk]

Republicans hold their own and pick up MO, IN, ND, WV, MT, FL, OH, and WI. Democrats only very narrowly hold onto VA.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

R+15:
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
Montana
North Dakota
Florida
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Michigan
Virginia (actually picked up in 2017-Special)
Minnesota (x2 if the Franken stuff still happens)
New Jersey
New Mexico

[Yellowhammer]

R+15:
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
Montana
North Dakota
Florida
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Michigan
Virginia (actually picked up in 2017-Special)
Minnesota (x2 if the Franken stuff still happens)
New Jersey
New Mexico

Klobuchar isn't going down no matter how big the red wave is.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Also MN special so a gain of around 10 seats and maybe PA as well so it could be 11

[UncleSam]

Ya I honestly think Dems may have dodged a bullet losing in 2016. Sure SCOTUS would be left of where it’ll end up but it’s somewhat doubtful Hillary could’ve even gotten anyone in except maybe Garland who would vote with the Dems.

And it would’ve become very difficult for her to do anything if Rs got a supermajority.

[Calthrina950]

Ya I honestly think Dems may have dodged a bullet losing in 2016. Sure SCOTUS would be left of where it’ll end up but it’s somewhat doubtful Hillary could’ve even gotten anyone in except maybe Garland who would vote with the Dems.

And it would’ve become very difficult for her to do anything if Rs got a supermajority.

I wonder how 2020 would have played out in this kind of scenario. The 2020s could very well have been the 1920s all over again, in terms of Republican dominance.

[Virginiá]

Ya I honestly think Dems may have dodged a bullet losing in 2016. Sure SCOTUS would be left of where it’ll end up but it’s somewhat doubtful Hillary could’ve even gotten anyone in except maybe Garland who would vote with the Dems.

And it would’ve become very difficult for her to do anything if Rs got a supermajority.

Absolutely. It's one of the few silver linings of a President Trump. Republicans could have plausibly built a Senate majority that would have lasted for a long time had 2018 been a blowout and 2020 some sort of wave as well. It's hard to see Clinton winning a 2nd term. It's pretty easy to see 2020 being a big win for Republicans too, which would have left them with a federal trifecta and a 60+ Senate majority and a big House majority in 2021. Not to mention a dominant position in redistricting.

[Doimper]

R+15:
Indiana
Missouri
West Virginia
Montana
North Dakota
Florida
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Michigan
Virginia (actually picked up in 2017-Special)
Minnesota (x2 if the Franken stuff still happens)
New Jersey
New Mexico

This is the correct worst-case scenario. Republicans probably fumble a few of these by nominating crazy people, though.

[Strudelcutie4427]

House GOP flips:
NH-1
NH-2
CT-5
NY-3
NY-18
NJ-5
PA-8 (the new one)
FL-7
FL-13
MN-1
MN-7
MN-8
IA-2
IL-10
IL-11
IL-17
NV-3
NV-4
CA-7
CA-16

[NewYorkExpress]

Republicans hold everything except Nevada, pick up North Dakota, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, Montana, Minnesota (either seat, but not both), Ohio and Florida, with possible additional gains in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Maine and Virginia (in the 2017 special...though I think an appointed Senator, probably Northam would survive against anyone not named Barbra Comstock or Ed Gillespie).

[Xing]

R+15 wouldn't happen, but it would be pretty ugly for Democrats:

[Progressive Pessimist]

Baldwin, Brown, Casey, and Kaine's successor could possibly hold on, but that is just about the best case scenario for the Democrats in a Clinton midterm.

[Virginiá]

House GOP flips:
NH-1
NH-2
CT-5
NY-3
NY-18
NJ-5
PA-8 (the new one)
FL-7
FL-13
MN-1
MN-7
MN-8
IA-2
IL-10
IL-11
IL-17
NV-3
NV-4
CA-7
CA-16

LMAO

Predicting these kinds of seats in such a scenario is impossible. They are too Dem-leaning, even in a Republican wave, and both their presidential winning margins expanded for Clinton compared to 2012. Maybe if they were open seats and the Democrat was a weak candidate. But either way, they would be almost surely be upsets if they did flip.

Otherwise, the rate of flips for seats like that is incredibly low for a reason.

[progressive85]

If I was a Republican, I would have prayed for a Hillary victory in 2016 because I would have known that 2018 would have been a monstrous red wave that would have set up 2020 as the year that the Republicans would be in the position of having over 60 seats in the Senate, a huge House majority, and a much younger, more charismatic conservative than Donald Trump, who would have won in a landslide.

[wesmoorenerd]

Best case for Dems is losing IN, MO, ND, WV, FL. Worst case is all of those plus OH, MT, WI, MN (special), PA, MI, NJ. Essentially the Dems lose anywhere from 5 to 12. On the flipside, a Hillary victory means Democrats probably recovered a few seats like WI and PA that they failed to get in our timeline, while definitely not winning AL.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I honestly think that Bill Nelson would beat Rick Scott in a Hillary Clinton midterm. Much narrower than he will in reality, but still a win for Bill Nelson.

If Republicans landed someone stronger as a candidate than Rick Scott, however, Bill Nelson would probably lose.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

R+8 giving the Republicans a filibuster proof majority is possible. For the 8, I'd give WV, MO, MT, IN, ND, OH, FL, and WI. They're all states that Trump could still win while losing the election.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

R+8 giving the Republicans a filibuster proof majority is possible. For the 8, I'd give WV, MO, MT, IN, ND, OH, FL, and WI. They're all states that Trump could still win while losing the election.

A Clinton victory would almost certainly have pushed McGinty and Feingold over the line in their Senate races. So Republicans would need +10 for a filibuster proof super majority.

[Politician]

R+8 giving the Republicans a filibuster proof majority is possible. For the 8, I'd give WV, MO, MT, IN, ND, OH, FL, and WI. They're all states that Trump could still win while losing the election.

Yet If Hillary won, Democrats would pickup the Senate seats in PA and MO, and maybe WI and NC thus the Republicans would need to gain 12 seats for a supermajority.

Even that is plausible: Pickup MO, IN, WV, MT, ND, FL, OH, WI, PA, VA, MI, and MN-S.

[Politician]

R+8 giving the Republicans a filibuster proof majority is possible. For the 8, I'd give WV, MO, MT, IN, ND, OH, FL, and WI. They're all states that Trump could still win while losing the election.

A Clinton victory would almost certainly have pushed McGinty and Feingold over the line in their Senate races. So Republicans would need +10 for a filibuster proof super majority.

And Kander and maybe Ross. So they would need 12, which they could easily get, especially if Republicans recruit stronger candidates than they are IRL.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

R+8 giving the Republicans a filibuster proof majority is possible. For the 8, I'd give WV, MO, MT, IN, ND, OH, FL, and WI. They're all states that Trump could still win while losing the election.

A Clinton victory would almost certainly have pushed McGinty and Feingold over the line in their Senate races. So Republicans would need +10 for a filibuster proof super majority.

And Kander and maybe Ross. So they would need 12, which they could easily get, especially if Republicans recruit stronger candidates than they are IRL.

A narrow Hillary victory doesn't coattail anyone else into the Senate. A landslide, maybe.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

R+8 giving the Republicans a filibuster proof majority is possible. For the 8, I'd give WV, MO, MT, IN, ND, OH, FL, and WI. They're all states that Trump could still win while losing the election.

A Clinton victory would almost certainly have pushed McGinty and Feingold over the line in their Senate races. So Republicans would need +10 for a filibuster proof super majority.

And Kander and maybe Ross. So they would need 12, which they could easily get, especially if Republicans recruit stronger candidates than they are IRL.

A narrow Hillary victory doesn't coattail anyone else into the Senate. A landslide, maybe.

The only guaranteed flip I guess would be CA-49. Trump won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin by more than Issa beat Applegate.

[uti2]

R+8 giving the Republicans a filibuster proof majority is possible. For the 8, I'd give WV, MO, MT, IN, ND, OH, FL, and WI. They're all states that Trump could still win while losing the election.

A Clinton victory would almost certainly have pushed McGinty and Feingold over the line in their Senate races. So Republicans would need +10 for a filibuster proof super majority.

And Kander and maybe Ross. So they would need 12, which they could easily get, especially if Republicans recruit stronger candidates than they are IRL.

A narrow Hillary victory doesn't coattail anyone else into the Senate. A landslide, maybe.

Trump won more votes than Toomey in PA, not hard to see Toomey lose alongside Trump w/o Comey. And also, Feingold or Kander may have won w/o Comey.

Not sure why we are still discussing this or why this hasn’t been moved to what-ifs, but okay:

Most likely outcome, assuming Clinton has an approval rating of approx. 44% on election day: Republicans gain IN, MO, WV, ND (narrowly), FL (Scott by 3), OH, WI (narrowly) and maybe one of PA/MI/MN-S, although I doubt it. NV and AZ are Toss-ups, and I suspect the GOP loses one of those. So R+6, in other words: 57R, 43D (they lose one of MO/PA in a narrow Clinton victory in 2016).

This is the most realistic scenario, though I'd say that the Senate would mostly likely have been 50/50 following a Clinton win (w/ the Dems carrying either MO or WI in the senate race in addition to PA), and Rs would beat the polling to keep both NV and AZ due to low turnout under a Clinton midterm.

So, 57R/43D in a R+7 Red State laden senate environment up from a 50/50 senate.

With high-economic growth, Hillary's approval rating is probably something like 47%, and GOP gains in the house are likely limited since the GOP had already maxed out the house map for the most part.