2018 under President Hillary

[Virginiá]

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

That's not necessarily true. McGinty could go either way, really, but if you're talking about adding an extra .5 - 1% to Hillary's popular vote margin, then it is very easy to see that happening. Kander is a bit of a wildcard because it really depends how much better Clinton does in MO. There is no guarantee she improves all that much there in a narrow win. If she could get close to a Obama 2012 margin there, then I'd say Kander would be a favorite. Say what you want about him, but he had a strong performance, but there is only so much he can do if the top of the ticket gets totally blown out.

Ross isn't too plausible IMO. At least not without a much bigger Clinton win. Burr's winning margin was a few more points than Trump, so it would have been hard to beat that in a year where downballot Democrats were under-performing Clinton by and large.

[uti2]

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

That's not necessarily true. McGinty could go either way, really, but if you're talking about adding an extra .5 - 1% to Hillary's popular vote margin, then it is very easy to see that happening. Kander is a bit of a wildcard because it really depends how much better Clinton does in MO. There is no guarantee she improves all that much there in a narrow win. If she could get close to a Obama 2012 margin there, then I'd say Kander would be a favorite. Say what you want about him, but he had a strong performance, but there is only so much he can do if the top of the ticket gets totally blown out.

Ross isn't too plausible IMO. At least not without a much bigger Clinton win. Burr's winning margin was a few more points than Trump, so it would have been hard to beat that in a year where downballot Democrats were under-performing Clinton by and large.

A narrow Clinton win would still mean something like +4 in the popular vote, a larger win would be something like +6, it depends on how many points you think Comey moved.

[Virginiá]

^ Right. I was thinking something more like 2.5%, although there is no guarantee that it scoops up the states needed, although it seems possible. Michigan for sure.

A 4% win, which is slightly more than Obama's 2012 margin, would probably put Kander into play, and maybe Wisconsin gets more competitive as well. It's also worth pointing out that a 4% margin would probably give Clinton at least a bare majority of House districts. Her coalition did pretty well even with just ~2%, and there were enough close seats around the country that would have easily been pushed over the edge with an additional 2 points. I think DTC made a thread on this a few months ago.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

For simplicity sake let's say that down ballot races remain the same as RL (yes I'm aware that probably doesn't happen in a Hillary victory)

House:



Senate:

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

^ Right. I was thinking something more like 2.5%, although there is no guarantee that it scoops up the states needed, although it seems possible. Michigan for sure.

A 4% win, which is slightly more than Obama's 2012 margin, would probably put Kander into play, and maybe Wisconsin gets more competitive as well. It's also worth pointing out that a 4% margin would probably give Clinton at least a bare majority of House districts. Her coalition did pretty well even with just ~2%, and there were enough close seats around the country that would have easily been pushed over the edge with an additional 2 points. I think DTC made a thread on this a few months ago.

The following Districts would have flipped if Hillary Clinton won a majority of Congressional Districts nationwide based on uniform shifts in the 2-Party vote:

(Using 2016 District boundaries so no new Pennsylvania map)

01. PA-08
02. IL-17
03. NJ-11
04. NV-03
05. AZ-01
06. NJ-05
07. MN-02
08. GA-06
09. NH-01
10. FL-25
11. NY-18
12. NE-02
13. VA-02

In VA-02:

Clinton received 145762 votes
Trump   received 156694 votes

[nerd73]

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 bigger Clinton victory yes, but if it was a narrow victory (say just WI, MI, and PA) then Republicans could still have 52 seats.

[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 bigger Clinton victory yes, but if it was a narrow victory (say just WI, MI, and PA) then Republicans could still have 52 seats.

It wasn't just Trump who beat the election day polling, downballot republicans also did by similar margins as Trump. The same factors that benefited Trump (Comey or whatever else) likewise benefited them. Take those advantageous factors away from Trump, and you'd have to take them away from downballot republicans too.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

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

I'm talking about the Senate, not other races. Hillary lost Wisconsin by 0.77%, while McGinty lost by 1.43%, so a very narrow Hillary victory doesn't flip any Senate races. If she wins with a couple of points to spare in the critical swing states, then McGinty wins but Kander and Feingold still lose.

[here2view]

Didn't know this but it's interesting that Kander lost by less than Feingold (3.4% to 3.1%.)

As for the question, I think a Hillary win is enough to carry McGinty to victory, as well as either Feingold or Kander (likely Feingold because of the state.) Any other state, like North Carolina, is out of play.

So 2017 starts off with a 50-50 split. I think the GOP gains Kaine's seat in Virginia for the special election though, making it 51-49 in their favor.

2018 sees Republicans hold all incumbent seats. The Senate is likely 58-42 in the GOP's favor (not counting Doug Jones because Alabama never happens.) 2018 sees the GOP gain West Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, and Nevada, so +7.

[Checkard]

Didn't know this but it's interesting that Kander lost by less than Feingold (3.4% to 3.1%.)

As for the question, I think a Hillary win is enough to carry McGinty to victory, as well as either Feingold or Kander (likely Feingold because of the state.) Any other state, like North Carolina, is out of play.

So 2017 starts off with a 50-50 split. I think the GOP gains Kaine's seat in Virginia for the special election though, making it 51-49 in their favor.

2018 sees Republicans hold all incumbent seats. The Senate is likely 58-42 in the GOP's favor (not counting Doug Jones because Alabama never happens.) 2018 sees the GOP gain West Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, and Nevada, so +7.

Actually Kander only lost by 2.8%

[uti2]

Didn't know this but it's interesting that Kander lost by less than Feingold (3.4% to 3.1%.)

As for the question, I think a Hillary win is enough to carry McGinty to victory, as well as either Feingold or Kander (likely Feingold because of the state.) Any other state, like North Carolina, is out of play.

So 2017 starts off with a 50-50 split. I think the GOP gains Kaine's seat in Virginia for the special election though, making it 51-49 in their favor.

2018 sees Republicans hold all incumbent seats. The Senate is likely 58-42 in the GOP's favor (not counting Doug Jones because Alabama never happens.) 2018 sees the GOP gain West Virginia, Indiana, Florida, Missouri, North Dakota, Montana, and Nevada, so +7.

The special election for Kaine's seat would've been held at the same time as the VA-Gov race, so it depends on whether you think Gillespie wins, considering 2013/2014, it's likely Dems keep both the Gov and the Senate Seat.

[uti2]

^ I mean I could see VA going red for the GOV and Sen under a Bernie presidency, but Hillary's center-left politics is right up NoVA's alley.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Actually, I think in 2017, Virginia would have elected a Republican Senator and a Democratic Governor in a hypothetical Clinton Presidency.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

For simplicity sake let's say that down ballot races remain the same as RL (yes I'm aware that probably doesn't happen in a Hillary victory)

House:



Senate:

Lmao, Casey going down before Baldwin and Nelson?

[uti2]

Actually, I think in 2017, Virginia would have elected a Republican Senator and a Democratic Governor in a hypothetical Clinton Presidency.

Maybe with a President Bernie, but a centrist like Hillary? A Senator Fiorina alongside a Governor Northam? Hard to see that kind of split-ticket voting in NoVA.

[Brittain33]

Neither Flake nor Franken leaves the Senate if Clinton is President. Flake doesn’t end up an outsider in his party, and Franken’s metoo moment never happens.

[Yellowhammer]

Actually, I think in 2017, Virginia would have elected a Republican Senator and a Democratic Governor in a hypothetical Clinton Presidency.

Maybe with a President Bernie, but a centrist like Hillary? A Senator Fiorina alongside a Governor Northam? Hard to see that kind of split-ticket voting in NoVA.

These two words do not belong in the same sentence.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Actually, I think in 2017, Virginia would have elected a Republican Senator and a Democratic Governor in a hypothetical Clinton Presidency.

Maybe with a President Bernie, but a centrist like Hillary? A Senator Fiorina alongside a Governor Northam? Hard to see that kind of split-ticket voting in NoVA.

These two words do not belong in the same sentence.

[uti2]

Actually, I think in 2017, Virginia would have elected a Republican Senator and a Democratic Governor in a hypothetical Clinton Presidency.

Maybe with a President Bernie, but a centrist like Hillary? A Senator Fiorina alongside a Governor Northam? Hard to see that kind of split-ticket voting in NoVA.

These two words do not belong in the same sentence.

Relatively, she's as much a centrist to the Democrats as Jeb is to the Republicans. Repeal of Glass-Steagall, Welfare Reform, Crime Bill, opposed Driver's Licenses for Illegals against Obama in '08, supports the standard bipartisan foreign policy consensus and leans towards the hawkish side, opposed the Far-Left in the form of Bernie in 2016. To put it another way, she's closer to the center than Walker/Cruz/Rubio/Fiorina are.