A genie offers you a deal 2#

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

A genie appears before you and offers you a deal - The democrats will win every single senate seat  up in 2018(Texas, Utah, Nevada, NJ, MT, ND, Florida, etc) and gain 70 seats in the house....But in exchange Donald Trump will be president until 2024.

[CookieDamage]

No deal because i dont know how 2020 goes for congress

[AudmanOut]

No deal

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No

[Brittain33]

Would "Trump remains president until 2024" means he's magically inured to impeachment?

[America Needs R'hllor]

Deal, easily. He'd not be able to appoint any judges and will be forced to choose moderate-to-liberal ones or just face eternal vaccancy. Also, 2022 would be a Dem bloodshed, and 2020 will barely touch the majority even if Trump is easily reelected (and I doubt it).

[TML]

As long as Trump continues his confrontational rhetoric, then no deal.

I would only be willing to consider such a deal if Trump makes a genuine effort to expand his appeal beyond his “base.”

[Person Man]

Sure. No more SCOTUS replacements.

[Wisconsin SC Race 2019]

Deal. This may be the only way to save the nation.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

A genie appears before you and offers you a deal - The democrats will win every single senate seat  up in 2018(Texas, Utah, Nevada, NJ, MT, ND, Florida, etc) and gain 70 seats in the house....But in exchange Donald Trump will be president until 2024.

No, because the Dems are already going to win the House this year, and as long as House and Presidential control are split, Senate control is only marginally relevant.  It is, of course, relevant for court appointments, but I don't expect another SCOTUS vacancy before the 2020 election.

[nerd73]

A genie appears before you and offers you a deal - The democrats will win every single senate seat  up in 2018(Texas, Utah, Nevada, NJ, MT, ND, Florida, etc) and gain 70 seats in the house....But in exchange Donald Trump will be president until 2024.

No, because the Dems are already going to win the House this year, and as long as House and Presidential control are split, Senate control is only marginally relevant.  It is, of course, relevant for court appointments, but I don't expect another SCOTUS vacancy before the 2020 election.

I mean, gaining 70 seats in the house is kind of a big deal...

[bagelman]

It would be D+9 in the senate, with Maine the only competitive race for those "in the know" as Ringelstein surges and competes against King while Brakey collapses. D+70 in the house is a lowball considering WY, UT, and NE. Although I could make a lot of money on PredictIt with this, I'd probably err on the side of caution even if that's not forbidden. While there are some disappointing D candidates gunning for 2020 out there Trump could suffer serious mental declines during his second term and I would fear for the country.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

A genie appears before you and offers you a deal - The democrats will win every single senate seat  up in 2018(Texas, Utah, Nevada, NJ, MT, ND, Florida, etc) and gain 70 seats in the house....But in exchange Donald Trump will be president until 2024.

No, because the Dems are already going to win the House this year, and as long as House and Presidential control are split, Senate control is only marginally relevant.  It is, of course, relevant for court appointments, but I don't expect another SCOTUS vacancy before the 2020 election.

I mean, gaining 70 seats in the house is kind of a big deal...

Unless you also have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, or a Democratic president, not really.

[Co-Chair Bagel23]

No, there’s a catch bigger than a beluga.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Unless you also have a veto-proof majority in the Senate, or a Democratic president, not really.

[mcmikk]

Sure. No more SCOTUS replacements.

[Galaxie]

Give me this and Abrams/O'Rourke 2024 and sounds good to me

[Pericles]

Hell no.