Do you think Trump winning 2016 is a net plus or minus for GOP?

[David Hume]

I used to think Trump win was a net plus, but changed my mind recently.

1, With Hillary in White House, Kennedy simply won't retire in 2018. He is healthy enough to hold on until 2021.

2, While McConnell and Grassley may not be able to avoid hold hearing to wait for the next president, they may still be able to hold the seat open. Deep red state senators like Mike Lee take turn to filibuster any nominee that is "not in the mold of Scalia". Dems won't have enough votes to break filibuster.

3, 2018 would be a tough year for Dems. R would hold AZ and NV, and flip WV, ND, MT, IN, MO, FL, WI, MI, OH, giving them outright supermajority. Tina Smith, Casey and Menendez would have been endangered as well. R would easily hold the House, and win a handful of governorships like WI, MI, NV, as well as several state legislatures.

4, With COVID coming, Hillary won't be able to do much and will get the blames like Trump did. A generic R candidate will be able to defeat her.

5, R will be able to hold AZ ,CO and the two GA seats, and flip MI at least. Once again, they hold the House, win several governorships and state legislatures.

6, Kennedy retires in 2021 and McConnell install three hardline conservatives like Alito.

7, The MI redistricting commission may not be able to pass in 2018, and with a likely R governor elected in 2017 and no flip in legislature in 2019, the VA GOP may not push for redistricting commission.

8, GOP will thus likely to control redistricting in WI, MI, PA, VA, NV, LA, or even MN. They were likely to keep NY senate in 2018 and 2020. They may have flipped a house of OR or NM to have a say there.

9. As a result, R will likely to gerrymander WI, MI, PA, VA, NV, LA, and MN. D won't be able to flip legislatures of WI, MI, PA or even MN within this decade, due to their geographic disadvantages. It may be very had for them to flip legislatures of NV and VA until the second half of the decade. NYGOP will be able to continue gerrymandering the NY senate, and avoid a potential Dem gerrymander of the Congressional districts.

10, As a result of 9, the House will be even more R leaning, such that even a 2018 level blue wave won't be able to flip it.

11, Basically, Dems will be locked in congressional minorities for the whole decade.

12, If they win back 2028, 2030 may repeat 2010.

In comparison, Dems are in a way better situation today.

[Skill and Chance]

Clearly a net plus.  Assuming the president's party wins senate control, 2016 was the most important election since 1980.  The winner gets to fill Scalia's seat right off the bat, and while Kennedy wouldn't retire by 2018 in this scenario, RBG clearly would, and Breyer might too, cementing a liberal SCOTUS majority for a decade or more.  The 2020 outcome basically doesn't matter after the other party fills all those seats, unless they somehow got strong enough to call a constitutional convention.

Dems would trade 2020 for 2016 any day of the week.     

[David Hume]

Clearly a net plus.  Assuming the president's party wins senate control, 2016 was the most important election since 1980.  The winner gets to fill Scalia's seat right off the bat, and while Kennedy wouldn't retire by 2018 in this scenario, RBG clearly would, and Breyer might too, cementing a liberal SCOTUS majority for a decade or more.  The 2020 outcome basically doesn't matter after the other party fills all those seats, unless they somehow got strong enough to call a constitutional convention.

Dems would trade 2020 for 2016 any day of the week.     

Clearly I am assuming other elections in 2016 did not change.

[RFayette]

Clearly a net plus.  Assuming the president's party wins senate control, 2016 was the most important election since 1980.  The winner gets to fill Scalia's seat right off the bat, and while Kennedy wouldn't retire by 2018 in this scenario, RBG clearly would, and Breyer might too, cementing a liberal SCOTUS majority for a decade or more.  The 2020 outcome basically doesn't matter after the other party fills all those seats, unless they somehow got strong enough to call a constitutional convention.

Dems would trade 2020 for 2016 any day of the week.     

Yeah, SCOTUS matters a lot, and the congressional losses just weren't that bad.

[Mr.Phips]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

[Tekken_Guy]

Depends on the situation. Depending on how big Clinton won by, there is a decent chance she is able to get McGinty, Feingold, and Kander over the finish line.

But given that Johnson and Blunt won by 3 in real life it's easy to see them holding on even in a Clinton victory. Toomey still won PA by about half a percentage point more than Trump did so there's a narrow band where the state splits their tickets.

More importantly, I think Trump was able to get lot of Obama-Trump and low-propensity voters permanently into the GOP fold. If the GOP returns to a more McCain/Romney-esque nominee it's easy to see them go back to their old voting patterns. Counterpoint is the suburbs probably snap back as well. This probably helped solidify their hold on Iowa and Ohio, for example, and kept the rust belt trio from going back to being Lean/Likely D states. Though it might have caused states like AZ, GA, TX to move away from them quicker.

[E-Dawg]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Why were 1952 and 1956 a minus for Republicans long term?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Clearly a net plus.  Assuming the president's party wins senate control, 2016 was the most important election since 1980.  The winner gets to fill Scalia's seat right off the bat, and while Kennedy wouldn't retire by 2018 in this scenario, RBG clearly would, and Breyer might too, cementing a liberal SCOTUS majority for a decade or more.  The 2020 outcome basically doesn't matter after the other party fills all those seats, unless they somehow got strong enough to call a constitutional convention.

Dems would trade 2020 for 2016 any day of the week.     

2000 imo was the most consequential presidential election since 1980

[Mr.Phips]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Why were 1952 and 1956 a minus for Republicans long term?

The 1958 midterms set Republicans back decades in state legislatures and congress, while Ike pretty much governed as a non partisan and didn’t get any Republican policies enacted anyway.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

[Mr.Phips]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

[Mr.Phips]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

How did they push the nation left other than on Obamacare?  Dems lost over 1,000 state legislative and House seat under Obama and have barely won only a small portion of them back (and will likely lose even more in 2022).

[OSR stands with Israel]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

How did they push the nation left other than on Obamacare?  Dems lost over 1,000 state legislative and House seat under Obama and have barely won only a small portion of them back (and will likely lose even more in 2022).

Right Wing Neoliberalism was pretty much discredited after Bush and hasnt come back since then. Also if Bush lost in 2004, President Romney or McCain come in with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009 and we probably get a lot of stuff passed

[Mr.Phips]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

How did they push the nation left other than on Obamacare?  Dems lost over 1,000 state legislative and House seat under Obama and have barely won only a small portion of them back (and will likely lose even more in 2022).

Right Wing Neoliberalism was pretty much discredited after Bush and hasnt come back since then. Also if Bush lost in 2004, President Romney or McCain come in with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009 and we probably get a lot of stuff passed

And then Dems have a wave in 2010 and so far better in redistricting.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

How did they push the nation left other than on Obamacare?  Dems lost over 1,000 state legislative and House seat under Obama and have barely won only a small portion of them back (and will likely lose even more in 2022).

Right Wing Neoliberalism was pretty much discredited after Bush and hasnt come back since then. Also if Bush lost in 2004, President Romney or McCain come in with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009 and we probably get a lot of stuff passed

And then Dems have a wave in 2010 and so far better in redistricting.

Policy Wins> Electoral wins imo. The reason you have electoral wins is so you get policy wins, not the other way around.

[Mr. Smith]

Huge net minus...which is precisely why it's baffling why there was so much hub-bub to get rid of him.

[Mr.Phips]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

How did they push the nation left other than on Obamacare?  Dems lost over 1,000 state legislative and House seat under Obama and have barely won only a small portion of them back (and will likely lose even more in 2022).

Right Wing Neoliberalism was pretty much discredited after Bush and hasnt come back since then. Also if Bush lost in 2004, President Romney or McCain come in with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009 and we probably get a lot of stuff passed

And then Dems have a wave in 2010 and so far better in redistricting.

Policy Wins> Electoral wins imo. The reason you have electoral wins is so you get policy wins, not the other way around.

I think Bush getting two Supreme Court appointments in 2005/2006 were pretty big policy wins.  If Kerry had won in 2004, he may have been able to fill those seats.

[Sir Mohamed]

Clearly a net plus.  Assuming the president's party wins senate control, 2016 was the most important election since 1980.  The winner gets to fill Scalia's seat right off the bat, and while Kennedy wouldn't retire by 2018 in this scenario, RBG clearly would, and Breyer might too, cementing a liberal SCOTUS majority for a decade or more.  The 2020 outcome basically doesn't matter after the other party fills all those seats, unless they somehow got strong enough to call a constitutional convention.

Dems would trade 2020 for 2016 any day of the week.     

2000 imo was the most consequential presidential election since 1980

Explain? Because the 2000 map hasn't changed much in every election since? For sure one can argue so, that 2000 was geographic realignment.

[Mr.Phips]

Clearly a net plus.  Assuming the president's party wins senate control, 2016 was the most important election since 1980.  The winner gets to fill Scalia's seat right off the bat, and while Kennedy wouldn't retire by 2018 in this scenario, RBG clearly would, and Breyer might too, cementing a liberal SCOTUS majority for a decade or more.  The 2020 outcome basically doesn't matter after the other party fills all those seats, unless they somehow got strong enough to call a constitutional convention.

Dems would trade 2020 for 2016 any day of the week.     

2000 imo was the most consequential presidential election since 1980

Explain? Because the 2000 map hasn't changed much in every election since? For sure one can argue so, that 2000 was geographic realignment.

Allowed Bush to get elected and gave him the incumbency advantage to allow him to win re-election in 2004, which allowed him to appoint to two Supreme Court justices in 2005/2006.  Also, his election didn’t even result in Dems making downballot gains in the 2002 midterms due to 9/11. 

[David Hume]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

How did they push the nation left other than on Obamacare?  Dems lost over 1,000 state legislative and House seat under Obama and have barely won only a small portion of them back (and will likely lose even more in 2022).

Right Wing Neoliberalism was pretty much discredited after Bush and hasnt come back since then. Also if Bush lost in 2004, President Romney or McCain come in with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009 and we probably get a lot of stuff passed

And then Dems have a wave in 2010 and so far better in redistricting.

Policy Wins> Electoral wins imo. The reason you have electoral wins is so you get policy wins, not the other way around.

I think Bush getting two Supreme Court appointments in 2005/2006 were pretty big policy wins.  If Kerry had won in 2004, he may have been able to fill those seats.

O'Connor made it pretty clear that she wanted to retire under R president. She was only 75 and very healthy in 2005.

R senate may force Kerry to nominate José A. Cabranes for Rehnquist seat. He is a moderate conservative Latino Dem, and had been considered for SC twice by Clinton. When Rehnquist died, he was 64, the same age when Garland was nominated. Had he been confirmed, D get the first Latino justice, R get a conservative.

[Ferguson97]

Getting a 6-3 SCOTUS makes it a net plus.

[Skill and Chance]

Basically since 1980, every Presidential election that Republicans won ended up being a plus for them long term, while every Presidential election Dems won since then ended up being a minus.  

Interestingly, 1932-1972 worked the other way. 

Winning 2004 was a disaster for the GOP

Very briefly.  Bush got to appoint two justices and Republicans quickly regained all of their congressional and state losses and then some once he was gone.

and meanwhile Obama and the Democrats were able to push the nation considerably left and also the post 2010 GOP isnt the same GOP that was defeated in 2006 and 2008. That GOP basically did die in 2008 and haven't come back since

How did they push the nation left other than on Obamacare?  Dems lost over 1,000 state legislative and House seat under Obama and have barely won only a small portion of them back (and will likely lose even more in 2022).

Right Wing Neoliberalism was pretty much discredited after Bush and hasnt come back since then. Also if Bush lost in 2004, President Romney or McCain come in with a filibuster-proof majority in 2009 and we probably get a lot of stuff passed

And then Dems have a wave in 2010 and so far better in redistricting.

Policy Wins> Electoral wins imo. The reason you have electoral wins is so you get policy wins, not the other way around.

I think Bush getting two Supreme Court appointments in 2005/2006 were pretty big policy wins.  If Kerry had won in 2004, he may have been able to fill those seats.

O'Connor made it pretty clear that she wanted to retire under R president. She was only 75 and very healthy in 2005.

R senate may force Kerry to nominate José A. Cabranes for Rehnquist seat. He is a moderate conservative Latino Dem, and had been considered for SC twice by Clinton. When Rehnquist died, he was 64, the same age when Garland was nominated. Had he been confirmed, D get the first Latino justice, R get a conservative.

Yes, the key to flipping SCOTUS "control" is winning several terms in a row- one party holding the WH and senate for a decade or more.  Most retirements are voluntary and could be timed accordingly to get around a single term of the "wrong" party. 

[here2view]

Plus, they got three Supreme Court seats and will retake the House and Senate come January 2023

[Chips]

Considering that Trump has done a lot for the GOP despite not winning re-election, I'd conclude that 2016 so far has proven to be a net positive for the GOP.