Would 1996 and 2012 have been different with Democrats keeping congressional majorities?

[President Johnson]

Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were Democratic presidents running and winning reelection after losing badly in the previous midterm. If Democrats managed to keep their majorities in 1994 and 2010, how much different would these election have been? Congressional Republicans weren't that popular both times and allowed Clinton and Obama to rally Democrats. Do continued Democratic majorities make it harder for them to blame Republicans for anything that went not well? Or do more accomplishments even help their reelection bids?

[NewYorkExpress]

Bill Clinton would have probably lost, although he probably wouldn't have been facing Dole.

Obama probably would have still won. Either he still faces Romney, who really was a really wooden campaigner, pissed off the Republican base in 2008, and lunged to the right to get them back, and wrote the infamous "Let Detroit go Bankrupt" op-ed, or alternatively, he faces Sarah Palin, who sunk the 2008 election for McCain, and quite frankly, is an idiot.

There's really no way Obama loses in 2012, unless the Democratic majority means he fails to get Bin Laden or something.

[Mr.Phips]

Clinton almost certainly wins either way in 1996 given the economic fundamentals that year. Obama I can see an argument for it going differently.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

In 2012, if Dems had the trifecta and the economy was still in the same shape as IRL, I could see it being a different outcome.

I don't see Clinton losing if national conditions were same as IRL though the election probably would've been even more boring.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

The fundamentals could be more in favor of the GOP, but the GOP wouldn't change properly.

[Del Tachi]

Both Obama and Clinton would have performed worse, but I'm unsure if it's actually enough to get either one below 270