Without the House and the Senate the winner of the Presidential election is going to be useless. Now, the current King Obama issues proclamations that are being driven to a current 8 seat bench of the SCOTUS. Everything that I read is the House is safe in the GOPs hands....worst case for them is 226 seats best case is 252 gleamed from various publications and websites of both sides of the aisle. The Senate is a lot different and I think more bias is involved in these predictions based on the opening on the court and future openings. I am gleaming this from multiple sources and forming my own opinion..... Worst case for the GOP looks like 52 Democratic seats meaning that the GOP would lose 6 incumbent seats and 2 up for grab seats. They also win their two contested races. Does not seem very likely that the Senate would have that much fluctuation if the House does not. Best Case for the GOP looks like 56 seats meaning the Democrats lose one incumbent race and Reid's seat and win all of their contested races. Realistically, I think the House and the Senate stay in the GOP's hands, they may lose a seat or two in the Senate but they are not going to lose the house, I think they will actually gain some house seats. I don't believe that either presidential candidate will have very long coat tails as the unfavorability rating for both candidates may make them toxic.....just looking for hones thoughts and what others are seeing.....
Without Congress to go along with the POTUS plans, neither candidate will be able to do much. I expect less straight ticket voters too. Incumbents beware as there is A LOT of desire to kick them out of D.C. That brings me to the next point. Who has more open seats? Last I checked the problem with the Senate is that the R's have twice as many open seats as the D's. In an election where the "establishment" is a dirty word, expect surprise incumbent losses. If an incumbent is in a hotly contested election bet on the opposition. The House has too great an R advantage. The best the D's can hope for is climb closer to a split.
I still think Trump is a toxic combination for the GOP. He'll motivate high Democratic turnout but demoralize GOP turnout where it really matters. Mark Kirk (IL) is almost a sure loss. Ron Johnson is a probable loss. Ayotte (NH) is a true tossup. Portman (OH), and Toomey (PA) will probably hold on narrowly. Though I think Trump will lose Arizona, I think McCain will hang on. Rubio would have been a safe seat had he not run for President. Now I think it depends on who wins the Democratic nomination. If Grayson wins, Rubio will be safe even when Trump loses Florida. If Murphy wins, then it'll be a tossup. The bottom line is that Democrats will gain a few House seats but will still fall short of a majority. The Senate will probably be very close - will likely be 51-49 one way or the other. If it's 50-50, it wouldn't shock me if the GOP makes a deal with Joe Manchin to switch parties. If Trump is denied the nomination, it changes the game significantly. Toomey, and Portman are probably safe. Ayotte becomes a favorite but not safe. Johnson becomes a tossup, and Kirk becomes a long shot but not out of the question. The GOP gets a chance to pickup Reid's seat. Overall, they probably lose two seats with a chance to lose only one if they pick up Reid's.
While I agree if this was normal election you might see a rise in Dem and drop in GOP turnout but I actually believe the Anti-Trumpers will still vote to keep Hillary from doing anything. After the convention they will say to themselves, not voting Trump or Hillary, but I can't let Hillary and the Democrats control any part of congress. Just a thought.....
It seems like you were trying to make a serious post, but you realize it failed at this point, right?
No, I don't think so, I think America failed us in November 2008, a mistake that we will regret for a very long time.
It's a fallacy that controlling the majority in Congress can check a President in today's "gang allegiance" political climate. We've seen it time and again these last few years. Despite a simple majority in Congress, Reps can't pass anything Obama is against without a larger veto-proof majority. Even things the majority of Americans poll in favor of...defunding sanctuary cities, Obamacare repeals, etc. die in the wind once vetoed. It's not just a Liberal thing, and would be the exact same way with Trump as Prez and Dems holding a simple majority in Congress. Trump would veto and the gang mentality would carry it without Dems having a veto-proof majority to override the veto. Without a veto-proof majority, the other party is useless if opposite the President. His Congressional minority will safeguard the veto and the President will win out. The only benefit of controlling Congress in this case is new bills won't make it out of Congress that the majority party is against. But passing their own bills is a peeing in the wind. So many blame the Rep held Congress and there are valid arguments, but assuming they can actually pass laws against Obama's hot-button stances is complete nonsense. Without veto-proof majority they are helpless to take a stand short of holding the country hostage by withholding funds. And when the power of the purse is used, the majority of Americans despise the party doing it and shame them as harming America. Single party power comes in two forms (not including the Supreme Court)... 1) President plus simple majority in Congress of same party Laws the Prez wants will be drafted and passed, no veto needed 2) One party holding a veto-proof majority in Congress Laws the Prez opposes will be passed, his veto has no power to stop them Either of those scenarios allows one party to pass laws at will with little resistance. A third less powerful scenario is what Dems have today...President and veto-carrying minority in Congress. In that case they don't get to pass laws they want, but will reject any bills they don't like. Also any executive orders the Prez makes pass unless the courts get involved.
