We could see wild swings the next several Senate Elections (house seat, Congress)

[Smash255]

This year the Democrats had 21 Seats up, the GOP had 15 seats up (3 were Special Elections) and the GOP picked up at least 7 seats, which will likely be 9 when it is all set and done.

In 2016, Not including any special elections there will be 34 seats up, 24 of them held by the GOP, 10 by the Democrats.

In 2018, not including any special elections, 33 seats will be up. 23 Democratic Seats + 2 Indenpedents that Caucus with the Democrats & 8 GOP Seats.

In 2020, not including any Special Elections, 33 seats will be up, (assuming the GOP wins Alaska and Louisiana) 22 of those seats will be held by Republicans, 11 by Democrats.

[SimplySagacious]

Originally Posted by Smash255

This year the Democrats had 21 Seats up, the GOP had 15 seats up (3 were Special Elections) and the GOP picked up at least 7 seats, which will likely be 9 when it is all set and done.

In 2016, Not including any special elections there will be 34 seats up, 24 of them held by the GOP, 10 by the Democrats.

In 2018, not including any special elections, 33 seats will be up. 23 Democratic Seats + 2 Indenpedents that Caucus with the Democrats & 8 GOP Seats.

In 2020, not including any Special Elections, 33 seats will be up, (assuming the GOP wins Alaska and Louisiana) 22 of those seats will be held by Republicans, 11 by Democrats.

I'm not sure what your point is. It looks like you are rationalizing this election as unexplainable and that it may set a precedent for wild swings for no reason at all.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by SimplySagacious

I'm not sure what your point is. It looks like you are rationalizing this election as unexplainable and that it may set a precedent for wild swings for no reason at all.

Actually he has a point, when one side has more seats to defend it becomes harder for them to make anyour gains, but when there are few seats to protect it is much easier to go on the offensive to score more seats. 2016 will be a tough election year for Republicans for that reason alone. That doesn't mean they won't fair well, it just means it will be a challenge.

[Bulldogdad]

Let the games begin and may the odds be ever in your favor.

[Patricius Maximus]

Given an evenly-matched vote total the GOP would lose a couple of seats in 2016, and the Democrats would lose a couple in 2018; however real life almost never gives you such a scenario so it just depends. Keep in mind that Democrats were defending a ton of seats in 2012 but nevertheless gained 2 more despite the lack of any national wave (Obama won by just 4 points, House gains were weak, and Dems lost ground at the state level). One also has to keep in mind that Republicans did not win all of the competitive seats in 2010, so there's some room for gains when those seats come up again in 2016.

Tentatively, I'd say if there's no strong national trend one way or the other Republicans will lose a few seats but keep their new Senate majority. If there's a Democratic wave the Democrats will retake the Senate with a small majority, and if there's a Republican wave they will gain a few seats and reach a majority in the high 50's. I think a Democratic wave is highly unlikely in light of the probable outcome of Obama's lame duck stage, so offhand I'd say 2016 would range from a draw to another Republican wave, depending greatly on whether the Republican majority has the guts to stand up to Obama and the Democrats and fight to implement their principles rather than just sit there, protect the status quo, and give no voter any reason to convert or turn out to vote for them. Given the latter 2016 would be a draw; given the former I could see another Republican wave a la the Democrats in 2008.

What's really interesting and almost frightening is the possibility of another wave happening on top of the historic gains from 2014 - a Republican House majority well above 250 and a Republican Senate majority approaching 60 would put Congressional Democrats roughly where they were before FDR. The GOP would expand their death grip on the states, though the limited number up means Democrats would probably still have total control over the same 7 states with some split states going red; nevertheless if there is a 2016 GOP wave there may be as few as a dozen Democratic governors left. Already the GOP controls more at the state level than any time in their history. A Republican wave would almost certainly install a Republican President, finally felling the sole center of power Democrats still controlled after 2014.

Of course if there is a draw-type election things will be vastly different but in that situation any Democratic President would probably face a hostile Congress and hostile states until at least 2020. More seriously, unless there is a big turnaround it is probable that in the near future Democrats will control almost nothing outside of urban areas and scattered rural enclaves in blue states, ergo blue-state urbanites will be all that is left in the party. The so-called "leadership gap" will plague Democrats for years or even decades to come because they will struggle to adapt to being a smaller party; ever since 1932 they have controlled so much they could just take the availability of talent for granted, but even with the losses of this election, let alone another loss in 2016, that won't be the case any longer. They will have to be much more organized about recruiting talent and much more discriminating about where their talented people run; Republicans as the historically smaller party already do that to a great degree, and now it's Democrats' turn. Barring big gains it would be wise for Democrats to focus talent recruitment and grooming on big-city mayorships, big-city House seats and subsequent Congressional leadership positions*, and party leaderships in state legislatures, extending to Governorships and Senate seats in the deep blue states. This is more or less how Democrats groomed candidates from the 1870's until the Great Depression came along, so they will have to relearn if they are to have any viable national candidates. Republicans may eventually fall into the same trap Democrats did, but old habits die hard and it will be some time before the current generation is exhausted on the other side at any rate.

In terms of 2016 Democratic Presidential prospects, Hillary and O'Malley have been revealed to have no influence or pull among the electorate. The Southern Senate candidates the Clintons campaigned for didn't receive any more of the white vote than Obama did despite the advantages of no terrible record, the Clintons endorsing them, being from there, big money pouring in, and having a surname brand; in some cases they may have gotten an even lower share than Obama's dismal performance. With this in mind the 2016 nominee should expect to do even worse than Obama among white Southerners. I also think that if Hillary is unable or unwilling to run the chances of a dark horse nominee have increased for 2016 and considering the old age of the mentioned candidates the chances of a dark horse in 2020 emerging are high assuming the 2016 nominee loses.

*Imagine this career path: big-city Mayor for a term or two, big-city House member, Conference chairman, House Democratic leader, national ticket candidate. Throw in perhaps a state legislative leadership position in the earlier parts as an alternative. While unconventional it would give a talented Democrat opportunity to prove his mettle as a leader, craft federal and/or state policy, and acquire executive experience, all of which would make for a viable profile for a national ticket. The bonus of this pathway is that it is unaffected by statewide hostility towards Democratic candidate, since the alternative paths all involve statewide office. Someone like Wendy Davis could win a seat and move up in rank in the House instead of facing insurmountable statewide odds. This may be important considering how many states Democrats are locked out of for the foreseeable future even with a 2016 wave.