It is possible that the 2018 midterms will involve the Democrats taking the House of Representatives, but Republicans running up their advantage in the Senate.
Suppose that the Democrats take a 218-217 majority in the House (a gain of 25 seats,) but Republicans take the five blue-held Senate seats in the five states that Trump won by a margin of 18 percentage points or greater (Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, and Missouri.) Everything else (i.e., gubernatorial) remains unchanged. House: 218 Democrats, 217 Republicans Senate: 57 Republicans, 41 Democrats, 2 independents
Which side would be considered the election “winner?”
I would consider that a more significant gain for Democrats, since they’d be able to stop legislation from moving forward. A divided Senate and House would be far better than what we’ve got now.
The Senate already has a Republican majority, so there’d be no substantive change there. But Democrats holding the House could cut off any further nonsense like the Unaffordable Health Care Act.
As another benefit, it’d also mean that if it came to impeaching both the President and the Vice-President, the Speaker would be next in line. Unlikely to work with the Republicans still in control of the Senate, and thus unlikely to vote to convict, but still better than the current situation.
So how many seats would the Republicans have to pick up in the Senate for the election outcome to be considered a draw? Eight? (which means 60-seat filibuster majority)
I suspect that if there is a SCOTUS vacancy, and the Republicans have a big majority in the Senate, they may try to take advantage of that by having Trump (or President Pence) select as polarizing and extreme a right-wing justice as possible, knowing that they can afford to lose defecting Republican senators all the way down to 50, and still have the VP cast a tie-breaking vote.
(Does the 51-seat nuclear option mean that 50 votes + VP counts as 51?)
Normally, yes. But the Democrats are facing an unusually lopsided Senate map in 2018, unfavorably so.
That being said - yes, it would be hard for the Republicans to gain 5 seats in the Senate while losing 25 in the House, even if there are five Democratic senators in deep-deep-red states up for reelection that year.
Obviously it depends on how you measure things. In one respect, Democrats don’t win at all unless they control everything, whereas Republicans don’t need more than one chamber of Congress. Democrats like to pass major legislation. Republicans don’t need to do that to be successful with their base.
But the way most people measure election results is by expectations, and Democrats taking the House would be considered a win. Governing parties always lose seats in midterms(well, almost always), but losing majorities is a sign of failure. If Republicans gain seats in the Senate despite losing the House, that would just be chalked up to the unfavorable map for Democrats.
Believe it or not, I think Democrats taking everything in 2018 would end up being a victory for Trump. Trump is no doctrinaire Republican and I don’t think he particularly cares who he works with. I think he’d be quite satisfied to work with a Democratic Congress. He’d just keep his fans happy by insulting them constantly and telling his base that all the Democratic legislation he’s signing is “just beautiful, amazing new laws”.
I can see Republicans gaining two seats, I can see Democrats doing the same. This is a very bad map for Democrats in 2018 but the next two are the mother lode of opportunity. Just controlling the House will be huge, it will kill the GOP health care plan (unless already signed). Just as important, it puts the committee chairs in Democratic hands and proper investigations into the White House Mafia can commence.
I’d consider that a victory for the Democrats. In addition to being able to block legislation they gain procedural control over all of the House committees; Judiciary in particular. That in and of itself is a huge deal even without starting impeachment proceedings.
Let’s dispense with any idea that Democratic filibusters have any value. Take it to the Are we becoming a dictatorship thread? if you want to debate this.
That would be a huge win. Unfortunately it’s very unlikely, Pence is said to be the most moral white man on the planet: What sin are you impeaching him for?
( … Unless “impeaching … V.P.” was a euphemism for Pence-death.)
At this point most of us would be happy just to curb the worst excesses of malice and greed. “Passing major legislation” is a shattered dream now.
Trump is very impeachable, but impeachment is no solution. Then we get the “Dictatorship”, Ryan and Pence. Domestically, a Trump Administration is probably better than Pence-Ryan. (Yes, American foreign prestige will crumble under Trump but odds are good there will be no nuclear weapons used. In the post-America world that is emerging, crumbled American prestige nay have its good points.)
And at last someone brings up the Elephant in the Room.
If the GOP tries to impeach Trump, the Democrats should resist — certainly I hope most Demo Senators do not vote to convict. A Trump enraged at the GOP and willing to reach out to the Dems is a Trump I prefer vastly over the one we have now.
I like to think smart Democrats are already secretly reaching out to Trump: “Hey, Sir Donald. Empower us (with a few Republicans) to make some basic improvements in Obamacare and we’ll be happy to put your name on it. You complain we’re not voting with the GOP? Work with us, and soon your anger will be directed against those GOPsters that oppose you.”
Unfortunately this has very little chance of success. Real power is bouncing around among Kushner and his wife, or Bannon or whoever. Trump is in a 2nd childhood wrapped up in Twitter trolling.
Don’t know about Trump, but I’d guess that if Trump and Pence were both impeached, Pence would short-circuit this by resigning before he could be impeached, and first naming his successor VP before he resigned. That way a Republican VP would succeed to the White House and so cut off a Democratic House Speaker from getting his/her promotion to the Oval Office.
I’d say the Dems “won” that election if the outcome were like the OP. Like others have said, that’s largely due to expectations. I consider it unlikely that the Dems retake the House in 2016, and quite likely that the Republicans pick up a few seats in the Senate. If the Dems beat my expectation on the House side, I’d say they “won”.
That’s not how it works at all. Unless Pence is already President when he resigned he doesn’t get to nominate a VP; Trump does, and Trump’s nominee would need to be approved by both houses of Congress.
What if the Democrats get really close in the House, but not an outright majority - say, the GOP retains only a 219-216 majority in the House?
I see. I suppose the amended hypothetical would have to go like this: Trump and Pence both know they’re about to be impeached. Pence resigns first. Trump nominates a new VP and the new VP is approved by the GOP-held houses of Congress immediately before Trump himself resigns.
The Republicans win as long as they control either the House or the Senate. In either case, all the Democrats can do is block, and the Republicans can complain about the Democratic obstruction.
If the Republicans win the House, they can define the budget, because that’s where appropriations start.
If the Republicans win the Senate, they control the Supreme Court nominees, plus all those treaties Trump’s promising to rewrite.