Sadly, the chances of his team taking a beating like it did in 2012 are pretty close to zero.
If the GOP fails to take the Senate this year, it can only be seen as a resounding repudiation.
That’s one way to spin it. A more accurate spin would be that Republicans fail to take advantage of political environments where they should win. It’s hard to call an election where you win more votes than your opponents a repudiation. If Republicans fail to take the Senate and lose the popular vote, then we can talk about repudiation. But if they fall short just because of a couple of independent runs, that’s not repudiation, that’s just a sign that the GOP doesn’t have its shit together.
Ok, so the race is a tossup - too close to call. If the Republicans keep the House and take the Senate expect some changes.
Direct attacks on the Affordable Care Act will be met with Democratic filibuster and Presidential veto. But what about other methods? What sort of opportunities will Republican victory create for our fellow Illuminati members? Goldman Sachs economist Alec Phillips predicts more budget fights. Budgets can pass with a 51 vote majority in the Senate via reconciliation, so they are not vulnerable to Democratic filibuster. Around major fiscal deadlines, expect brinkmanship: “Since the confrontation between House Republicans and the White House over the debt limit in 2011, markets have gradually become inured to fiscal brinksmanship, as these debates have started to follow a predictable pattern. If Republicans win majorities in both chambers… that pattern seems likely to change, which could lead to renewed uncertainty ahead of future fiscal deadlines.”
C is Chaos, the Flaming Star is the Torch of Reason. The general plan is good, though in the detail there may be faults. Theodor zum guten Rath.
The fiscal fights should be more like the later Clinton years. There’s no point in either side picking a fight in Obama’s last two years. The Republicans are simply likely to enforce the sequester and Obama will have to sign such bills while complaining about them. After all, the sequester was his idea in the first place.
One might mention that it was supposed to be something that neither side was willing to do, to force them to work to a compromise. But then, it turns out that the GOP is so anti-compromise they drank the poison and smiled.
So flippantly parroting the FOX News soundbite leaves a bit of context out.
Except the sequester isn’t a huge problem. If we can’t even cut spending by that small amount then we might as well raise tax rates to 90% for everyone making over $30,000 a year right now.
Thanks to Harry Reid’s precedent, no worry about a filibuster. I seriously doubt that the Republicans would hesitate to eliminate the filibuster on legislation. One raw power grab deserves another. Then if the Republicans have the House and Senate then Obama will have to veto ACA repeal(s).
Most of ACA can be repealed through reconciliation.
It can also be vetoed.
Can we talk about repudiation in 2012 when Democrats got more House votes than the Republicans although gerrymandering kept the gavel in Boehner’s orange hands?
Is *that *when we finally get to see the Republican replacement program? Or do they have to pass it first? 
I would. They know they can’t overturn a presidential veto and, if the Democrats retake the Senate in 2016 then the “no more filibusters on legislation” seal has already been broken and the GOP can’t complain when Democrats start passing all their Senate bills with a simple majority vote. After all, it was McConnell who eliminated it.
There’s zero benefit and a ton of drawbacks.
Consequences of losing:
The President can veto all of that. So what’s the consequence?
What’s the point?
Since one side consists of the “Yay, we’ve shut down the government! Wait, what are trying to get out of this move anyway?” people, the fact that it would be pointless hardly guarantees it won’t happen again.
Under pre-2008 or pre-1995 norms, not much. But remember: Republicans have a newly acquired taste for holding the economy hostage when it’s not an election year. So expect fiscal brinksmanship. As Goldman Sachs notes, it will play out differently when strong effective leaders like Harry Reid are in the minority.
Remember: Cruz et al are nutbars. Within the Republican mind-space neuro-typical approaches mark you as a RINO and will send you packing in favor of somebody with a more hysterical temperament. To succeed as a high profile Washington Republican you either need to be crazy or simulate crazy. Otherwise, goodbye.
They learned their lesson. They want to win in 2016. They may still screw up, but it won’t be in the obvious way. There won’t be anymore shutdowns, although it wouldn’t surprise me if they threaten one to see if they can make Obama blink.
Conservatives are also hot for war in the Middle East. Can you shut down the government and still have one? I mean, our soldiers are patriots and trend conservative, but I wonder how they’ll feel when their loved ones write the about losing their homes, having trouble keeping their utilities on, etc., when there are no paychecks forthcoming. Might start wondering what they are fighting for … certainly, WHO they’re fighting for …
and don’t forget all those corporate welfare queens … gonna be pissed …