Sign up FAST! Login

What 2014 Elections Can Tell Us About 2016: Not Much at All -

Stashed in:

To save this post, select a stash from drop-down menu or type in a new one:

Candidates from the president’s party can also perform poorly immediately after a favorable midterm election. Most notably, Democrats performed unusually well for the party of the incumbent president in 1998, gaining seats in the House and avoiding losses in the Senate in what was seen as a repudiation of the Republican impeachment of Bill Clinton. However, Al Gore significantly underperformed what most forecasting models expected just two years later, winning the popular vote only narrowly (and losing the White House) despite campaigning against the G.O.P. Congress. Similarly, George Bush was soundly defeated by Mr. Clinton just two years after his party lost only one Senate seat.The reality is that the fundamental factors that dictate presidential elections will again matter in 2016 – principally, the state of the economy in the months before the vote. Mrs. Clinton faces an additional headwind because Democrats have held the presidency for two terms, which seems to reduce incumbent party performance.From that perspective, party control of Congress is a relatively minor issue for future presidential elections. If the economy is strong, 

Basically, it all comes down to the economy.

Which neither the President nor Congress can control.

Expect this to be one of the most do-nothing Congresses we've ever had. 

You May Also Like: