5 Reasons Why the Democrats Need a Win in 2016

Presumed 2016 Democratic Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

Frequently, you look back on an election and realize in hindsight that it was far more important than you would have thought at the time.  In 2000, when the nation was deciding between two candidates that they were largely ambivalent toward, few would have guessed we were voting on the most important foreign policy election in forty years.  The reality is that while all elections are important, some are more important than others, and the reality is that "the most important election of our lifetime" tag is something that is thrown around so often that it's lost all meaning.  And yet, it's hard not to stress the crucial nature of the 2016 elections for the Democratic Party, coming off an eight-year presidency where they all but disappeared in the halls of Congress.  Every election is important, but for the five reasons listed below, this is going to be critical for the future of the party over the next several decades.

1. The Republicans Have a Monopoly on Congress

One of the most crucial reasons the Democrats need the White House in particular (all of the 2016 elections are important, but we'll start with the race that's going to actually get you to vote) is that the Democrats have a steep climb in the Senate and a Mt. Everest-style summit in the House to win back control.  The reality is that the best way that the Democrats can either stop the Republicans or can try and make moves on a variety of issues in 2016 is through the White House, where the advantage, at least in the electoral college, nominally resides in their favor.  Look at it this way-if Mitt Romney were in the White House right now, it's difficult to see how the Democrats would have even the remotest bit of bargaining power or any sway over how the country is won.  With a 30-seat deficit in the House and a 4-5 seat (depending on the White House victor) deficit in the Senate, it's hard to see how the Democrats can win back either chamber from a two-years-out vantage point, so winning the White House is the path of least resistance to maintaining power in Washington.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

2. The Senate Math

Democrats, if they have any hopes of winning back the Senate in the next decade, must win it back in 2016.  This is because they are assuredly going to lose seats in 2018.  While the 2016 map, with Republican-held seats in blue states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Illinois, presents a rosy picture for the Democrats, the reality is that 2018 is insanely competitive.  25 Democratic seats will be up for reelection, whereas a meager 8 seats will be up for the Republicans.  Thanks to two straight election cycles for Class 1 senators that favored the Democrats (2006 and 2012), states like Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, West Virginia, and Indiana all have Democratic senators that will face reelection three years from now, whereas only one Republican seat (Nevada) appears to be competitive at this juncture.  Considering this will be a Midterm election (not the Democrats' friend lately) and that straight-ticket balloting has cost the Democrats badly in 2010 and 2014 (which could come into play for even personally-popular incumbents like Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin), the Democrats need to not only win back the Senate in 2016, but probably need to win with a cushion in order to hold the majority for longer than two years.

3. The Reelection Paradox

It's hard to believe this, but in 2020 it will have been 28 years since the United States last voted against an incumbent president in a presidential election.  In fact, in the past sixty years, only three men have lost the presidency, and only two of those men had won it in the first place (Gerald Ford of course assuming the presidency without winning a national election).  As a result, we've become extremely comfortable keeping the same individual in office for eight, rather than just four years, and this comfort combined with the inherent advantages of being the incumbent create a huge advantage for whomever wins in 2016 to win again 2020 (lest we forget, Presidents Bush and Obama had middling approval ratings at best in 2004 and 2012, respectively, and still won their respective reelections).  If the Democrats, therefore, don't win in 2016 there's a decent chance they won't have a shot at winning again for eight years, which is a mountain of time in politics.

Rep. Gwen Graham (D-FL)

4. Recruiting for a Permanent Minority?

The reality is that what may hurt Democrats more than anything is recruitment.  Quality candidates still exist for the Democrats, but do those quality candidates want to try and while away their promising careers in Washington where they are permanently in the minority, or would they prefer to try and work through the ranks of state or local power, potentially running for high positions in their respective states or for governor/mayor of a major city?  While Washington has remained stagnant the past four years, states have been epicenters of change and legislation, ranging from the mini-progressive experiment in Maryland to the mini-conservative experiment in Kansas.  If Democrats can't show that they can win the majority in the Senate and especially the House, they may lose out on candidates like, say, Rep-elect Gwen Graham, who can turn a Lean Republican district into a Tossup (and in Graham's case, a pickup).

5. The Supreme Court

Finally, there's the Supreme Court.  The Court has been balanced to the right for a decade, and it could well continue that way.  However, it's extremely likely that, based on her age and health, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will have to step down (she's currently 81-years-of-age and a cancer survivor).  The Democrats have been trying for decades to win back the Supreme Court (depending on how you would consider Byron White in terms of ideology, the Democrats "lost" the Supreme Court in 1991 when Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Clarence Thomas).  Were the Democrats to have Ginsburg replaced by a Republican, it would be an enormous burden on the party-in all likelihood the Democrats wouldn't be able to win back the Court again for several decades.  This is the reason that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, once one of the most celebrated justices by the Left, has become something of a mumbled swear word amongst Democrats who worry that her refusal to step down could cost them dearly in future court cases involving gay rights, abortion, and health care.  If the Democrats win the White House in 2016, it's extremely likely that a judge of Ginsburg's partisan-leaning will succeed her, and it's also increasingly likely that the Democrats could win back the Court: both Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will be 84 when the next presidential term ends, and statistically it's likely that one or both would not be on the court at that point in time.  It's also worth noting that Stephen Breyer will be 82 at the end of the next presidential term, which could be a factor that few people are considering right now (discussion about future retirements typically center around Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Scalia).  The fight to control the Supreme Court, something Democrats for decades have been trying to do, is a bit like playing roulette (you never know which election's going to be the one that matters), but you've got a loaded ball headed into 2016.

And those are five of the reasons that 2016 is going to be make-or-break for the Democrats, even more so than the Republicans (who have a few advantages in holding or regaining their majorities in Congress and the Supreme Court if they were to lose them in the near future).  What are your thoughts-do you think Democratic voters will realize what is at stake headed into the next election?