Now, please, I'm not saying that if we retake the Senate it doesn't matter who's President. Of course it matters, and of course Hillary Clinton would be better than any Republican who can credibly be considered a possible nominee.
My point is only that we should keep in mind the 2016 Senate races. The map is the reverse of 2014 because the Republicans have to defend many seats in blue or purple states, whereas most of our incumbents are safe. The relevance of this is that it's worth considering how our choice of a Presidential nominee will affect those races.
Hillary Clinton will certainly be perceived as a business-as-usual Democrat. She'll do well among our regular core voters, who always turn out. I question, however, whether she can inspire heavy turnout among 18-to-25-year-olds, and more generally those who in the past have voted seldom or never.
Bernie Sanders is older than Clinton. Nevertheless, my wild guess (no polling data) is that Clinton, as our nominee, would do better than would Sanders among those aged 65 or older, but that Sanders would do better among young and first-time voters.
Two other factors: As a woman, she probably does get some turnout edge from women (and some men) who don't show up for every election but who'll make it a point to vote this time to help shatter that glass ceiling. As against that, she probably generates some extra turnout for the Republican candidate. There is on the right an intense irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. Some of the less committed Republicans, who might not bother to show up to vote against Martin O'Malley or the like, or even against Sanders, will stand in line for hours to vote against Clinton.
We retake the Senate by getting a lot of Democrats to turn out. Clinton's not ideal for that goal.
= new reply since forum marked as read
