Since there are at least five emails in my inbox all asking some variation of the same question about last night’s Senate election in Massachusetts, let me share a couple quick thoughts..
Obviously it’s a big win for Republicans and a tough one for Democrats. All the conservative talk radio shows were practically giddy with excitement this morning at the news that Republican Scott Brown would be the next Senator from the state and I imagine the same is true for most of the conservative blogs around the Country as well. While I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the race myself, the things I did hear were interesting and I think there are a few things each party can take away from the race.
For Democrats, there’s a lot to take away from the loss. I think the biggest problem is you had a candidate in Coakley who literally went on vacation for two weeks and took the election for granted because it had traditionally been a “D” seat. There are people who saying the campaign didn’t even do polling because they thought it was so in the bag which for a US Senate seat is just mind blowing. Rank and file Democrats are frustrated and unhappy right now with the way things are going and they made that clear by voting for Brown 25% of the time. Get better candidates who can speak to the issues people are facing and understand that if you don’t do what you were sent to office to do, you won’t be there long.
For Republicans, I would say the danger for them is reading too much into the win. Many on the right are calling this the largest upset in American political history and are going to feel emboldened to push their agenda through now more than ever. So congrats, you got the 41st vote which means you as a party can go back to blocking everything in the Senate, but be careful of that approach since the voters expect you to get something done as well. Yes, it’s a big win for you, but it’s not the first time that a Republican has won state wide office (Remember Mitt Romney?) nor will it be the last I suspect. You had a good candidate who worked very hard and was able to take advantage of a special election that got national attention, his two attractive daughters doing commercials, a lazy opponent, and highlight part of his beliefs (fiscal) while downplaying others (social conservatism) all of which came together for a win. That was obviously the recipe for victory in Massachusetts last night, but I’m not so sure if it’s a dish that will be easily recreated in other elections this November.
One last thing about the whole “60 vote” thing in the Senate. I have heard several pundits on blogs, TV and the radio talking about how Democrats have had 60 votes for a year and haven’t been able to accomplish anything despite that.
That’s wrong of course. A year ago, Democrats had 57 seats in the Senate and “Independent” Joe Lieberman caucused with them for 58. 59 came last spring when Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spector switched parties and 60 came when Al Franken from Minnesota was sworn in last July. Having a majority of 59 Senators is still “good” for Democrats in that they’re in the majority. Unfortunately, it takes a super majority in the Senate to get anything done right now, just the way the founding fathers wanted it.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and son Carter.
I hope you are being facetious when you say that a super majority is “just the way the founding fathers wanted it”.
Of course he is. But I guess what I don’t understand is that on the one hand you have the left saying Blue Dogs can’t vote for true health reform because their seats would be in jeopardy. And on the other hand, the left is acting like the Republicans are opposing all health reform as if they have no accountability to their voters, who according to the left really want health reform. Which is it? I’m confused.
What I find unfortunate is that the left decided very early that the only solution to health insurance problems is more government. Obama had early rhetoric about listening to all viable options, but that didn’t go anywhere. In my opinion, anything that would actually fix the health care situation in the US was off the table from day one.
Yes I am… for once my attempt at humor translates!
The whole “60 vote” threshold isn’t democratic and was never meant as a requirement for every piece of legislation to pass in the Senate. Did Democrats use the 60 vote threshold in the past? Of course they did. The difference in 2009/10 is it’s being used for everything, and that is very much not in the spirit of the method of governance which the founding fathers had in mind.
Dan, would you agree that the agenda is a pretty liberal? Given that, I am not surprised that the threat of a filibuster is being used often.
They’re not filibustering an agenda, they’re fillibustering (or threatening to) individual bills, motions, etc.
Republicans filibustered extending unemployment benefits, reversing medicare cuts for the poor and elderly and a bill that would have repealed tax benefits given to the oil industry in 2004 and 2005 and redirected funds to renewable energy.
Hardly “liberal”, and those are just a few examples off the top of my head.
It’s the kind of hypocrisy I mentioned a day or so ago. Four years ago, you couldn’t turn on the TV without hearing something about “up or down votes” and the nuclear option. Now that the GOP is in the minority, they’re more than happy to pull the same crap they were wailing about just a few years ago.
It’s sick.
As to your question, the framers didn’t bind the principals of governance by the unknown political ideology of the future. You’re going down a “breathing document” path there which I’m a bit surprised about..
How are those hardly liberal? Extending unemployment benefits lengthens the recession and puts us further into debt. I don’t know the specifics of the Medicare cuts, but it sounds like more spending during a time of historically low tax revenues. Redirecting funds from one technology to another is central economic planning.
I am not arguing with you about the hypocrisy of the Republicans. Anyone who thinks these are principled, ideological stances must have been sleeping during the Bush years. The Republican party has shown that it is a much better minority party, and the Democrats are doing a pretty fine job of the same so far.
Dan, I’m not sure I understand where I am making a “breathing document” argument in any way. The framing documents pretty clearly state that the Senate may decide its own internal procedures. The filibuster is an important limitation on party power, and the bottom line is that if the people want this bill to pass as much as some on the left-center would like us to believe, the Republicans would be endangering their seats by threatening to block the bill.
Again, I go back to the contradiction in argument, where the Blue Dogs are somehow afraid of losing their seats but the Republicans are supposedly blatantly ignoring the will of the people, which I am supposed to believe is that this bill is a great step in the right direction and should be passed. That logic doesn’t pass the smell test…
I don’t see where the founding fathers would have supported a massive increase in the scope and control of the Federal Government. How can you divine that they would find the 60 vote limit “not in the spirit of the method of governance” but yet ignore the 10th amendment which flies in the very face of massive Federal mandate and taxation schemes like this. I do not believe any of the founding fathers would have supported the Fed making it illegal to not carry health insurance and punishing non-compliance by law.
Also, don’t throw Marcia (Martha?) under the bus. She ran a good campaign… she just ran it on issues that most Americans do not believe in. Simple as that. That’s the message you can take to the bank, and the message that Democrat Party members should listen too if they want to retain their seats in November.
I know the GOP is trying hard downplay how bad the Coakley campaign was run, but you can’t say “she ran a good campaign” with a straight face. She went on a Caribbean vacation for 2+ weeks in the final month of her campaign.
That, my man, is not “running a good campaign”.
As I said above, I personally don’t think it was a pure issue election.
…and watching Democrats downplay the reason that a Republican could win in Massachusetts is simply astonishing. Had this been a year ago she could have done nothing more but stand next to Barack and she’d have been elected. My, how a year has brought clarity to a nation….
Never understood why the Senate changed the rules so that you didn’t really *have* to filibuster, just declare that you were going to. If you dislike something so much you want to stall congress over it, you should have to stand in front of the people and do it. The people should get to watch you stand up and talk for hours about nothing while the country burns down around you.
Arlen, I’d rather watch them talk about nothing for hours on end than watch them pass a fatally flawed health care bill that was crafted in dark smoky rooms out of sight of public scrutiny.
Watching them throw fuel on the fire to burn our nations economy down has done little to help anyone.
Blaming the lackluster Coakley campaign may make Democrats feel better about the election’s outcome; but how could she lose in a state that gave Obama a 28 point majority just 14 months ago? How could she lose a Senate seat that has been held by a Democrat for over 50 years? Massachusetts does, on occasion, elect a Republican, but, considering what was at stake, why were the citizens of Massachusetts (that bluest of blue states) willing to elect one now?