Looking further into the question I discussed here, whether the Republicans can regain a majority in the U.S. Senate in this year's midterm elections, let's examine individual state contests. Much attention has been paid recently to retirements of Senate Democrats, such as Byron Dorgan of North Dakota and Evan Bayh of Indiana, but keep in mind that several senators (and House members, for that matter) from both parties are declining to seek reelection in 2010.
This recent New York Times article identifies four states where Republican Senate incumbents are not running, which represent possible Democratic gains: Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio. I think it's important to look at those states first, because I believe that the Democrats' chances of retaining their majority will increase exponentially with each victory they might win in these states.
KENTUCKY
Two-term Republican incumbent Jim Bunning is retiring. His fellow Republicans had come to see him as less dependable as a politician, than he was as a pitcher for the Philadelphia Phillies and other major league baseball teams.
Two state officeholders are the main contenders in the Democratic primary on May 18: Attorney General Jack Conway and Lieutenant Governor Daniel Mongiardo.
A familiar surname shows up on the Republican side. Opthamologist Rand Paul is a son of Congressman Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, who was the Libertarian Party's presidential nominee in 1988, and advocated libertarian ideas in Republican presidential primaries in 2008. The younger Paul has not previously run for public office. Paul's main opponent is another state official, Secretary of State Trey Grayson.
Adam Nagourney, in the Times article noted above, mentions the argument that Paul might be perceived as extremist, which may harm his chances in November, if he wins the primary. But Rasmussen, in recent polls, shows either Republican contender ahead of both of the Democrats, generally by wide margins. That, combined with the fact that Kentucky has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1992, does not bode well for the Democrats.
MISSOURI
Christopher "Kit" Bond, who was first elected to the Senate in 1986, is not seeking a fifth term.
Primaries, scheduled for August 3, appear certain to set up a general election contest between Republican Congressman Roy Blunt and Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan. Both are part of family dynasties in the state. Blunt's son Matt was governor for one term, from 2005 to 2009. Carnahan's father Mel was governor from 1993 until his death in a plane crash in 2000. Her mother Jean was appointed to Missouri's other U.S. Senate seat in 2001. Mel had been campaigning for the Senate when he died, and when the voters elected him posthumously, the seat was declared vacant, leading the way to his widow's appointment. In 2002, Jean Carnahan lost a special election for the remainder of the Senate term.
Blunt has a slight lead in recent polls reported by Real Clear Politics. So a Democratic gain is possible.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Republican Judd Gregg, senator since 1993, after what I consider a rather bizarre flirtation with the Obama Administration, withdrew from the campaign.
The current front-runners to replace Gregg are Republican Kelly Ayotte, a former state attorney general, and Democratic Representative Paul Hodes.
Ayotte leads in polls reported by Real Clear Politics. Her lead is not overwhelming, so, again, a Democratic gain is possible. New England, formerly a Republican stronghold, now strongly favors the Democratic Party. New Hampshire had been a holdout against that trend, but Democrats have made recent gains there, too. The question is whether that Democratic trend will continue in what's shaping up to be a Republican year.
OHIO
Republican incumbent George Voinovich is not running for a third term. His party seems certain to nominate Rob Portman as their candidate to replace Voinovich.
Portman represented a district in the Cincinnati area in the U.S. House from 1993 to 2005. He subsequently served as trade representative and budget director in George W. Bush's administration.
In the Democratic primary, to be held on May 4, Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher will oppose Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. Fisher is considered the front-runner, but it could be a close race.
Polls reported by Real Clear Politics show Portman with a small lead over both of the Democratic contenders. Ohio is another state that has been trending Democratic in recent years. After giving Bush its electoral votes by a razor-thin margin in 2004, and thereby clinching his reelection victory over John Kerry, subsequent disenchantment with Bush, and scandals in state government, have eroded Republican support. Of these four states, Ohio is probably the place where the Democrats have their best chance to gain a Senate seat.
If Republicans hold all four of these seats, they still need to gain 10 seats elsewhere, in order to win a Senate majority. That will be difficult. But to gain 11, 12, 13 or 14 seats in the other states will be very difficult.
Showing posts with label Parties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parties. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Will Mitch McConnell become majority leader in 2011?
As 2009 came to a close, it seemed clear that the Democrats would suffer some net loss of Senate seats in the 2010 midterm elections. The question was whether those losses would be minor, or would significantly cut into the Democrats' majority. Then, Democratic incumbents in North Dakota and Indiana announced unexpected retirements. And, of course, a Republican won the Massachusetts special election. Now, a significantly reduced majority looks like a best-case scenario for the Democrats, and the talk is about whether the Republicans can return to majority status.
There are currently 41 Republicans in the Senate. A net gain of 10 seats would restore the Republican majority that was lost at the 2006 midterms. They need 51; a 50-50 tie would be resolved in favor of the Democrats by Vice President Joe Biden who, as president of the Senate, is granted a tie-breaking vote by the Constitution.
Gains of 10 seats or more are rare, but not unprecedented. Here is a link to historical statistics on party division in the Senate, from the Senate website. During the 20th century, parties made double-digit gains in the following years:
1980 Republicans gained 12 seats
1958 Democrats gained 16 seats
1946 Republicans gained 13 seats
1942 Republicans gained 10 seats
1934 Democrats gained 10 seats
1932 Democrats gained 12 seats
1920 Republicans gained 10 seats
1910 Democrats gained 12 seats
These numbers might be somewhat distorted, because they don't take into account 1) results of special elections or party-jumping since the previous general election, 2) senators who were elected on third-party tickets, but caucused with a major party; and 3) the effect of new states joining the union. But they give some sense of the rarity of such an event: eight times out of 50 biennial elections.
Next, I'll look at the individual states in which this question will be decided.
There are currently 41 Republicans in the Senate. A net gain of 10 seats would restore the Republican majority that was lost at the 2006 midterms. They need 51; a 50-50 tie would be resolved in favor of the Democrats by Vice President Joe Biden who, as president of the Senate, is granted a tie-breaking vote by the Constitution.
Gains of 10 seats or more are rare, but not unprecedented. Here is a link to historical statistics on party division in the Senate, from the Senate website. During the 20th century, parties made double-digit gains in the following years:
1980 Republicans gained 12 seats
1958 Democrats gained 16 seats
1946 Republicans gained 13 seats
1942 Republicans gained 10 seats
1934 Democrats gained 10 seats
1932 Democrats gained 12 seats
1920 Republicans gained 10 seats
1910 Democrats gained 12 seats
These numbers might be somewhat distorted, because they don't take into account 1) results of special elections or party-jumping since the previous general election, 2) senators who were elected on third-party tickets, but caucused with a major party; and 3) the effect of new states joining the union. But they give some sense of the rarity of such an event: eight times out of 50 biennial elections.
Next, I'll look at the individual states in which this question will be decided.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Mac
A retired politician whose story illustrates how much the American political parties have changed during recent decades, died yesterday. Charles McC. Mathias, a Republican who represented Maryland in the House and Senate from the 1960s to the 1980s, died at the age of 87.
Party identity at the time Mathias began his political career was not based on ideology to the same degree it is today. On average, Republicans in Congress were more "conservative", as that word is understood in modern American political discourse, than the average Democrat. But both parties were more ideologically diverse than they now are.
Mathias's record fits the modern American definition of "liberal". However, he is quoted in his New York Times obituary discussing the root meanings of words such as "conservative":
He was correct that one who conserves is a conservative. But granting that high a priority to civil liberties is not called "conservative" in our modern political lexicon. I wrote about that subject here.
Had Mathias remained in Congress in this century, chances are he would have switched to the Democratic Party, as Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter did last year. And, of course, conservative Democrats have moved in the other direction.
There is much anguish in our current political commentary, about the supposed evils of ideological parties. But I don't see it that way.
For one thing, there is a kind of truth-in-advertising advantage. When today's voter chooses a Republican or a Democrat, they have a better idea of what they're getting, than would have been the case a few years ago. During the 1970s and '80s, Mathias and Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina would each have appeared on a ballot under the Republican label, even though they disagreed on major issues. Same thing on the Democratic side between, for example, Mississippi's John Stennis and Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey.
There are still gaps between fellow partisans such as Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and Democrats Barbara Boxer of California and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. But those gaps are narrower, as evidenced by the Senate's party-line health care vote last month.
Another issue is that party allegiances in the past were, to a great extent, based on ethnicity and, by extension, religion. The Republican Party was the party of Protestants, including, especially before Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, African Americans. On the other hand, the Democrats were seen as the party of Jewish and Roman Catholics voters.
As a practical matter, intermarriage and secularization have combined to weaken modern Americans' ethnic and religious identities. That was bound to lead to changes in the basis of partisan identities. Also, perhaps in part as a result of those larger societal trends, partisan identities are also weaker. To identify one's self as independent has become a sort of badge of honor.
Additionally, dividing the body politic along ethnic lines contributed to ethnic stereotyping and segregated political activity. Is that the golden age to which critics of ideological parties want to return?
Party identity at the time Mathias began his political career was not based on ideology to the same degree it is today. On average, Republicans in Congress were more "conservative", as that word is understood in modern American political discourse, than the average Democrat. But both parties were more ideologically diverse than they now are.
Mathias's record fits the modern American definition of "liberal". However, he is quoted in his New York Times obituary discussing the root meanings of words such as "conservative":
“I’m not all that liberal,” he told The Washington Post in 1974. “In fact, in some respects I’m conservative. A while ago I introduced a bill preserving the guarantees of the Bill of Rights by prohibiting warrantless wiretaps. I suppose they’ll say it’s another liberal effort, but it’s as conservative as you can get. It’s conserving the Constitution.”
He was correct that one who conserves is a conservative. But granting that high a priority to civil liberties is not called "conservative" in our modern political lexicon. I wrote about that subject here.
Had Mathias remained in Congress in this century, chances are he would have switched to the Democratic Party, as Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter did last year. And, of course, conservative Democrats have moved in the other direction.
There is much anguish in our current political commentary, about the supposed evils of ideological parties. But I don't see it that way.
For one thing, there is a kind of truth-in-advertising advantage. When today's voter chooses a Republican or a Democrat, they have a better idea of what they're getting, than would have been the case a few years ago. During the 1970s and '80s, Mathias and Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina would each have appeared on a ballot under the Republican label, even though they disagreed on major issues. Same thing on the Democratic side between, for example, Mississippi's John Stennis and Minnesota's Hubert Humphrey.
There are still gaps between fellow partisans such as Republicans Olympia Snowe of Maine and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and Democrats Barbara Boxer of California and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. But those gaps are narrower, as evidenced by the Senate's party-line health care vote last month.
Another issue is that party allegiances in the past were, to a great extent, based on ethnicity and, by extension, religion. The Republican Party was the party of Protestants, including, especially before Franklin Roosevelt's presidency, African Americans. On the other hand, the Democrats were seen as the party of Jewish and Roman Catholics voters.
As a practical matter, intermarriage and secularization have combined to weaken modern Americans' ethnic and religious identities. That was bound to lead to changes in the basis of partisan identities. Also, perhaps in part as a result of those larger societal trends, partisan identities are also weaker. To identify one's self as independent has become a sort of badge of honor.
Additionally, dividing the body politic along ethnic lines contributed to ethnic stereotyping and segregated political activity. Is that the golden age to which critics of ideological parties want to return?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Bernanke Update
Late last week, the conventional wisdom was that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was headed for defeat in his quest for Senate confirmation for a second term in that job. What a difference a weekend makes, or so we're led to believe.
By this morning, the Washington buzz has shifted to talk of a Bernanke resurrection.
In The Washington Post, Neil Irwin quotes several key people in the White House and Senate as predicting a successful confirmation. Interestingly, not all of the senators who were making those predictions were willing to disclose how they would cast their own votes.
I'm reminded of the situation in 2003, when George W. Bush was successfully pushing for an expansion of Medicare. The Democrats, then in the minority in both houses of Congress, were ideologically inclined to support such a proposal, but they were wary of producing a victory for Bush on the eve of his reelection campaign. The leadership went to extraordinary lengths, both to pass the bill, and to ensure that it would be perceived as bipartisan.
Similarly in the current case, many Republicans are reluctant to confirm Bernanke, even though their party put him in the job, when they controlled both the White House and the Senate, four years ago. I suspect that Republican opposition stems from a combination of libertarian opposition to Bernanke's expansion of the Fed's reach, populist posturing against "bailouts of fat cats", and tactical considerations of how best to maintain Republican momentum going into this year's midterm congressional elections.
It seems as though this intricate Dance Of The Politicians may well produce a confirmation. But nothing is certain right now in Washington.
By this morning, the Washington buzz has shifted to talk of a Bernanke resurrection.
In The Washington Post, Neil Irwin quotes several key people in the White House and Senate as predicting a successful confirmation. Interestingly, not all of the senators who were making those predictions were willing to disclose how they would cast their own votes.
I'm reminded of the situation in 2003, when George W. Bush was successfully pushing for an expansion of Medicare. The Democrats, then in the minority in both houses of Congress, were ideologically inclined to support such a proposal, but they were wary of producing a victory for Bush on the eve of his reelection campaign. The leadership went to extraordinary lengths, both to pass the bill, and to ensure that it would be perceived as bipartisan.
Similarly in the current case, many Republicans are reluctant to confirm Bernanke, even though their party put him in the job, when they controlled both the White House and the Senate, four years ago. I suspect that Republican opposition stems from a combination of libertarian opposition to Bernanke's expansion of the Fed's reach, populist posturing against "bailouts of fat cats", and tactical considerations of how best to maintain Republican momentum going into this year's midterm congressional elections.
It seems as though this intricate Dance Of The Politicians may well produce a confirmation. But nothing is certain right now in Washington.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Reining in the excesses
I agree with George Will's analysis of the Massachusetts special election, as far as it goes. But, in listing some historical parallels, he only tells only one side of the story.
Yes, I'm a Republican, and yes, I'm happy about Scott Brown's victory. But the Democrats are not the only party that voters have reined in, when, in the opinion of the middle-ground of the electorate, a party has acted in an extremist and/or arrogant manner.
In 1974, the Democrats won a huge mid-term landslide, as voters reacted to what they considered arrogance on the part of the resigned Republican President Richard Nixon.
After the Republicans' 1994 mid-term victory, to which Will alludes, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his allies started acting on the assumption that the American people were ready to overturn everything that Democratic-majority Congresses had done since the 1930s. That was a case of overreaching. While the Republicans maintained their House majority for 12 years, and nearly continuously maintained their Senate majority for the same period, they were never able to significantly expand those majorities. And Republican nominee Bob Dole suffered a near-landslide defeat in the 1996 presidential election.
Then, in 1998, when the House impeached President Bill Clinton on a near-party-line vote, there was again a widespread perception that the Republicans were overreaching. The mid-term elections that year, which were held while the impeachment proceedings were underway, should have gone well for the Republicans. Mid-term elections six years into a party's hold on the White House had gone badly for the president's party in 1938, 1958, 1966, 1974 and 1986. That trend, combined with the scandal involving the Democratic president, might have allowed the Republicans to expand their narrow congressional majorities. Instead, the Democrats gained five House seats, and neither party made any net gain in the Senate. Hardly a Democratic landslide, but clearly, I think, a repudiation of congressional Republicans.
Most recently, in 2006, Democrats regained majorities in both houses of Congress, in reaction to perceived extremism on the part of Republican President George W. Bush, especially in the foreign policy arena.
In light of all that, I don't think that Republicans should necessarily read Tuesday's election result to mean that voters, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, are ready to sign on to every plank of the Tea Party platform.
Democrats from President Obama on down acknowledge that the House and Senate health care bills are dead. But they plan to try to enact some of those bills' provisions. Brown himself has said that the federal government should take some action to improve the health care system. I concurred, here and here.
The American political system is reasonably efficient in bringing things back to a middle ground with which the bulk of the electorate is satisfied. That middle ground involves bigger government than I would like to see. Ideally a new Great Communicator would emerge, to explain the advantages of limited government. Such a person can shift the middle ground a bit. But, for better or worse, the voters never seem to want too big a shift.
Yes, I'm a Republican, and yes, I'm happy about Scott Brown's victory. But the Democrats are not the only party that voters have reined in, when, in the opinion of the middle-ground of the electorate, a party has acted in an extremist and/or arrogant manner.
In 1974, the Democrats won a huge mid-term landslide, as voters reacted to what they considered arrogance on the part of the resigned Republican President Richard Nixon.
After the Republicans' 1994 mid-term victory, to which Will alludes, House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his allies started acting on the assumption that the American people were ready to overturn everything that Democratic-majority Congresses had done since the 1930s. That was a case of overreaching. While the Republicans maintained their House majority for 12 years, and nearly continuously maintained their Senate majority for the same period, they were never able to significantly expand those majorities. And Republican nominee Bob Dole suffered a near-landslide defeat in the 1996 presidential election.
Then, in 1998, when the House impeached President Bill Clinton on a near-party-line vote, there was again a widespread perception that the Republicans were overreaching. The mid-term elections that year, which were held while the impeachment proceedings were underway, should have gone well for the Republicans. Mid-term elections six years into a party's hold on the White House had gone badly for the president's party in 1938, 1958, 1966, 1974 and 1986. That trend, combined with the scandal involving the Democratic president, might have allowed the Republicans to expand their narrow congressional majorities. Instead, the Democrats gained five House seats, and neither party made any net gain in the Senate. Hardly a Democratic landslide, but clearly, I think, a repudiation of congressional Republicans.
Most recently, in 2006, Democrats regained majorities in both houses of Congress, in reaction to perceived extremism on the part of Republican President George W. Bush, especially in the foreign policy arena.
In light of all that, I don't think that Republicans should necessarily read Tuesday's election result to mean that voters, in Massachusetts and elsewhere, are ready to sign on to every plank of the Tea Party platform.
Democrats from President Obama on down acknowledge that the House and Senate health care bills are dead. But they plan to try to enact some of those bills' provisions. Brown himself has said that the federal government should take some action to improve the health care system. I concurred, here and here.
The American political system is reasonably efficient in bringing things back to a middle ground with which the bulk of the electorate is satisfied. That middle ground involves bigger government than I would like to see. Ideally a new Great Communicator would emerge, to explain the advantages of limited government. Such a person can shift the middle ground a bit. But, for better or worse, the voters never seem to want too big a shift.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Massachusetts Votes Tomorrow
What seemed unthinkable until just a few days ago, now on election eve looks utterly thinkable. Republican Scott Brown seems to have at least a 50/50 chance of defeating his Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, in the special election in Massachusetts to choose the Senate successor to the late Ted Kennedy.
As I wrote here, a couple of weeks ago, the main reason why so much attention has been focused on the special election, is that Brown, who, if he wins, would be the Republicans 41st senator, would enable his party to sustain a filibuster against a compromise version of the health care legislation that has been approved in different forms in the House and Senate. In light of that, the upcoming election has several interesting implications:
In the post to which I linked above, I identified two possible Democratic strategies in the event of a Brown victory: 1) speed up the process, in order to get a compromise bill through the Senate while interim Democratic Senator Paul Kirk still represents Massachusetts; or 2) compromise further, in order to get the vote of at least one moderate Republican. Now, a third possibility has come to light: If the House were to approve exactly the same bill that has already been approved by the Senate, there would not need to be another Senate vote.
That sounds acceptable from a constitutional standpoint, but it carries political risks for the Democrats. Republicans would then be able, in the 2010 and 2012 campaigns, to portray the Democrats as elitists who will do anything to further their agenda, regardless of the will of the voters.
Another possibility is that the Democrats who control state government in Massachusetts could delay the certification of a Brown victory, and thereby allow Kirk to remain in the Senate for some period of time after tomorrow's election. Chris Frates and Manu Raju describe, in Politico, the arguments going back and forth between the parties regarding the legality of that scenario.
Frates and Raju also mention an additional scenario that could derail the legislation, even if, one way or the other, they prevent Brown from voting on the bill. Moderate Democrats who have supported the legislation up until now, could change their minds, if they read the Massachusetts result as a referendum rejecting the health care plan envisioned in that legislation. Looking toward their own reelection, either this year, or in the near future, they could become, depending on one's point of view, either rats deserting a sinking ship, or principled leaders ensuring that the will of the people is heard in Washington.
In order to head off such a reaction, left-wing commentators have been making the case that a Coakley defeat could be attributed to her shortcomings as a candidate, not to voters' dissatisfaction with Democrats generally, including President Obama.
Last week, New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote that:
The best Collins can do, in attempting to criticize Brown, is to write that his daughter, a reality-show contestant, once spoke a badly-constructed sentence in an interview. I never thought that I would hear a political criticism that is more silly than the one about how former Vice President Dan Quayle was not fit for national office, because he once misspelled a word. But now I have.
Collins is undoubtedly correct that Coakley has not campaigned well. But, if Massachusetts elects a Republican to a Senate seat that has been continuously in Democratic hands since Ted Kennedy's older brother John defeated Republican incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., 57 years ago, I think that would be a sign of more than just a couple of misstatements by the Democratic candidate.
As I wrote here, a couple of weeks ago, the main reason why so much attention has been focused on the special election, is that Brown, who, if he wins, would be the Republicans 41st senator, would enable his party to sustain a filibuster against a compromise version of the health care legislation that has been approved in different forms in the House and Senate. In light of that, the upcoming election has several interesting implications:
In the post to which I linked above, I identified two possible Democratic strategies in the event of a Brown victory: 1) speed up the process, in order to get a compromise bill through the Senate while interim Democratic Senator Paul Kirk still represents Massachusetts; or 2) compromise further, in order to get the vote of at least one moderate Republican. Now, a third possibility has come to light: If the House were to approve exactly the same bill that has already been approved by the Senate, there would not need to be another Senate vote.
That sounds acceptable from a constitutional standpoint, but it carries political risks for the Democrats. Republicans would then be able, in the 2010 and 2012 campaigns, to portray the Democrats as elitists who will do anything to further their agenda, regardless of the will of the voters.
Another possibility is that the Democrats who control state government in Massachusetts could delay the certification of a Brown victory, and thereby allow Kirk to remain in the Senate for some period of time after tomorrow's election. Chris Frates and Manu Raju describe, in Politico, the arguments going back and forth between the parties regarding the legality of that scenario.
Frates and Raju also mention an additional scenario that could derail the legislation, even if, one way or the other, they prevent Brown from voting on the bill. Moderate Democrats who have supported the legislation up until now, could change their minds, if they read the Massachusetts result as a referendum rejecting the health care plan envisioned in that legislation. Looking toward their own reelection, either this year, or in the near future, they could become, depending on one's point of view, either rats deserting a sinking ship, or principled leaders ensuring that the will of the people is heard in Washington.
In order to head off such a reaction, left-wing commentators have been making the case that a Coakley defeat could be attributed to her shortcomings as a candidate, not to voters' dissatisfaction with Democrats generally, including President Obama.
Last week, New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote that:
Martha Coakley, the Democratic Senate nominee, is the kind of candidate who reminds you that the state that gave birth to John Kennedy also produced Michael Dukakis. She is the attorney general, and her speaking style has been compared to that of a prosecutor delivering a summation to the jury. In civil court. In a trial that involved, say, a dispute over widget tariffs.
She is so tone deaf that she made fun of her opponent for standing outside Fenway Park shaking hands “in the cold.” A week before the election, Coakley was off the campaign trail entirely in Washington for a fund-raiser that was packed with the usual suspects. But undoubtedly it was well heated.
The best Collins can do, in attempting to criticize Brown, is to write that his daughter, a reality-show contestant, once spoke a badly-constructed sentence in an interview. I never thought that I would hear a political criticism that is more silly than the one about how former Vice President Dan Quayle was not fit for national office, because he once misspelled a word. But now I have.
Collins is undoubtedly correct that Coakley has not campaigned well. But, if Massachusetts elects a Republican to a Senate seat that has been continuously in Democratic hands since Ted Kennedy's older brother John defeated Republican incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., 57 years ago, I think that would be a sign of more than just a couple of misstatements by the Democratic candidate.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Aren't Republican filibusters horrible?
Thomas Geoghegan, a Chicago attorney and author, has written an op-ed piece in The New York Times, about filibusters in the U.S. Senate.
Filibusters are primarily an issue that arises when the president's party has a majority in both the House and the Senate. Under those circumstances, on an issue where the vote breaks down according to party lines, the filibuster is the last-ditch tactic by which the minority party can block initiatives of the majority party. That was the case for the Democrats as minority party from 2003 to 2007, and has been the case since last year for the current minority party, the Republicans.
Not all issues come to a party-line vote. Up until 1964, Southern Democrats filibustered civil rights bills. Even though their party controlled the Senate, a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats constituted a majority in favor of such legislation. Nowadays, the parties are less ideologically diverse, so party-line votes have become more common.
In the situation that existed from 1981 to 1987, when Republican President Ronald Reagan's party controlled the Senate but not the House, Senate Democrats were not completely dependent on the filibuster, because their House colleagues could block, or at least significantly influence, legislation advocated by Reagan.
And from 1995 to 2001, with Republican control of both houses of Congress, but not the White House, the Democrats' last line of defense was not the filibuster, but rather the veto pen of Democratic President Bill Clinton.
During the 2003-7 period, the most controversial Democratic filibusters were mounted in opposition to some of Republican President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. In the current Congress, the biggest issue that has brought filibusters into play is, as Geoghegan notes, the health care bill.
I don't want to be unfair to Geoghegan. Perhaps he opposed Democratic filibusters during the last administration; I don't know. But I note that he has chosen this time to challenge the constitutionality of a Senate rule that has been on the books for 35 years. I can't help but speculate that he might be more concerned about what he calls the "recent health care debacle" than about a procedural question, per se.
The Senate's original rules, dating from 1789, did not allow filibusters. But they have now been institutionalized for more than two centuries. And the 1975 rule change that allows "ghost filibusters", which has contributed to making them a routine part of Senate procedure, has not been subjected to a constitutional challenge.
If, as Geoghegan advocates, the courts were now to step in and declare unconstitutional what has in effect become a 60-vote supermajority requirement for normal legislation to pass the Senate, it could be seen as a political move to benefit the party that is currently in power. But I suppose one could argue that a Supreme Court decision to that effect would be no more partisan than its Bush v. Gore opinion that halted the recounts in the 2000 Florida election dispute (although subsequent inspection of ballots showed that further recounts would not have resulted in a Gore victory).
Aside from any questions regarding the political ramifications, a plausible constitutional case could be made for disallowing filibusters. The courts would need to weigh the balance between the Senate's constitutional right to determine its own rules, and those constitutional provisions that strongly imply, but don't exactly state, that legislation is subject to a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate, except in the wake of a president veto. The routine nature of filibusters in the modern Senate strengthens the case that procedures prescribed in the constitution are being violated.
As Geoghegan explains, the Senate rule has evolved over the years. But senators have never shown any inclination to eliminate filibusters. Majority Leader Harry Reid would rather not be required to build a 60-member coalition for the health care bill. And I'm sure that Reid's predecessor, Bill Frist, would have preferred an easier path toward confirmation of judicial nominations. But both parties have followed that old legal principle, "what goes around comes around". Sooner or later, Democrats will be back in the position they were in during the 2003-7 period. When that happens, they would regret any move they made while in the majority, to cut back on filibusters.
One last point: the procedural issue is not ideologically neutral. Those of us who veer toward the libertarian side, welcome any procedural hurdles in the path of expansion of government. Geoghegan seems to favor activist government, and I suspect that is another reason for him to crusade against filibusters.
Filibusters are primarily an issue that arises when the president's party has a majority in both the House and the Senate. Under those circumstances, on an issue where the vote breaks down according to party lines, the filibuster is the last-ditch tactic by which the minority party can block initiatives of the majority party. That was the case for the Democrats as minority party from 2003 to 2007, and has been the case since last year for the current minority party, the Republicans.
Not all issues come to a party-line vote. Up until 1964, Southern Democrats filibustered civil rights bills. Even though their party controlled the Senate, a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats constituted a majority in favor of such legislation. Nowadays, the parties are less ideologically diverse, so party-line votes have become more common.
In the situation that existed from 1981 to 1987, when Republican President Ronald Reagan's party controlled the Senate but not the House, Senate Democrats were not completely dependent on the filibuster, because their House colleagues could block, or at least significantly influence, legislation advocated by Reagan.
And from 1995 to 2001, with Republican control of both houses of Congress, but not the White House, the Democrats' last line of defense was not the filibuster, but rather the veto pen of Democratic President Bill Clinton.
During the 2003-7 period, the most controversial Democratic filibusters were mounted in opposition to some of Republican President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. In the current Congress, the biggest issue that has brought filibusters into play is, as Geoghegan notes, the health care bill.
I don't want to be unfair to Geoghegan. Perhaps he opposed Democratic filibusters during the last administration; I don't know. But I note that he has chosen this time to challenge the constitutionality of a Senate rule that has been on the books for 35 years. I can't help but speculate that he might be more concerned about what he calls the "recent health care debacle" than about a procedural question, per se.
The Senate's original rules, dating from 1789, did not allow filibusters. But they have now been institutionalized for more than two centuries. And the 1975 rule change that allows "ghost filibusters", which has contributed to making them a routine part of Senate procedure, has not been subjected to a constitutional challenge.
If, as Geoghegan advocates, the courts were now to step in and declare unconstitutional what has in effect become a 60-vote supermajority requirement for normal legislation to pass the Senate, it could be seen as a political move to benefit the party that is currently in power. But I suppose one could argue that a Supreme Court decision to that effect would be no more partisan than its Bush v. Gore opinion that halted the recounts in the 2000 Florida election dispute (although subsequent inspection of ballots showed that further recounts would not have resulted in a Gore victory).
Aside from any questions regarding the political ramifications, a plausible constitutional case could be made for disallowing filibusters. The courts would need to weigh the balance between the Senate's constitutional right to determine its own rules, and those constitutional provisions that strongly imply, but don't exactly state, that legislation is subject to a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate, except in the wake of a president veto. The routine nature of filibusters in the modern Senate strengthens the case that procedures prescribed in the constitution are being violated.
As Geoghegan explains, the Senate rule has evolved over the years. But senators have never shown any inclination to eliminate filibusters. Majority Leader Harry Reid would rather not be required to build a 60-member coalition for the health care bill. And I'm sure that Reid's predecessor, Bill Frist, would have preferred an easier path toward confirmation of judicial nominations. But both parties have followed that old legal principle, "what goes around comes around". Sooner or later, Democrats will be back in the position they were in during the 2003-7 period. When that happens, they would regret any move they made while in the majority, to cut back on filibusters.
One last point: the procedural issue is not ideologically neutral. Those of us who veer toward the libertarian side, welcome any procedural hurdles in the path of expansion of government. Geoghegan seems to favor activist government, and I suspect that is another reason for him to crusade against filibusters.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Conference Committee 3: Non-existent
The Democratic congressional leadership has decided not to convene a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills. Last week, I wrote about the conference procedure here and here.
I'm not sure of their motive. Polls show significant opposition to the bills among the electorate. To negotiate the differences among the Democrats without holding a bipartisan formal conference, keeps Republican fingerprints even further removed from the legislation. The Democrats seem to be shooting themselves in the foot at the beginning of this mid-term election year.
I'm not sure of their motive. Polls show significant opposition to the bills among the electorate. To negotiate the differences among the Democrats without holding a bipartisan formal conference, keeps Republican fingerprints even further removed from the legislation. The Democrats seem to be shooting themselves in the foot at the beginning of this mid-term election year.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Republicans and 2010
It has been a busy few days for me, so I haven't been blogging. But, Upper Midwestern weather is going to stop me from traveling this weekend, so I should have some chance to catch up.
As the parties gear up for the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republicans got mixed news, this week.
Current polls predict that the Republicans will make gains next year. It's possible (though I wouldn't say probable) that the G.O.P. can retake control of the House of Representatives. They will be helped, to the extent that: 1) they have incumbents (other than those tainted by scandal) on the ballot, or 2) when there is no Republican incumbent, they can recruit a proven vote-getter to seek their nomination.
The best-case scenario is for a congressman to switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Not only is there an additional Republican incumbent, but there is one fewer on the other side of the aisle. The defection of Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama puts such a double-whammy on the Democrats.
Griffith is a freshman congressman. His district has consistently elected Democrats to Congress, but recently has tended to vote Republican in presidential elections. Griffith has opposed Democratic positions on stimulus spending, environmental issues, and the health care bill.
A few Democratic congressmen in similar situations have recently announced that they will not run for reelection next year. Their districts will constitute the Republicans' prime targets.
On the other hand, Republican hopes in New York have taken a hit, due to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's decision not to seek statewide office in 2010. Even though he has never won an election outside of New York City, and failed to get out of the starting gate in a presidential run last year, he is a "big name" who might have helped Republicans take a Senate seat or the governorship away from the Democrats.
As the parties gear up for the 2010 mid-term elections, the Republicans got mixed news, this week.
Current polls predict that the Republicans will make gains next year. It's possible (though I wouldn't say probable) that the G.O.P. can retake control of the House of Representatives. They will be helped, to the extent that: 1) they have incumbents (other than those tainted by scandal) on the ballot, or 2) when there is no Republican incumbent, they can recruit a proven vote-getter to seek their nomination.
The best-case scenario is for a congressman to switch from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Not only is there an additional Republican incumbent, but there is one fewer on the other side of the aisle. The defection of Representative Parker Griffith of Alabama puts such a double-whammy on the Democrats.
Griffith is a freshman congressman. His district has consistently elected Democrats to Congress, but recently has tended to vote Republican in presidential elections. Griffith has opposed Democratic positions on stimulus spending, environmental issues, and the health care bill.
A few Democratic congressmen in similar situations have recently announced that they will not run for reelection next year. Their districts will constitute the Republicans' prime targets.
On the other hand, Republican hopes in New York have taken a hit, due to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's decision not to seek statewide office in 2010. Even though he has never won an election outside of New York City, and failed to get out of the starting gate in a presidential run last year, he is a "big name" who might have helped Republicans take a Senate seat or the governorship away from the Democrats.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Paula Hawkins
An interesting transitional figure in the advancement of women in American politics, has died. Paula Hawkins, who represented Florida in the U.S. Senate from 1981 to 1987, died last Friday, at the age of 82.
The cataloguing of firsts for women in elective office is complicated by the distinction between those who followed their husbands into office, often as widows, as opposed to women who achieved public office "on their own". In its obituary, The New York Times describes the nature of Hawkins's "first":
To some of us, 1980 doesn't seem like that long ago (although perhaps we're just in denial). But it clearly was a different time, as evidenced by the following story recounted in the Times:
Nancy Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, was the only other woman in the Senate during Hawkins's term. There are now 17 female senators.
Most of the women who have been elected to the Senate since Hawkins left that body, are Democrats. Of the six Republican women who have followed Kassebaum and Hawkins, I think it's safe to say that none have been as socially conservative as Hawkins was. My main memory of her from that time was of how she got under the skin of the leaders of the women's movement, who were (sometimes far) to the left of her. She was, for better or worse, a sort of forerunner of Sarah Palin.
Hawkins also played a role in the process I described here, of Republicans taking over Senate seats in the South. In the 11 states that had seceded at the time of the Civil War, Republican numbers went from six to 10 with the 1980 election. Then, in 1986, when Hawkins failed of reelection in a year when Democrats took back control of the Senate, that number went back down to six. There are now 15 Republican senators from those states.
The cataloguing of firsts for women in elective office is complicated by the distinction between those who followed their husbands into office, often as widows, as opposed to women who achieved public office "on their own". In its obituary, The New York Times describes the nature of Hawkins's "first":
She was the first woman elected to a full Senate term without being preceded in politics by a husband or father. (Hazel Abel of Nebraska, who also had no political family ties, was elected to the Senate in 1954, but only to serve the final two months of the term of the incumbent, who had died in office.) She was also the first woman to be a senator from Florida.
To some of us, 1980 doesn't seem like that long ago (although perhaps we're just in denial). But it clearly was a different time, as evidenced by the following story recounted in the Times:
At a news conference soon after her victory, a male television reporter condescendingly asked Mrs. Hawkins who would do the laundry now that she was going to be busy in the Senate. “I don’t really think you need to worry about my laundry,” she replied, smiling with her lips but not with her eyes. “O.K.?”
Nancy Kassebaum, Republican of Kansas, was the only other woman in the Senate during Hawkins's term. There are now 17 female senators.
Most of the women who have been elected to the Senate since Hawkins left that body, are Democrats. Of the six Republican women who have followed Kassebaum and Hawkins, I think it's safe to say that none have been as socially conservative as Hawkins was. My main memory of her from that time was of how she got under the skin of the leaders of the women's movement, who were (sometimes far) to the left of her. She was, for better or worse, a sort of forerunner of Sarah Palin.
Hawkins also played a role in the process I described here, of Republicans taking over Senate seats in the South. In the 11 states that had seceded at the time of the Civil War, Republican numbers went from six to 10 with the 1980 election. Then, in 1986, when Hawkins failed of reelection in a year when Democrats took back control of the Senate, that number went back down to six. There are now 15 Republican senators from those states.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Wait 'Til Next Year
By now, all but the most partisan Democrats are asking, not whether Republicans will make gains in next year's congressional elections, but how large those gains will be.
Josh Kraushaar, in Politico, analyzes the Republicans' prospects. He reports that "the most optimistic Republicans believe there is a real chance that the party can win back the House, a prospect that no one would have imagined just a few months ago."
I wouldn't bet the rent money on it, but it's not impossible.
The last time a young, new Democratic president was trying to push a national health plan through Congress, there were 176 Republicans in the House. Then, the GOP gained 54 seats in 1994, and put Newt Gingrich into the speaker's chair, the first of his party to occupy that seat since 1954 (coincidentally the last year when Brooklyn Dodger fans had to chant the phrase that's the title of this post).
There are currently 177 Republicans in the House, so their uphill climb is ever-so-slightly easier than it was 16 years ago.
Of course, all of this is subject to the disclaimer that, if, as the late British politician Harold Wilson put it, "a week is a long time in politics", then a year is eternity.
Josh Kraushaar, in Politico, analyzes the Republicans' prospects. He reports that "the most optimistic Republicans believe there is a real chance that the party can win back the House, a prospect that no one would have imagined just a few months ago."
I wouldn't bet the rent money on it, but it's not impossible.
The last time a young, new Democratic president was trying to push a national health plan through Congress, there were 176 Republicans in the House. Then, the GOP gained 54 seats in 1994, and put Newt Gingrich into the speaker's chair, the first of his party to occupy that seat since 1954 (coincidentally the last year when Brooklyn Dodger fans had to chant the phrase that's the title of this post).
There are currently 177 Republicans in the House, so their uphill climb is ever-so-slightly easier than it was 16 years ago.
Of course, all of this is subject to the disclaimer that, if, as the late British politician Harold Wilson put it, "a week is a long time in politics", then a year is eternity.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
A Good Day for Republicans
Democrats lost two governorships to the Republicans yesterday, which is the best electoral news for the GOP in five years. However, a Democrat in New York State won a congressional seat that had been held by the Republicans, in an area that, generally, through several redistrictings, had been won by Republicans forever.
Bob McDonnell's victory in Virginia is significant in ending a Democratic winning streak in that state. Last year, Barack Obama was the first Democratic nominee in 44 years to win Virginia's electoral votes. As of 2007, there were two Democratic U.S. senators for the first time in 34 years. And the state had elected Democratic governors in 2001 and 2005.
But, in one sense, Chris Christie's New Jersey win is even more important. Winning only in states such as Virginia would reinforce the impression that the Republican Party is becoming the last thing anyone 50 years ago or so would have thought it would become: a southeastern regional party.
Democrat Bill Owens's victory in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, complicates the picture somewhat. Even though runner-up Doug Hoffman was not the Republican nominee, many Republicans supported him, so his defeat needs to be acknowledged as a GOP loss. That will intensify the debate about whether the party should be more ideologically diverse, as it was back in the days when it dominated politics in the northeastern states.
Last night, the White House proudly proclaimed that President Obama was not watching the election returns. If he wants to stay in his current residence after 2013, he might want to reconsider his position on paying attention to what the voters are saying.
Bob McDonnell's victory in Virginia is significant in ending a Democratic winning streak in that state. Last year, Barack Obama was the first Democratic nominee in 44 years to win Virginia's electoral votes. As of 2007, there were two Democratic U.S. senators for the first time in 34 years. And the state had elected Democratic governors in 2001 and 2005.
But, in one sense, Chris Christie's New Jersey win is even more important. Winning only in states such as Virginia would reinforce the impression that the Republican Party is becoming the last thing anyone 50 years ago or so would have thought it would become: a southeastern regional party.
Democrat Bill Owens's victory in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, complicates the picture somewhat. Even though runner-up Doug Hoffman was not the Republican nominee, many Republicans supported him, so his defeat needs to be acknowledged as a GOP loss. That will intensify the debate about whether the party should be more ideologically diverse, as it was back in the days when it dominated politics in the northeastern states.
Last night, the White House proudly proclaimed that President Obama was not watching the election returns. If he wants to stay in his current residence after 2013, he might want to reconsider his position on paying attention to what the voters are saying.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Referendum?
Dana Milbank writes in The Washington Post about the question on every political junkie's mind: do today's off-year elections constitute a referendum on the first year of Barack Obama's presidency?
Milbank, with a tongue-in-cheek tone, describes how pundits on both sides are giving the question a spin that is intended to benefit their side.
But he avoids the obvious question: what was each side saying eight years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot? In 2001, there was a new Republican president, and Republicans had won the 1997 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey (although New Jersey had a Democratic acting governor during the runup to the 2001 election, because Christie Whitman had resigned to join the Bush Administration).
I googled "2001 mark warner governor referendum on bush", and, lo and behold, I found this New York Times article, in which Terry McAuliffe, then the Democratic national chairman, said of that election cycle: "''I view it as a referendum on the Republican Party and their stale ideas.''
McAuliffe, who would be the one trying to uphold Obama's honor in Virginia this year, if he hadn't lost his party's gubernatorial primary, predicted in 2001 that the victories of Mark Warner and Jim McGreevey would give the Democrats enough momentum to retake control of Congress in 2002.
As it turned out, Republicans made small gains in the 2002 congressional elections, enough to give them a narrow majority in the Senate. However, Democrats did, of course, win majorities in both houses four years later.
That 2001 Times report also describes the situation in 1993, which was the same as this year's scenario. The more things change ....
Milbank, with a tongue-in-cheek tone, describes how pundits on both sides are giving the question a spin that is intended to benefit their side.
But he avoids the obvious question: what was each side saying eight years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot? In 2001, there was a new Republican president, and Republicans had won the 1997 gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey (although New Jersey had a Democratic acting governor during the runup to the 2001 election, because Christie Whitman had resigned to join the Bush Administration).
I googled "2001 mark warner governor referendum on bush", and, lo and behold, I found this New York Times article, in which Terry McAuliffe, then the Democratic national chairman, said of that election cycle: "''I view it as a referendum on the Republican Party and their stale ideas.''
McAuliffe, who would be the one trying to uphold Obama's honor in Virginia this year, if he hadn't lost his party's gubernatorial primary, predicted in 2001 that the victories of Mark Warner and Jim McGreevey would give the Democrats enough momentum to retake control of Congress in 2002.
As it turned out, Republicans made small gains in the 2002 congressional elections, enough to give them a narrow majority in the Senate. However, Democrats did, of course, win majorities in both houses four years later.
That 2001 Times report also describes the situation in 1993, which was the same as this year's scenario. The more things change ....
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
New York Special Election
For the second time this year, voters in a New York State congressional district will cast ballots in a special election to fill a U.S. House vacancy. On November 3, that state's 23rd district will choose a successor to Republican John McHugh, whom President Obama has appointed as secretary of the army.
The earlier special election was less directly tied to an Obama nomination. Democrat Scott Murphy was elected to succeed Kirsten Gillibrand, after Gillibrand had in turn been appointed as the interim successor in the U.S. Senate to Obama's choice for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. Murphy held for the Democrats a seat that had often voted Republican in the past.
The 23rd is in upstate New York, adjacent to Murphy's 20th district, and it has also historically been Republican territory.
Now for the most interesting twist in the current campaign: major Republicans on the national scene are working to defeat Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate. This New York Times report explains that strange situation in further detail.
New York State has two odd political entities: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.
The Liberal Party was formed in 1944 as a vehicle for the anti-Communist left, that was independent of the Democrats, which the Liberals describe as having been "rife with corruption".
The right wing in that state countered in 1962 by founding the Conservative Party.
Those parties have often endorsed Republican and Democratic candidates, but in some races, they have run third-party candidacies.
The two most famous Conservative candidacies, one successful and one not, were run by members of my favorite political family, the Buckleys. I described those campaigns in this post.
On the other hand, the Liberals' greatest success on their own was the reelection of New York City Mayor John Lindsay in 1969. He lost the Republican primary, but still won the general election, as New Yorkers tend to describe it, "on the Liberal line".
This might seem surprising in this day and age, but the Liberal Party often backed Republican candidates. Those were the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" that formerly dominated that party in New York.
However, they never endorsed Nelson Rockefeller himself in any of his runs for governor. But they did support Republican U.S. Senate candidates such as Charles Goodell and Jacob Javitz.
Now, the Conservative Party is attempting to replicate its victory in the 1970 Senate election, when its nominee James Buckley defeated Goodell, who was Rockefeller's appointee to replace the late Robert Kennedy in the Senate.
Douglas Hoffman is running on the Conservative line against Scozzafava in the 23rd district special election. Many Republicans consider her to be too far to the left, and they prefer to take the chance of allowing a Democratic victory, rather than putting a latter-day Rockefeller Republican in the seat.
As I've repeatedly noted, northeastern Republicans have become an endangered species. What is the best way to stave off extinction?
The earlier special election was less directly tied to an Obama nomination. Democrat Scott Murphy was elected to succeed Kirsten Gillibrand, after Gillibrand had in turn been appointed as the interim successor in the U.S. Senate to Obama's choice for secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. Murphy held for the Democrats a seat that had often voted Republican in the past.
The 23rd is in upstate New York, adjacent to Murphy's 20th district, and it has also historically been Republican territory.
Now for the most interesting twist in the current campaign: major Republicans on the national scene are working to defeat Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate. This New York Times report explains that strange situation in further detail.
New York State has two odd political entities: the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.
The Liberal Party was formed in 1944 as a vehicle for the anti-Communist left, that was independent of the Democrats, which the Liberals describe as having been "rife with corruption".
The right wing in that state countered in 1962 by founding the Conservative Party.
Those parties have often endorsed Republican and Democratic candidates, but in some races, they have run third-party candidacies.
The two most famous Conservative candidacies, one successful and one not, were run by members of my favorite political family, the Buckleys. I described those campaigns in this post.
On the other hand, the Liberals' greatest success on their own was the reelection of New York City Mayor John Lindsay in 1969. He lost the Republican primary, but still won the general election, as New Yorkers tend to describe it, "on the Liberal line".
This might seem surprising in this day and age, but the Liberal Party often backed Republican candidates. Those were the so-called "Rockefeller Republicans" that formerly dominated that party in New York.
However, they never endorsed Nelson Rockefeller himself in any of his runs for governor. But they did support Republican U.S. Senate candidates such as Charles Goodell and Jacob Javitz.
Now, the Conservative Party is attempting to replicate its victory in the 1970 Senate election, when its nominee James Buckley defeated Goodell, who was Rockefeller's appointee to replace the late Robert Kennedy in the Senate.
Douglas Hoffman is running on the Conservative line against Scozzafava in the 23rd district special election. Many Republicans consider her to be too far to the left, and they prefer to take the chance of allowing a Democratic victory, rather than putting a latter-day Rockefeller Republican in the seat.
As I've repeatedly noted, northeastern Republicans have become an endangered species. What is the best way to stave off extinction?
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Lost Senate
David Rogers published a very interesting article on Politico last Friday, about the manner in which the U.S. Senate has changed over the past few decades.
I'm always skeptical of what I think of as the "good old days" view of history. It's clear that the Senate has changed, but I don't know that, on balance, that can be described as a loss. Rogers acknowledges that, during the period in question, the Senate has stopped upholding legal racial segregation, and its own membership has been opened up to ethnic minorities and to women, but his headline, and the general tone of his article, both indicate disapproval of most of the changes.
As I see it, this all relates to one of the most difficult questions in a representative democracy: to what degree should elected representatives act according to the opinions of their constituents, as opposed to what the representatives themselves think is right?
While some of the trends involve senators talking mainly to members of their own party, and former House members forming a clique separate from senators with other types of experience, a lot of the criticism involves senators spending more time in their home states, that formerly would have been spent in Washington with their Senate colleagues.
Both types of contact are important, and I think senators should strike a balance between the two. They're not automatons sent to vote according to results of public opinion polls in their states. But, if their only political conversations are with fellow senators, they'll lose contact with their constituents, which is not healthy for both the functioning of our democracy and their own reelection prospects.
Howard Baker is quoted as relating technological changes to the evolution of the Senate. While air conditioning has led to longer annual sessions, cheaper and easier air travel has prompted more members to leave town on (long) weekends. Television, which has covered Senate sessions since 1986, has affected the nature of Senate debate. One of the more subtle changes has involved the necessity for brighter lighting in the Senate Chamber, which some contend has had a significant effect on interpersonal relations among the members.
Rogers cites the number of states with one Democratic and one Republican senator, as an indicator of the degree of partisanship in the Senate. Currently, 12 states have such a split delegation, with 24 states being represented by two Democrats, and 14 others having two Republican senators. He compares those numbers to those of 30 years ago, when 27 states were split, with only 16 having two Democratic senators, and a mere seven being represented by two Republicans.
Rogers leaves the impression that there is a long-term trend in that direction. But let's go back further, to 1959, when Lyndon Johnson, as majority leader, ran the Senate in the heyday of the Senate as a Club. The numbers then were roughly comparable to the current situation: 15 split delegations, 25 with two Democrats, and 10 with two Republicans.
I suggest that 1979 was an anomaly, representing a point when northeastern states were in transition from Republican dominance to Democratic, and vice versa for the southeast. Rather than there being more red states and blue states than previously existed, the change involves switching formerly blue southern states to red, and red northern states to blue.
The major American parties are more ideologically aligned than they were in 1979 or 1959. I don't have a root cause in mind, that I can cite for that. But call it the Arlen Specter/Strom Thurmond effect, i.e., less conservative Republicans in the northeast switching to the Democratic Party, and conservative southerners becoming Republicans.
I can see how that makes it more difficult for senators to reach across party lines, and to compromise with those across the aisle.
Rogers offers a very plausible analysis of one of the most significant recent trends in the Senate, that being the increased use of the filibuster tactic. It may have been the closer personal relationships among senators that formerly caused them to limit the use of the filibuster to occasional issues on which they felt particularly strongly. Now, with less such inhibition, a minority leader is more likely to reason that, whenever he can block the majority party's legislation with 41 votes (i.e., enough to block a cloture motion that would allow a vote on such a bill) he will do so.
Rogers quotes the current incumbent in that job, Mitch McConnell, as acknowledging that point of view regarding filibusters. Speaking of his ability to block legislation in that manner, McConnell said "I like it". Democratic minority leaders, during the periods of Republican control before 2007, had a similar attitude.
For those of us with libertarian leanings, what has, in effect, become a supermajority requirement is not such a bad thing.
To sum up, yes there needs to be a degree of comity between the parties, to be able to reach necessary compromises, and simply to run the Senate from day to day. But the following elements of the changed Senate have a lot to be said for them:
I'm always skeptical of what I think of as the "good old days" view of history. It's clear that the Senate has changed, but I don't know that, on balance, that can be described as a loss. Rogers acknowledges that, during the period in question, the Senate has stopped upholding legal racial segregation, and its own membership has been opened up to ethnic minorities and to women, but his headline, and the general tone of his article, both indicate disapproval of most of the changes.
As I see it, this all relates to one of the most difficult questions in a representative democracy: to what degree should elected representatives act according to the opinions of their constituents, as opposed to what the representatives themselves think is right?
While some of the trends involve senators talking mainly to members of their own party, and former House members forming a clique separate from senators with other types of experience, a lot of the criticism involves senators spending more time in their home states, that formerly would have been spent in Washington with their Senate colleagues.
Both types of contact are important, and I think senators should strike a balance between the two. They're not automatons sent to vote according to results of public opinion polls in their states. But, if their only political conversations are with fellow senators, they'll lose contact with their constituents, which is not healthy for both the functioning of our democracy and their own reelection prospects.
Howard Baker is quoted as relating technological changes to the evolution of the Senate. While air conditioning has led to longer annual sessions, cheaper and easier air travel has prompted more members to leave town on (long) weekends. Television, which has covered Senate sessions since 1986, has affected the nature of Senate debate. One of the more subtle changes has involved the necessity for brighter lighting in the Senate Chamber, which some contend has had a significant effect on interpersonal relations among the members.
Rogers cites the number of states with one Democratic and one Republican senator, as an indicator of the degree of partisanship in the Senate. Currently, 12 states have such a split delegation, with 24 states being represented by two Democrats, and 14 others having two Republican senators. He compares those numbers to those of 30 years ago, when 27 states were split, with only 16 having two Democratic senators, and a mere seven being represented by two Republicans.
Rogers leaves the impression that there is a long-term trend in that direction. But let's go back further, to 1959, when Lyndon Johnson, as majority leader, ran the Senate in the heyday of the Senate as a Club. The numbers then were roughly comparable to the current situation: 15 split delegations, 25 with two Democrats, and 10 with two Republicans.
I suggest that 1979 was an anomaly, representing a point when northeastern states were in transition from Republican dominance to Democratic, and vice versa for the southeast. Rather than there being more red states and blue states than previously existed, the change involves switching formerly blue southern states to red, and red northern states to blue.
The major American parties are more ideologically aligned than they were in 1979 or 1959. I don't have a root cause in mind, that I can cite for that. But call it the Arlen Specter/Strom Thurmond effect, i.e., less conservative Republicans in the northeast switching to the Democratic Party, and conservative southerners becoming Republicans.
I can see how that makes it more difficult for senators to reach across party lines, and to compromise with those across the aisle.
Rogers offers a very plausible analysis of one of the most significant recent trends in the Senate, that being the increased use of the filibuster tactic. It may have been the closer personal relationships among senators that formerly caused them to limit the use of the filibuster to occasional issues on which they felt particularly strongly. Now, with less such inhibition, a minority leader is more likely to reason that, whenever he can block the majority party's legislation with 41 votes (i.e., enough to block a cloture motion that would allow a vote on such a bill) he will do so.
Rogers quotes the current incumbent in that job, Mitch McConnell, as acknowledging that point of view regarding filibusters. Speaking of his ability to block legislation in that manner, McConnell said "I like it". Democratic minority leaders, during the periods of Republican control before 2007, had a similar attitude.
For those of us with libertarian leanings, what has, in effect, become a supermajority requirement is not such a bad thing.
To sum up, yes there needs to be a degree of comity between the parties, to be able to reach necessary compromises, and simply to run the Senate from day to day. But the following elements of the changed Senate have a lot to be said for them:
- Greater diversity among Senate membership.
- More contact with constituents, via television and increased home-state travel.
- Increased need for supermajorities to pass legislation.
- Greater responsibility to the rank and file of one's party, as opposed to one's elite friends within the Senate.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Who's the Bull Elephant?
Who is the leader of the Democratic Party? If you said anyone other than Barack Obama, or if you even had to think about it for any period of time, with all due respect, you don't understand the nature of party leadership in Washington.
While some have criticized President Obama for giving congressional leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid too much leeway in setting the policy agenda, no one on Capitol Hill can be called the leader of the Democratic Party. And it certainly is not Tim Kaine, who chairs the Democratic National Committee.
When the founding fathers designed the presidency, in the Constitution of 1787, they intended that political parties play no role in relation to that office. But, by custom and practice, it has long since been established that one of a president's roles is that of leader of his (so far, always his) political party.
There are exceptions, such as when a president is running up against the term limit, and his party has already chosen its candidate to attempt to succeed him. Also, if a president seeking reelection faces an intraparty challenge, such as those of Pat Buchanan against George H.W. Bush in 1992, or Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter in 1980, I suppose the president loses some of his grip on his party. However, of course, neither of those circumstances currently applies to Obama. He is the undisputed Democratic leader.
But, what about the other party? This article in Politico describes a confrontation between leaders of the congressional Republicans, and of the party's national committee, over who should set the Republican policy agenda.
Given the bicameral nature of Congress, there is no one Republican leader on the Hill, who can lay claim to the leadership mantle. And the current crop of Republican governors doesn't make a credible challenge for the role. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a lame duck who is out of synch ideologically with much of his party. Rick Perry of Texas is perhaps seen as too far in the other ideological direction, and he is not even assured of renomination in his state.
At various points during the Clinton presidency, Republican governors in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan played major leadership roles, but they're all out of office by now, and have been replaced by either Democrats or less effectual Republicans.
The chairman of the national committee of the opposition party has often taken an independent role in party leadership. By contrast, the chairman of the president's party is expected to be a cheerleader for the president and a technocrat who sees that the party's infrastructure functions properly, and does not obstruct the president's agenda.
From the Republican standpoint, coordination and communication between the Hill and the RNC is probably the best way to minimize tension. And, while we can't expect that the egos of leaders at that level can be reduced to anything resembling that of the average person, perhaps those leaders can at least be cognizant of that as an issue, and leave as much legroom as possible for others' egos.
While some have criticized President Obama for giving congressional leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid too much leeway in setting the policy agenda, no one on Capitol Hill can be called the leader of the Democratic Party. And it certainly is not Tim Kaine, who chairs the Democratic National Committee.
When the founding fathers designed the presidency, in the Constitution of 1787, they intended that political parties play no role in relation to that office. But, by custom and practice, it has long since been established that one of a president's roles is that of leader of his (so far, always his) political party.
There are exceptions, such as when a president is running up against the term limit, and his party has already chosen its candidate to attempt to succeed him. Also, if a president seeking reelection faces an intraparty challenge, such as those of Pat Buchanan against George H.W. Bush in 1992, or Ted Kennedy against Jimmy Carter in 1980, I suppose the president loses some of his grip on his party. However, of course, neither of those circumstances currently applies to Obama. He is the undisputed Democratic leader.
But, what about the other party? This article in Politico describes a confrontation between leaders of the congressional Republicans, and of the party's national committee, over who should set the Republican policy agenda.
Given the bicameral nature of Congress, there is no one Republican leader on the Hill, who can lay claim to the leadership mantle. And the current crop of Republican governors doesn't make a credible challenge for the role. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a lame duck who is out of synch ideologically with much of his party. Rick Perry of Texas is perhaps seen as too far in the other ideological direction, and he is not even assured of renomination in his state.
At various points during the Clinton presidency, Republican governors in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania and Michigan played major leadership roles, but they're all out of office by now, and have been replaced by either Democrats or less effectual Republicans.
The chairman of the national committee of the opposition party has often taken an independent role in party leadership. By contrast, the chairman of the president's party is expected to be a cheerleader for the president and a technocrat who sees that the party's infrastructure functions properly, and does not obstruct the president's agenda.
From the Republican standpoint, coordination and communication between the Hill and the RNC is probably the best way to minimize tension. And, while we can't expect that the egos of leaders at that level can be reduced to anything resembling that of the average person, perhaps those leaders can at least be cognizant of that as an issue, and leave as much legroom as possible for others' egos.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
New Leader?
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is up for reelection in Nevada next year.
A few days ago, Rasmussen reported polls showing Reid trailing the following two potential Republican challengers:
In Politico, Glenn Thrush analyzes the implications of what would be the second defeat of a Senate Democratic floor leader in a six-year period.
The Republican Party found itself in an interesting situation in South Dakota, in 2004. With a strong candidate, John Thune, running against Tom Daschle, who was then the Senate Democratic leader, the Republicans were like sharks smelling blood in the water.
In politics, as in baseball, the side spending the most money doesn't necessarily win. But, when what was arguably the highest national office held by any Democrat at that time at stake, in an election in which fewer than 400,000 people voted, the Republicans poured relatively massive amounts of money into South Dakota. The Democrats were forced to respond in kind, but their expensive defense of the Senate seat was unsuccessful. That was when Reid took over his party's leadership in the upper house.
Nevada is quite a bit more populous than South Dakota, which isn't saying much. But Nevada is still only the 35th most populous state, based on 2008 estimates.
The two Democratic senators named in the Politico article as potential successors to Reid, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York, come from what are, of course, two of the most populous states.
I wonder whether, in the wake of the Daschle defeat, and the Reid defeat, if it comes to that, the parties in the Senate will turn to the larger states in choosing their leaders. Perhaps they won't want to repeat the experience of having a few thousand voters in a small state able to decapitate their party at the national level.
Since the 1950s, Senate leaders have come from such large states as Texas, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania. But in addition to South Dakota and Nevada, small states such as Montana, West Virginia, Kansas and Maine have also produced party floor leaders.
A few days ago, Rasmussen reported polls showing Reid trailing the following two potential Republican challengers:
- Sue Lowden, a former state senator, who chairs her party in Nevada.
- Danny Tarkanian, a real estate businessman. Tarkanian's surname is well known in the state. His father, basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian, was the successful, if controversial, head coach at University of Nevada -- Las Vegas for 18 years.
In Politico, Glenn Thrush analyzes the implications of what would be the second defeat of a Senate Democratic floor leader in a six-year period.
The Republican Party found itself in an interesting situation in South Dakota, in 2004. With a strong candidate, John Thune, running against Tom Daschle, who was then the Senate Democratic leader, the Republicans were like sharks smelling blood in the water.
In politics, as in baseball, the side spending the most money doesn't necessarily win. But, when what was arguably the highest national office held by any Democrat at that time at stake, in an election in which fewer than 400,000 people voted, the Republicans poured relatively massive amounts of money into South Dakota. The Democrats were forced to respond in kind, but their expensive defense of the Senate seat was unsuccessful. That was when Reid took over his party's leadership in the upper house.
Nevada is quite a bit more populous than South Dakota, which isn't saying much. But Nevada is still only the 35th most populous state, based on 2008 estimates.
The two Democratic senators named in the Politico article as potential successors to Reid, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Chuck Schumer of New York, come from what are, of course, two of the most populous states.
I wonder whether, in the wake of the Daschle defeat, and the Reid defeat, if it comes to that, the parties in the Senate will turn to the larger states in choosing their leaders. Perhaps they won't want to repeat the experience of having a few thousand voters in a small state able to decapitate their party at the national level.
Since the 1950s, Senate leaders have come from such large states as Texas, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania. But in addition to South Dakota and Nevada, small states such as Montana, West Virginia, Kansas and Maine have also produced party floor leaders.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Aftermath of German Election
On this day after the German general election, the world is analyzing the results, and their impact on the future of Germany and, by extension, of the region in which it is the largest country, i.e., the European Union's part of Europe (which excludes the largest country in all of Europe, which is Russia).
Yesterday, I noted that the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) had their worst result in any post-World War II general election. But that does not mean that the vote total of the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), the party of Chancellor Angela Merkel, grew. It was in fact down slightly from the last election, in 2005.
The more ideologically focused parties were the ones who gained. The Free Democrats (FDP), known as "liberal" in Europe, saw their vote total increase significantly. That sense of "liberal" is closer to what we call "libertarian" in the U.S., than to our meaning of "liberal". Two parties that position themselves to the left of the SPD, the Left Party and the Greens, also did well.
A similar urge to clarify ideological differences among parties seems to have taken hold in America over the last few decades. Here, the Republican and Democratic parties are more clearly identified as the conservative party and liberal party, respectively, than they were 4o years ago or so. Apparently, the Germans don't find the same degree of clarity, between the CDU and SPD. So they have turned to smaller parties, a trend that is not reflected in voting patterns in the U.S.
This New York Times report might constitute at least a partial explanation for that phenomenon. It notes the CDU's traditional identification as a Roman Catholic party, in which the Protestant Merkel is a sort of odd-person-out. Perhaps, in this more secular age, such an identity for a party fails to attract a large part of the electorate.
Again, I see a similarity to the U.S., where the Democrats were traditionally seen as the party of Jewish and Roman Catholic voters, while the Republicans were the Protestant party. Of course religion still plays a role in American politics, but in a different way. Now, regular churchgoers, especially those of a more fundamentalist hue, are more likely to vote for Republicans than for Democrats. But that's different from the traditional-my-denomination-vs.-your-denomination basis for partisan rivalry. These days, voters are more likely to back whichever party at any given time has a message that attracts them, than to stay loyal to the party that corresponds to their forefathers' religious affiliation.
Yesterday, I noted that the center-left Social Democrats (SPD) had their worst result in any post-World War II general election. But that does not mean that the vote total of the center-right Christian Democrats (CDU), the party of Chancellor Angela Merkel, grew. It was in fact down slightly from the last election, in 2005.
The more ideologically focused parties were the ones who gained. The Free Democrats (FDP), known as "liberal" in Europe, saw their vote total increase significantly. That sense of "liberal" is closer to what we call "libertarian" in the U.S., than to our meaning of "liberal". Two parties that position themselves to the left of the SPD, the Left Party and the Greens, also did well.
A similar urge to clarify ideological differences among parties seems to have taken hold in America over the last few decades. Here, the Republican and Democratic parties are more clearly identified as the conservative party and liberal party, respectively, than they were 4o years ago or so. Apparently, the Germans don't find the same degree of clarity, between the CDU and SPD. So they have turned to smaller parties, a trend that is not reflected in voting patterns in the U.S.
This New York Times report might constitute at least a partial explanation for that phenomenon. It notes the CDU's traditional identification as a Roman Catholic party, in which the Protestant Merkel is a sort of odd-person-out. Perhaps, in this more secular age, such an identity for a party fails to attract a large part of the electorate.
Again, I see a similarity to the U.S., where the Democrats were traditionally seen as the party of Jewish and Roman Catholic voters, while the Republicans were the Protestant party. Of course religion still plays a role in American politics, but in a different way. Now, regular churchgoers, especially those of a more fundamentalist hue, are more likely to vote for Republicans than for Democrats. But that's different from the traditional-my-denomination-vs.-your-denomination basis for partisan rivalry. These days, voters are more likely to back whichever party at any given time has a message that attracts them, than to stay loyal to the party that corresponds to their forefathers' religious affiliation.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
German Result
The results of today's German general election are in. The Christian Democrats (CDU), for the second consecutive time, will be the largest party in the Bundestag, the lower house of the German parliament. The difference is that, this time, the CDU and the Free Democrats (FDP), the preferred coalition partner of the CDU, together have enough seats to form a coalition government. By contrast, after the 2005 election, the CDU was forced into a "grand coalition" with the second-largest party, the center-left Social Democrats (SPD).
The reports so far, largely based on exit polls, show a slim majority for a CDU/FDP coalition, but most media outlets seem to believe that the result will hold.
The German Federal Republic (BRD, in German) is 60 years old. It constituted the government of West Germany from 1949 to 1990, and of all Germany since then. During those years, the most common form of government has been a CDU/FDP coalition, most recently from 1982 to 1998, with Helmut Kohl as chancellor (head of government).
Now, the current chancellor, Angela Merkel of the CDU, will head such a coalition. It will be her first time at the head of a center-right government.
The SPD, in part because a breakaway faction has combined with eastern German ex-communists to form a new Left Party, has made its worst showing in the history of BRD elections.
Germany will join France and Italy as major European powers with center-right governments. And the United Kingdom is expected to follow suit by next June. It will be interesting to see whether that results in economic reforms, especially as recovery continues from the recent recession.
One major issue is whether they will loosen regulation of labor markets, which many believe has been the main cause for unemployment rates in continental Europe that, even in economic boom times, have been higher than in the U.S. and Britain.
Angela Merkel is personally popular in her country, with poll ratings that exceed those for her party as a whole. She lacks charisma. The same can be said of those most prominent among the other CDU chancellors, Kohl and Konrad Adenauer. That may well be a backlash in reaction to Germany's experience with the man who was arguably the most charismatic politician of all time, Adolf Hitler.
The reports so far, largely based on exit polls, show a slim majority for a CDU/FDP coalition, but most media outlets seem to believe that the result will hold.
The German Federal Republic (BRD, in German) is 60 years old. It constituted the government of West Germany from 1949 to 1990, and of all Germany since then. During those years, the most common form of government has been a CDU/FDP coalition, most recently from 1982 to 1998, with Helmut Kohl as chancellor (head of government).
Now, the current chancellor, Angela Merkel of the CDU, will head such a coalition. It will be her first time at the head of a center-right government.
The SPD, in part because a breakaway faction has combined with eastern German ex-communists to form a new Left Party, has made its worst showing in the history of BRD elections.
Germany will join France and Italy as major European powers with center-right governments. And the United Kingdom is expected to follow suit by next June. It will be interesting to see whether that results in economic reforms, especially as recovery continues from the recent recession.
One major issue is whether they will loosen regulation of labor markets, which many believe has been the main cause for unemployment rates in continental Europe that, even in economic boom times, have been higher than in the U.S. and Britain.
Angela Merkel is personally popular in her country, with poll ratings that exceed those for her party as a whole. She lacks charisma. The same can be said of those most prominent among the other CDU chancellors, Kohl and Konrad Adenauer. That may well be a backlash in reaction to Germany's experience with the man who was arguably the most charismatic politician of all time, Adolf Hitler.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
2010 Senate Elections
I've written about some of the individual races, but in this post I want to back up and look at the situation as a whole.
There are currently 59 Democrats and 40 Republicans in the Senate, with one Massachusetts seat vacant. Massachusetts will fill that seat by special election on January 19, 2010, and a Democrat will probably win that one.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, is expected to resign her Senate seat, in order to concentrate on her candidacy for governor. As I described here, that would also trigger a special election that will be out of the way before the November elections.
So, the expectation is that, going into the November 2010 elections, the split will be 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans.
Republicans seem to have regained momentum, so the question on many people's minds right now is whether they can make significant gains in the mid-term congressional elections.
Some of the biggest gains by Republicans have been 1994, when they gained nine seats, 1980, a gain of 12, and 1946, a 13-seat pickup. Large Democratic gains have included 2008 (eight seats), 1986 (eight seats), and 1958 (13 seats in the existing 48 states, plus three in the new states of Alaska and Hawaii).
While the Republicans may well make gains next year, I don't think they can become the majority party again, quite so soon. They would need to make a net gain of 11, for a total of 51 (if it were 50-50, Vice President Biden would decide the matter in favor of the Democrats). As the figures cited above show, such a gain would not be unprecedented.
But taking a quick look at the individual races (without getting very scientific and looking at polls, the identity of potential challengers, etc.), I identify only seven states where a Republican gain looks at all likely:
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinois
Nevada
New York (Gillibrand)
Pennsylvania
And here are six, where Democrats could take over Republican seats:
Alaska
Florida
Louisiana
Missouri
New Hampshire
Ohio
The Republicans' best bet is to try to string together cumulative gains in consecutive election cycles. That's what the Democrats did in 2006 and 2008, with a total gain of 14. Republicans picked up 15 seats in 1978 and 1980. And, further back in history, in the mother of all winning streaks, the Democrats went from a 39 to 56 deficit at the time of Herbert Hoover's landslide presidential victory of 1928, to a 76 to 16 majority, eight years later. Democratic gains (not including left-wing third parties) were eight in 1930, 12 in 1932, 10 in 1934, and seven in 1936.
There are currently 59 Democrats and 40 Republicans in the Senate, with one Massachusetts seat vacant. Massachusetts will fill that seat by special election on January 19, 2010, and a Democrat will probably win that one.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas, is expected to resign her Senate seat, in order to concentrate on her candidacy for governor. As I described here, that would also trigger a special election that will be out of the way before the November elections.
So, the expectation is that, going into the November 2010 elections, the split will be 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans.
Republicans seem to have regained momentum, so the question on many people's minds right now is whether they can make significant gains in the mid-term congressional elections.
Some of the biggest gains by Republicans have been 1994, when they gained nine seats, 1980, a gain of 12, and 1946, a 13-seat pickup. Large Democratic gains have included 2008 (eight seats), 1986 (eight seats), and 1958 (13 seats in the existing 48 states, plus three in the new states of Alaska and Hawaii).
While the Republicans may well make gains next year, I don't think they can become the majority party again, quite so soon. They would need to make a net gain of 11, for a total of 51 (if it were 50-50, Vice President Biden would decide the matter in favor of the Democrats). As the figures cited above show, such a gain would not be unprecedented.
But taking a quick look at the individual races (without getting very scientific and looking at polls, the identity of potential challengers, etc.), I identify only seven states where a Republican gain looks at all likely:
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Illinois
Nevada
New York (Gillibrand)
Pennsylvania
And here are six, where Democrats could take over Republican seats:
Alaska
Florida
Louisiana
Missouri
New Hampshire
Ohio
The Republicans' best bet is to try to string together cumulative gains in consecutive election cycles. That's what the Democrats did in 2006 and 2008, with a total gain of 14. Republicans picked up 15 seats in 1978 and 1980. And, further back in history, in the mother of all winning streaks, the Democrats went from a 39 to 56 deficit at the time of Herbert Hoover's landslide presidential victory of 1928, to a 76 to 16 majority, eight years later. Democratic gains (not including left-wing third parties) were eight in 1930, 12 in 1932, 10 in 1934, and seven in 1936.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
