WI Martha Coakley won?

[John Fredrick Parker]

She lost by less than 5%, and then only after making some very over the top gaffes late in the election, so it's certainly plausible. One certain effect is the Democrats would get to keep their (slim) supermajority at least until the midterms.

So what happens? How does 2010 play out differently?

[Ariosto]

Massachusetts Republicans like myself would still have no say in our nation's politics. :p

[Paul V McNutt]

Things go better for the Obama administration. Earlier repeal of DADT, passage of the Dream Act and maybe repeal of the Bush tax cut.

[Atreus]

Isn't this thread a tiny bit premature? A year after the special election, less than half that since the midterms? I mean, sure I could make some snap assumptions, but there is no perspective.

For a mechanism, though, maybe find another candidate. I'm still unsure how Coakley managed to lose so badly.

[Ariosto]

Isn't this thread a tiny bit premature? A year after the special election, less than half that since the midterms? I mean, sure I could make some snap assumptions, but there is no perspective.

For a mechanism, though, maybe find another candidate. I'm still unsure how Coakley managed to lose so badly.

Only about thirty percent of our voters are actually registered Democrats. Over sixty percent are registered Independents. If the waves are strong enough, they can swing one way or the other. The major problem is that a lot of them are Progressive Independents.

[birdboy2000]

The final versions of the health care and financial reform bills probably look a bit stronger - health care because it wouldn't have to be amended through reconciliation, financial reform because Scott Brown cast the deciding vote and demanded concessions for it - but it's really too soon to tell what that means. I don't see much of a knock-on effect otherwise - Conservative democrats in the senate and the ill health/death of Robert Byrd a few months later means the Democrats won't get that much more done anyway. Republicans still failed to take any ground in Massachusetts politics in the 2010 midterms, and while Brown gave Republicans *hope* that they could win in deep blue states, it's pretty hard to quantify that. Nor has Brown emerged as a leader of moderates in the Senate or anything.

(I don't see it impacting the midterms substantially, either. Democrats tend to not turn out as often in midterms as in presidential races, and although it's true that many liberals stayed home out of dissatisfaction with moderates preventing anything from getting done, the public option wasn't killed by Scott Brown, but by Joe Lieberman, and financial reform wasn't a major motivator one way or the other.)

He may have a fine political career ahead of him - as a liberal Massachusetts Democrat I hope he loses in '12, but he's taken an independent line and has high approval ratings and enormous political skill, so he'll be hard to beat even in Massachusetts. But it's really way too soon to tell.

[Ariosto]

He may have a fine political career ahead of him - as a liberal Massachusetts Democrat I hope he loses in '12

Come On! You have EVERY OTHER SEAT IN THE CONGRESS! Give us Republicans something! :p

[John Fredrick Parker]

Isn't this thread a tiny bit premature? A year after the special election, less than half that since the midterms? I mean, sure I could make some snap assumptions, but there is no perspective.

I think 2010 was eventful enough we could try to imagine them in different circumstances...

[Garbageman]

. I'm still unsure how Coakley managed to lose so badly.
She got cocky and didn't bother campaigning because she figured Teddy Kennedy's seat was all sewn up.

[lord caedus]

She got cocky and didn't bother campaigning because she figured Teddy Kennedy's seat was all sewn up.

She also came off as out-of-touch and kind of a bitch, at least to me, that is.

[SlideAway]

The final versions of the health care and financial reform bills probably look a bit stronger - health care because it wouldn't have to be amended through reconciliation, financial reform because Scott Brown cast the deciding vote and demanded concessions for it - but it's really too soon to tell what that means. I don't see much of a knock-on effect otherwise - Conservative democrats in the senate and the ill health/death of Robert Byrd a few months later means the Democrats won't get that much more done anyway. Republicans still failed to take any ground in Massachusetts politics in the 2010 midterms, and while Brown gave Republicans *hope* that they could win in deep blue states, it's pretty hard to quantify that. Nor has Brown emerged as a leader of moderates in the Senate or anything.

(I don't see it impacting the midterms substantially, either. Democrats tend to not turn out as often in midterms as in presidential races, and although it's true that many liberals stayed home out of dissatisfaction with moderates preventing anything from getting done, the public option wasn't killed by Scott Brown, but by Joe Lieberman, and financial reform wasn't a major motivator one way or the other.)

He may have a fine political career ahead of him - as a liberal Massachusetts Democrat I hope he loses in '12, but he's taken an independent line and has high approval ratings and enormous political skill, so he'll be hard to beat even in Massachusetts. But it's really way too soon to tell.

Pretty much this. There might have been some knock-on effects in the Senate races. In Indiana, Dan Coats may not declare and Evan Bayh may choose not to retire, so Democrats might be up one additional Senate seat. And in WA, Dino Rossi may not run, although he didn't win anyway, so no big change.

[THE OBSERVER]

Scott Brown is one of the Republicans that I like. I wouldn't mind seeing more Republicans like him in Congress. Perhaps the GOP will split in two, like as described in The Future is Green. The hard right, tea-partiers on one side, the moderate and Rockefeller Republicans on the other, and the establishmentarians split in the middle. As long he doesn't ask for reelection money from the Koch Brothers, then If I was from MA, I'd definitely reelect him.

[John Fredrick Parker]

Just want to say thanks to Paul, Birdboy, and Slide...

[John Fredrick Parker]

OK, after six months, considering there were previous concerns that not enough time had passed since the PoD to judge, I think it's fair to revisit this thread --

One thing that struck me recently is that so much of the political fights between the President and the Republican House this year stem from the fact that the previous Congress failed to pass a proper Budget. But with 60 Senators lasting until the new Congress convenes in January of 2011, that could become much more possible -- possibly, with things like the DREAM Act passing earlier in the year, the lame duck session decides to go ahead and raise the debt ceiling, to get that business over with.

So say the Republicans still take the House and pick up Senate seats* in 2010 -- what would the President and the Republican leadership have been fighting over these past eight months or so?

*though perhaps not as many

[Plumber]

OK, after six months, considering there were previous concerns that not enough time had passed since the PoD to judge, I think it's fair to revisit this thread --

One thing that struck me recently is that so much of the political fights between the President and the Republican House this year stem from the fact that the previous Congress failed to pass a proper Budget. But with 60 Senators lasting until the new Congress convenes in January of 2011, that could become much more possible -- possibly, with things like the DREAM Act passing earlier in the year, the lame duck session decides to go ahead and raise the debt ceiling, to get that business over with.

So say the Republicans still take the House and pick up Senate seats* in 2010 -- what would the President and the Republican leadership have been fighting over these past eight months or so?

*though perhaps not as many
They'll find anything.
HOWEVER, the U.S. may not be downgraded yet, so the economy will probably be better since S&P really killed the DOW.

[Peabody-Martini]

Considering the actions of the corporate press over the last few years. I'd say that it would signify nothing to the beltway media who would then ignore the whole story. After all it would not conform to the preconceived narrative for 2010.

[John Fredrick Parker]

They'll find anything.

Really, anything? Does this mean TTL could see Congressional Hearings on Common visiting the White House?

Considering the actions of the corporate press over the last few years. I'd say that it would signify nothing to the beltway media who would then ignore the whole story. After all it would not conform to the preconceived narrative for 2010.

Wait, what story are you talking about? The economy not getting endangered because US Credit remains same as ever?

[lord caedus]

I'd think it would mostly follow OTL if Coakley won. After all, Scott Brown is one of the few remaining reasonable Republicans, plus Lieberman and Ben Nelson (and Evan Bayh as well) would still be there and willing to force Reid & Durbin to put concessions in or scuttle it because bills aren't "moderate" enough.

They'll find anything.
HOWEVER, the U.S. may not be downgraded yet, so the economy will probably be better since S&P really killed the DOW.

That they will. 24-hour news media plus the extremism of the GOP means they'll find a way to fight about anything.

[Starkad]

Without the Mass win the Tea Party has less credibility to helicopter in fringe/untried candidates in senate races, and Reid, Boxer and ?delaware? may not be so lucky (it's politics - with every win there's a boomerang ..)

IIRC the budget had less to do with the 60th seat, and much with democrat infighting. Once it's down to dollars (as opposed to "signal issues") and a single vote, there's always someone willing to be bribed - that's what senators do after all - see cornhusker kickback, louisiana purchase and hundreds of others through the years.
Now if you are locked down seven ways to sunday by internal compromises, you may not have the wiggle room to make the deal....

[John Fredrick Parker]

^^That may be a point -- not sure. It also occurs to me, though, that minimum Democrats are likely to expand Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000, no?

So I'm still left wondering what issues Boehner and Obama spar over TTL -- I know it's something, just can't put my finger on it...

[Cathcon1]

A Democrat from Massachusetts? How boring is that? :p

[tiggerfan]

One way she wins is if Kennedy puts party/country before self and recognizes he's not going to get better (I don't mean to disrespect him here, but he was dying).

He dramatically resigns in summer 2008 to focus on the Obama campaign

Special election is held in 2008 for seat, Dems win easily

[John Fredrick Parker]

Without the Mass win the Tea Party has less credibility to helicopter in fringe/untried candidates in senate races, and Reid, Boxer and ?delaware? may not be so lucky (it's politics - with every win there's a boomerang ..)

California, I seriously doubt -- both the primary and general were pretty lopsided OTL. Nevada Republicans were going to nominate someone either way, so that race probably doesn't change much. Delaware, I'll give you -- OTL, O'Donnell beat Castle by just 6.2%, and without a Scott Brown victory, TP people may be less enthused in blocking the clearly more electable Republican. So we'll say that's another switch TTL. Then there's the potential Democratic keeps...

There might have been some knock-on effects in the Senate races. In Indiana, Dan Coats may not declare and Evan Bayh may choose not to retire, so Democrats might be up one additional Senate seat. And in WA, Dino Rossi may not run, although he didn't win anyway, so no big change.

I'd add that with Ron Wyden's seat safe(r), National Democratic monies are going to be freed up to spend in other states. I'm guessing that means the Dems keep the Massachusetts seat, Evan Bayh's seat, and one more, probably Illinois or Pennsylvania, since they were the closest Republican gains OTL (I prefer Sen. Sestak myself).

Combined with Mike Castle's win in Delaware, that puts the Democrats new majority in the Senate at 53 -- certainly not a lot better, but still...

[Bulletsfromthegrassyknoll]

Isn't this thread a tiny bit premature? A year after the special election, less than half that since the midterms? I mean, sure I could make some snap assumptions, but there is no perspective.

For a mechanism, though, maybe find another candidate. I'm still unsure how Coakley managed to lose so badly.

Because she ran the campaign of a dead duck.

[Paul V McNutt]

Everyone is ignoring the point of the thread. If Coakley won, the filibuster proof Democratic majority that last until January 2011. Means that the Bush tax cut is replaced by a bill that raises rates on the rich but keeps taxes low on everybody else. The Dream Act passes and there is a Senate budget that gives the Democrats leverage in 2010.

[adam888]

As long as Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and a few other Conservative Senators are in the Senate, its not going to matter.

[Paul V McNutt]

As long as Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson and a few other Conservative Senators are in the Senate, its not going to matter.

I don't see them supporting a filibuster.

[John Fredrick Parker]

I don't see them supporting a filibuster.

It really depends on what they'd dare to help block -- the ACA is one thing, but rote things like budgets, extending tax cuts for all but the richest 2%, etc, certainly won't have trouble. Then there's stuff in between, like DREAM Act, as well as aspects of larger laws, like the Volcker Rule; hell, even the ACA itself may get something resembling a public option if it goes through conference instead of reconciliation.*

*At the time of Coakley's defeat OTL, an alliance of liberal House Democrats were signing a pact stating they would not vote for a bill w/o a public option; however, once the House had the choose b/w the Senate bill or no bill (b/c Republicans could now block a new vote in the Senate), these threats became a moot point. But if the only thing standing in the way of a public option is Joe Lieberman, compromise starts to become both possible and necessary...

[CalBear]

Everyone is ignoring the point of the thread. If Coakley won, the filibuster proof Democratic majority that last until January 2011. Means that the Bush tax cut is replaced by a bill that raises rates on the rich but keeps taxes low on everybody else. The Dream Act passes and there is a Senate budget that gives the Democrats leverage in 2010.
Actually, you are the only missing the point.

Thread is dead. Died from lack of interest.

Let it rest in peace.

[John Fredrick Parker]

I don't see them supporting a filibuster.

It really depends on what they'd dare to help block -- the ACA is one thing, but rote things like budgets, extending tax cuts for all but the richest 2%, etc, certainly won't have trouble. Then there's stuff in between, like DREAM Act, as well as aspects of larger laws, like the Volcker Rule; hell, even the ACA itself may get something resembling a public option if it goes through conference instead of reconciliation.*

*At the time of Coakley's defeat OTL, an alliance of liberal House Democrats were signing a pact stating they would not vote for a bill w/o a public option; however, once the House had the choose b/w the Senate bill or no bill (b/c Republicans could now block a new vote in the Senate), these threats became a moot point. But if the only thing standing in the way of a public option is Joe Lieberman, compromise starts to become both possible and necessary...