A recent WI: A few more Democrats in the Senate.

Let's say, upon Obama's election, there were a few more Democratic Senators. Most likely because one of the following races went differently:

Kentucky - 2008: Mitch McConnell came within 6% of losing.
Tennessee - 2006: Bob Corker almost won this race against Harold Ford Jr. The final margin was about 3%.
2004: Democrats came very close to winning Alaska and Kentucky. They also only very narrowly lost seats in Florida, North Carolina, and South Dakota.

As things worked out IOTL, the Democrats had a majority of 58 for months until the final recount in Minnesota. After Specter switched there was a theoretical 60-seat majority until the death of Ted Kennedy, although it practically never worked out that way due to illnesses, Ben Nelson, and Joe Lieberman.

ITTL, Democrats will have a clear, 60 seat majority in the Senate, even before Franken is seated. Probably the best bet would be for the Democrats to not do as bad in 2004, as there were many seats in play, and Lunsford and Harold Ford would be pains in the asses for the caucus in a way Erskine Bowles, Tony Knowles, or even having Daschle still around wouldn't.

Regardless, how would the past two years work out with a slightly larger margin for the Democrats in the senate, and the ability to (theoretically) stop Republican filibusters?
 
Last edited:
As I remember the Blue Dog democrates had as much to do with stopping what little got stopped.

After all it's pretty hard to get 100% of even 39 Senators to stick to a No vote.
 
As I remember the Blue Dog democrates had as much to do with stopping what little got stopped.

After all it's pretty hard to get 100% of even 39 Senators to stick to a No vote.
Exactly; almost all of the Democratic maneuvering in both branches of the legislature has been focused on getting their own party to vote a straight party line. As the Obamacare mess demonstrated, this is no easy task. One or two more Blue Dog democrats in the senate will not do much to improve the party's postion.
 
The past two years have been bad enough as it is. I really don't know if any more of the Obama agenda could have been passed. How many more times would moderate Democrats be willing to risk their career for legislation with so little public approval. Even today, nearly five months after passage, polling on the health care bill is showing 60% in favor or repeal. Time isn't seeing public support coming around to favor the left.

And of course if the POD is a stronger showing for Dems in 2004, then that leaves so many more this year who would be up for reelection, seeing weak polling and strong GOP challengers.
 
If there were a few more Democrats in the Senate. You would see a lot more positive things happen. So much of the progressive agenda got watered down to appease the losers on the right.
 
I'd start in 2002

Minnesota: Norm Coleman (Republican) 49.5% Vs Walter Mondale (DFL) 47.3%

Missouri: Jim Talent (Republican) 49.8% Vs Jean Carnahan (Democratic) 48.7%

2004:

Florida: Mel Martinez (Republican) 49.5% Vs. Betty Castor (Democratic) 48.3%

South Dakota: John Thune (Republican) 50.5% Vs. Tom Daschle (Democratic) 49.4%

North Carolina: Richard Burr (Republican) 52% Vs. Erskine Bowles (Democrat) 47%


2006:

Tennessee: Bob Corker (Republican) 50.7% Vs. Harold Ford, Jr. (Democrat) 48.0%


2008:

Georgia: Saxby Chambliss (Republican) 49.8% Vs. Jim Martin (Democrat) 46.8%
 
Of course, if Senate races as far back as 2002-4 are getting changed, there are likely to be some butterfly effects by the time 2010 rolls around. That's not to mention that Americans generally dislike either political party being in too strong of a position; a super-strong Democrat position in the Senate will create a backlash elsewhere.
 
Top