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?
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: