Democratic Party Wins More Senate Races in 2004

[Glass Onion]

In 2004 there were three Senate races which Republican candidates won that could reasonably be termed close races.

In Florida Mel Martinez defeated Betty Castor 49.4-48.3

In Kentucky Jim Bunning defeated Daniel Mongiardo 50.7-49.3

and perhaps most significantly-then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle lost reelection by a margin of 50.6-49.4

What if these races, which were relatively narrow by the standards of such elections, had gone the other way? What would the impact of three additional Democratic Senators in 2005-2007 have been?

Would Daschle's continued presence Leadership at all impact the 2006 election? Could the Democratic Party be as successful in that cycle if Daschle was still in the Senate?

Would Daschle's reelection prevent Obama's Campaign for the Presidency? Daschle's reelection probably means Daschle retains Pete Rouse-and Rouse was a crucial advisor to Obama early on.

On the other hand in this scenario Obama will have a strong early supporter as a Majority Leader which might mitigate the impact of Rouse's absence to an extent. It's easy to imagine Senator Daschle wanting to help Senator Obama given that Private Citizen Daschle did so as early as he did.

Of course that's leaving aside the probability that this slight change in 2004 will butterfly Obama's campaign before Daschle's reelection has a chance to make a concrete impression

If Daschle's reelection doesn't upend the possibility of an Obama administration how would this divergence impact things in 2009?

These three Senators would not have been up for reelection until 2010. Which means that all else equal the party has a 61 seat supermajority before Al Franken is sworn in if Spector switches and a 62 seat supermajority thereafter.

In short what does the second term of George W. Bush look like with three extra Democrats in the Senate and if this divergence does not butterfly the Obama era away entirely what does the 2009-2011 period look like with such a massive Democratic Majority? Admittedly the post-2008 part of this will almost certainly be butterflied away. But I thought the idea would make for an interesting thought experiment.

 

[Minty_Fresh]

Daschle was not nearly as unpopular as Harry Reid was, mostly because being a red state senator forced him to temper his views from repeating Salon and Code Pink talking points. That would help the Democratic Party going forward and perhaps make 2006 more of a slam dunk.

 

[Glass Onion]

As I remember 2006 Harry Reid was being tauted-at least in the media-as a kind of representation of the more conservative on social issues sort of Democrat who could win elections. Both the media and the party having become convinced in 2004 that those issues cost John Kerry the Presidency. That was a short lived idea but relevant in 2005-2006. Daschle is not new and cannot be portrayed that way.

 

[Minty_Fresh]

As I remember 2006 Harry Reid was being tauted-at least in the media-as a kind of representation of the more conservative on social issues sort of Democrat who could win elections. Both the media and the party having become convinced in 2004 that those issues cost John Kerry the Presidency. That was a short lived idea but relevant in 2005-2006. Daschle is not new and cannot be portrayed that way.

Reid's lack of frothing social leftism was overweighed by his pessimism about Iraq, which was seen as unpatriotic by Republicans and Democrats alike, especially once he continued to deny the obvious success of the Surge, but that wasn't as much an issue in 2006 as it would be down the line. Reid was definitely unpopular, not as much for ideology but as for his attitude, which was kind of dickish at times, and for his tendency to gaffe. He is plain and simple terrible at retail politics. The Democrat's success in 2006 came from Howard Dean's strategy as DNC chairman, which called for a resurgence of running blue dog Democrats and Clintonian Triangulation in states where stealing a seat was possible, and relying on the Bush administration's appearance of incompetence in other races. Reid did not help one bit with that. Daschle was broadly popular in a way that could help.

Once Mitt Romney appeared on the national political spectrum, his religion became a wedge issue, creating an obviously awkward situation for Reid, as MSNBC allowing Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, and Lawrence O'Donnell to get really nasty on Mormonism made his religion an issue with the left as well.

 

[Wallet]

Let's say the Democrats win the 3 seats in 2004

Assuming they win the same amount of seats (5 in 2006, 8 in 2008) they get 60+ on Election Day when Obama wins

They still have 60+ even if Franken doesn't win or after Ted Kennedy dies. Obamacare was passed in the brief window that had a super majority. Now this should last a full 2 years until 2011. A lot more could be passed.

Plus this decreases the chance of losing the senate in 2014. Imagine having a democratic senate for Obama last two years.

 

[Wallet]

In 2009, the Democrats had 57 seats. 2 Independents voted with the democrats. So that's 59.

When Franken was confirmed they had 60, but then Ted Kennedy died.

Winning 3, means they have 61 plus 2 so a 63 super majority.

They lost 6 in 2010, gained 3 in 2012, and lost 9 in 2014

So in 2014, they have 50 with Joe Biden as a tie breaker

 

[Wallet]

In 2009, the Democrats had 57 seats. 2 Independents voted with the democrats. So that's 59.

When Franken was confirmed they had 60, but then Ted Kennedy died.

Winning 3, means they have 61 plus 2 so a 63 super majority.

They lost 6 in 2010, gained 3 in 2012, and lost 9 in 2014

So in 2014, they have 50 with Joe Biden as a tie breaker

That means Obama appoints a justice to the Supreme Court

 

[Glass Onion]

Daschle's reelection will impact the kind of Staff Obama has since the ex-Daschle people will not migrate to him. That alone could sink Obama's chances in 2008 or alter his Presidency. If somehow Daschle still loses but the other two win that's less of an issue.

Even asuming an all else equal scenario there are still enough conservative Democrats to sink
Cap and Trade and to impose a ceiling on the Stimulus.

In 2009 Obama was still inclined to seek Republican support so his administration will reach out to Arlen Spector and the other Republicans moderates. However since the Democratic Party has a supermajority-if Obama can be certain of party unity the bill can pass without any Republican support.

Obama would want more of a margin for error and would probably have tried to convert at least one Republican Senator. The demands of the moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats were similar enough that those changes would still be made.

The stimulus will still be less than 800 billion and contain less Education spending. I don't know whether Spector still has his NIH increase here but otherwise a similar bill in most respects even if the Democrats have three additional seats.

It's hard to see the Affordable Care Act passing much sooner here. After all the House didn't pass a bill until November 2009 and the Senate passed one a month later.

Assuming a post January Supermajority the ACA probable goes to conference in February 2010. I'm not sure how long that process would take. The end result is a different law on the margins-but as a practical matter more akin to the Senate bill than the House bill.

Even with the additional Democrats the votes to break the Filibuster on Cap and Trade probably are not there given the opposition among Conservative Democrats.

In May 2010 the effort to Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell met a successful filibuster led by McCain. Not sure whether that could be overcome but breaking that filibuster is much easier with at least two additional Democratic Senators. Assuming the extra votes break McCain's filibuster both Don't Ask Don't Tell and DREAM pass prior to the lame duck session.

With at least a 60 vote supermajority the administration might have an easier time gathering the 66 votes to ratify NEW START prior to the lameduck session.

If that's the case and if there's still a Democratic supermajority in December 2010 the top brackets of the Bush Tax Cuts Expire in 2010. The votes will be there to break a Republican filibuster after the House passes the Democratic bill. Not sure if Make Work Pay or a payroll tax cut passes. There will be more revenue in 2011 which will at least alter the effort to raise the debt ceiling. Not sure how that turns out with the expiration of the top bracket Bush cuts in 2010.

I think with the possible exception of Daschle all of these Senators would have lost in 2010 regardless of whether Obama or Hillary is in office. Would Betty Castor defeat Marco Rubio? Would Daniel Mongiardo defeat Rand Paul?

For an all else equal scenario Daschle probably has to lose. But that would still alter things by leaving a longer lasting Super-Majority.

 

[Gonzo]

As I remember 2006 Harry Reid was being tauted-at least in the media-as a kind of representation of the more conservative on social issues sort of Democrat who could win elections. Both the media and the party having become convinced in 2004 that those issues cost John Kerry the Presidency. That was a short lived idea but relevant in 2005-2006. Daschle is not new and cannot be portrayed that way.

I always though Daschle was quite conservative socially - especially on abortion.

 

[Apollo 20]

...It's easy to imagine Senator Daschle wanting to help Senator Obama given that Private Citizen Daschle did so as early as he did...

Actually, it's easy to imagine Daschle sitting the race out lest it cause friction in the Democratic caucus with a number of Senators backing Clinton, who was herself a member of the caucus. Daschle could get involved with Obama precisely because he was out of office. As Democratic leader with several Senators running (Biden and Dodd were running with Edwards being a former Senator), backing anyone in that situation is more trouble than it's worth.

If you ask me, the biggest benefit to the Democrats picking up these 2004 seats is that you are very likely to get some better legislation in 2009-10. The Affordable Care Act will be better, for one thing. I just don't see a huge impact on the presidential race, which was driven by much larger issues. Castor and Mongiardo would have been solid if not stellar Senators, but it's hard to say how they would have fared in 2010.

 

[Glass Onion]

I wasn't referring to 2008 but to guidance within the Senate after 2005 when I spoke of a close relationship between Obama and the Majority Leader. The fact that a number of ex-Daschle staffers went to work for Obama combined with Daschle's personal support for Obama in 2008 indicates to me that if Daschle were still in the Senate he would have been willing to provide Senator Obama with advice and guidance in the period before 2007 at least. Daschle's reelection is a large divergence by itself for Obama-since he can't inherit Daschle's staff. The absence of that staff might prevent him from winning the primary in 2008 or cause him to govern less effectively in the period between 2009-2010.

In the all else equal scenario I'm not sure how much different ACA is if the law is passed via conference. The biggest difference I see is if the Obama administration can successfully clear the table by December 2010. If McCain's filibuster fails and NEW START is ratified there's much less of a need to negotiate with the Republicans in the lameduck session. If there is still a supermajority the top tier of the Bush tax cuts are gone and the fate of Make Work Pay vs. Payroll cuts will be decided by Conservative Democrats rather than Republicans.

All of which means more revenue in 2011.

In an ideal scenario-with the additional time Pelosi's House would just Raise the Debt Ceiling in December. With Don't Ask Don't Tell Don't Tell repealed and NEW START passed before the session the remaining issue in terms of timing would be the question of Make Work Pay vs. Payroll tax cuts. Still that issue might be resolved before December 15th.

The House tax plan probably passes by December 10th with a supermajority.

That leaves the Democrats with a week they didn't have and a supermajority to pass something like a Debt Ceiling Increase should they have the foresight to do that with their additional time.

 

[Glass Onion]

Reconsidering ACA and imagining the Daschleless all else equal scenario to limit butterflies-might the ACA pass the Senate earlier? With Franken the Democrats have 61 votes-62 if Spector converts. That would mean the bill could lose the support of one Democratic Senator and still pass.

That means the Majority Leader could afford to lose either Lieberman or Nelson. (Or both if Spector becomes a Democrat or otherwise supports the Bill)

Lieberman's basic demand is likely to be echoed by others in the Democratic Caucus. It's really hard to find 60 votes for the Public Option even with a potential 62 majority.

Nelson's vote depended at least in part on more parochial issues. With Lieberman on board the bill can pass the 60 vote threshold.

Meaning the bill could pass through a filibuster on December 15th and pass outright on December 16th-eight days earlier than what happened historically-and that's if the supermajority doesn't mean the bill comes to the point it was at in December even more quickly.

That leaves 8 days of preconference and conference negoitations until the Holidays. I don't think that's enough time for the House and Senate to come to an agreement. After all the House and Senate couldn't reach an agreement in between the time Congress returned to session in 2010 and when Brown won. But here there are at least eight more days of negotiations-which may mean they can come to an agreement just prior to Brown's victory.

That's if Brown wins-because here he can't campaign as Senator 41 which could limit his support.

With an additional two Democratic Senators a final version of the bill might pass in January 2010.

Which in turn would open up February and March.