WI Martha Coakley won?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
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.
 
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...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top