Why Democrats don't really control the Senate

The Democratic Party thought it had avoided a huge beating when they held the Senate on November 2nd. The firewall the DSCC built against a Republican Senate was mostly due to the meddling of Tea Party groups and a favourable mix of Democratic and Republican incumbents up for election. Neither of these factors is going to help them over the next two years. It is likely the Senate is going to be hardly recognisable as the body in which the Democrats hold a majority.

Even though 2012 is going to be the year President Obama (presumably) is on the ballot, there is little chance Democrats are taking their seats for granted. There are a total of 23 Democratic seats up for re-election (including independents) versus only ten Republicans. Not only are there more Democratic seats up for grabs, but they are also seats deep in red territory. Democrats such as Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) are all conservative Democrats who will do everything they can to run against a president unpopular in their respective states. They will likely buck their party at every opportunity.

Many would counter by saying many Democrats from states such as Virginia and Missouri would tend to vote with the President more often because many young voters will be present during the Presidential contest. This is all but certain, however, as the electoral map is looking very different than in 2008 and core parts of Mr. Obama's base have been demoralised.

2012 is also an interesting year in which many of the prominent moderate Republican senators are up for re-election. Senators Scott Brown (R-MA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Richard Luger (R-IN) will all face the prospect of running as a Republican in states Obama will likely carry. You may argue about Indiana, but this is definitely the case with New England. This will likely cause them to vote against their party. However, this automatically disqualifies them for winning their primary. This often trumps considerations for the general election (see Arlen Specter) and they will probably try to win their primary despite their past voting records.

All of these factors mean the Senate will be far more conservative than its partisan composition suggests. It is likely a good idea President Obama postponed debate over the Bush tax cuts until 2012, when Senators will have an incentive to make smart decisions.

Politician of the Month: Scott Brown (R-MA)

After adamantly pledging to be the 41st vote against Harry Reid's agenda, it seems this centrist Republican Senator from Massachusetts has gone against his word. Ever since being elected to the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Senator Brown has arguably helped the Democrats' agenda more than challenger Martha Coakley ever could have. He provided the critical 60th vote on the Democrats' job bill which came up for consideration earlier this year. He has now committed to supporting the financial reform package which he played an integral part in crafting. These have all angered his conservative base in Massachusetts, however, he has emerged as the state's most popular politician.

Scott Brown's true contribution to President Obama's agenda goes further than this. The willingness for this moderate Senator to support some of his signature policies has given Maine Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe political cover to negotiate. It has also freed up Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) to vote with his party again, shaking the fear of appearing to support a liberal agenda. His reluctance to support the health care law cut back the negotiations and gave Harry Reid the incentive to use the reconciliation process. He is now refusing to support the campaign finance disclosure bill, though it is not likely it would have been brought up for consideration by the August recess anyway. Regardless of whether you approve of the job he is doing, this guy is powerful.

Scott Brown (R-MA) to vote yes on Wall Street Reform: passage all but assured

Scott Brown (R-MA) has announced today he will be supporting the financial reform bill being debated in the Senate. He came to this decision after having extracted concessions in conference committee, notably the removal of the $19 billion bank tax which would have affected many Boston banks. His vote will be joined by Senate moderates Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME). The vote of conservative Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley will not be known until the cloture vote, though it is likely to be no. This bill has not been followed by the progressive community with the same intensity as the health care bill but it is a very big deal. It begins to reverse the trend of financial deregulation begun under President Reagan in a powerful way. It does not solve some of the problems which led to the financial meltdown, but does rein in some of the worst abuses by banks. It also shows there is still potential for negotiation with moderate Republicans, such as Scott Brown. This will likely hurt his standing among conservative Republicans, however.

Wall Street Reform fails to garner 60 votes needed to end debate

In what is possibly a sign of trouble to come, Senate Democrats have failed to achieve the 60 votes needed to move their "Wall Street reform" bill. The opposition comes from both the left and right, though it is widely expected the measure will gain the 60 votes needed to move it to conference once the differences have been settled between various senators and the leadership. Those voting "no" on the cloture motion but expected to votes "yes" eventually include Russ Feingold (D-WI), Maria Candwell (D-WA), and Scott Brown (R-MA). Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and George Voinovich (R-OH) are both considered gettable votes based on previous statements they have made regarding the bill. Additionally, Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Susan Collins (R-ME) both voted to end debate.

What Christopher Dodd (D-CT) said earlier this month, that financial reform has been a uniquely non-partisan issue, seems likely to be true. The Senate Republicans who are considered in play are all considered fairly moderate, and most have a history of supporting the Obama Administration on key issues. The bipartisan support for this bill stands in contrast with statements John McCain and Lindsay Graham made earlier this year, which indicated bipartisanship would be dead for the remainder of the 111th congress because of the health care debate. Clearly it is not. These moderate Republicans in the senate may be what is left of the once noble GOP who knew how to compromise and did what is right for the country.

In contrast with these moderate GOP voices, Mitch McConnell blasted the "government takeover" of the financial industry. We have heard this argument repeated for every single controversial piece of legislation which has come up these last two years. It is one thing to be prudent about spending, it is another to not want anything done at all. The fact of the matter is, Mitch, you were elected to the United States government. Any decision you make is a government intervention. If you want so little government intervention, go work for a multinational corporation.

Update: The Senate has now passed the measure on a vote of 69-39. Chuck Grassley, Arlen Specter and Scott Brown joined the Senators previously supporting the measure. The measure now moves to conference committee with the House where the differences will be reconciled in the coming weeks.

Lets help resurrect the New England Republican

The New England Republican is an endangered species these days, being forced out of their own party by a Southern Republican party far more conservative than it. This is not to say that there aren't anyone who is a Republican in New England anymore, on the contrary, there are far more Republican leaning people in a liberal state like Vermont than one would think. The big problem for the New England GOP is that these Republican voters aren't voting Republican in federal races. The prime example of this is the election of Bill Owens to fill the seat of John McHugh. The Republican candidate was Dede Scozzafava though she was eventually forced out of the race by Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, handing the Democrats a victory in the conservative NY-23.

So why do I argue that we should be resurrection a moderate GOP? What benefit does this bestow on the progressive agenda? First of all, let me open by saying that Medicare passed the senate with at least 10 Republican votes. Where did these votes come from? The answer is moderate areas like New England. Progressive strategists hailed Howard Dean's 50 state strategy that attempted to make the Democratic Party competitive in every area of the United States. This works well when there is a landslide and ample campaign funds, not so well for most election years.

This leads me to believe that we should prioritize investments in candidates that are running against conservative candidates in areas where they are the only liberal candidate. Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Republican senator, was unseated in 2006 with help by the DNC and the DSCC. Why are we, as a Democratic Party, wasting money to oppose people who already vote with our party most of the time? A much better use of the money would be to protect and capture seats that would be occupied by conservative Republicans if they were not represented by Democrats. This would also increase the number of GOP moderates, leading to legitimate bipartisan cooperation and possibly a softening of the GOP leadership's ability to rigidly control its members' voting patterns. Olympia Snowe commented after Arlen Specter's primary switch;

"I've always been deeply concerned about the views of the Republican Party nationally in terms of their exclusionary policies and views towards moderate Republicans."

By investing in races opposing conservative republicans, we could help change the GOP back into a party that we can work with in solving the country's issues. We won't get back our New Deal Coalition, but we can try to emulate its strategy.