A byelection to watch
January 18th, 2010 by Robert Merkel | Published in Elections, Foreign policy, USA | 48 Comments
The chances of the United States doing anything on climate change – not to mention anything sensible on myriad domestic problems – might be about to take a beating.
Unlike most US states where the state governor can appoint a replacement Senator if they resign or die in office, Massachusetts is holding a “special election” to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Under normal circumstances, you’d expect the Democrat to be a shoo-in. The other senator was 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry. They hold the governorship, every House of Representatives district, a 144-16 majority in the state lower house, and a 35-5 majority in the state upper house. But some polls have Republican Scott Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley by a few percentage points. Voluntary voting, and the rarity of byelections in the USA, make it somewhat difficult to read; Nate Silver at fivethirstyeight.com calls it a toss-up.
Why? Coakley isn’t apparently the world’s most charismatic candidate. There’s a bit of stench surrounding the local Democratic party. Republicans are trying to make the case that it’s about opposition to the health care plan, currently in limbo as the House and Senate sort themselves out. And, finally, there’s probably a general throw-the-bums-out anti-incumbent angst going on, given the extended US recession and the lack of perceived action on it.
Regardless, Barack Obama’s freedom of action – already limited by what he can persuade “Blue Dog” Democrats to vote for in Congress – might just become even more limited. Democrats will still hold the White House, the House of Representatives, and 59 of the 100 Senate votes. But the rules of the Senate mean that the Republican minority can filibuster anything – and, under the current rules, they don’t even have to physically perform a filibuster.
Hence, climate change legislation might just get a lot harder to pass.
Update [by MB]: New post on the result of the special election.
The United States Senate – the most important group of people in the world, when it comes to action on climate. Whatever is proposed must be acceptable to these 100 people, or else it ain’t worth p–p.
And the best bit? The Republicans can stall and stall and stall and turn to the left and say “See…Obama reneged on all of his promises. Why even vote next time?”
Well this is a turnup!! The Democrats swept the elections last November on the wave of hope and change with Barak Obama leading the charge.
Massachusetts has been solid Democrat for generations yet here we have serious doubts being cast about whether the Democrats can hold onto what is a crucial seat in the implementation of the President’s program. A loss in this seat will cast aside the near certainty of the passing of the President’s health reform which would be a gigantic blow to the “Yes we can” mantra so confidently espoused by the president during the election and following the inauguration.
The fact that this has occurred in 12 months since such a huge election victory and with such widespread expectation of positive change must bear some critical scrutiny. What has gone so wrong?
With the health care reform legislation meeting such serious opposition, those that think that climate change action is possible given the hammering that that policy has taken since 19 November and continues to take are badly deluding themselves.
The Administration has hitched its credentials to health care reform and climate change mitigation and both those issues have turned severely negative for it. It will be a difficult 3 years for the Administration if it is unable to reverse the momementum.
An electoral defeat in Massachusetts will only highlight and entrench the growing perception that the credibility of the Administration has been severely dented.
I know, it’s bizarre.
But then, if the Democrats really had the courage of their convictions they’d change the Senate rules.
The credibility [or what's left ] of the USA will take a further plunge too.
I know, for the most part, we’re all results people here rather than process, but the machinations of the US system are intriguing.
Massachusetts was just like most US states, and filled vacancies for the Senate until the next election (or the placefiller resigned, like when Ted Kennedy turned 30). But then Mitt Romney became Governor, and the Democrat controlled Statehouse changed it so a special election was needed.
Then the Dems got the Governorship back, and Ted Kennedy died, so they changed the rules so they could fill the vacancy UNTIL the special election. Ridiculous, yet fascinating.
If only someone like LBJ could return to “master” the Senate (and yes, I’m a massive Robert Caro fan).
Amortiser: as the title of the link says: All Politics is Local.
(I’d take “liberal” to mean “social democrat” myself.)
I have not been able to find a betting market for this election.
It would appear that the Dems are being given a shake up. Poor old tired Barry had to re-jig his calendar to squeeze in an appearance on the hustings. Better late if ever, I s’pose.
The loss of the Kennedy’s hereditary birth right will be much bigger in the US than the loss of Benelong in Australia.
I am looking forward to hearing what haughty-franco-horse-face has to say about Senator Brown.
To those who still follow the foolish notion that its Kennedys seat, go ahead and vote for Joe Kennedy.
Razor, there’s the Intrade prediction markets. The site’s overloaded, but I think it had Brown in the high 60′s (which mean’s he’s paying around 1.50 on a $1 bet).
Personally, I’d be tempted to take a bet on Coakley at those odds.
“It will be a difficult 3 years for the Administration if it is unable to reverse the momentum”
Yeah but, in the end the choice will be between Obama and … who, Sarah Palin? I don’t think so although I reckon Fox News do. So who else? Any US citizens out there care to take a punt on who’ll save the GOP? Sure there’s a bit of encouragement in the polls but then Nixon was wallowing after 12 months in office and he won with a record margin in ’72.
Basically the GOP is already a dead duck if they think that a Fox News-lead-grass -roots-strategy is a winner. What ever it’s cheer squad thinks it is largely preaching to the converted. Really it has about the same impact that Allan Jones does here which is a lot with the people who listen to Allan Jones but not much when to comes to the public at large.
Potentially healthcare reform could be passed through the reconciliation process that would require just 51 Senate votes (Bush used the same device to get his tax cuts through).
I think a Tax-achesuttes loss (as GOPers love to call it) would set up a small test of nerves – although most of the Democrats that are in difficult races won’t happen until 2012 – but senators in competitive races in 2010 might get nervous (Lincoln (AKN) and Bennett (COL) – the latter seems a pretty solid health-care vote). Interestingly the more difficult contests for the DEms don’t come until 2012 (Landreiu (LOU), Nelson (NBK), Tester (MON), Webb (VIR) and these are most likely dissenters – even if in 2012 there will probably be a host of other factors that will motivate the vote (Obama being on the ticket helping out big time in the get-out-the-vote). Expect the Dems to struggle in the mid-terms, and if the economy turns around try to and make up for any loses. Most of Obama’s troubles have little too do with health-care, its the double-digit unemployment that is driving the discontent.
Also with the climate-change vote, there were a few Republicans (even a couple of conservative senators) that were sounding out support for cap-and-trade during the 2008 election, this seems to have changed with McCain being threatened with a primary from the Right, his friend Lindsey Graham (SCar) and that Indiana senator (is it Lugar) seemed likely votes (add in the two Maine senators) and there is some wiggle room. It will probably depend upon what sort of momentum Obama on whether he can call these senators out for saying one thing and doing another, or he can drag a couple of voters from the opposition offering them a wider profile. Mind you the GOP is ruthless in enforcing discipline – and as tssk puts it offers them the attempt to ruthlessly stretch the process out until apathy kicks in.
But this is all tea-leaving reading at the moment.
Oops, written in a rush
It will probably depend upon what sort of momentum Obama has at the time on whether he can call these senators out for saying one thing to the voters and doing another. Also if he is in a strong position he might be able to drag a couple of other voters by offering a dithering senator a wider profile. Mind you the GOP is ruthless in enforcing discipline – and as tssk puts it, this offers the GOP the attempt to ruthlessly stretch out the process until apathy kicks in. Though it’s actually a riskier strategy than it might first appear, for if Obama gets his mojo back, he will be able to paint the Republicans as a party with no policy directions and blame some inaction on their intransigance, and these criticisms will stick with a portion of the voting community.
It all depends on how quickly signs of recovery in the American economy become apparent, Ronald Reagan also had a big approval dip in his first year. Professor Garrett had a thing in the SMH questioning whether Obama would be a Kennedy or a high-hopes Carter (mind you it was LBJ who got a lot of JFK’s legislative agenda through as Howard Cunningham observed)
That’s a key point – and a distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans.
At some point the Democrats are going to have to learn some internal discipline if they want to be effective.
Ouch, someone is still crying over ’07 spilt milk. I would never have thought to compare the individual demise of Howard to the triumph of the perpetual filibuster party in the US senate. I hope for America’s sake that ‘Obamacare’ isn’t as dead as WorkChoices is—though I’m pretty confident that what will happen if Brown wins is that the US House will pass the senate healthcare bill, and leave its own amendments for the later budget process. Hmmm, I imagine the death panels will be slightly delayed. Bummer.
Heh, this is exactly the kind of passive voice conventional wisdom that so horrifies the more intelligent Americans (and should horrify us).
Okay, I’ll try a pushback against the `some people say’ narrative that the US right is currently having such amazing success with by making my own, non-passive-voice predictions.
They are: the Democrats are not facing a replay of 1994; their congressional majorities will be reduced but not eradicated; they will get the current very moderate healthcare bill passed; they will still have the same success with guest worker visas and cap`n’trade legislation that that they always were going to have (or not have) after 2008; Obama will eventually be reelected in 2012 because by then the US economy will show definite signs of improvement (I have no idea why conservatives—some even in this country—are jonesing for three years of US economic stagnation. There is no great payday for their favoured American party if the US business cycle is still stuffed in 2012. All they’d get is their own one-term president who would be out on his arse in 2016.)
Even though Obama still shows promise, I would settle for a ‘failure’ like presidents Johnson or Truman at this point for my American friends. (I am not of the Cold War Oz Left, nor was anyone in my family, so there is no problem for me writing that.)
The current speculation in the US media is pretty vague about what happens if Browns wins, right now it’s mostly about the ‘narrative’, but I stand by my idea that the White House and Speaker Pelosi will use every carrot and stick they have to get the House to pass the existing bill with no amendments.
The amendments—which are all tax related—can then be passed separately in the budget supply bills. Those bills can’t be held up by the senate filibuster group.
If Brown is elected and the Dems try to reintroduce the amended non-supply health bill to the senate then I have no idea what they are smoking…
Coakley appears to be toast.
Obiwan’s arrogant legislative program is in disaray. Maybe if the Defeatocrats had selected Billary they would have had the benefit of their last failed attempt at health insurance reform to look back on.
My heart bleeds.
If the Democrats lose, and its looking likely if the polls are accurate, it will be not an endorsement of the Republican alternative, but because the Democrats have failed to do anything substantial about economic conditions.
The Republican play book has been to campaign as a Jobs focussed Independent. To feed anger about economic conditions.
The market is forecasting a GOP win…
I love it when markets rally on dreadful news. Kinda like the ASX (and coal stocks in particular) rallying after the failure of Copenhagen. Sure its really bad news for everyone, but its profitable!
Razor: don’t get too excited. There are still plenty of ways to get HCR up if the democrats are sufficiently motivated.
Looks like the tide has turned.
It’s a bit like the situation here with the Libs. At least the right have no shame telling you how you are going to be screwed.
Robert – yes, there are many ways – but all of them will probably make the electorate even angrier, and any blue-dog democrat or RINO who is up for re-election is going to think hard about supporting anything that doesn’t have Republican support. The lack of party discipline over there makes it so much more fluid than here, doesn’t it.
Not looking good for the Democrats with 69% of the vote counted:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/19/2179148.aspx
I guess from now on Obama will be concentrating more on foreign policy.
Watch Obama’s congressional majority steal away into the night in the aftermath of the Massachusetts debacle.
The debate will now whirl around whether Obama blew it with his objectives more than through the means his congressional managers chose to bludgeon their reforms through Congress.
I plump for the latter, although US vested interests are so deeply entrenched in the political process, only bludgeoning and backstairs deals will suffice to effect any non-trivial reform.
Well, I think it’ll be interesting to see if there’s a move to change the Senate’s current rules. The 60 votes requirement for cloture was originally introduced as a device to limit filibusters. It’s always open to the majority to make the minority actually carry one out. Senators reading the Bible, recipes for Louisiana cuisine, ranting and raving for hours on end, may not go down all that well in a modern media age.
Above and beyond that, there’s a widespread opinion that the Constitution provides for the Senate to make decisions on a simple majority vote, aside from on the ratification of treaties.
It’s absurdly anti-democratic for one party to need to gain a 60% share of seats, particularly when the whole chamber is malapportioned with states having equal numbers despite widely varying populations (and unlike the Australian Senate, there is no option of dissolving the entire Senate).
It wouldn’t surprise me at all if gridlock led to some push for change.
Coakley has conceded.
Get that up ya!
Raze, your joy appears to know no bounds.
Why?
Perhaps he is a citizen and registered voter of Massachussetts?
Update [by MB]: New post on the result of the special election.
Why am I so happy – it shows that Obi Wan has feet of clay. Another failure for The Messiah. No he can’t walk on water. For “The Kennedy Seat” in deep blue Taxachusetts to go to a Republican indicates that maybe 2012 will be a winnable election for solid conservative presedential candidate.
In the UK NuLabor are decidely on the nose and being inexorably dragged by the clock towards electoral defeat. Here in Australia, NSW, QLD and Tasmania look set to change to conservative governemnts (if they went to a poll mow). It is only at the Federal level and in Victoria that conservatives don’t seem to be able to sort their shit out. (I instinctively ignore SA,NT and ACT) So as I said at the start. There is hope – for Australian voters to realise what a bunch of incompentents we have currently running the country and Victoria and change it sooner than later, despite what the current polling, the media and punditry are saying.
And I forgot to say that this almost certainly sinks any chance of the US adopting any sort of ETS/CPRS/Captain Trade/etc bullshit legislation – therefore China wont (not that it ever was going too), therefore Australia hopefully wont. Sanity will reign.
Not necessarily, the cap and trade legislation had more Republican support than healthcare, Razor.
Who in the US fits that description Razor?
Not sure, to tell you the truth – presedential or presidential.
As much as I like Sarah, I don’t beleive she has what it takes.
Always been a huge fan of Condi Rice, but she doesn’t seem to want it.
Carly Fiorina catches my eye, but is only gunning for Barbara Boxer’s seat at the moment.
The Republicans’ nightmare is for Palin to win the nomination; she’d be unelectable in the general election.
Jeez, Razor, you pick some strange bed-fellows.
Palin is extremely stupid and vain, as far as I can tell. Rice isn’t a complete fool, but she lacks the intellectual flexibility of, say, Obama (or Clinton, come to that). Fiorina managed to just about destroy Hewlett-Packard, so I hate to think what she’d do if she had a whole country to fuck with.
If that’s all the right has in the US, they’re in even more trouble than they are here.
Just as Brown was unelectable in Boston.
By-elections don’t really count, Razor, particularly in the US (given their
disfunctionalrather odd electoral system).Yes, David, of course that is all they have – no one else.
Obi Wan is doing such a great job isn’t he.
Razor, Obama was always going to be a disappointment (like Rudd).
However, he’s streets ahead of the last incumbent. That winning combination of stupidity and corruption did serious damage.
But what does a conservative espouse in the US today?
People who call themselves “conservative” seem to be utterly riven over questions of the role of faith in public life, the legitimate limits of personal liberty, and the proper nature of the US political economy. Is a conservative in favour of globalisation? Is a conservative in favour of resisting major change to the US financial system? Is a conservative more or less likely to be isolationist?
Where do you find a politically viable “conservative” in that mess?
It seems to me that “conservatives” are united only by their hatred of “liberalism”, itself a word that is almost impossible to define.
Katz,
So US “liberals” are also riven in areas of ideology (and indeed, many of those you highlight) and on that logic can also not be politically viable.
Huh?
Did I suggest otherwise, AR?
I have contended for some time that the US political system is seriously derationated.
One difference, among many, between Razor and myself is that he, somewhat bizarrely, derives partisan pleasure or pain from US political events. Whereas, I don’t.
Instead, I see the web of consensus and consent that must exist to make a peaceful constitutional political system viable, being shredded in the US.
The world needs a viable and rational US. I see both of those qualities disappearing. One piece of evidence for that disappearance, in my opinion, is that coalitions of political forces can find fewer rational reasons for existence. Into that vacuum rush special interests, cronyism, paranoia and bellicosity.
David – I just love the way all the left pundits are now saying that Obi Wan (and Krudd) was always going to be a dissapointment. Not much evidence of that sentiment ever being expressed before or when they were elected. No one on their side calling them out on their election promises back then, or now either.
As for the claims of stupidity – apart from disagreeing with Bush on politics and religion I have yet to see any hard evidence of him being stupid or corrupt – just unsupported allegations (unlike Clinton, who is a proven liar – the guy has more front than Dolly Parton).
@ Razor
What utter tosh. I’m 99.9% certain that nearly every post here and on my blog for another expressed the opinion that Obama was no leftist paragon, that at best he was a pragmatic centrist who would not deliver on a truly progressive wishlist. Many of us would have preferred Hillary, and she’s another pragmatic centrist who was never going to tick all the progressive wishlist boxes either.
Both of them were still considered better than the Republican alternative. This doesn’t mean that we actually bought into the unicorn/rainbow parodies bandied about by the right.
Edited to add: the opinion on KRudd was eerily parallel in the leadup to the Oz election.
Katz – “the web of consensus and consent that must exist to make a peaceful constitutional political system viable, being shredded in the US” – sounds nice. Perhaps some examples of the defeatocrats attempts at consensus and consent to support your theory would be nice.
“The world needs a viable and rational US.” – It was the left that voted Barrack Hussein Obama into office. The democrates have a majority in both houses. They are th ones stuffing it up. Perhaps it is better that the republicans run it then.
Razor loves erecting lefty straw men that he can then batter into fragments, tigtog. Misrepresentashuns’R'us.
Razor, while I hoped that Obama and Rudd wouldn’t be disappointing, I was always pretty sure that they wouldn’t actually have any choice but to do so, and I’m pretty sure I’ve said that on a number of occasions before either of them were elected.
As for the descent into irrationality of the US polity, that’s largely down to the Republicans. They’ve been outright hostile to calm, reasoned discussion since at least Reagan.
That would descend into a juvenile “You started it!” “No, you started it!” argument. Please point out where I suggested that the Republicans started it.
The problem is that neither side wants to stop it. As Japerz suggested on another thread, US politics is exhausted. The question is, how might a viable governing consensus arise out of this mess?
FTR, I think that US politics is a fair reflection of US society. The structural inevitability is that people in the US will have to cope with reduced means and circumscribed ends. The problem is that the political system hasn’t worked out how to tell the American people this truth. Instead, more elaborate lies and more evolved denunciations are the chief products of American political elites so far.