« Moving the Center in a Center-Center Nation | Matthew Locke's Blog | The Case Against Clinton for State »
Sixty Senate Seats Still in Sight
Nate Silver reports
that with thousands of votes left to count, Alaska Democrat Mark Begich
is quickly catching up with opponent and convicted felon Ted Stevens.
Convicted felon Stevens, the incumbent Republican who is also a
convicted felon, was leading Begich by what seemed a small but probably
insurmountable margin on election night despite being a convicted
felon. However, 28,519 ballots counted this morning have reduced
convicted felon Ted Stevens's lead from 3,257 to 971 votes a deficit of three votes. With the
remaining ballots mostly coming from Begich-friendly regions of the
state, it now seems fairly likely that the Anchorage mayor will in fact
unseat the Republican, who is a convicted felon.
This is important for four reasons:
First, it will give Democrats a shot at a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate. It seems to have been forgotten that the GOP has only secured 40 seats, with three outstanding. If the Dems pick up Stevens's seat -- which now seems like better than even odds -- and if Al Franken unseats incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in the Minnesota recount -- also a strong possibility -- Democrats will only be one away. The upcoming Georgia run-off between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin will provide the opportunity.
It'll be a tall order. Georgia is still a red state and without Obama on the ballot the proportion of African-Americans coming out to the polls will probably be lower. On the other hand, turn-out in any special election tends to be low. Victory is a matter of turning out the base. With 60 seats in sight you can expect Dems to contest the race pretty strongly. Republicans will want to stop them from reaching that margin, but they've been organizationally out-gunned all year and are dispirited after the thumping they received last Tuesday.
Dems would have to run the table to hit sixty. But that's not out of the question -- and the odds of it happening increase every day.
Second, it will give Joe Lieberman more leverage. With sixty votes in sight, Democrats will be loathe to lose one, which increases pressure for a compromise solution. The Democratic caucus, set to vote on Lieberman's fate, is more likely to let him remain in his posts, including the Chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, if keeping him in the caucus keeps Dems at sixty.
(Incidentally, the importance of the sixty-vote margin is, I think, overblown. The way party discipline works in the Senate, or rather doesn't, the marginal difference between 60 votes and 59 isn't substantially greater than that separating 58 and 59. But people think it is, which is maybe enough.)
Third, this would considerably weaken Sarah Palin's position in 2012. If Ted Stevens wins the Alaska Senate race he will be under tremendous pressure to resign; if he doesn't there's a substantial chance he'll be expelled. Conventional wisdom tells us that Palin would jump at the chance to run in a 2009 special election for Stevens's seat. If Begich takes it instead Palin will have to find another ticket to Washington. Republican Lisa Murkowski is up for election in two years, but she isn't going anywhere. Palin could run for Congress that year even if Republican Don Young is sent back to the House this year (Palin previously supported Lt.-Gov. Sean Parnell in his primary challenge to Young), but two years in the House is a weak base from which to launch a national campaign. None of this precludes Palin taking a shot at the Presidency in 2012, but it would sure make it a steeper mountain to climb.
Fourth and finally, Ted Stevens is a convicted felon. I just think it's good on the face of it when the American people don't, y'know, elect convicted felons. I dunno. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
Anyway, we'll know in a couple of days who won. Here's hoping for one more Democrat in the Senate -- and one more Republican behind bars.
Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.
This is important for four reasons:
First, it will give Democrats a shot at a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate. It seems to have been forgotten that the GOP has only secured 40 seats, with three outstanding. If the Dems pick up Stevens's seat -- which now seems like better than even odds -- and if Al Franken unseats incumbent Republican Norm Coleman in the Minnesota recount -- also a strong possibility -- Democrats will only be one away. The upcoming Georgia run-off between incumbent Republican Saxby Chambliss and Democrat Jim Martin will provide the opportunity.
It'll be a tall order. Georgia is still a red state and without Obama on the ballot the proportion of African-Americans coming out to the polls will probably be lower. On the other hand, turn-out in any special election tends to be low. Victory is a matter of turning out the base. With 60 seats in sight you can expect Dems to contest the race pretty strongly. Republicans will want to stop them from reaching that margin, but they've been organizationally out-gunned all year and are dispirited after the thumping they received last Tuesday.
Dems would have to run the table to hit sixty. But that's not out of the question -- and the odds of it happening increase every day.
Second, it will give Joe Lieberman more leverage. With sixty votes in sight, Democrats will be loathe to lose one, which increases pressure for a compromise solution. The Democratic caucus, set to vote on Lieberman's fate, is more likely to let him remain in his posts, including the Chairmanship of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, if keeping him in the caucus keeps Dems at sixty.
(Incidentally, the importance of the sixty-vote margin is, I think, overblown. The way party discipline works in the Senate, or rather doesn't, the marginal difference between 60 votes and 59 isn't substantially greater than that separating 58 and 59. But people think it is, which is maybe enough.)
Third, this would considerably weaken Sarah Palin's position in 2012. If Ted Stevens wins the Alaska Senate race he will be under tremendous pressure to resign; if he doesn't there's a substantial chance he'll be expelled. Conventional wisdom tells us that Palin would jump at the chance to run in a 2009 special election for Stevens's seat. If Begich takes it instead Palin will have to find another ticket to Washington. Republican Lisa Murkowski is up for election in two years, but she isn't going anywhere. Palin could run for Congress that year even if Republican Don Young is sent back to the House this year (Palin previously supported Lt.-Gov. Sean Parnell in his primary challenge to Young), but two years in the House is a weak base from which to launch a national campaign. None of this precludes Palin taking a shot at the Presidency in 2012, but it would sure make it a steeper mountain to climb.
Fourth and finally, Ted Stevens is a convicted felon. I just think it's good on the face of it when the American people don't, y'know, elect convicted felons. I dunno. Maybe I'm old-fashioned.
Anyway, we'll know in a couple of days who won. Here's hoping for one more Democrat in the Senate -- and one more Republican behind bars.
Thanks for reading. If you found this post valuable I'd hugely appreciate it if you'd click 'recommend'! I'd also love to hear your thoughts in the comments below -- see you there.
Advertisement
Sarah could move to Idaho or someplace and do a Hillary --- run for Senate in an adopted state.
November 12, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Begich, at last count, is 841 ahead of Stevns. Some 25,000 ballots to count, so be patient.
How's it goin' for Franken?
Obama is sending folks to GA for the run-off . . .
November 13, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm in Minnesota, and things are looking a bit tougher here. One encouraging sign is that the one of the local news programs showed examples of some of the ballots that are now in question. We use paper ballots here, with ovals that need to be filled in, and some people put X's in the ovals or check marks or even arrows pointing to the oval that signified their choice (?). Election officials here have said that they'll be strictly looking for voter intent, and that any vote that can reasonably be counted will be counted. The bad news is that Coleman is in full litigation mode and will be suing anyone and everyone who perceives as a threat to his future. It's gonna get alotta ugly here before this thing is decided.
November 13, 2008 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's the basic rule of law that was overriden in FL in 2000: if the voter's intent can be discerned, it is a good vote. Those you describe -- an X or a check-mark in the oval, or an arrow pointing to the oval, are clearly good votes.
In FL, the scenario was similar: one had an oval next to the D candidate's name; and oval next to the D's name; and a line under those for write-in. In some instances the oval next to Gore's name was filled in, AND his name was written in on the blank line. To Rs that was a BAD vote.
Ultimately, it stands to reason -- as the law reflects -- that if one can discern voter intent, it's a good vote. It's that uncomplicated.
Methinks Coleman is 8 years and a blizzard of votes short of a full ballot box in this instance. The D Sec. of State will keep it honest, and the courts will hold against Coleman. Franken will likely win.
November 13, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here in Minnesota, I'm quite sure that a Republican Secretary of State would keep it honest as well. We may be guilty of the heinous crime of Michele Bachmann, but we take our democracy very seriously. This ain't gonna be Florida redux.
November 13, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not call Jesse the Body in to keep the lawyers in line?
Make it Pay-Per-View. Hell, you'd make money. I know I'd lay out $50 to see Jesse leapin' from the top rope, landing on a few legal wind-bags.
November 13, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
They may get a super majority, as unlikely as it seems, but I question whether they should. Having to compromise even just a little bit tends to make the solutions more sustainable. We can't survive another 4 years of half the country working at cross-purposes to our common goals, though, I suspect a majority will still being an issue by issue reality as various legislation comes to the floor.
I think the key to getting anything done that is lasting will be Obama ability to convince as many republicans as he can that all the great, progressive changes that are coming are in fact something they should want ownership of. No politician wants to be left behind while we solve health care and lingering inequality and energy independence.
I expect self-preservation to play a bigger role in accomplishing Barack's agenda than how many seats the democrats have.
November 13, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's also gonna have opportunist legislators in his own party looking to advance their own agendas by flexing their muscles. They ain't necessarily all lining up behind him and that's not just some potential Alaskan Dem.
Obama's gonna have to remember to dance with the folks who brung him, namely, the voters who idolize him. They have to be on his side big time to push their Congresscritters and Senators to stand with him, or 2010 will not be pretty, forget 2012.
November 13, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I guess God is slammin' the door on Caribou Barbie!
November 13, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoyed the insertion of "convicted felon" in as many places as possible. It made it fun to read.
Thanks for the story.
November 13, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stevens is a convicted felon!? I didn't know that!
And he's allowed to vote? Then send him to FL where he won't be!
November 13, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason is right -- do we really want a Democrat from Alaska? He's going to dilute legislation with the threat of "losing his seat" if he doesn't get his way, and the Alaska oil lobby will simply transfer their allegiance to him -- for a price. 60 seats doesn't mean lock step voting at all -- it means a lot of internal squabbling when many of these Senators come from vey red states like Montana and Alaska or Georgia.
November 13, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am just saying a democratic super majority might make the democrats misread the moment and push too hard to the left in response the hard right hell we've been living in. I think it is inevitable that democrats pick up more seats in red states, but that is only because the republicans haven't realized that running moderates will help stem the bleeding and actually lead to a more balanced Washington.
November 13, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jason. I understand the concern about the "hard left." But if a Left-Right continuum is what you envision, and the country has been hauled over to the Hard Right pole, it'd take 4-8 years just to haul the nation back to what would - historically & internationally - as "the center."
For example, universal health care is standard elsewhere. And already moving forward in various states. Same with Kyoto and climate change. Same with disentangling from Iraq. Same with fixing the DOJ, repairing the Constitution, rebalancing the Budget. i.e. If the whole country pulled hard as they COULD to the left, that's the maximum agenda we're likely to get. Which would put the US roughly where Clinton-Gore might have wanted it, or even Nixon (on his better days), and certainly, still to the Right of almost every other industrialized nation.
The greater risk of extreme political change in the US today strikes me as coming about if it doesn't tackle the crises on the table. Because it's extreme CONDITIONS that'll whoop up the real wild-eyed numbnuts - out beyond the traditional left & right. Neither the existing crop of Democrats, nor Obama himself, strike me as at all likely to track off the left-hand side of the Earth. ;-)
November 13, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
true, and there is a danger of shifting into a full-blown depression. No one should underestimate the seriousness.
Radicals got a lot of traction during the Depression, especially the Communists of course. I have discovered that W's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was part of a coup plot to overthrow FDR. Yep, you can Google this and you will get enough hits to take this from conspiracy theory to historical facts. There is mention of this in the Congressional Register, but the names of the plotters were omitted as part of an amnesty deal.
If this information had been made public, W would have never been elected.
November 13, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually believe the left-right paradigm is perhaps the biggest lie we have going and will certainly mean we don't solve any of the issues you speak of without a little slight of hand. I don't think of those common sense solutions as being left or right, though getting them done in a country as brainwashed as we are will be completely up to the positioning.
That's why Obama's health care is likely to get passed while the Clinton version did not. Further, Obama is going to create a country that Clinton certainly didn't envision or even try for. His administration is largely responsible for the problems we are facing right now. I never considered Clinton a democratic given the priorities of his leadership.
Even now, labor unions are gearing up to fight it out over increasing union membership when a living wage and some sort of national health care will make them obsolete. The "hard left" could certainly keep us from making needed changes as much as the hard right did. It is all about positioning. Obama will be fighting both sides of the political spectrum to pass things that the vast majority of us in the "center" would like to see done.
November 14, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't expect a "Minnesota Miracle." Our Democratic-Farmer-Labor Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie, is honest and above-board. The recount is likely to reach the same outcome as the first canvass. The margin of 206 votes, small as it seems, is big enough to keep Norm Coleman in Paul Wellstone's seat.
Two previous very close elections in Minnesota, the 1962 Governor's race and the 2000 Second District Congressional race, were recounted.
There are a small number of ballots which don't get counted properly by the machines, due to voter mismarking, where one can still determine voter intent by visual inspection. Discernible voter intent is legally what governs the counting of such votes.
We don't know how many such ballots there are. Projections such as those made at 538.com all depend on too much guesswork. The experience of prior recounts shows that these flukes balance out so evenly that the final result confirms the first returns.
As Stinnet and Backstrom explained in their 1964 study of the Rolvaag-Andersen race, the actual margin was 130+ for Rolvaag at first, and 91 for Rolvaag after the recount. In the 2000 race, Kennedy led by about 154 in first returns, and after the recount won by 148 or so.
Too bad. Al Franken might have made an impact in the Senate. Can you see Franken getting fooled about the trustworthiness of Joe Lieberman?
November 13, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second thought: Although the odds are steep, it is important for Al Franken to be able to see the recount all the way through. This will mean his campaign must field at least 100 observers to physically watch the ballot counting for several days.
They also need to hire plenty of lawyers to deal with arcane legal questions and bogus Republican legal motions. So Al needs money---even though you probably sent him plenty in the course of the campaign, please see if you can find $5 or $10 more to help cover these costs.
November 13, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not counting on a Franken win either, and not just because of the propaganda campaign to delegitimize him and like wise delegitimize Mark Ritchie. The two groups most likely to have problems properly marking ballots are the people lest likely to be familiar with filling in ovals for scanning, immigrants and elderly. Immigrants voted DFL in general, but the elderly leaned more Republican. Of course, there could be a substantial difference in elderly in their 70's or in their 90's, both in terms of how they voted and how comfortable they are with scanners, and that's before considering difficulties seeing the ballot, knowing they can ask for help, or being willing to ask for help. I've heard Minneapolis might have the cheapest or oldest scanners. If that's true, then I'll like Franken's odds. By the way, he needs to pay all these lawyers and staff he suddenly has to keep on the payroll. I dug deep. https://secure.alfranken.com/page/contribute
November 13, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The general view among my Democrat friends is that the majority of ballot problems are coming from first-time voters. In other words, younger voters who would seem to be inclined toward Franken. The elderly have been doing this for awhile, so they know the drill. Plus, we have an excellent system in place for folks who have vision problems or have trouble understanding what they're supposed to do. I think maybe you're envisioning a system that's more complicated than what we have. They hand you this big piece of paper (larger than legal sized), and you fill in some ovals. Then you walk over to the scanner and stick the edge of the paper in, and it sucks in your ballot and you're done. It's very simple, the ballots are well-designed, and at my polling station, there were plenty of volunteers standing around ready to help.
First time voters. They're the ones. And they voted for Franken. And Hennepin County is where he'll eventually win this thing.
November 13, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every Dem vote helps, and Stevens is a corrupt bastard, so I really hope he goes down.
But...the magic number of 60 overrated. There are not many votes that go down along straight party lines.
November 13, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'm a much bigger fan of the magic number 7 +/- 2, but maybe that's just me.
November 13, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, smart boy. Let's make it simple.
The magic number is 9.
The rest are just magic number wannabe's. By including them, you're just diluting the magic.
Kinda like including Lieberman in any calculation of "sure" Democratic votes....
November 13, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink