Would Democrats Be Better Off With 59 Senators -- And A New Majority Leader?

[IndianaGreen]

Would Democrats Be Better Off With 59 Senators -- And A New Majority Leader?

Chris Weigant.Author, Political Commentator, and Blogger (ChrisWeigant.com)
Posted: August 24, 2009 06:50 PM

Would the Democratic Party, and Senate Democrats in particular, be better off if current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loses his re-election bid next year? This is a provocative question, but it is now one that needs consideration, since Reid's poll numbers in his own state remain so dismal. The possibility of Reid becoming only the second Majority Leader since the 1950s to lose his own seat (Daschle was the other one) is looking more and more like the safe bet (to put it in gambling-friendly Nevada terms, as it were). Which leads to the question of what impact this will have on the Senate, what impact on the Democratic Party, and what impact on the country at large.

To do so, lots of assumptions must be made (which will no doubt be ridiculously inaccurate when the election does happen -- such is the nature of political prognostication). The election is still over a year away, and a lot of things can happen in the meantime. Reid's popularity could go up among his home-state voters (he will likely have a hefty amount in his campaign warchest). Democrats in general could be riding a wave of support nationwide, after passing health care reform and after the economy recovers and job losses end. Then again, Democrats may have failed on health care reform, and the job losses could continue right up to election day. These two subjects, in my opinion, will do more to dictate the type of playing field Democrats face in 2010 than anything else. And they could both easily go either way, at this point.

So, for the purposes of argument here, we're going to assume that both the Democrats and the Republicans hold all their current Senate seats. Maybe some wins and some losses, but the numbers stay the same across the board. This is extremely unlikely, I should point out, but as I said, this is just for the purpose of setting up my main discussion, not an actual attempt at calling the Senate balance at the end of next year.

So, the Republicans hold 40 seats, the Democrats hold every seat except Harry Reid's. But Reid loses, flipping one seat to the Republicans -- which also loses the mythical filibuster-proof majority for the Democrats. The other fallout from Reid's loss would be that the Democrats would have to pick a new majority leader. And that could possibly do more for the Democrats than holding on to that sixtieth seat would have.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/would-democrats-be-better_b_267641.html

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. No, because there are about 15 DemoCRAPS posing as Democrats in the Senate.

Therefore, whether 59, 60, or 30, it would do no good because there are always going to be DINO's in positions of power.

[Cali_Democrat]

2. We would still have conservative blue dogs like Baucus getting in the way. n/t

[Arkana]

4. But with a stronger leader, we'd have a better time marshaling them.

Someone like Patrick Leahy would be better at whipping the Blue Dogs into line.

[MrModerate]

3. Reid in that position equals about -15 Democrats because . . .

He has no beliefs of any significance and no backbone. So it's a count-on-your fingers sort of thing. Myself I'd hope to have him reelected and then immediately banished to the back benches so someone with a little moxie could become majority leader. I don't have any names handy (Feingold a favorite, but a highly unlikely choice) -- which is pretty sad, considering.

[IndianaGreen]

5. According to OP, Reid has a 'glass jaw.'

Now imagine a Senate leader more in the mold of L.B.J. One of the reasons Johnson was picked as John F. Kennedy's running mate was the bipartisan respect for his ability to get bills through the Senate. L.B.J. would do what it took to get the bill passed. Imagine someone like that in charge of 58 other Senators. Instead of Reid's instant capitulation, imagine a majority leader who started the conversation by saying "America strongly supports our position on Y. We are going to fight hard for all Americans in this debate, and we offer the hand of bipartisanship to those on the other side of the aisle who are listening to the 72 percent of Americans who want Y. I caution any Republicans, though, because voters are going to remember whether you joined with us as we passed Y, or whether you put your own political goals ahead of doing what your constituents want you to do."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/would-democrats-be-better_b_267641.html

[MrModerate]

7. OK . . . OK . . . I'm sitting here imagining such a leader . . .

A good feeling is flowing through me. I'm almost there . . . Damn! I opened my eyes and Reid was still there.

How disappointing.

[Jennicut]

6. I detest Reid but who is in line to take his place? I guess Durbin would be an improvement

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. In an environment in which Reid loses...

...no way are you holding onto 59 total seats.

Primarying Reid would be the Lamont campaign x 10. Sounds satisfying, but very, very futile.

Politics has always been, and will always be, mostly doing things you really don't like, with people you mostly can't stand, for people who won't notice, and when they do finally notice, they'll complain that it costs too much and you're doing it wrong.

[MrModerate]

10. Great! Now I feel *much* better about how things are going . . . n/t

[jwirr]

9. If we had a majority leader who was more secure in his/her next election

they would be able to act with more freedom. Harry Reid has to worry about getting elected again. He is from a state that has only recently turned toward our party so he is fragile. This cannot help but effect how he does his job. We need to find a Democrat from a blue state that is so popular that he/she does not have to worry about the next election. He can act freely.