Getting to Sixty
(updated below)
All indications are that Obama plans to proceed quickly with an aggressive legislative agenda when he takes over in January. Given the size of the Democratic majority in the House and Obama's good relationship with House leadership, he's not likely to have much trouble getting his proposed legislation through the House. The primary obstacle, as always, will be the Senate.
In the senate, when you're dealing with an uncooperative minority, you need sixty votes to end debate. Not counting Joe Lieberman (whose vote I don't think can be counted on), the Democrats will have anywhere from 56 to 59 reliable cloture votes, depending on what happens in the Minnesota, Alaska, and Georgia senate races (my guess is that they'll end up with 56 or 57). So to pass legislation, President Obama and Harry Reid are going to have to find a few other Senators who are willing to vote for cloture (even if they don't end up voting for the bills themselves).
So which Senators are most likely to provide these key cloture votes? To whom can the Democrats turn to get to sixty? Here's my attempt to rank the remaining Senators in order of their likelihood of breaking ranks and putting the Democrats over the 60 vote threshold.
1) Joe Lieberman (I-CT): Yes, he campaigned for the Republican nominee. Yes, he's a sanctimonious schmuck. But he's still--for now--a member of the Democratic caucus and as long as that continues to be the case, I doubt that he'll join the Republicans in filibustering Obama's legislation, at least on domestic policy issues. Lieberman was once a Democrat, and he represents a state that just voted 61-38 for Obama. If he joins the GOP in efforts to block Obama's key domestic priorities, he's likely to be tarred and feather by his own constituents.
2) Norm Coleman (R-MN) (if he's re-elected): If Coleman survives the recount and returns to Washington, he'll likely be eager to demonstrate his bipartisan bona fides. He'll have been elected by a mere plurality in a deeply blue state that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. He's not going to want to be seen as the guy that stopped change from happening.
3) Arlen Specter (R-PA): Specter has always been a moderate and has often shown a willingness to defy his party. He also happens to be up for re-election in 2010 in a state that looks increasingly blue and voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
4) Susan Collins (R-ME) and 5) Olympia Snowe (R-ME): The Senators from Maine are the last of a dying breed, New England moderate Republicans. Both Collins and Snowe are enormously popular in a state that voted 58-41 for Barack Obama. They maintain their popularity (and keep getting re-elected) by periodically demonstrating their independence from the Republican party leadership. They both voted to acquit President Clinton. They were members of the "Gang of 14." And as long as Obama remains popular, the GOP leadership will not be able to count on their help in filibustering legislation.
6) Dick Lugar (R-IN): Lugar has a fairly conservative voting record, but he's personally friendly with Obama, having worked closely with him on the Foreign Relations Committee, traveled with him, and co-sponsored legislation with him. The two reportedly talk regularly, and Lugar's name has been floated as a potential cabinet appointee. During the campaign, Lugar came to Obama's defense several times and did little to help McCain win Indiana. Given that Obama won his state (the first time a Democrat has won there since Lyndon Johnson), Lugar may well be a gettable vote on some of Obama's initiatives (or at least a vote for cloture).
7) Judd Gregg (R-NH): Other than Snowe and Collins from Maine, Gregg is the only remaining Republican member of Congress from New England. By necessity, he's been more moderate than most of his GOP colleagues. But the same was true of his fellow New Hampshire Senator, John Sununu, who just got trounced in his re-election bid. I'm sure that didn't escape Gregg's attention. He's up for re-election in 2010, and I suspect that he'll spend much of the next two years trying to demonstrate just how independent-minded he is. He's definitely a gettable vote.
8) John McCain (R-AZ): We're likely to see the return of "maverick" McCain in the next legislative session. His presidential aspirations are over, he owes nothing to the Republican party, and his clearest path to image rehabilitation is by acting "mavericky" whenever possible. That means we're likely to see a lot of obnoxious grandstanding, but the flip side is that McCain will not be a reliable vote for the GOP leadership. He's also up for reelection in 2010.
9) Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Graham, Lieberman, and McCain are the Three Amigos. Graham does whatever they do, whether its joining the "Gang of 14" or whatever. If Obama and the Democrats can get McCain and Lieberman's votes, they'll stand a pretty good chance of getting Graham's as well.
10) George Voinovich (R-OH): Voinovich has broken ranks with his party from time to time and Ohio is trending blue. Voinivich saw his fellow Ohio Senator Mike DeWine get crushed by Sherrod Brown in 2006. Voinovich is up for re-election in 2010 and he knows he's vulnerable. He may not want to be perceived as holding up important domestic legislation.
11) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): Murkowski is a moderate, at least by today's GOP standards. She's pro-choice and has voted with the Democrats on important legislation in the past, such as S-CHIP. She's up for re-election in 2010 and may want to demonstrate her ability to work across party lines.
12) Mel Martinez (R-FL): Martinez has been a reliable conservative vote since joining the senate, but he's also up for re-election in 2010, in a state that just went blue. If the Democrats can line up a strong challenger, Martinez may suddenly become more persuadable.
13) Richard Burr (R-NC): Burr, who took over John Edwards seat in 2004, has been a reliable pro-Bush vote during his time in the Senate. But he's not particularly popular in North Carolina, and he's up re-election in 2010. Given the Democrats' success in unseating Liddy Dole this time around, Burr knows he's likely be a target in the next cycle. If he senses he's vulnerable, he may not want to be seen as an obstructionist.
As you can see, there are quite of few people the Democrats can look to for votes (did I miss anyone?). And all we need are a few of them to agree not to filibuster. That shouldn't be too hard, at least at first.
UPDATE: Several commenters have suggested Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as a possible swing vote. I actually had Grassley on my original list, but I removed him because I don't think he's likely to face much of a challenge in 2010. Though Iowa is now solidly blue, Grassley is a bit of an institution there and he's still very popular. So I don't think he'll face all that much electoral pressure to break ranks with the GOP. That said, Grassley's been around long enough not to care what the party leadership thinks about him, and he has occasionally sided with the Democrats on key issues--like S-CHIP. He probably should be on the list.
All indications are that Obama plans to proceed quickly with an aggressive legislative agenda when he takes over in January. Given the size of the Democratic majority in the House and Obama's good relationship with House leadership, he's not likely to have much trouble getting his proposed legislation through the House. The primary obstacle, as always, will be the Senate.
In the senate, when you're dealing with an uncooperative minority, you need sixty votes to end debate. Not counting Joe Lieberman (whose vote I don't think can be counted on), the Democrats will have anywhere from 56 to 59 reliable cloture votes, depending on what happens in the Minnesota, Alaska, and Georgia senate races (my guess is that they'll end up with 56 or 57). So to pass legislation, President Obama and Harry Reid are going to have to find a few other Senators who are willing to vote for cloture (even if they don't end up voting for the bills themselves).
So which Senators are most likely to provide these key cloture votes? To whom can the Democrats turn to get to sixty? Here's my attempt to rank the remaining Senators in order of their likelihood of breaking ranks and putting the Democrats over the 60 vote threshold.
1) Joe Lieberman (I-CT): Yes, he campaigned for the Republican nominee. Yes, he's a sanctimonious schmuck. But he's still--for now--a member of the Democratic caucus and as long as that continues to be the case, I doubt that he'll join the Republicans in filibustering Obama's legislation, at least on domestic policy issues. Lieberman was once a Democrat, and he represents a state that just voted 61-38 for Obama. If he joins the GOP in efforts to block Obama's key domestic priorities, he's likely to be tarred and feather by his own constituents.
2) Norm Coleman (R-MN) (if he's re-elected): If Coleman survives the recount and returns to Washington, he'll likely be eager to demonstrate his bipartisan bona fides. He'll have been elected by a mere plurality in a deeply blue state that voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama. He's not going to want to be seen as the guy that stopped change from happening.
3) Arlen Specter (R-PA): Specter has always been a moderate and has often shown a willingness to defy his party. He also happens to be up for re-election in 2010 in a state that looks increasingly blue and voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
4) Susan Collins (R-ME) and 5) Olympia Snowe (R-ME): The Senators from Maine are the last of a dying breed, New England moderate Republicans. Both Collins and Snowe are enormously popular in a state that voted 58-41 for Barack Obama. They maintain their popularity (and keep getting re-elected) by periodically demonstrating their independence from the Republican party leadership. They both voted to acquit President Clinton. They were members of the "Gang of 14." And as long as Obama remains popular, the GOP leadership will not be able to count on their help in filibustering legislation.
6) Dick Lugar (R-IN): Lugar has a fairly conservative voting record, but he's personally friendly with Obama, having worked closely with him on the Foreign Relations Committee, traveled with him, and co-sponsored legislation with him. The two reportedly talk regularly, and Lugar's name has been floated as a potential cabinet appointee. During the campaign, Lugar came to Obama's defense several times and did little to help McCain win Indiana. Given that Obama won his state (the first time a Democrat has won there since Lyndon Johnson), Lugar may well be a gettable vote on some of Obama's initiatives (or at least a vote for cloture).
7) Judd Gregg (R-NH): Other than Snowe and Collins from Maine, Gregg is the only remaining Republican member of Congress from New England. By necessity, he's been more moderate than most of his GOP colleagues. But the same was true of his fellow New Hampshire Senator, John Sununu, who just got trounced in his re-election bid. I'm sure that didn't escape Gregg's attention. He's up for re-election in 2010, and I suspect that he'll spend much of the next two years trying to demonstrate just how independent-minded he is. He's definitely a gettable vote.
8) John McCain (R-AZ): We're likely to see the return of "maverick" McCain in the next legislative session. His presidential aspirations are over, he owes nothing to the Republican party, and his clearest path to image rehabilitation is by acting "mavericky" whenever possible. That means we're likely to see a lot of obnoxious grandstanding, but the flip side is that McCain will not be a reliable vote for the GOP leadership. He's also up for reelection in 2010.
9) Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Graham, Lieberman, and McCain are the Three Amigos. Graham does whatever they do, whether its joining the "Gang of 14" or whatever. If Obama and the Democrats can get McCain and Lieberman's votes, they'll stand a pretty good chance of getting Graham's as well.
10) George Voinovich (R-OH): Voinovich has broken ranks with his party from time to time and Ohio is trending blue. Voinivich saw his fellow Ohio Senator Mike DeWine get crushed by Sherrod Brown in 2006. Voinovich is up for re-election in 2010 and he knows he's vulnerable. He may not want to be perceived as holding up important domestic legislation.
11) Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): Murkowski is a moderate, at least by today's GOP standards. She's pro-choice and has voted with the Democrats on important legislation in the past, such as S-CHIP. She's up for re-election in 2010 and may want to demonstrate her ability to work across party lines.
12) Mel Martinez (R-FL): Martinez has been a reliable conservative vote since joining the senate, but he's also up for re-election in 2010, in a state that just went blue. If the Democrats can line up a strong challenger, Martinez may suddenly become more persuadable.
13) Richard Burr (R-NC): Burr, who took over John Edwards seat in 2004, has been a reliable pro-Bush vote during his time in the Senate. But he's not particularly popular in North Carolina, and he's up re-election in 2010. Given the Democrats' success in unseating Liddy Dole this time around, Burr knows he's likely be a target in the next cycle. If he senses he's vulnerable, he may not want to be seen as an obstructionist.
As you can see, there are quite of few people the Democrats can look to for votes (did I miss anyone?). And all we need are a few of them to agree not to filibuster. That shouldn't be too hard, at least at first.
UPDATE: Several commenters have suggested Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as a possible swing vote. I actually had Grassley on my original list, but I removed him because I don't think he's likely to face much of a challenge in 2010. Though Iowa is now solidly blue, Grassley is a bit of an institution there and he's still very popular. So I don't think he'll face all that much electoral pressure to break ranks with the GOP. That said, Grassley's been around long enough not to care what the party leadership thinks about him, and he has occasionally sided with the Democrats on key issues--like S-CHIP. He probably should be on the list.
posted by A.L. at 6:13 PM
14 Comments:
Great observations, though I disagree strongly on Coleman. He seems to be headed toward a Bush-2000 like victory (by the skin of his teeth, with a big question mark over it) but I'm so far completely unimpressed with any attempts he's made to appear at all conciliatory or even reasonable about the recount. I think he may be a senator with hard feelings to spare come January, and -- being safe for another 6 years -- may nestle safely into the deep red heart of the Republican base, particularly since his recount bid is already receiving donations from the likes of Mitt Romney.
For the same reasons, Murkowski would probably endanger herself in the coming election by choosing to side with Obama on just about anything, unless she wants to be challenged in the primaries. Insert the nightmarish Palin for Senate ads here.
LOUISIANA: Vitter is retiring and his seat is up for grabs in 2010.
IOWA: Grassley comes up in 2010. Obama took Iowa quite nicely, he has an independent streak, and is no dummy.
Thanks for the good overview.
I think Obama has an eye on some of these Senators when he says the words "bipartisan" i.e. are you bipartisan for us?
Unofortunately, some unsavoury back-room deals may have to be struck. But that is what politics is about.
In the senate, when you're dealing with an uncooperative minority, you need sixty votes to end debate.
That's true for now. But the cloture vote is nothing more than part of the Senate rules, and there is nothing to stop Senate Majority Leader Reid from attempting to change the number of votes to close debate to something lower than 60, maybe even to 51 (this is what was called the "nuclear option" back when Bill Frist was Senate Majority Leader, which was avoided by that stupid "Gang of 14"; plus, Byrd did it 3 times during his several decades run as Majority Leader as Republicans made gains in the Senate). Senate rule changes such as this only require a simple majority.
I don't know if Reid would make this attempt, but it wouldn't surprise me if he did, especially if things are getting held up and Obama applies pressure to Reid. Of course, being obstructionists could politically damage Republicans as well, except that it keeps anything from being done. If anything, and provided there are at least 40 Republicans in the Senate, the Republicans should block every judicial nominee Obama selects, although I doubt this would happen with all the squishy liberals still there.
A.L.,
I agree with Saturn Smith. You cannot trust Coleman, even if he ends up winning by the skin of his teeth.
Remember, this is a former Democrat who, in order to attain higher office, switched parties (somehow discovering within the shriveled organ in his chest that he was happy in the confines of the right-wing mindset of the GOP in the last 10 years.)
It doesn't take a mind-reader to understand that what motivates Coleman is a lust for power. Had he any real ideology, he could not have made such a facile switch.
Here's the problem: in order to satisfy that lust for power (which includes, I am sure, dreams of running for VP in 2012/2016), Coleman has to either present himself to the GOP as unquestionably loyal to his new masters. He can't switch back to the Democrats, much as he might like to, as such a change would reek of hypocrisy, the one fatal wound in Democratic politics.
He's chosen to be loyal to his new party. Look at the pattern of his voting over the last few years. Sure, on nonessential issues, or in places where his vote wasn't needed, he's pretended to be independent, but, when the vote was close, his vote was a reliable one for the GOP.
I would suggest that the 60 will be reached with a different group of 4 in many cases rather than a fixed coalition. It'll be a small herd of mavericks that will have to be managed, not a pack of "Obama dogs" in the GOP. Rahm is going to have his work cut out for him.
Individual issues will decide who joins with the Democrats.
Overall, your target list is a good start although I cannot think of any issue that Barr would bolt … Graham may appear to be a likely target but hasn’t he largely been motivated by where McCain goes (torture, judicial nominees, etc.) than being an individual “maverick”? Murkowski’s own self-interests would be to oppose Obama than to join with him. Judd is too much of a fiscal conservative to be the deciding sway vote.
I think that Grassley is the big one that you missed. He’s supported SCHIP … big on renewable energy and has worked effectively with Baucus on financial issues. The question is will he run again in 2010 ? His age is getting up there (not that age seems to matter in the cases of Stevens, Byrd, etc.) If former Governor Vilsack does not get Sec. of Agriculture, he might be a viable competitor for Grassley.
Voinovich is another that would be easily swayed. He’s seasoned and as the Bolton confirmation hearings proved, he is not afraid to let his emotions and “do the right thing” to break from the Party Managers.
Specter is also like Voinovich.
The end result is that with the make-up of the new Senate, the 60-vote filibuster may not be as much of a problem since the Republicans may not be trying to protect a Republican White House. The bigger problem may be the “holds” that people like Dr. Tom Coburn are famous.
Regarding Coleman, I think that you can expect less bi-partisan support than he provided in the past two years. Coleman saw the 2006 wave and knew the 60-vote rule would allow him to side with the Dems because they would never hit 60 … his votes looked good on paper but that’s it. Seriously, his effectiveness was minimal … look at the Farm Bill which was late (needing temporary renewals of the old law) and was held up because he could not get the Republicans to negotiate and the Farm Bill was critical to many Minnesota voters.
Coleman wants the Chairmanship of the National Republican Senatorial Committee which he lost to Dole in 2004. How can he be the “attack dog” for the RNC and cooperate with the Dems ?
I'd just like to take this opportunity to point out that Joe Lieberman supported Coleman this year.
I'm going to have to disagree with Richard Burr of NC being reluctant to act as an obstructionist.
I'm a North Carolinian and I don't imagine him getting enough financial support from within the state to stage a viable campaign against a potentially long list of well funded and popular Democratic challengers. He'll need RNC funds in 2010 and party leadership will be pulling his strings.
Burr's only hope is to show backbone and become a poster boy for minority party opposition.
The state is still quite red. He is better off if he is seen as a "good republican". Playing nice with the Democrats cannot help him, he risks being challenged and losing in the primaries.
Coleman is a partisan hack, and I don't think he'll help Dems, but take heart. It seems to be more likely than not that Franken will win the recount. Nate Silver thinks so (538).
In "getting to 60" (or closer) I'd really like to see Obama make some Republican cabinet appointments of senators whose replacements are appointed by Democratic governors. This has been widely discussed, probably even by A.L. I don't know why Obama wouldn't try to pick up one or two more seats this way. There's a little self-dealing evident in the motivation there, but, really, who cares? Not the folks who voted for Obama.
Lugar may well join the Obama Administration in order to work on his pet project - - reducing the threat from nuclear weapons, a threat that Kerry & Bush agreed, in 2004, was the biggest issue in the world, but that everybody seems to have forgotten about.
Lugar's replacement would be a Republican and would probably not be as good a bet for getting to 60.
The Obama camp has given hints that there will probably be multiple Republicans, not only Lugar, in high positions.
So why not get to 60 by appointing some GOP senators from blue states with Dem governors:
Olympia Snowe as Sec. of Commerce.
Chuck Grassley as Sec. of Agriculture.
Arlen Specter as Ambassador to Uzbekistan.
(Do that last one first. Specter NEVER votes against the GOP when it really matters, only when they tell him that they can spare his vote.)
In "getting to 60" (or closer) I'd really like to see Obama make some Republican cabinet appointments of senators whose replacements are appointed by Democratic governors.
Nice idea, but this strategy is so transparent, I can’t imagine that any Republican senator would go for it.
Nice idea, but this strategy is so transparent, I can’t imagine that any Republican senator would go for it.
I completely agree, Hank. It wouldn't work. Moreover, I don't know of anyone who fits this description (Republicans from states with Democratic governors) who I'd want controlling a federal agency.
If the Republican didn't whistle Obama's tune, I suppose he/she would be fired. I reckon they'd have to follow the President's marching orders, and could be observed by a deputy.
I saw a pretty good case made somewhere for Specter. He's 78, he's up for re-election in 2010 in very blue PA, and ... I don't recall it completely, but it was a better case than just that. Obviously, the self-dealing aspect is a big hurdle. But you don't know til you try.
It looks to me like we're going to be sitting at 59 (counting Lieberman) assuming Begich and Franken win (which now look like a great, and a decent chance, respectively. If one more could be finagled... But like you said, there are plenty of ways to wedge away a vote or two.
I am no expert but recent history has shown that Democratic Senators have little loyalty or appetite for progressive policies. Why do you think they can persuade Rethugs when they can't even hold their own [Landrieu, Bayh, Johnson, Nelson, et al]?
Does anyone remember the FISA votes? Obama did not even support it.
Prepare yourselves for some major disappointments.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home