Todd Zwillich, Washington correspondent
Takeaway Washington correspondent
U.S. Senate republican nominee Scott Brown campaigns outside the TD Garden in downtown Boston, Massachusetts. (Getty)
There is no doubt: Losing a Massachusetts Senate seat to Republicans on Tuesday would be a devastating defeat for Democrats. It will be a repudiation of President Obama's domestic agenda, a sucker-punch for health care legislation, and a blow to Senate Democrats and their 60-vote lock against filibusters.
But would a Martha Coakley loss to State Sen. Scott Brown really debilitate Obama's agenda in 2010? The answer to that is a lot less clear than you think.
For starters, I don't mind making a prediction here (mainly because I won't mind if I'm wrong): Martha Coakley is still likely to win this Senate race. Despite the polls, Massachusetts is a deep blue state that has sent two Democrats to the Senate in every election for the last 37 years. Dems are furiously trying to gin up turnout among union members and other party faithful, and if they succeed, healthy poll numbers won't help Scott Brown. Put another way: Brown has no business winning in Massachusetts. And if he does, it'll be a Democratic failure unrivalled since....well, since Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry lost to a terribly unpopular President George W. Bush in 2004.
But everyone inside the Beltway and out is gaming the scenarios. What happens to Obama's agenda if Coakley loses? Sure, the health care bill is thrown another curve ball in Congress. Without the 60 votes they wrung out of the Democratic Caucus in December, leaders would have to use legilsative sleight of hand, hardcore armtwisting, downright chicanery or some unholy combination of all three to get health care passed. But here's the key: health care is too important NOT to pass. Far more than the Senate race in Massachusestts, Democrats' fortunes for 2010 still probably rest with delivering to their president his number-one domestic agenda item. Their instinct is to survive. And instinct tells us they will find a way.
Still, the loss of a fillibuster-proof 60-vote majority will be devastating for Obama in the arcane Senate, ossified with delay tactics and stalling. Right? Well, maybe not.
Consider the major items left on Democrats' agenda for 2010. You've heard of them: climate change legislation, regulating Wall Street, immigration. You know...the big stuff.
Having a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority only matters in the Senate if all 60 of your clan vote together. And Democrats don't.
Just look look at the recent filibuster threats from senators like Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) on health care. Magic Number 60 didn't wind up meaning much to liberal Democrats, party leaders or the president himself, all of whom pushed for a government-run public option.
Immigration? Neither party has a unified position on how to reform the system. The most recent evidence comes from President George W. Bush's failure to pass his immigration overhaul in June, 2007. The bill fell 14 votes shy of that 60-vote threshhold, with 37 Republicans joining 17 Democrats and Independents to reject it. Not even close. With a split like that, a 60-vote majority would have made absolutely no difference. And there are few signs the Senate is any closer to a consensus today than they were two and half years ago.
Curbing global warming? The far more liberal House barely passed a climate change bill over the summer, and it's a truism in the Capitol that senators are even less interested in a "cap and trade" scheme than are their House colleagues. Right now the Senate climate bill rests on three-way negotiations between liberal Democrat John Kerry (D-Mass.), conservative Republican Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Independent Joe Lieberman. That tells you that the action on global warming is firmly entrenched in the moderate middle, not the left wing of the Democratic party. Conservative Democrats from across the Midwest and South are tepid or downright chilly toward the bill already. If that bill ever grabs 60 votes, it won't be from 60 Democrats alone, regardless of what happens Tuesday in Massachusetts.
Same goes for a Wall Street crackdown. The House is all for it, but the financial services industry knows that its strongest stand will be in the Senate. If a banking regulation bill had 60 unified Democratic Caucus members behind it, it would have passed by now.
Sure, having 60 votes at your disposal helps. Majority Leader Harry Reid can beat back GOP-led filibusters and minimize their delaying tactics. That will surely be harder if Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat falls into GOP hands. Republicans will be able to slow president Obama down on legislation large and small, and will use Senate rules to make sure Demcorats pass far fewer items on their wish list. And there is no doubt that a Scott Brown win will deal a political blow to Barack Obama heading into 2010.
But Democrats have already done the things they know they can do alone: fair pay legislation for women, the economic stimulus, and probably health care. The rest of the "big stuff" is another story. Victory doesn't rest with 60 unified Democrats, and never did. If they're smart, Democrats were never planning in the first place to rely on a 60-vote majority to pass immigration or climate overhauls. Then again, if they're smart, it sure doesn't explain why Massachusetts is so close.
Today's Takeaway: What the Mortgage Settlement Means
Comedian Baratunde Thurston on 'How to Be Black'
Today's Takeaway: Focus on Violence Syria
In-Depth Look at the Situation in Syria
Today's Takeaway: Big Night for Rick Santorum
Some Combat Restrictions for Women Lifted
Newly-Discovered Recordings Shed Light on a Young Malcolm X
'Tebow Bill' May Allow Home-Schoolers to Play on High School Teams
Today's Takeaway: Multi-Billion Dollar Foreclosure Settlement Imminent
Is Our Constitution Out of Date?
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with The BBC World Service, New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [9]
Yes Erick, There are MANY reasons why we are having all the problems that are overwhelming us as a Nation;....And the present ignorant Obama administration is not concentrating on the 'Jobs' part as you point out .
Could it be that they don't have a 'clue' on what to do to create these jobs---except maybe these mysterious pie-in-the-sky "Green Shoots" industries starting soon ?? --I would really like to know more about them and when they will come to 'rescue' us.......
You are also quite right about the U.S. corporations putting the cash where the 'action' is: China and India----But you are wrong about the so-call "low-paying" U.S.government jobs ----Those jobs "created" are reasonable-paying and COSTLY with their BENEFITS and PENSIONS !!!----
These Obama-jobs along with the out-of-control 2,000 page Obama-care version of healthcare are totally UNAFFORDABLE !!
You mention the illegals not being a problem ??----HUH ? --A border invasion of a Nation ( U.S.A.) together with those illegals dropping their 'anchor babies for us, the taxpaying citizens having to pay the bills for All these third-world uneducated people by the millions not being a problem ???
----Show me a nation where that is ALLOWED ???--They require a passport. --No passport = No Entry !---No Visa-= You no stay !--- Are we supposed to the dumping ground of other nation's surplus and out-of-control population ??
ALL of this is NOT Affordable----This is why these Liberals and left-wingers will be voted out.
I believe that this sucessful election of Scott Brown-vs-coakley will be the continuation of the destruction of the democrat party unless they change their socialist ways
...My state of New Jersey threw out that naive Bastard governor corzine last November......many more democrats will be 'shown the door' this coming November...
".. Socialistic government programs only last until you run out of other peoples' money.."
".. We want our representatives to represent us ---NOT rule us.."
You guys should understand that whoever win this special election will be an approval or dissapproval of Obama's and Congress's policies on healthcare and jobcreation. The healthcare reform is less of an urgecy than job creation. The problem is that the private sector is only investing and creating jobs in China and India due to globalisation. The government is the only one who is creating those few low paying jobs within the US. The problem are not the illegals, the problem are the big corporations who finance the campains for the polititians
You sound like a really nice man, Mr.Lloyd; but It must be like "TwinkleToe Land" out there in Oklahoma or something. Somehow you are not paying attention to what is really going on with these left-wing democrats throughout the USA....This woman, Croakly, symbolizes the down 'n dirty democrat machine out here on the east coast that is doing a lot of damage to our nation by trying to turn it rapidly into the marxist/socialist country that THEY want us to be !
The only thing in my opinion that you apparantly see clearly on is what you say about our standard-of-living is/has been in decline since the 1970's. You seem like a somewhat 'smart' citizen; Why do you think that is/has been going on ??----Could it be that the USA has been losing our once mighty (and tax-paying) Heavy/light INDUSTRY ?? Do you SEE the democrat/liberals cutting-back on social programs in order to compensate for lessor funds to PAY FOR THESE PROGRAMS ??-----NO, Mr. Lloyd you don't !---and by-the-way do you understand that this feel-good Obamacare healthcare for all --(Including ALL the ILLEGAL :Undocumented-invaders )-- will FINALLY BANKRUPT our Country ??
I do not have the time, writing space, nor patience to list ALL that what Martha Croakly symbolises and represents which will finally destroy what you and I believe the United States to be...so I leave you with these thoughts:
KIndly wake up and see what is going on beyond "Happy-Land" Oklahoma..You mention all the great things that Republican-Conservative programs/policy have done in your state . Well, out here we have 'people' who don't like those things and we call them the 'Enemy' and we think that they should not be in elective office.
Martha Coakly is just one of them !!!
Scott Brown is not !
and he MUST win this election today.
God Bless America !
I'm not sure if Ms. Coakley will win, but I sure hope she does. She is not much of a candidate and there is no good reason her ad misspelled the commonwealth's name. There is also no good reason why she made such a goofy remark about Curt Schilling.
But those things have nothing to do with governing. She has sued Goldman Sachs -and won- and she has sued the EPA about greenhouse gas emissions -and won- and she has challenged the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act. As an Attorney General she has been active and effective.
Maybe Scott Brown has been a successful legislator as well. I have been unable to find any stories pointing to sincere accomplishments but also unable to find stories about his mistakes. He is a plain and simple Republican nothing more nothing less. If that is what Massachusetts would like then so be it. I live in Oklahoma where we have a Republican hegemony in political affairs and a conservative hegemony in social affairs. Look up our rate of teenage pregnancy, our percentage of people living below the poverty level, our educational "achievements." Look up the progress Oklahoma has made in the last 30 years under socially conservative policies. Sure Republicans are good with jobs, but what about wages? Standard of living has been on a constant slide since the 70s.
Conservatism has its good contributions to policy but its is not best instituted at the national level. If Scott Brown or anyone else running on a platform of small government really intends on making the rhetoric real, they should stay where they are and reinvigorate their local communities. It is just plain silly to think that strong local governments are somehow going to be imposed on the country by Washington insiders.
I am looking forward to see how this and the upcoming November elections will turn out. Good luck Massachusetts.
I'm not sure if Ms. Coakley will win, but I sure hope she does. She is not much of a candidate and there is no good reason her ad misspelled the commonwealth's name. There is also no good reason why she made such a goofy remark about Curt Schilling.
But those things have nothing to do with governing. She has sued Goldman Sachs -and won- and she has sued the EPA about greenhouse gas emissions -and won- and she has challenged the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act. As an Attorney General she has been active and effective.
Maybe Scott Brown has been a successful legislator as well. I have been unable to find any stories pointing to sincere accomplishments but also unable to find stories about his mistakes. He is a plain and simple Republican nothing more nothing less. If that is what Massachusetts would like then so be it. I live in Oklahoma where we have a Republican hegemony in political affairs and a conservative hegemony in social affairs. Look up our rate of teenage pregnancy, our percentage of people living below the poverty level, our educational "achievements." Look up the progress Oklahoma has made in the last 30 years under socially conservative policies. Sure Republicans are good with jobs, but what about wages? Standard of living has been on a constant slide since the 70s.
Conservatism has its good contributions to policy but its is not best instituted at the national level. If Scott Brown or anyone else running on a platform of small government really intends on making the rhetoric real, they should stay where they are and reinvigorate their local communities. It is just plain silly to think that strong local governments are somehow going to be imposed on the country by Washington insiders.
I am looking forward to see how this and the upcoming November elections will turn out. Good luck Massachusetts.
IS THIS AN OMEN OF THINGS TO COME?
There is no doubt in my mind that the reason Democrat Martha Coakleyn is in a strong race with Republican Scott Brown is owing to her partisan approval of Comprehensive Immigration Reform or AMNESTY. The majority of Americans remember the last travesty of the 1986 immigration reform, that not only legalized around 3.5 million agricultural worker, but even more desperate, poor people slipped into America before the final bill was signed. The same scenario is sure to happen again, because millions of more people are aware they can get instant recognition as legitimate. Senator Edward Kennedy now vacated seat, is what Coakleyn and Scott are competing over and could jeopardize the Health Care Reform package. A Republican Senate victory in the blue state of Massachusetts would have massive repercussions and could even echo in the Oval office. Even Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank stated to reporters, " if Brown wins, the president's overhaul of health care is dead." President Obama is stumping himself in trying to preserve the crucial 60th Democratic Senate vote needed to pass the health care overhaul.
The deciding factor is what is more important to the voters in this special election? Opening the door even wider for millions of illegal people to siphon of --BILLIONS--in taxpayers money for health care, education and other unrevealed entitlements. As Brown debated stopping the issuance of driving drivers licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. But then crush any chance of the Democrats passing health care reform? Or by voting for Scott Brown wrecking any chance of another Amnesty, that as the US Census assumes could lead to unsustainable OVERPOPULATION. Shortly we will learn the answer to this unnerving question, that will decide future generations quality of life. If this Republican wins it will send a traumatic message, to Democrats that includes Sen. Harry Reid, Speaker Pelosi and the rest who are pandering to illegal immigrants, that Americans are tired of being taxed to support foreign nationals. It will mean E-Verify could become permanent and zero in on the millions of illegal labor, fraudulently taking jobs from legitimate workers.
It will mean stepped up audits, by ICE in all working locations. It could strengthen the 287 (G) federal training program to arrest illegal foreigners, that has been weakened by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. E-Verify upgrades could reduce overtime a very sufficient way to force illegal workers into self-deportation, because they can no longer steal American jobs.
Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to be connected to your Senator and Congressman and use the voting power of THE PEOPLE. NUMBERSUSA AND JUDICIAL WATCH for more frightening information and which lawmaker are signers to the potential AMNESTY and the immigration grades of these proponents.
It's a wonderful thing that Scott Brown might win this senate seat. The Catholic Bishops Conference has asked Catholics to ask their representatives to vote against the bill because it funds abortion, because it has no conscience clause protection, and because it doesn't serve the immigrants. And his election might stop it.
So you really think with ALL the poll results pouring in over the past two weeks that Coakley will win this PEOPLE' s Senate Seat ?? ----WOW !.
I really "like", Mr. Zwillich, the way you waver about the importance and nonimportance over this important 60th seat....Can you make up your mind ?
I'll put it to you,Plain and simple: The everyday American people who follow the law, go to work everyday, provide for their families, and love their country are sick and tired of listening to socialist/markist crap from this fraud of an administration.....This Coakley lady is going-down in this election; and she is going down big time.....Next in line is Barney !
You lost me when you said "Martha Coakley is still likely to win this Senate race." Kind of makes the rest of what you said irrelevant, considering she's been losing in the last 5 or 6 polls, some in double digits. A bill with 11 bribes, many unconstitutional and unfair, with no transparency or bipartisanship, is too important not to pass? House members have to see this Mass. election and think about voting against this legislation, if they have talked to any of their constituents. This is a sleazy bill of the first order...Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker kickback, the favoring of unions.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.