Massachusetts Dems should learn from GOP on Senate succession policy

When Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) died, the terms of succession fell to the governor who had to chose between three candidates supplies by the party of the senator.

When Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY) died, the terms of succession fell to the governor who had to chose between three candidates supplies by the party of the senator.

In Hawaii and Wyoming, both governors happened to be from the same party as the senator in question. Those two states are likely to have that scenario of Democratic in Hawaii and Republican in Wyoming. The law is a good safeguard in case the circumstances change.

When the Massachusetts legislature changed the rule for senator succession, the Dems were trying to avoid having Mitt Romney pick a Republican to replace John Kerry. The Dems didn’t go the route of Hawaii, Wyoming, Arizona, and a number of other states. After all, when John McCain ran for president in 2008, a similar law was in place.

The Massachusetts Dems got victimized when Scott Brown won a special election against Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy’s seat. And they could suffer the same kind of bite, ironically for John Kerry’s Senate seat.

The play by McCain, Lindsay Graham, Kelly Ayotte, and Joe Lieberman (behind the curtain) against Susan Rice was made to open up Kerry’s Senate seat. And it worked, at least in opening up the seat.

In the 2004 scenario, Gov. Romney would have had to pick a Democratic replacement. In 2009, Gov. Deval Patrick, a fellow Democratic politician, would have had to pick a Democratic replacement.

The only way the law could have backfired on the Dems is if a Republican in the seat died or left the Senate, and the Dems couldn’t get back the seat right away.

Somehow, this feels a bit more democratic (small d). The voters voted in someone whose values reflect on the majority of those who voted for the senator. Giving the governor the all-knowing decision power has, on occasion, been abused. You might be thinking Rod Blagojevich (Illinois), and this is true. Would also offer up Frank Murkowski (Alaska), who upon going from the Senate to the governor’s chair, replaced himself with his daughter, Lisa. (Sarah Palin beat Frank Murkowski in the governor primary in the next election, so you can blame Frank Murkowski.)

Election Day 2012: Obama, yes. Senate, probably. House, upset?

If you accept that it will take longer to recover from Hurricane Sandy as opposed to a typical hurricane, then you could accept that the depressive recession of 2008 will take longer to recover from than a typical recession.

The question that has been asked is which party has done more to help that recovery. Every job bill in place was passed while the Dems were in control of the House. Most economists though the initial stimulus was undervalued thanks to tax cuts that didn’t help. One presidential candidate has a plan to reduce the deficit, one has a plan that will raise the deficit.

The race is about who will be president on January 20, 2013 and beyond. But the race is also about Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Harry Reid, and Mitch McConnell and how much power they will have in Washington.

Regardless of where you stand, get out and vote. True, some forces (i.e., GOP) have made voting more difficult to accomplish. Nothing scares a politician like voting.

Here is a breakdown of the White House as well as the two houses of Congress: House and Senate.

White House

You can’t blame the pundits and political media for being a little punch-drunk at this point in the campaign. “What if we have an Electoral College tie?” “What if Mitt Romney wins more of the popular vote because Hurricane Sandy brought down numbers in blue states?”

We won’t and it doesn’t matter.

Ever since Romney won the first debate, the tone of the coverage has turned to “Romney just might win.” If you are going uphill, you have to be well over 50% to overcome an incumbent. The best route for Romney is to have financial ties to companies that run voting booths.

Bellwether states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio — will decide this election. Right now, those states point in the direction of President Barack Obama. “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” may be what sinks the former Massachusetts governor.

Anybody who runs for president is desperate on some level. John McCain had moments of not being desperate, like when he told the woman that Obama isn’t a Muslim. Romney saw behavior such as that and has gone for the jugular every chance he has had. Romney’s deceiving ads in Ohio over Jeep production was the latest symptom of his desire to do what it takes to be president. The more desperation at the end, the more you know you won’t win (unless you cheat).

House

The GOP enjoys a 25-seat advantage in the House of Representatives. Most of those turnovers in 2010 went to teabaggers, er, Tea Party folk. The best way for the Dems to gain control back is to take back those teabagger seats.

One teabagger the Dems would love to beat that has a chance to lose is Joe Walsh (IL-8). Allegations of failure to pay child support and his over-the-top manner puts his seat in danger against Tammy Duckworth. The former soldier in Iraq who lost three limbs ran for Congress back in 2006 but lost a different seat. If you are looking for a symbolic seat, this is as good as any of them. A Duckworth win could prove interesting for the Dems; can’t see a scenario where Walsh wins and the Dems take back the House.

A seat that would be mostly about bragging rights would be Steve King (IA-5) vs. Christie Vilsack, wife of Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture. King’s views on just about anything (rape, science) infuriates the Dems. Getting rid of him would be a moral victory for Pelosi, et al.

House races are more difficult to assess unless you are on the ground. Since most House races go to the incumbent, any upsets you hear along the way are almost certain to go in the Dems column. Even if the GOP keeps the House, look for the difference in margin. If a Democratic president wins another term in office, there should be some coattails in the House of Representatives.

Senate

The Democratic Party currently has/controls 53 seats (51 Dems, 2 Independents) while the Republicans have 47 seats. Tie goes to the vice president.

The Dems are almost certain to lose Nebraska and North Dakota but would gain a nominal win in Maine. Angus King is expected to go along with the Dems. That would put the Dems at 52.

The Dems have 5 seats that could see an upset vs. 3 for the GOP. So on paper, the Republicans are in good shape for a takeover.

Elizabeth Warren has to win in Massachusetts for the Dems to have a really good night. As offensive as Richard Mourdock was on “God intented to happen,” that statement alone wouldn’t guarantee a win for Joe Donnelly. If you hear the name Joe Donnelly multiple times, the Dems will have a good night.

Shelley Berkley is another name where hearing it is a good sign for the Dems. Dean Heller was appointed to fill out the term of John Ensign, who had a disgraceful streak thanks to his mistress/employee and financial scandals.

If Richard Carmona gets mentioned more than once, Harry Reid will still be Senate Majority Leader.

Scott Brown’s return to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat for 6 more years would be an early sign for a successful GOP evening. Linda McMahon, George Allen, and Tommy Thompson would also bring joy to the GOP — all 3 of these seats are Dems or Dem-leaning. Tammy Baldwin would be the first openly gay U.S. senator if elected in Wisconsin.

The Badger state would be a sign of the times. If Thompson wins the seat, both U.S. Senate seats would have gone from Dem to GOP in just 2 years.

If you are looking for a reason to stay up all night, Hawaii could be the decider as the GOP thinks it has a shot with Linda Lingle going for Daniel Akaka’s retiring seat.

D stands for Democratic and defense: 15 Dems and an independent will probably defend their seats vs. 5 for the Republicans. Throw in the 5-3 advantage for tough seats to defend, and you can see why the Democratic Party was seriously sweating the 2012 race for control of the Senate.

Races that will likely go from Democratic to Republican

Nebraska — Ben Nelson (D)/Bob Kerrey (D) vs. Deb Fischer (R)
North Dakota — Kent Conrad (D)/Heidi Heitkamp (D) vs. Rick Berg (R)

Races that will likely go from Republican to Democratic

Maine — Olympia Snowe (R)/Charles E. Summers, Jr. (R) Cynthia Dill (D) Angus King (I)*
Massachusetts — Scott Brown (R)/Elizabeth Warren (D)
* King is likely winner and would probably side with Dems

Races the GOP would love to steal

Connecticut — Joe Lieberman (I)/Chris Murphy (D) vs. Linda McMahon (R)
Hawaii — Daniel Akaka (D)/Mazie Hirono (D) vs. Linda Lingle (R)
Ohio — Sherrod Brown (D)/Josh Mandel (R)
Virginia — Jim Webb (D)/Tim Kaine (D) vs. George Allen (R)
Wisconsin — Herb Kohl (D)/Tammy Baldwin (D) vs. Tommy Thompson (R)

Races the Dems would love to steal

Arizona — Jon Kyl (R)/Jeff Flake (R) vs. Richard Carmona (D)
Indiana — Richard Lugar (R)/Richard Mourdock (R) vs. Joe Donnelly (D)
Nevada — Dean Heller (R)/Shelley Berkley (D)

Races that you might hear a flutter of thought, but the incumbents are likely winners:

Florida — Bill Nelson (D)
Michigan — Debbie Stabenow (D)
Missouri — Claire McCaskill (D)
Montana — Jon Tester (D)
Pennsylvania — Bob Casey, Jr. (D)
Washington — Maria Cantwell (D)

Races that you will likely hear very little about on Election Night

California — Dianne Feinstein (D)
Delaware — Tom Carper (D)
Maryland — Ben Cardin (D)
Minnesota — Amy Klobuchar (D)
Mississippi — Roger Wicker (R)
New Jersey — Bob Menendez (D)
New Mexico — Martin Heinrich (D) replacing Jeff Bingaman (D)
New York — Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
Rhode Island — Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Tennessee — Bob Corker (R)
Texas — Ted Cruz (R) replacing Kay Bailey Hutchison (R)
Utah — Orrin Hatch (R)
Vermont — Bernie Sanders (I)
West Virginia — Joe Manchin (D)
Wyoming — John Barrasso (R)

Carte Goodwin gets Robert Byrd’s seat, but could have been placed much sooner

If you are scoring the U.S. Senate, mark Carte Goodwin in the West Virginia slot in for Robert C. Byrd. Goodwin is a 36-year-old attorney who is expected to be the caretaker for the seat until the special election.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin had two options to fill the seat after Byrd passed away: pick someone soon and force a November election, or wait and keep that senator until the November 2012 election. So which scenario did the Democratic governor pick?

Manchin waited and will likely set up the election for this November, when incumbents are in more significant trouble.

If Republicans were playing this game, they would have been more offensive with the seat, letting the interim stay around until 2012. And they would have been able to get away with it. Democrats don’t play the game that well.

Manchin wants to be the permanent senator, and wants to do so this fall. So with the Democratic Party being one vote short in the Senate, why did Manchin wait until now to appoint a replacement?

Unemployment benefits have been held ransom by the GOP, particularly in the Senate. Goodwin steps in to be the 59th vote, but he could have been there 2 weeks ago.

While governors have had the power to appoint interim senators since 1913, the MSM is suddenly taking interest in the process, stemming back to the replacements for President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.

Democrats have had to replace Obama, Biden, Hillary Clinton, Ken Salazar, Ted Kennedy, and now Robert Byrd. Well, the governor would have replaced Kennedy, except the Democratic Party took that power away, fearing that Mitt Romney would pick a Republican to replace John Kerry.

Oops. This is what happens when you have short-sighted policies.

In most of the history since the 17th Amendment, interim senators have served without fanfare, and almost always, the party in question retained the seat. The MSM’ obsession has hurt Democrats. To be fair, Rod Blagojevich was part of the problem as well.

The Democratic Party needs to understand that it is in the game to win elections on all fronts. Yes, reigning in party discipline is like herding cats. But given that West Virginia will likely suffer after the 2010 census in terms of population, retaining the governor’s seat is important to the party.

Manchin could have had both scenarios if he had waited to fill Byrd’s seat, prolonging the election to November 2012. Manchin can’t run for governor again, thanks to term limits. Now there are two crucial elections in November 2010, and the Democratic Party needs to win both of them.

Manchin has taken an unusual gamble, and in West Virginia, his gamble might pay off. But in an election cycle where Scott Brown wins a special election for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat, the gamble might not be worth it.

The Democratic Party’s slogan in West Virginia needs to be “in Manchin we trust” — for the Senate race and the governor’s race.

Unemployment worse than usual, but people getting less and less from Washington

One crucial reason why citizens don’t trust politicians is that they don’t feel like politicians are on their side — unless they are running for re-election. Because House districts are so rigged, incumbents rarely lose, and when they do, usually that time comes in the primary or activities leading up to the primary.

Senators have a significant incumbency advantage, but running statewide is more difficult.

If you are unemployed in 2010, or if someone close to you is unemployed, you would hope that if politicians cared, they would care simply to get re-elected. But when it comes to the unemployment issue, politicians seem to be running in the other direction.

Sure, the House of Representatives is passing legislation. And the Democratic Party is working hard to pass legislation. But it hasn’t been enough.

The Democrats are trying to just tread water, extending unemployment benefits. And the Republicans have decided that the unemployed aren’t worth fighting for, even in an election year.

The GOP is hiding behind not wanting to run up deficit spending, but the track record of this party — despite their words — hasn’t backed up their talk.

Here are the latest numbers:

— The economy lost 125,000 jobs in June for the first time this calendar year.

— The unemployment rate rests at 9.5%.

— This country has always extended unemployment benefits when the rate was above 7.2%.

Harry Reid is running for re-election, but Reid is also the Senate Majority Leader. And Reid hasn’t whipped his troops into shape. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is hiding behind the “deficit spending” defense.

To be fair, West Virginia is down one senator and the two Maine senators get how important the unemployment issue. Betcha Martha Coakley would have voted for the unemployment extension.

And when the MSM actually acknowledges there could be a problem, the situation is presented in an incomplete, biased presentation. This typical example from ABC News demonstrates the approach: only have one quote and have that be from a Republican; phrase the headline as “Congress’ fault’ without pointing out that one party isn’t cooperating; not mention that spending stimulus money (which was lowered because the GOP demanded unneeded tax cuts) is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

“To take money from job creation to fund unemployment benefits makes no sense,” noted Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). That seems obvious, but we are dealing with politicians.

In past economic downturns, the Congress and president have had a similar strategy: do as little as possible, but do something. But we are in a much worse economic scenario, and we are getting less help from Washington, not more — when the people need more.

We have seen tons of anecdotal evidence that employers are going for “recent college graduates” or asking for “little or no experience.” We have seen anecdotal proof that employers who have jobs available (theoretically) making job prospects jump through nearly impossible hoops just for an interview.

Or some employers are telling prospects they want to talk, and when people call back, their calls and e-mails are ignored.

People who want jobs are working hard. We should expect — and demand — that our politicians work just as hard to help those who need economic help. And not just because politicians might lose their jobs. Even if the politicians do lose their jobs, they won’t suffer nearly as much as people outside the Beltway. If nothing else, if they had a clue — mostly Republicans — as to what is happening, they might work just a little bit harder at their jobs — while they still had them.

Democratic mess of succession law in 2004 brought us Senator Scott Brown

So much for predictions: analysis is more my game…

Edward Brooke. There’s a name you rarely hear despite his prominent place in political trivia, and recent link to an affair with Barbara Walters. Brooke is the first elected U.S. senator of African descent. For our purposes, Brooke is also the last Republican in the Senate from Massachusetts.

Of course, this will change in a matter of days, since Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley to finish out the Senate seat for the late Ted Kennedy.

Yes, this make the health care bill — so decrepit even before Tuesday night that it needed repair, preferably not in the United States — much more difficult to pass.

But let’s go back to the reason this happened in the first place. Massachusetts was like many states, where the governor got to pick a replacement for a senator who leaves office or dies. This rule was in place in 2004 when John Kerry was running for president. The Massachusetts governor at the time — Mitt Romney — would likely have picked a Republican replacement for Kerry should Kerry have won the 2004 race (for the moment, never minded that Kerry likely did win that race).

The Democratic Party freaked out and didn’t want that scenario to occur. So they “brilliantly” changed the rules — creating a 5-month stretch where the Bay State wouldn’t have a senator, and then the people would elect someone to fill out the rest of the term.

Given that the 5-month interim stretch with no senator was likely against the U.S. Constitution, the law passed. And the Democrats looked bad when this happened in 2004. Then, of course, Kerry “didn’t win.”

Fast-forward to 2009. Ted Kennedy has died. Massachusetts has no senator, but ironically, has a Democratic governor in Deval Patrick. If the change in law hadn’t occurred, Patrick would have selected an interim senator, possibly Sen. Paul Kirk (the result of a new law passed by Democrats in 2009 to allow for an interim senator until the special election) until January 2013. Again, Democrats in Massachusetts changed the law twice, each time to serve their needs. And the first change was likely unconstitutional.

Combine all this changing of laws to temporarily suit political purposes, and a competent yet not-great candidate in an era of teabagging anger, even in blue states, and now the GOP has 41 senators, filibuster-proof.

Laws are designed to fit all scenarios. Changing laws on a whim looks bad, even if the second changes were designed to fix the first one. Voters see through this masquerade, even if politicians are still behind the mask.

Republicans may be correctly despised for their nefarious activities. But they didn’t do a whole lot in this case; Democratic people did this to themselves.

Scott Brown will be in the U.S. Senate until January 2013. Democrats will have that much time to figure out how that happened. Hope they use a mirror.

NOTE: Democracy Soup will kick up more media criticism coverage as part of the political blog. Let’s start with the alarming lack of coverage over who Scott Brown and Martha Coakley are. Yes, this is a special election. But the MSM focused on all the positives of Brown and the negatives of Coakley on a level that was embarassing, even by MSM standards.

The left-wing media dug up plenty of material on Brown, could have been spoon-fed to the MSM, but the MSM wouldn’t bite. And Coakley’s track record as Attorney General made her a fine candidate for the Senate. Yes, Brown was the better candidate on a superficial basis, and not just in looks. But this was no excuse to not paint the two major rivals in this race with truthful brushes. Let the voting public see who these two really are, and let the voters decide. That is true democracy; what the MSM gave us in this race was a travesty of any sense of democracy.