Democrats Have 60 Votes. What Will They Do With Them?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/democrats_have_60_votes_what_w.html


Democrats Have 60 Votes. What Will They Do With Them?
Ezra Klein



In a 5-0 decision earlier today, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that "Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under Minn. Stat. § 204C.40 (2008) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota." That gives the Democrats 60 votes in the Senate. Enough, in theory, to overcome the filibuster.

It's worth meditating for a moment on how quickly things change in politics. Sixty votes in the Senate is, well, a lot of votes. The last time either party achieved the magic number was 1974, when Democrats took control in the aftermath of Watergate. It took 34 years, in other words, for either political party to become that electorally dominant again.

And six years ago, it didn't look like the Democrats were well-placed to become that party. The 2002 and 2004 elections didn't, in retrospect, deliver particularly decisive wins to the Republican Party. But they were sure treated that way. The bookshelves were thick with titles like "The Way to Win, One Party Country" and "Building Red America." (Ronald Brownstein reexamined some of these books here.) The way to win, as it happened, was Karl Rove's way. And the country's one party? The Republicans. I remember watching Bill Kristol on the "Daily Show" around that time. "I'm here to tell you," he said to Jon Stewart, "that the worm will turn again and my party will lose. Just you wait." If memory serves, Stewart's response was to pretend to sob helplessly.

But just as the Republican dominance in the early-Oughts was illusory, and the 61 Democrats who controlled the Senate in 1978 were about to be run over by the Reagan Revolution, it's a pretty safe bet that Democrats won't hold these margins for long. As such, there are two ways to think about a 60-vote majority. One way is in terms of how long you can keep it. The other is in terms of how much you can achieve with it. The latter strategy means forcing risky votes from vulnerable senators in order to secure enduring accomplishments on things like health-care reform and cap-and-trade. It means accepting, as Kristol said, that the worm will turn, and the question is what the world looks like when it does.

But I fear they will spend their majority paying back all of the corporate donors from the past few years, and then not do shit.

Please - change my mind!

will use this power. I am hopeful it will be wisely.

We will squander them on an empty health care reform bill. With 60 votes we just might get that Band-Aid and aspirin.Maybe.

to do anything.

It a statistical victory but not a realistic one.

Of course, they will proudly proclaim that however they screw us, it's for our own good.

nothing?

It will be interesting to watch them frantically try to come up with some new excuse as to why they have to keep their powder dry, etc.

Scary times for the Democrats.

allowing the traitorous "conservadems" to sell us down the river by siding with Republicans and generally getting precious little done.

But maybe I'm just a cynic.

:shrug:

keep their powder dry ...