What 60 Democratic Senate Votes Really Means: Welcome to the Age of Ben Nelson

Following yesterday's final confirmation of Al Franken as the new senator from Minnesota, thus ushering in the Al Franken Decade 20 years too late, all the talk on last night's political shows was of the magic number 60. Of course, multiple guests on all the cable talk channels were quick to point out that the new number of Senate Democrats was mostly a formality. After all, over the last 15 years or so, the filibuster has become a matter of course in the Senate rather than the exception to the rule. Almost any major bill requires ending a filibuster before a vote can be taken, and that means all the GOP needs to do is convince one Democrat to cross the aisle.

But that explanation of the meaning behind the numbers is only half right. Getting to 60 Democratic votes in the Senate does represent a seismic shift in power. Previously, it was up to the Democrats to keep their people in line and, at the same time, woo a moderate Republican (read: the women from Maine) into joining the Democratic ranks on a cloture vote. But that is no longer the case. Now, it is the Republicans who must keep their people in line and convince a Democrat to come to the other side. That may seem like a small shift, but it has could have big implications.

Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe lost a huge amount of power yesterday. As of June 29, the battle to get to 60 votes focused primarily on them. But now, the focus will be on moderate Democrats rather than moderate Republicans. Now, while the senators from Maine still have an important position in ending a filibuster, the main focus of entreaties to stay with the home team or play ball with the opposing side will be folks like Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Nelson is the most obvious target, as he has broken ranks more often than other Democrats in the past. But other potential flips include Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, Evan Bayh in Indiana, and several more. The long list of moderate Senate Democrats makes flipping just one of them far easier than the Democrats' job of grabbing one of the Maine senators: Perhaps that's one silver lining to the GOP's transformation into a hardline conservative party with few moderate voices, though the trade-off -- the GOP's status as a relatively small minority party -- makes that silver lining hardly worthwhile.

Going forward, the result in real terms of this shift in power will be minuscule, in terms of effects on major legislation. According to Howard Dean's Web site that tracks support for a public option for health care among U.S. Senators, 37 Democrats are for it, one (Mary Landrieu) is against it, and the rest -- 22 Democratic senators -- have not announced a definite position. Those 22 are mostly in the same position, worrying about re-election in Republican-majority or at least deeply divided states, though there are a few notable exceptions in which a Democrat from a reliably Democratic state has still not announced support for a public option (e.g. Joe Lieberman, Diane Feinstein). With such a huge number of Democrats to target -- as opposed to the pair of Republicans that could be targeted by Democrats -- the GOP should still be able to block passage of any significantly progressive legislation. (Update: Joe Lieberman has come out against a public option on health care, as reported on HuffPo here. I'll refrain from commenting further, and just let that speak for itself.)

However, the Age of Ben Nelson may not last long. While the Democrats will be hard-pressed to keep all their seats in the House of Representatives in 2010, the next cycle could easily be the third in a row that sees Democratic gains in the Senate. Retiring Republicans in Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire could all mean Democratic pick-ups, and while the open seat in Florida looks more and more like an easy win for Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, that only adds to the two moderate Republicans sitting in the Senate now. Add to that the fact that the most likely incumbent to lose is Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky (though Democrats may face a bruising primary there), and the 2010 elections start looking pretty damn rosy for the Democrats.

With 62 or 63 seats in the Senate, a few of those waffling Democrats can be allowed to break ranks to save face. Once that happens, the filibuster as a weapon of mass obstruction becomes a dull weapon indeed.

 

 

Follow Dan Sweeney on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Daniel_Sweeney

Comments

[Bardmess]

Why do we continue to call these people "moderates"? The word carries a positive value that no one challenges. What's moderate about a Democrat opposing public health insurance, or enviornmental protections, or finance regulation., etc. etc?

[UKOH]

I've never understood the main argument used by the opponents of the public option, that it would result in government granting or denying access to health care. i.e. the government will get between you and your doctor.

Right now we have the insurance companies granting or denying access to health care! As a type II diabetic without group coverage from my job, I am denied insurance and therefore ALL access to health care outside of that I can afford from my own pocket! I am far from alone. In a for-profit industry the health insurance companies want to cherry pick only those who do not need health care as this maximizes their profits.

Under a government run scheme the focus would be on cost effectiveness and avoiding wasteful and unnecessary medical procedures. Sure this runs the risk of the "government" deciding against the wishes of your doctor.

However the choice is between the for-profit insurance industry deciding against the wishes of your doctor or the government. Of the two I trust the government more than I do greedy corporate bosses!

[BlueTide]

If you look at past history and when the Democrats can pass landmark progressive legislation, they need about 70 senators. On the other hand, as long as the Republicans got the presidency, they can pass landmark legislations with only about 40 senators.

Jimmy Carter couldn't pass anything with 61 Democratic Senators. Reagan and Bush got everything they wanted even when the Democrats controlled congress. This is because Democrats are eager to compromise and find the poliitical center, while Republicans stick to their principles.

[historymatters]

from where I'm sitting, when it comes to Republicans, "sticking to their principles" = "putting party ahead of country."

If it weren't for a willingness to compromise and seek the center, Jefferson, Washington, Adams, and all those guys never would've gotten the Constitution ratified. Sure, it was a flawed document filled with one of the biggest, stinking compromises of all time (the 3/5 Compromise), but it got the country going and it's held up for more than 200 years, being subjected to amendments and negotiation and compromises all along.

Compromise isn't necessarily a bad word, just as sticking to principles isn't necessarily bad. But the intent matters. Why are you willing to compromise? Because you're hoping to hide your unwillingness to actually help people behind the siren call of "bipartisanship" or because you don't want to sell out your constituents' needs to, let's say, Big Oil? Why do you stick to your principles? Because you're too gutless to cross the party bosses, or because you can see that the consequences of failing to do so will cause more harm than good to innocent people?

In the hyper-partisan atmosphere of DC, nobody seems to be willing to compromise or stick to principles based on what's right. They only seem to care about getting re-elected and keeping the fundraising machine going. Too bad for the rest of us.

[younowme]

Blue Tide you are so correct. I kept calling them 14 Southern Confederate Senators, who with Bush ran this country for 8 years passing every blessed thing they wanted.
I truly believe the Republican Senators run lock step to continue the Bush Doctrine with no western or southern senators permitte to express a moderate view. Their leadership dictates policy and they obey, taking orders as a Confederacy General. They have an objective and they have achieved it. Even now the Democratic Senate lacks the leadership and will permit the Bush objective to be fullfilled. They can't govern even when they own everything! Leadership is everything and the hell with what the people want - neocons are going to do it their way in the end.

[Ergon]

I hate this blame the South rhetoric, as if California New York or Chicago (Rahm Emanuel) didn't stock Congress or the Senate with pro war votes.

[Lars]

In terms of passing the "Public Option" for Health Care -- Democrats need only 51 votes in the Senate. Under the reconcilliation process (adopted by the House in April), there will be no cloture vote on Health Care Reform in the Senate this Fall. There will be a limit on the time of debate. Republicans won't be able to filibuster it unless there is a mass defection of Senate Democrats. I highly doubt that is going to happen.

[dianhow]

Exactly Thanks

[BlueTide]

What's going to happen is that enough conservative Democrats will revolt to sink the public option. At best their will be a nonprofit cooperative. What will pass is a Republican plan for individual mandates.

In twenty years, the Supreme Court is going to strike it all down. Nearly all economic programs passsed since 1900 will be ruled unconstitutional either because it's not commerce, not interstate commerce or because of the 10th Amendment. Then they will say that state and local governments can't regulate either because regulations constitute as a illegal property seizure and can only be done with just compensation. Then we will truly have our second Great Depression.

[Lars]

We shall see. It would be a MAJOR defeat for Obama and Democratic Leadership in both Houses -- and future blame for ineffective HCR will fall squarely on the Democrats. Frankly I don't see it.

Your take on future Supreme Court interstate commerce rulings is based on what? Clairvoyance?

[ROinReno]

I certainly hope Mr. Sweeney is correct that 2010 elections mean more gains for the Democrats.
It is clear the house cleaning is not over, and that includes a few supposed Democrats.
You can call them what you wish but being bought and paid for by the insurance companies does not in my mind qualify one to the tile of "Senator or Congressman". A few titles do come to mind none fit for print.
The only reason for a vote in opposition to health care reform is to support the insurance companies.
People like Ben Nelson may find their picture on the front page as THE man who was responsible for preventing health care reaching 50 million US citizens.
If so then Health care reform may not become a reality until after the 2010 or even the 2012 elections.
But it must become reality and the House cleaning has to continue to get it done.
The Constitution clearly states "For the People" not "For the insurance companies". Something Ben Nelson doesn’t get.

[dianhow]

Do not under estimate the length that the GOP will go to - to GET POWER / CONTROL BACK. as they;ve had for 20 years..Reagan - Bush W . Nelson does not want TO GET ' anything.
He is just lining his pockets with millions form insurance / medical / RX Co's.
Follow the money. We all have to tell our Reps - work for US - not big pharma or we will VOTE YOU OUT ! Thats our ONLY power- the VOTE ! Get busy Phone - e-mail- write- fax whatever it takes. We can NOT take another GOP controlled congress or we will get the same ' toxic' stuff we've gotten for 2 0 long years. and I am a former Repub voter - till I got informed on GOP issues since Reagan.

[marxmarv]

Why's it always "a few lone individuals" and never a recognition that both major parties are about equally corrupt and both need to be fired at the earliest opportunity?

[dianhow]

I Love Bernie Bernie Sanders was on Hardball last night. He was terrific. He said with 6 0 votes - they can STOP a GOP FILIBUSTER. BUT the main point is he said " 60 votes are NOT needed to pass health care - they can do it with 53 give or take. THats good news. He also pretty much admitted that big money lobbyists are the problem- as we all knew. Lobbyists stand in the WAY OF THE GETTING PEOPLES BUSINESS DONE !
Obama was out on a town hall meeting- He said ' I need the suport of the Amercain people to get health care through- CALL YOUR REPS CONGRESS / SENATE AND GIVE THEM HELL.
www.senate.gov
www.congress.gov
www.whitehouse.gov
google stand with Dr Dean He has all the names / contacts for Dems who are
NOT supporting a public health care option or single payer
1 -202 -456 -1111 W H comments line
Lets get busy - we get the gov't we deserve folks.

[Ozarks]

What 60 votes gets the Democratic Senate is just "Cloture". Cloture means that a bill has to be discussed and voted on!!! Heaven forbid people like Nelson, Feinstein, Lanrieu and apparently Reid having to vote on the "public Option". They would rather not so they can blame its failure on the republicans. They are so paid off big time by Pharma and Health Insurance Corp that it they had to help the republicans vote down "Public Option" everyone would see them for what they are, paid off by lobbyists and owned by Banks, Pharma and big Health Corps.

[DuncanONeil]

Why are all Democrats required to vote as the Democratic party sees fit? I thought that members of Congress were supposed to read the bills and make an informed decision.

[dianhow]

On big issues like health care Parties need get together to get it passed.. The Repubs ( for 20 long years ) were good at that. They would' push shove hammer' their policies home.
People like ' sneering ' Tom Delay aka The Hammer ' got GOP issues rammed through.
The GOP did not bother with ' bipartisanship ' On big issues- we can't either.

[Mover]

What 20 years was that? 1995 to 2006, with a short break by Jumpin' Jim Jeffords?

The NEA strikes again.

[WellTickleMeWillie]

Yea just like the Rethugs in the Bush rubber stamp Congress. Now its's payback time. The Dems need to vote as a block to get all progressive legislation thru ASAP. If a Dem stands in the way, they should be held accountable by their voters next time they are up for re-election. Let's make the Congress for once responsible for doing the people's business not the lobbiests and the corporate fat cats.

[blaising]

It means the Dems are only 38 seats short of the majority they need to get anything done.

[DuncanONeil]

Anything? Or only the "gimmie" things?

[dianhow]

blaising Not so - according to Bernie Sanders.. he was on Hardball last night.

[Mover]

"Perhaps that's one silver lining to the GOP's transformation into a hardline conservative party with few moderate voices."

I suppose the view from the far left would tend to make actual moderates and conservatives seem to be a "hardline conservative party". But You will have to show me examples of "hardline" policies that GOP Senate members have tried to enact.

And while we're labeling people... would it make someone a "hardline liberal" if they refer to people in their own party as "conservacrats " and write things like "conservacrats like Nelson, who hates all democratic policy proposals"?

You see what I mean.

[dianhow]

WE MUST STOP getting hung up on labels Its actions that count. Its a fact that
GOP policies have favored the fat cats since Reagan. Deregulation - trillions in tax cuts even to Co who sent jobs overseas- letting Wall st / banks run wild - selling' toxic ' securities that they labeleld TRIPLE AAA - no safe guards for the worlds investors as we had prior to Reagan - lying us into Iraq-
Reagan / Bush / W = 20 long years- that put us on the path to this world wide meltdown.
. Obama had had 6 months ! I'm giving Obama his first term. Then I will judge him on the totality of his accomplishments. THat is only fair.

[Mover]

I have to disagree. Under Reagan everyone's income taxes went down, and they went down a lot. He also had congress remove a lot of loopholes and deductions with those tax cuts. But Reagan had to work with a Democrat controlled congress (the people who really control the purse strings), so we saw social security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes go up.

Wall Street operates under the laws made by the US Congress. When the Bush administration tried to get congress to reign in Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Franks (D) killed it in committee and Sen. Dodd (D) killed it in the senate. It was not deregulation that caused the credit crisis. It was Sarbanes-Oxley (1998) and those who are charged with oversight, the US Congress, who failed us.... again.

Try to recall that in 2006, Democrats won majorities in both houses of congress. Any failures occurring then are both the responsibility of the Bush administration (for not pushing hard enough) and the US Congress for looking the other way and ignoring the signs. Signs that they were aware of.

As for Obama. he did not inherit a crisis, he created it while in the US Senate with the rest of them. And, since taking office, he and the US Congress have created a deficit of $2 Trillion for one fiscal year. It took congress and GWB 5 years to overspend that much.

[Mover]

I agree.

Tell your people to stop using them. Especially when it is pejorative and misleading.

[bobh]

Of course Joe Lieberman has come out against the Public Option- he's the Senator from Hartford. Why don't we end all this psychodrama and just do all big bills by Reconciliation. The Republicans are dust; there is no reason pay them any respect anymore.

[dianhow]

YES Then tell Obama and your reps to get AGRESSIVE WITH THE GOP !!
Hammer home our policies just as the GOP did for 20 long years !

[Mover]

Anyone with any sense should come out against "the public option". This one is a complete no-brainer.

When we are told that the public option will lower costs, that's a lie. Just look at Hawaii's "public option". Hawaii had to repeal it with in 7 months because it was bankrupting the state (who cannot print their own money) and created a mass migration from the "private Option" to the "someone other than me is paying for it" (public) option. In that short period of time, the few that stayed with the private option had saw their insurance rates skyrocket. When Hawaii repealed it, things went back to normal.

There is no such thing as government competitiveness.

Government is the 800 pound gorilla in the arena. The private sector cannot compete with an organization that can print its own money to make up for losses and can make laws on a whim to make itself look better.

Read some more at Public Health Care

[marxmarv]

That doesn't sound like any public option currently under consideration in the Senate. Nice straw man, though.

[langej]

On the other hand, maybe the moderates will flip the radicals and the Democrats will move toward the center where the American people live. After all, that's what got Mr Obama elected.

[dianhow]

Its way too soon to judge . 20 years of GOP ' leadership ' brought us to disaster- 2 wars- one we were lied into - a meltdown - mostly caused by deregulation policy that began with Reagan.
Trillions in tax cuts to fat cats - money we HAD to borrow from China. Bush also ignored a CIA
and a Clinton warning that BIn laden was determined to HIT INSIDE THE US. When Clinton left- we had a huge surplus- no wars - and millions of new jobs.

[HartlessBeest]

The posters here seem to have forgotten to add the other 8 years under the Nixon Regime* which would add up to a total of 28 years.

* This would include the time Gerald Ford took over, but nevertheless, it was one and the same corrupt administration under the demonic rule of Republicans.

[Mover]

I have to disagree. What got Obama elected was one sided press accounts of the Bush years and their slobbering love affair with him, hit pieces on the McCain-Palin camp, the novelty of having the first black president and a complete lack of detail on any of his progressive hopes and changes. Although he was specific on one thing: No tax increases for people making under $250K.

Example: McCain offered a health care overall that included taxing the money spent by employers as regular income to the employee.

Obama resoundingly decried that idea.

Fast forward to the present day: President Obama has as part of his public health care plan a tax on employer paid health care benefits. Unless, of course you happen to be a member of a union, who would all get special treatment under Obama's thumb. BTW: That is a tax increase on people who make under $250K.

Just thought you ought to know.

[marxmarv]

So both incumbent parties favor the redistrtibution of wealth upward. Now how about some news?

[Lochmon]

I thought this article was a fairly good piece of writing when I first read it, but after reading so many comments from so many others reacting to it, it seems I need to go back and reread it... apparently I missed something....

A strong progressive vote we've been waiting on will finally be seated, and exactly how does this change things except for the better?

[Mover]

"how does this change things except for the better?"

With a super majority, the Democrats in congress, led by the liberal left, will continue to spend this country into bankruptcy and their will be no way to stop them.

They've already spent $2 trillion dollars that must be borrowed from China because they don't have it. This is causing the price of everything that the middle class and poor need to live (food, fuel, clothes and housing) to go up.

If Cap & Trade is signed into law, it will cost the middle class an additional 843 Billion dollars in new taxes (according to the CBO) and cost the country $9 Trillion in lost GNP (Heritage Foundation). This will push many more into bankruptcy than have ready filed due to the US Congress' fiscal policy and cause unemployment to continue to rise.

If Public Health care becomes law, it will cost an additional $1.3 trillion in its current form and still leave about 39 million Americans and illegal aliens without health care insurance.

As you can see, it will be very very bad for Americans and our children's children.

That is how it cannot change things for the better.

[marxmarv]

The D party has been playing the right wing's broken record for the past several years and look where we are now.

If it's going to be really bad for the children, then I say with only half my tongue in cheek that maybe the US needs to start a serious population control program so there's more to go around in that dark, dark future.

[marxmarv]

Apparently the author of the article is encouraging the socially corrosive habit of treating politics as a football game ("but it raises the GDP!"). Better to just pass this article by.

[NC4Obama]

Well its either Ben Nelson or another senator who's even worse, the only thing we can do is get more and better left leaning senator's like Franken elected.

[Lochmon]

What is it with Ben Nelson? Or any of the many others? No Democrat is suddenly going to run amok because Franken Goes To Washington... all the suspect votes have been running amok for months now. How does solidifying the progressive vote change anything except for making the true progressive vote just a bit stronger?

[marxmarv]

Franken might have some balls and name some names. I'd love to hear HIM come out and say "I have a list..."

[vippy]

Will we ever get wise and vote them out after 4 years? No, we keep continuing to put the same deadbeats into office over and over and then complain, why we in such bad shape.
Not balancing the budget should be one reason to fire them all. Those politicians got us knowingly into this mess. They were all Bush Enablers. Vote them out of office this time.

[FreelanceMinion]

Great, Al Franken come to the Senate, and instead we start the Ben Nelson Decade. As someone from Ben Nelson's state I have only one reaction to that--- YIKES!!!

I would much rather Dems work on winning over MORE moderate Republicans rather than water down legislation for the conservative DINOs. It might encourage a long term positive movement within the Republican party.

[Lochmon]

Don't worry about it. The actual math will be more like Non-Linear Equations for Kindergartners. In other words, they'll be making it up as they go along, as usual. What Franken's seating will mean is one more solid progressive vote, and that cannot be counted by anyone (except maybe that new guy with the ugly screaming-head icon, and a few other previously-known reprobates) as being other than a very good thing.

[alnc]

It is now clear that DEMOCRATS WANT TO LOSE!!!! DEMOCRATS other than Bill Clinton.....will fight for something.....in the last 30 years.....he had kohonas....to stand up to Rethugs.

Everyone else since 2000 have rolled over and played dead for Repugs. Howard Dean was right.....in 2004 that it was time for REAL DEMOCRATS to stand up. If you put a light under a Democrats butt.....they will wilt.

Give Bush credit....if he had this majority he would have run over his dad.....to do what he wanted and we would be paying even more for it. Can a party......in broad daylight..­.........s­ay to the Country....

THAT VOTED FOR THEM......No thanks....we will just let the other guys that lost......STILL WIN!!!!!!!

[marxmarv]

They're not losing. They're just not winning for the common man.

The D party is as bought as the other one. It's time to fire both of the incumbent parties.