Much Ado About Voting: The 'Kennedy' Seat

The much ballyhooed victory for Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race is significant for the obvious reason, it increases, by one vote (effectively two), the strength of the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate. Yet, contrary to the widespread reporting from all sides, it is not 'the' pivotal political moment in the Senate, and neither is it an indicator of a shift in the political winds.

It has been a very potent tool of the political 'right' to portray the Democratic caucus membership of 60 senators as the end of democracy, thereby stirring up their base and giving centrist voters a practical reason to lean right next time they find themselves marking a ballot. The truth is, there were not 60 Democrats in the Senate, only 58, officially, and fewer still when attempting to legislate on 'hot' issues.  To claim the Dems had a filibuster proof majority was pompous (and ludicrous) on the part of Democrats and an egregious and phony scare tactic by Republicans.

If the Dems had managed unanimity in their own ranks (an extraordinarily difficult task), they would have to gain the support of the two unaffiliated (independent) senators.  Those two senators caucus with the 58 Democrats when electing leadership. One of the independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, is certainly more closely aligned with the 'left' on most issues, likely more so than many of the Democrats.  However, the other independent, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who once claimed to be and was elected under the banner of the Democratic Party, long ago showed his arch conservative stripes on social and military issues, bearing to the 'left' only on an occasional economic issue. 

Thus, losing a seat at this time to the Republicans has no more impact on the legislative process than at any other time.   Yes, the Democrats may have to compromise even more to woo another vote to the health care legislation; but is the setback any greater than each of the ones they have already incurred?  If they had held a solid 60 vote ideological majority they never would have had to make the highly publicized compromises (payoffs) in wooing Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Joe Lieberman, and likely many others before those.   It's almost worth seeing the Democrats lose the 'Kennedy' seat in order to get less bellyaching from the 'right' about the imaginary 60 vote boogeyman.

As far as it being an indicator of shifting political leanings in the electorate, it ain't.  The 2008 election was an aberration, not a sea change in political leanings.  It combined two critical elements favorable to the 'left' and it's a wonder that it didn't wipe the Republican party off the political map. The sitting Republican administration was a failure by anyone's assessment, varying only by degrees. The alternative party put up an African-American as its nominee, a first for any major political party. Thus, there was a surge of independent voters turning out to voice their discontent over the GOP's eight year reign, and African-Americans turned out in large numbers, as any minority group will when one of their own is at the top of the ballot.

What happened in Massachusetts isn't a turn so much as it is a return to normal.  But as that return combines with the normal shift away from the winning party nationally it appears more drastic than is actually the case.   A comparison to other recent elections in Massachusetts reveals that the 2.23 million votes on Tuesday was similar to the 2.08 million casts in the gubernatorial election of 2002, when another Republican, Mitt Romney, was elected Governor.  Thus, portraying the election of a Republican in Massachusetts as some seismic political shift is absurd.  It, of course, is a perception Republicans want to foster, for a sizable portion of the electorate likes to be on the loudest bandwagon. 

Comparing Tuesday's Senate race results to the 2008 presidential results provides nothing in the way of meaningful trend analysis.  That it was the seat held by a Kennedy for so many years certainly added to the drama; it made the event seem much more of a tidal change than was actually the case. It was entertaining political theater, but not much more than that.

-RLee