Even In Defeat, Democrats Catch A Break

It's hard to feel good about losing an election, any time or any place. But congressional Democrats can count themselves lucky to have lost two votes held this month.

The first came in Georgia, where Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss easily won a Dec. 2 runoff against upstart challenger Jim Martin. A loss is never fun, but it may have been the best thing that could have happened to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate Democrats going into the 111th Congress.

The sequel came four days later in New Orleans, where Republican unknown Anh "Joseph" Cao upended veteran Rep. William Jefferson, the nine-term Democrat. Jefferson became famous for having a freezer that yielded up $90,000 in cash when the FBI dropped in with a warrant.

The Chambliss victory was expected; the Cao upset anything but. Republicans, hard up for good news of late, delighted in both wins. But Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill could also reflect on the results with a sense of relief.

Why? Well, it's pretty obvious with Jefferson. Since the FBI search in August 2005, Jefferson has been the most glaring example of ethical vulnerability in the Democratic caucus. It took the federal government nearly two years to issue indictments against him, building a case by prosecuting associates first. Nonetheless, for 40 months, Jefferson's problems have been mentioned regularly alongside those of fallen Republicans.

Even before the indictments, Democratic leaders booted Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee, ignoring objections from the Congressional Black Caucus. But further discipline was suspended pending a trial that has yet to take place. For Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Jefferson dilemma and the internal tensions it caused have now been laid to rest. Two years from now, the New Orleans seat can presumably be recaptured by another Democrat.

Seeing a Democratic silver lining in the Chambliss victory is more difficult, yet this outcome should help Reid and his leadership team in both the short term and the long.

The key point here is that Chambliss' re-election ends any hope of the Democrats' pushing their new Senate majority to 60 votes, or three-fifths of the Senate. That is the supermajority required to invoke cloture, cut off debate and proceed to a vote on anything important. In theory, it means real control of the chamber, comparable to what Democrats have in the House, where simple majority rules.

So don't the Democrats want 60? Of course they do; it's been their goal throughout the campaign. But as it stands now, they may be better off falling just short.

Reason 1: Less pressure to seat Al Franken. Reid and others have acknowledged that the Senate itself may determine a winner in Minnesota, the one Senate race still unresolved. The entire state has been recounted by hand, and incumbent Republican Norm Coleman leads by fewer than 200 votes. The state canvassing board will meet Dec. 16 to consider challenges to thousands of ballots. It is even possible that the outcome will be determined by a coin toss.

Should the state call Coleman the winner, Democratic challenger Franken will surely go to court over ballots that were lost and absentee ballots that were disallowed. If he does not get satisfaction in timely fashion, he may well appeal to the Senate itself. The chamber has acted to resolve such cases before, but with ugly consequences. You could forget about any prospect of bipartisan cooperation, and the effect on Democratic fortunes in Minnesota would most likely be equally lethal.

Still, if Chambliss had lost and a victory for Franken was all Reid & Co. needed to grasp the holy grail, the temptation to risk the fallout and press for 60 might have been too much.

Reason 2: Having a nominal 60 may prove to be more burden than boon. Having 60 senators at your party's weekly policy lunch is no guarantee of that many votes on the floor for any given cloture motion. Two of the senators being counted toward that number are not even formally Democrats: Bernard Sanders of Vermont calls himself an independent, and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut calls himself an independent Democrat (having won re-election in 2006 as an independent after losing the Democratic primary).

On most issues, Sanders is well to the left of the party mainstream. On a crucial few, Lieberman is to the right. Either could bail out on a critical cloture petition. It is entirely possible that Georgia's Jim Martin and Minnesota's Al Franken, if part of the 60, would have proven highly independent, too.

That's not even to mention all the other mavericks and individualists on Reid's roster, from Arkansas centrists Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln to Great Lakes liberals such as Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

The pressure to hold every last one of these Democrats in line would be far greater if the world saw Reid as having 60 votes in his pocket. It would influence House deliberations and make House chairmen all the more aggressive. Think how weary they are of being told to water down their bills so as to accommodate the Senate and forestall Republican filibusters.

Being south of 60 gives Reid a little more realistic task. In fact, getting there on some issues may be easier if the majority party needs a little help from the minority in the process. If the Democrats have to come shopping for their last few cloture votes, they are going to be far friendlier and more collaborative. They are going to keep lines of communication open to the last remnant of Republican moderates. And that means Reid is more likely to succeed.

Reason 3: Better to keep aiming higher in 2010. If Senate Democrats have 60 votes right now, they begin the next Senate election cycle psychologically on defense. Having seized the heights, they are exposed. But if the supposed magic of 60 is still a ways away, the prize is still out there to be won. Better to remain in the role of the hunter in 2010, when the GOP will once again have more seats to defend (six in states won by Barack Obama) and more incumbents ripe for retirement.

All in all, under the current circumstances, the dream of 60 is probably more useful as a dream deferred.