July 9, 2004

THE QUITTERS (via David Hill, The Bronx):

Choice of Edwards Weakens Senate Democrats (David Freddoso, Jul 8, 2004, Human Events)

Because it is immune to filibuster, the federal budget is the special case where the two Democrats' disappearance could have the greatest effect. Senate leaders had given up last month on passing a budget this year because four moderate-to-liberal Republicans--Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (Maine), Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), and John McCain (Ariz.)--defected and opposed it, meaning the resolution would narrowly fall short. These moderates wanted to use the budget process to block any new tax cuts from slipping into law.

But now John Kerry and John Edwards will be on the campaign trail for four months. If Kerry's performance so far is any indication, the two will likely miss nearly every vote in the Senate. So, do the new Senate math: the balance of power shifts from 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 1 Independent, to 51R, 46D, 1I.

Add Independent Jim Jeffords to the Democrats and switch conservative Zell Miller (D.) to the Republicans, and you have a working Senate of 52R, 46D.

Account for the four anti-budget Republicans and you get 48 in favor of the budget, 50 against. Vice President Dick Cheney can break a 49-49 tie (only a majority of those present and voting is needed for passage), meaning that a one-vote swing might be enough to pass a budget. A generous offer to any number of moderate Democrats willing to deal--retiring Sen. John Breaux (D.-La.), for example, or Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.)--could tip the balance. Even genuine liberals in the Senate are occasionally bought with enough pork for their home states, and sometimes they're more likely to break ranks if the margin is closer.

Budget Chairman Don Nickles (R.-Okla.) has already been pondering this new situation, a spokeswoman says.

If Republicans are really ambitious, they could even add a week to the calendar and bring back some of the more controversial budget provisions, such as oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Because ANWR drilling will make money for the government, it can be passed as part of a concurrent budget resolution.) The last time someone tried to add that to the budget, it was barred on a narrow 52-48 vote.


Anyone know NC's law on replacing a Senator? Because it's easy to imagine Edwards quitting early so a Democratic governor could appoint Erskine Bowles and give him an advantage this Fall. Of course, if Bowles votes like a Democrat while he's in there he'll lose the election...

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 9, 2004 8:59 AM
Comments

I doubt if Edwards quits - it is bad enough that he did not run for re-election, but to outright quit his seat, well - that would brand him.

Posted by: jim hamlen at July 9, 2004 10:52 AM

If Edwards quits, that would make the pressure on the top of the ticket to do likewise unbearable. Not gonna happen. But it is nice to see the GOP is going to put their absence to some good use. (And nice to see that it might help keep Bowles out, too.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 9, 2004 11:23 AM

NC law says the Governor would appoint a replacement. But I don't think it will happen, for the following reasons:

1. Being an appointed incumbent hasn't historically provided any advantage. According to Larry Sabato, appointed Senators win about half of the time. In 1986, the Republican governor of NC appointed a replacement who lost the election a few months later. Jean Carnahan lost in 2002, and Lisa Murkowski is even money at best this year.

2. Being an incumbent Senator in NC seems to be more of a curse than a blessing (unless you're Jesse Helms). The Edwards seat has switched parties in every election since 1980, and no incumbent has been re-elected to the seat since 1968.

3. The Governor is up for re-election, and he would like to avoid such a blatantly partisan move. NC ain't Massachusetts, where the Democrats can change the election laws to suit their needs with impunity.

4. As you point out, having a Democrat Senator's voting record to defend in NC would more than offset any advantage of being an incumbent.

Posted by: Tom L at July 9, 2004 11:51 AM

Tom L - nice writeup. I think #3 is the largest reason. As for Alaska I would bet that if it weren't for the nepotism issue Murkowski would be in much better shape for reelection.

Posted by: AWW at July 9, 2004 12:25 PM

Leaving party considerations to one side, both Murkowskis deserve to be punished for that piece of work.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 9, 2004 2:38 PM

They aren't going to be. An incumbent with a 70% approval rating in a state tyhe President will carry by double digits can't lose.

Posted by: oj at July 9, 2004 2:44 PM
« UP IS DOWN: | Main | THE PROVIDENTIAL PURITAN POWER: »