What Does It Mean?

---

---

Barring a reversal by recount, it appears that Democrat Doug Jones has defeated Republican Roy Moore in Alabama's special election to fill the Senate vacancy left by Jeff Sessions' appointment as attorney general.

Jones did not win a full six–year term. He was only elected to finish the unexpired portion of Sessions' term. If he chooses to seek a full term, he will have to do so in 2020.

In that regard, he is much like Republican Scott Brown, who won a special election in Massachusetts in 2010 to complete the term of Sen. Edward Kennedy. Kennedy died in office in August 2009, and Brown was elected to serve the last two years of his term.

The dynamics of the elections differ, but the overriding similarity is the fact that both states elected nominees from the parties that had not been successful in those states for a long time. It was especially shocking in Massachusetts, I suppose, since that Senate seat had been held by Kennedys for more than half a century — and Massachusetts had given nearly 62% of its vote to Barack Obama in 2008 — but it is no less shocking in Alabama, where Donald Trump received 62% of the vote in 2016.

Pundits are looking for clues to the political future, just as they did in 2010. I am inclined to reach the same conclusions now as I did then.

In 2010 I wrote the following: "I see no way that yesterday's election will not be a factor in all the other races that will be held this year." I feel that way today — but I have no more of an idea of the extent than I did then.

The circumstances could hardly be more different. A cloud of controversy hung over Moore in the last month of the campaign; the extent to which that contributed to his defeat remains to be determined, but its influence cannot be denied. There was no such cloud hanging over Martha Coakley when she lost to Brown in 2010; apparently she simply took victory for granted. She tried unsuccessfully to correct her shortcomings a few years later when she sought the governor's office and lost to the Republican nominee. Was Coakley the problem? Or was the party the problem?

The same question could be asked about Moore and the special election in Alabama.

As a harbinger of things to come, the Massachusetts election may have given Democrats — who had been anticipating seizing full control of the government after Obama became the first black man to be elected president and they achieved filibuster–proof status in the Senate with the election of Al Franken in Minnesota and Arlen Specter's party switch in Pennsylvania — a glimpse into a grim future.

The Democrats didn't lose control of the Senate in 2010, but they came close. Going into the election, the party held 58 seats (which, when combined with two independents who caucused with them, provided them with their filibuster–proof status) and emerged from it with 51 seats — still a majority but greatly diminished — and fully vulnerable to a Republican filibuster.

The 2010 midterms are not remembered in history for the outcome in the Senate races, though. What is remembered is the fact that Republicans turned a 79–seat deficit in the House into a 49–seat advantage. They have held the majority in the House ever since.

As a harbinger of things that may be yet to come, the Alabama election may have done the same thing for Republicans. The question is whether the GOP will be wise enough to heed its warning.

I don't know if Democrats can be competitive in enough House districts to pull off the kind of wave the Republicans achieved in 2010. Based on what I have seen, they may be fortunate to grab a narrow majority if they claim one at all.

Republicans don't need to lose as many Senate seats in 2018 as Democrats lost in 2010 to lose control of the chamber — and, as I have mentioned before, the historical tide of midterms runs against the party in the White House.

But until Tuesday, the Democrats faced an uphill struggle in trying to capture the Senate. Only one–third of the senators are on the ballot in a given election year — unless a special election has been called because a senator died or resigned before his/her term was completed. In this cycle, the vast majority of senators whose seats are on the ballot in 2018 are Democrats. Of those senators whose seats must be defended in 2018, only one incumbent Republican senator comes from a state that voted for Hillary Clinton whereas 10 incumbent Democrats must face the voters in states that supported Donald Trump.

With their upset victory in Alabama Democrats need only two more seats to claim a majority in the Senate for the last two years of Trump's term. That is more plausible now — but not necessarily more probable.

Regardless of whether Democrats can seize a Senate majority next year, even a short–term one, the Republicans' agenda is in jeopardy. If American politics has made anything clear in the last decade or so, it is that the voters want a change; as Republicans seemed to offer what they wanted, the voters gradually turned over the levers of government to them.

But the political pendulum is always moving in America. The Republicans' already slim majority in the Senate will shrink in January when Jones is seated, which gives them a few weeks to accomplish whatever they can with the seats they currently hold. Given their track record this year, though, getting anything done seems unlikely.

Voters seem to have developed a rather limited tolerance for political performance in recent years. Nonperformance may fare worse.

Until Tuesday, I had not seen anything in any of the special elections that surprised me. All the House seats that were vacant because their representatives had been appointed to positions in the administration were in red states. Democrats made a lot of noise about being competitive in those districts, but ultimately they lost every special election.

Then in November the first statewide races in the Trump era were held — in New Jersey and Virginia, states that elect their governors in the years immediately following presidential elections. After decades of voting for Republicans, Virginia (where governors are prohibited by law from seeking re–election) has been trending blue. Three of its last four governors have been Democrats, and it has voted Democratic in three consecutive presidential elections. Even though Republicans put up a good front about being competitive in the governor's race, I wasn't surprised when the Democrat won.

Nor was I surprised when the Democrat won in New Jersey. Term–limited Republican incumbent Chris Christie is about as popular as Richard Nixon was just before he resigned the presidency, and the Republican nominee had to carry that toxic baggage. No, I wasn't surprised by the outcome there, either.

But Tuesday's special election in Alabama did surprise me.

I realize that the circumstances had a lot to do with it. The decades–old charges of sexual harassment against Moore appear to have done enough damage to permit Jones to win by about 20,000 votes out of more than 1.3 million cast — even though no charges were substantiated and most were suspect.

Perhaps, as conservative commentator Ann Coulter observes, this outcome opens the door for Rep. Mo Brooks to reclaim the seat for the Republicans in 2020.

That wouldn't be unprecedented. Two years after Brown won Kennedy's seat, he was defeated in a bid for a full six–year term — by Elizabeth Warren, who is now considered a leading contender for the Democrats' next presidential nomination.

I'm not saying Brooks is a future presidential prospect. But in 2020 he would have Trump's coattails to ride in the general election — and that will almost certainly help in Alabama.

The Fallout From Massachusetts

I don't know what Barack Obama may have imagined in the last 12 months whenever he anticipated his first anniversary in office.

But I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that, even in his lowest moments, he didn't think the Democrats would gain — and then, within a few months, lose — their filibuster–proof status in the Senate, especially with the loss of the seat that was held for so long by Edward Kennedy, on the day before Obama's first anniversary as president.

Republicans may have fantasized about it, but only those who were completely resistant to the notion of jinxes permitted such thoughts to take root.

Democrats may have feared it, but most of them seemed to be in denial until the very last days, by which time it was probably too late to rescue Martha Coakley's foundering campaign.

Well, Republican Scott Brown claimed a victory in Tuesday's special election that probably would have been considered impossible nearly five months ago, when Kennedy was buried.

It may seem melodramatic to say this, but I'm inclined to think that yesterday's election changes America's political landscape as indisputably as the use of nuclear weapons against Japan changed the world in 1945.

Our political world today is not what it was yesterday.

Today, on the morning after the election in Massachusetts, Democrats are playing the blame game, reports the Associated Press.

Certainly, there are many ways to spin this, and people on both ends of the spectrum are spinning like tops today.

• Rich Lowry of the New York Post says it shows that "[a] truck, a Twitter account and an unassuming guy can move the world."
  
  That seems a little grandiose to me. The only folks who voted were residents of Massachusetts, although their group decision could be said to have made the rest of the world sit up and take notice.


• "There's no way for the Democrats to soft–pedal the historic thumping that Republican Scott Brown delivered to Democrat Martha Coakley," writes Newsweek's Jonathan Alter.
  
  He acknowledges that Coakley's defeat is a wakeup call for Obama and other Democrats, as well as an indication that the president needs to listen more. But he resists the suggestion that it means Obama and the Democrats should abandon health care reform. "Who elected Massachusetts to decide for the rest of the country whether we move forward on the bill?" he asks.
  
  I would have thought that Alter had been observing American politics long enough to know better. While this may come as something of a shock to those who are somewhat new to American politics and/or history, that's the way this game is played, especially during midterm years.
  
  Endangered Democrats who want to be re–elected in jurisdictions that are less progressive than Massachusetts are taking a different lesson from the results than Alter apparently is. And they are seeing caveats in the vote totals.
  
  If a solidly Democratic state like Massachusetts can elect a Republican to take Ted Kennedy's place in the Senate, what will that mean in states like Arkansas (Blanche Lincoln), Colorado (Michael Bennet) or Nevada (Harry Reid)? It might even have consequences in states with more moderate political reputations, like Pennsylvania (Arlen Specter) or California (Barbara Boxer). It certainly seems likely to have ramifications where Democratic seats are open, like Illinois, North Dakota and Delaware.
  
  If Massachusetts can fall, Democrats across the country are telling each other today, anything is possible.


• I see no way that yesterday's election will not be a factor in all the other races that will be held this year — the primary contests as well as the general election campaigns. Congressional Democrats, whether they are in the House or Senate, cannot take their renominations for granted, particularly if they represent states or districts that have been hit hard by joblessness, as most have.
  
  As Philip Klein observes in The American Spectator, "Obamacare [may] not [be] done for quite yet, [but] in football terms, its status went from 'probable' to 'doubtful' virtually overnight."


• TIME's Karen Tumulty chimes in, saying Brown "pulled off one of the most stunning upsets in modern political history, potentially dealing a crippling blow to President Obama's agenda."
  
  Potentially is one of those words that leaves a lot of wiggle room.
  
  Clearly, we'll have to see how the rest of this election year plays out, but unless the Democrats can find a way to take a seat from the Republicans — or somehow avoid additional losses in 2010 and then capture a Republican–held seat in another special election in a different state before 2012 — Brown's victory seems all but certain to deprive the Democrats of a filibuster–proof Senate for the remainder of Obama's term in office.
  
  And that will affect the legislative agenda. It's rather elementary, isn't it?


• In the Wall Street Journal, Lanny Davis insists that it wasn't Coakley's poorly run campaign that led to this setback for the Democrats. "This was a defeat not of the messenger, but of the message," writes Davis, "and the sooner progressive Democrats face up to that fact, the better."


• While many Democrats are, no doubt, feeling glum today, Jeff Jacoby states, in the Boston Globe, that they have been given a "blessing in disguise" by Massachusetts' voters "if only they are wise enough to recognize it."
  
  The voters, Jacoby says, "have provided the president a priceless second chance to adjust his political course, move toward the center, and deliver at least some of the bipartisan cooperation that was at the heart of his once–enormous appeal."

But, when all is said and done, I'm inclined to agree with John Judis, who writes, in The New Republic, that Obama's problem isn't in Massachusetts, where polls show he is still personally popular, but in the nation as a whole.

And, as Jacoby observes in the Globe, Obama has been given a chance to adjust the course of the ship of state before it strikes a reef. The real question is whether he and the Democrats will act upon their knowledge.

"Bill Clinton didn't know he was in big trouble until the very eve of the November 1994 election," Judis points out. "Barack Obama knows now, barely a year into his presidency."

It's almost like suggesting that the captain of the Titanic could have been warned about the icebergs he would encounter in April 1912 nearly a year before embarking on his voyage.

So I wonder: If Captain Smith had been told, in June 1911, that there were likely to be icebergs in his path, would he have adjusted his course? Or would he have clung to the misguided belief that his ship was unsinkable?

What will Obama do?

The Era of Kennedy Is Over

I guess it officially happened last August, when Edward Kennedy lost his battle with brain cancer.

But, if there was any lingering doubt, Scott Brown's apparent victory over Martha Coakley in today's special election in Massachusetts to pick Kennedy's successor puts an exclamation point on it.

With the death of Ted Kennedy, the last of the Kennedy brothers, the Kennedy political dynasty, such as it was, was over. I remember hearing, when I was a small child, some of the adults in my world warning that Bobby Kennedy, and then Ted Kennedy, each would be elected to two terms as president, creating a "royal family" in American politics. As it turned out, of course, Bobby was killed when he sought the Democratic nomination, and Teddy's chances of being elected were forever dashed when Mary Jo Kopechne died at Chappaquiddick the following year.

Ted Kennedy Jr. could have sought his father's seat, even though he lives in another state. Apparently, because he owns property in Massachusetts, he would be eligible to serve as its senator, based on existing state law. His cousin, Bobby's son Joe, could have run for the seat but chose not to. Ted Kennedy's widow could have been a candidate but ruled it out.

But just the name by itself would not have been satisfactory. The real magic of the Kennedy name came from the brothers. None of the next generation of Kennedys — with the possible exception of the long dead John F. Kennedy Jr. — possessed the public appeal that might have been capable of capturing that lightning–in–a–bottle feeling that permeated Camelot.

Brown's victory may well be a perfect political storm. When the seat comes up for a full six–year term in 2012, Massachusetts voters may return to their roots. It is reasonable to expect that Barack Obama will be at the top of the ballot, seeking re–election, and if he remains personally popular, it is equally reasonable to expect that he will attract many of the same sporadic voters who gave him his huge margin in Massachusetts but may well have been unmotivated to participate in the special election, as some voting groups are apt to be in these midterm races.

But even if a Democrat unseats Brown in 2012 — and even if that Democrat is named Kennedy — it will never be the same. The next generation of the Kennedys is now in middle age, and the only one who ever showed the voter appeal of the previous generation was JFK Jr.

Unless one of his cousins emerges to pick up the dropped torch, the era of the Kennedys is over.

You're No Jack Kennedy

---

---

I could hardly blame either Massachusetts' Democrats or Massachusetts' Republicans for saying that about the other party's candidate in the race for what was once the Senate seat of John F. Kennedy.

I can't help wondering about which one Lloyd Bentsen would say it. He might have said it about both.

Democrat Martha Coakley was thought to be a shoo–in — but she has probably run the worst campaign a Democrat can run in what is perhaps the bluest of blue states. If Democrats lose this seat, the one that was occupied by JFK's youngest brother, Teddy, for nearly half a century — when they, arguably, need it the most, to secure a filibuster–busting 60th vote in the debate over the health care reform bill &mdash it will shake the political establishment.

In an attempt to prevent that, Barack Obama came to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. And, from what I have gathered, the voters in Massachusetts are like voters elsewhere — they're concerned about the cost of the health care reform legislation, they're worried about the economy, and they're antsy about one–party rule. There isn't much Obama can say about any of those things that will reassure nervous voters.

Well, it's possible I missed something, being here in Texas, but it seems to me that being a roadblock to health care reform is about all that Republican Scott Brown has offered to the voters, although I assume he supports most, if not all, of his party's platform. Surely, it would make Ted Kennedy roll over in his grave if he thought someone who took so many positions that were the opposite of his own might be elected to take his place.

It might happen, though. Howie Carr writes in the Boston Herald that Coakley is clueless, and her recent comments suggest that she just might be.

But, in all honesty, I think Brown made a good point when he said the seat isn't "the Kennedy seat" and it isn't "the Democrats' seat." It is, he said, "the people's seat." If these people do not hand the seat to Coakley, it may not be because of a permanent seismic shift in the political terrain. It may be a warning that Democrats in other states should heed if they want to survive 2010.

Brian Mooney of the Boston Globe points out that independents hold the key in Massachusetts, as they do elsewhere. Partisans in both parties strongly support their nominees, but independents, as Mooney observes, are "an unpredictable breed and downright ornery when times are bad."

Polls are showing independents being drawn to Brown's campaign in large numbers. Undoubtedly, it would be ironic if health care reform got derailed because a Republican was elected to replace Ted Kennedy.

That seems to be at least part of the dynamic at work here. Joan Vennochi writes in the Boston Globe that Brown is "tapping into that special brand of anger that helps Republicans beat Democrats in otherwise solidly blue Massachusetts. When the party in power gets too arrogant — as often, it does — the people get mad."

James Taranto speculates in the Wall Street Journal that some Democrats who must face the voters this year may be hoping that Brown will win, permitting them to avoid casting what could be a career–threatening vote at a time when there are already several items on Democrats' records that work against them.

"Things still look difficult for the Dems come November," writes Taranto, "but they'll have a much easier time of it if ObamaCare is a mistake they averted rather than one the American people will have to live with for years."

Well, whichever candidate wins on Tuesday, Massachusetts voters won't have to live with that decision long if they decide they made a mistake. If the winner wants a full six–year term, he/she will face the voters again in 2012.

The Final Days

In just a few days, Massachusetts voters will go to the polls to decide who will finish Ted Kennedy's term in the U.S. Senate.

It has been virtually an article of faith that the Democratic nominee, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, would win the seat with little trouble. That was a logical assumption. After all, Kennedy was elected nine times by Massachusetts voters (including a special election to complete his brother Jack's unexpired term), and he never received less than 58% of the vote.

Until recently, Republicans talked a good game, insisting that an upset was possible. But now, with the finish line in sight, it appears that an upset may be a little more than a possibility — a fact that is dawning on observers who, not too long ago, tended to believe the race was in the bag for Democrats.

Considering Massachusetts' political history, that wasn't an unreasonable conclusion. But, as the old saying goes, that was then and this is now.

• Jessica Van Sack of the Boston Herald reports that the latest Suffolk University/7News survey shows Republican Scott Brown holding a four–point advantage.
  
  "Although Brown's ... lead ... is within the ... margin of error," Van Sack writes, "the underdog's position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos," who called it a "Brown–out."
  
  Independents appear to be fueling this upset–in–the–making. The survey shows nearly two–thirds of independents supporting Brown, reflecting a trend that has been showing up in national polls in recent months. Democrats in general have been losing the support of independents.
  
  But most observers didn't think the defection of independents would be as pronounced as it appears to be in Massachusetts.


• Yesterday, The Rothenberg Political Report moved the race to the "Toss–Up" column.
  
  "Whatever the shortcomings of the Coakley campaign (and they certainly exist), this race has become about change, President Obama and Democratic control of all of the levers of power in Washington, D.C.," says Rothenberg. "Brown has 'won' the 'free media' over the past few days, and if he continues to do so, he will win the election."


• Byron York of the Washington Examiner writes that a Democratic strategist laments that "the bottom has fallen out of [Coakley's] poll numbers" and has concluded that she is "destined to lose."


• Political reporter Steve Kornacki, who wrote earlier this month that a Republican victory was not going to happen, now writes in his blog that "Brown may actually win." But he urges readers not to "overreact ... This will probably be a very good year for the GOP. But their 'revival' will only last as long as the economy is in the tank."
  
  Given the stubbornness of the double–digit unemployment rate, that might be much longer than either Kornacki or the Democrats would prefer.


• Kennedy's widow, Vicki Kennedy, isn't sitting idly by. As CNN.com reports, she has been hitting the airwaves in commercials that began airing today, pleading with Massachusetts voters to keep the seat in the Democratic column.
  
  Mrs. Kennedy, more than anyone else (with the exception, perhaps, of the late senator's first wife and their three children), knows that health care reform was her husband's lifelong goal, the reason he wanted to have someone appointed to take his place between the time of his death and the special election, and that the election of a Republican to his seat could well put it on the legislative back burner for another 15 to 20 years.

The final days of this campaign will be a sight to see.

While Massachusetts (Democrats) Slept

---

---

In recent days, alarm bells have been ringing in Democratic circles. Ted Kennedy's Senate seat may be in jeopardy in next week's special election.

---

"[I]t's not the Kennedy seat, it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

Republican nominee Scott Brown

---

It has long been assumed that the Democratic nominee to complete Kennedy's unexpired term would cruise to victory. And that may be the eventual outcome. But the very idea that the seat that was held by the liberal lion for nearly half a century, representing a state that hardly ever votes for Republicans for anything, might not go to the Democratic nominee sent shock waves through the party, and the state's Democrats, as well as some national Democrats, although, notably, not Barack Obama — who, it could plausibly be argued, might not have been nominated for president without Kennedy's public endorsement — have responded.

Of course, Obama's absence from the campaign might not be a bad thing as far as Democrats are concerned. His latest approval numbers, from CBS News, show his national approval rating at 46%. At a comparable point in his presidency (less than a year before his party lost control of Congress), Bill Clinton's approval rating, as reported by CBS News, was 48%.

CNN.com reports that Obama's approval numbers are down three points since last month while his disapproval numbers are up four points.

Now, I live in an entirely different time zone. In fact, I would guess that I live about 1,500 miles from Boston. So I haven't seen the advertisements that have been running in the special election, but I have heard that the ads have taken a decidedly negative turn on both sides.

• The Boston Globe reported that the negative ads originated from Democratic nominee Martha Coakley's campaign.


• Then, the Globe reported, Brown retaliated with negative ads of his own.

I expect to see more of this from both sides in the last week of the campaign.

It has been suggested that an upset is brewing in Massachusetts. I don't know if that is true. But a lifetime of observing political campaigns tells me that decisions are made by those who show up.

I've heard that, in 2010, the Republican base is energized and that the Democratic base is not.

Sounds a lot like 1994 to me.