Skip to main content

There is a difference, people, between seats and votes.  The right understands this.  The left does not.  This is why 41 is greater than 59.  When the time comes to actually pass legislation, it's not about the number of seats your party has- how many people have the right letter behind their name, but rather how many elected officials stand up and say "yea", even if they have a different letter after their name.

Stating it plainly and simply, like this, everyone goes "duh!  Of course!  Obvious!"  But this fact isn't accepted by many people on the left (including a large contingent of people on this blog), and this is why the Democrats are perpetually weak and spineless- and why it is that 41 is greater than 59.

So I'm going to spell out the logic.  And many people, including probably you, Reader, won't like the implications.  But until we come to grips with this simple fact, and more importantly the implications of this fact, we are doomed to failure.

So, let's start with the title of this diary.  Why is it, that the Republicans, with a mere 41 Senators, are so much more powerful than the Democrats are?  And why weren't the Democrats, when they were in a 49-51 minority (and thus in a much stronger minority position than the Republicans are in now) no where near as effective in blocking Republican proposals?  The answer is that this is counting seats, not votes.  Yes, we have 59 people in the Senate with D's after their name (well, technically 57 and 2 I's which are normally counted in).  

But do we have 59 votes in the Senate?  Ignore, for a moment, whether that is "enough", can we get 59?  On a public option?  On cap and trade?  On financial regulation?  On DADT?  Heck no.  On most of these things, we'll be lucky to get 50 votes.  And without 50 Senators willing to stand up and say "yea", the bill doesn't get passed.  The real split in the Senate is probably much closer to 50-50, and may even have the real Democrats (those who support the public option, financial regulation, etc.) in the minority.  I'm not even talking liberal here- if we had 50 liberals, we'd have single payer.

We need to stop thinking in terms of seats, and start thinking in terms of votes.

But the difference doesn't stop there.  Here's a dozy, one that you're likely to reject on first glance: it's possible to increase the number of votes you have by decreasing the number of seats you have.

This works because Senators, and elected officials in general, pay attention to what happens to other elected officials, especially elected officials in the same body they're in.  And punishing one elected official for defection (voting against the party- being a seat, not a vote), by forcing them out of office, makes other elected officials less likely to defect (vote against the party).

An example makes this more clear.  Let's say there is a vote coming up on some issue, let's call it Health Care Reform.  This it's important to you that this bill fail.  But you have, let's say four Senators who are waffling.  They may vote for the bill, they may vote against it.  Call these Senators Specter, Snow, Collins, and Voinovich.  To make the math easy, let's assume each Senator has a 50% chance of voting for or against the bill.  So, your party has four seats, but how many votes does it have?  Obviously, out of those four senators, you likely have only two votes- in 11 out of 16 equally likely scenarios at least two of those Senators vote for the bill.

But now you pick one of the Senators- Specter, say- and punish him for his likely defection, by eliminating him in the primary.  By doing this, you are reducing the number of seats you have- either Specter will switch parties, or your guy will lose, in either case the seat will go to the other party.  But in doing so, all three remaining Senators- Snow, Collins, and Voinovich- all become certain nay votes.  For they know that if they don't vote nay, they too will be punished.  This means you now have 3 solid nay votes, where you used to have only 2 if you're lucky.

I didn't pick these names by chance, I think this is exactly what happened.  Did you happen to notice, while we here on the left were all high-fiving each other over Toomey's challenge of Specter, that basically no one on the right said anything about this?  That there basically were no mea-culpas, not even any "did we screw up"s?  And that, while back last spring and early summer it was often discussed that several of the more moderate Republicans, especially Snow and Collins, would likely vote for health care, that hope too died at about the same time?

The Republicans didn't screw up by kicking Specter out in the primary, even though that lost them their seat.  It gained them votes.

Now, obviously there are limits to this sort of logic.  A given official, no matter how motivated, can't stand up and say yea more than once.  Once there is a 100% chance (or at least as high as it can go) that Snow, Collins, and Voinovich are all going to vote against the bill, ejecting another one via a primary challenge reduces both the number of seats and the number of votes.

The Republican party is united to an extent that makes the Borg nervous, because the Republican base has demonstrated repeatedly that people who do not tow the line will get punished at election time.  The Democratic base, on the other hand, refuses to punish it's officials.  All they have to do is say the magic words- "it's us or the Republicans", and we'll come running.

Yes, this means we will have to attack politicians who have a (D) after their names.  Yes, this means that in many cases, the seat will flip, and instead of having a bad Democrat we'll have a worse Republican.  This is anathema to many on this site, who would much rather have a nice party, one where everyone can feel good about themselves and no mean words are said, rather than a party that actually enacts progressive legislation.

Or at least prevents the worst reactionary legislation.  Listen up, people- as much as we may not like this, another Republican president and a return of Republican control of either or both houses of Congress is inevitable.  But consider this- run the Bush years back again, but imagine there were 41 Democratic votes (not just seats, votes) in the Senate, willing to stand up and say NO.  NO to stupid tax cuts and stupid wars.  NO to the PATRIOT ACT and No Child Left Behind.  NO to being bought, bullied, or bribed, because of the sure and certain knowledge that if they didn't, they'd be looking for a new job come next election.  What is working for the Republicans can work for us- if we're willing to do what is necessary to make it happen.

But, campaign rhetoric not withstanding, I don't hold out a lot of hope. Primary challenge Mary Landreiu or Ben Nelson or Bart Stupak?  Heaven forbid!  Why, they might be replaced by Republicans, and then where would we be?

Originally posted to bhurt on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 08:52 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    "History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells, 'Can't you remember anything I told you?' and lets fly with a club." --John W. Campbell

    by bhurt on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 08:52:39 PM PST

  •  The flaw in your logic is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, optimusprime, ETF

    The Republicans will consolidate power and basically stage a coup.  And we will be left with NOTHING.  AT.  ALL.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White

    by zenbassoon on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 08:58:50 PM PST

  •  My husband has promised (0+ / 0-)

    to vote Republican rather than for our blue dog representative.

  •  I think that (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    most of us understand the dynamic that you are writing about. Some agree that the Democratic party needs to take a few risks and some say that we have to get Dems in at any cost.

    Both points of view are valid.

    Quick tip, your diary could do with a hard edit - lose all the assumptions about your audience and the imaginary conversations.

    Harry Reid's lack of backbone is an act, his obstructionism isn't.

    by stevej on Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 09:09:42 PM PST

  •  it's going to be a massacre of do-nothing Dems (0+ / 0-)

    in November, no matter what we say or do here.  All the signs pretty much say that voters are going to let conservaDems and 'moderate' Republicans bite the dust this go-around.

    I hate the idea (and the reality) of partisan defeat, but I'm pretty close to liking the thought of the wolves having at the useless, decadent idiots in the Senate in particular.  C'mon in, they taste like chicken, fellas.  Have some barbeque sauce and a tenderizer for Blue Dogs, though they're hardly tough meat.  Take some extra ones along as snacks!

  •  It's actually NOT that simple (0+ / 0-)

    The Republicans "win" because they're craven and power-hungry Machiavellians. They can stick together and be obstructionist because they don't CARE what happens to the country -- they only care about maintaining power (or they're so clueless as to believe their own rhetoric).

    Anyone who's ever been six years old knows it's impossible to play with someone whose more than happy to destroy everything if he or she doesn't get his or her way. But that's what we're dealing with the Republicans.

    So is the solution to play the way they do? Alas, it's tempting, but no, if we do what they do, they "win" there too.

    Remember: they don't care what happens to the country! We do. It gives them a big, big advantage.

    But that's the problem with having ethics and principles: you can't behave like a six year-old.

    Explore "Brent's Brain" at

    by BrentHartinger on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 12:23:55 AM PST

    •  Anyone who's ever been six years old (0+ / 0-)

      remembers that if you beat the shit out of that kid he learned to compromise. Just saying...

    •  It's not about ethics and principles... (0+ / 0-)

      Remember: they don't care what happens to the country! We do. It gives them a big, big advantage.

      The understanding that is easy to miss here, imo, is that one party/R is unquestionably in the pocket of corporations, private equity firms, Wall St. (the usual suspects), Some elected officials of the other party/D are too, to a greater extent than their rhetoric would have us believe. (And we did believe the "ethical, principled" campaign rhetoric in 2008, didn't we? I did. Thanks, Lucy, I fell for the old football trick once again.)

      Example: Senator Dodd and financial regulation. Other "more prominent" names come to mind, but I don't want to set off a firestorm. This is a rational diary, making an important point.

  •  Straw Man (0+ / 0-)

    No one is saying NOT to primary challenge Landreiu or Nelson or Stupak.

    What we are saying is if they survive the primary challenge , keep them in their seat because they are still better than their Republican teabagger opponents, even if it is by a microscopic amount in certain cases.

    Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

    by Whimsical on Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 03:26:38 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site