WI: Ted Kennedy didn’t run for re-election in 2006
- Thread starter darklordoftech
- Start date
Every Democrat in Massachusetts with a pulse, but seriously at this point Sen. Kennedy has been in office since 1962 and the other seat had been held by Sen. John Kerry since 1989 so this is the best opportunity to move up to a lifetime Senate seat that any Democrat can get.
Only three incumbent Senators in Massachusetts has lost re-election since 1952 Henry Cabot Lodge to John F. Kennedy, 1978 Edward Brooke to Paul Tsongas 2012 Scott Brown to Elizabeth Warren and if you noticed all the defeated Senators were Republicans.
Only three incumbent Senators in Massachusetts has lost re-election since 1952 Henry Cabot Lodge to John F. Kennedy, 1978 Edward Brooke to Paul Tsongas 2012 Scott Brown to Elizabeth Warren and if you noticed all the defeated Senators were Republicans.
Deleted member 109224
Possible Democratic Candidates:
Niki Tsongas
Ed Markey
Martha Coakley
Mike Capuano
Joe Kennedy II?
Niki Tsongas
Ed Markey
Martha Coakley
Mike Capuano
Joe Kennedy II?
Martha Coakley ran that year for State Attorney General, she's not going to get the nod for a US Senate run.
My money is on Ed Markey. Joe Kennedy II has the usual maritial affairs bogging him down.
On the other side of the aisle, Mitt Romney definitely isn't going to run in order to prep for his presidential run, while Bill Weld is in New York. My guess would be Paul Cellucci.
As this is 2006, Ed Markey is going to win comfortably.
On the other side of the aisle, Mitt Romney definitely isn't going to run in order to prep for his presidential run, while Bill Weld is in New York. My guess would be Paul Cellucci.
As this is 2006, Ed Markey is going to win comfortably.
dcharles
Banned
In the short term, I think it's probably a wash--the right was wildly exaggerating the invasiveness of Obamacare, so I doubt that their alarmism is going to make it more controversial. In the long term, I think it probably makes it far more popular, especially in states where Medicaid wasn't expanded.
The left would be more encouraged to vote in both 2010 and 2012. Might this result in the Dems taking back the House in 2012?
dcharles
Banned
Yes, definitely. But I think it might actually be more of a scenario where people are more pissed off at the Republicans for trying to take away something that has such an obvious benefit to a lot of poor Republican constituents. What many don't realize is that some of the benefits of Obamacare in non-Medicaid expansion states just don't really redound to the poor and working class at all. They were too broke to afford insurance before, too broke to afford it now. With a public option, a lot of that group, who are typically low-participation voters--no matter who they vote for, R or D--will be brought into the political conversation.
Knock off effects on both the Republican and Democratic parties would be huge. The public option itself creates a political incentive for politicians to make it run well. Government can't distance itself from the public option operationally like it can with respect to insurance companies. It would completely alter the trajectory of Obama's second term, and with it, 2016 and beyond.
They might get closer, but unless they can really mitigate their down-ballot losses in 2010 gerrymandering and redistricting on top of the Suburban shift not quite kicking in means that the House is probably gone. Better performance in 2010 however might save their Senate majority.
Assuming a better performance carries Joe Sestak and Giannoulias over the line, Reid's majority is 55 instead of 53. You might also be able to argue that Bayh wouldn't retire right before the filing deadline given the better national environment, no Scott Brown shock, and his brand in Indiana + big war chest will likely allow him to buck the trends, bringing it up to 56-44. OTL 2012 Senate gains + Dean Heller getting toppled brings that right back up to 59-41 which is enough to ensure that Reid's Senate majority holds even if 2014 is just as bad as OTL.
That would have been butterflied. There would be no special election in TTL.
The most "obvious" change is the ACA - they had to ram it through the Senate before they potentially lost the filibuster proof majority (which became a reality with the special election). No special election and the state is guaranteed to stay Democrat until at least 2012, so you have more time to improve the bill.
That said, I'm not sure it would have made a difference in the outcome of the ACA. The leadership was more interested in browbeating the Kuciniches into submission as opposed to the Liebermans.
With largely the same bill you get largely the same electoral outcome that fall.