When 50% + 1 is not 50% + 1; or why Democrats did not actually win the Senate in 2020 

Sorry Democrats, you did not actually win the Senate in 2020. You did win the leadership of the Senate and technically have a majority because of it, but you have to ask yourself “what is the quality of that majority”. That is a much more difficult question. 

America likes to pretend that it is a two party system compared to the 3 to 5 party systems found in Europe. But that is not really true. America’s political parties morph far more often than party loyalists like to admit and each party does have its own wings and fracture lines. Those factions roughly fit together on most issues so they can get along enough to form a more permanent coalition. European countries often do the same thing, just not in as formal a manner. There are plenty of examples of “traditional partners” between parties that also coordinate who runs in which elections and engage in joint fund raising. Are those still small political parties working together or the same party under two different names? Is the US Democratic Party really a single political party or a lot of different interest groups working in tandem with each other? Regardless of where you land on those questions, I would say that the answers are not simply yes or no. 

So let’s say we break the standard red/blue analysis, what are we looking at? Well the obvious swing democrats at Machin, Sinema, and Tester. Machin is both an outspoken swing voter and has a history of pushing back hard against Democratic leadership on policy issues. Sinema and Tester are more mixed. Tester, representing Montana, is quieter on larger issues but does push back on the policy front, specifically on banking and agriculture. He has stated that for democrats in rural areas, the “message is really, really flawed”. Given that Tester has had more success than the rest of the party in rural red states, it is time they start to listen to him. Sinema, representing Arizona, has been very outspoken but that has not fully translated to policy changes or swing votes against major bills. There is a lot of potential for a heavy swing voter here, but only time will tell. 

Republicans carry two of the most reliable swing votes right now: Mitt Romney and Susan Collins. Mitt Romney has the guts, and defendable seat, to stand up to his own party like no one else in the Senate. He is not that moderate of a Republican, but does swing back against his own party on matters of principles with regularity. Susan Collins has a long history as both a swing vote on medical issues and often as a mediator between the right and left that finds red votes and brings them over to blue bills… if those bills are more purple than blue. With Collins, it is not a question of can you get a medical bill passed. It is a question of how much are democrats willing to give up to get that bill passed, because Collins has a record for finding the votes. 

This means instead of a 50-50 Senate we actually need to be talking about a 47-3-2-48 Senate (blue to red). That actually gives you a lot of possibilities, possibilities for both success and failure. 

Why Purple has to be the new Blue; or what happens when your party has to lose strategically because you can’t win

As much as pundits and news channels play up the split between red and blue areas, I think this is largely false except in the case of elections. The hard truth is the core of the Republican Party and the core of the Democratic Party have drifted so deep into their own echo chambers that both now find themselves in a self-sustaining block unable to reach out to members of the other party… and now unable to reach out successfully to that large block of moderate independents that swing elections. This creates an opportunity in the middle for maverick politicians. Purple Democrats can, and have, won in red states (Hello Georgia). Purple Republicans can do the same in blue states (Hi there Virginia). 

The hard truth is that if either party wants to make gains in the other color’s states, they have to recruit purple candidates. The deeper blue or deeper red a state gets, the more the candidate plays to their own party’s core but the less well they do with moderates. This creates an opportunity for the other party to steal the state with a purple candidate. The cost of this dynamic is those purple candidates often run not as a member of their own party, but as an alternative to the leading party in the state. Red states aren’t voting between a “Republican vs. Democrat”, they are in fact voting between a “Republican vs. a Purple Independent with Democratic leanings.”

This only works if the purple candidate actually stays in a pro Independent Moderates position. Fake purple candidates lose reelection fast, and often to deep blue/red opponents. This means you have to consider not just who wins, but what is the quality of that win. You can’t count on that genuine purple candidate once they reach the legislature. That means the Democratic “50” may actually be closer to a reliable 47 with the Republican reliable 48 being a stronger position. As the echo chambers within each party continue to dominate the nomination process in some states, the “winning” party in the Senate may have to get used to acting like a minority party when it comes time to actually write laws.

How to write bills for a purple legislature; or why Build Back Better failed continuously for 6 month before it officially failed

The thing you have to do when dealing with a “majority”, really 47-3-2-48, that requires purple senators is abandon the idea of giant, wide ranging bills. You are not going to get those done. Objections carry more weight than agreement in the minds of people so the larger you make a bill the more objectionable it will become. A focused, single party can work around those objections but a purple party can’t. The Build Back Better bill includes wind turbines, covering the medicaid gap, child tax credit, preschools, and funding post-high school apprenticeship programs, adding new immigration courts, etc. That is not just a lot of stuff, it is a lot of stuff to object to. For purple party members in states dominated by the other party, this is a bill filled with landmines that can sink your next campaign. It is also filled with things that you promised in your own campaign, but remember that objections outweigh agreement. 

Instead of these grand bills, the Democrats need to write small, specific bills. Let’s put these ideas into their own bills and see where we lose the purple votes and if we can make them up with swing voters from the republicans. Breaking those bills out a bit: 

• Wind Turbines: Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are all red states and are seeing a boom in new wind power projects. While there are still climate change deniers in that group of Senators, they also commonly play both sides. Denying global warming, but talking up power without smog. They will not vote for a “Green Bill to Save the Planet from Pending Doom” but will vote for a “Clean Air Infrastructure Investment” which contains all the same elements. That is an angle that can be leveraged… but not in an omnibus bill packed next to other “green” initiatives and regulations. 

• Covering the Medicaid Gap: There has always been a small number of Republicans willing to switch sides on medical issues. Remember, recently Republicans wanted to overturn Obamacare but were stopped by a fraction of 3 Republican Senators. That faction is still strong and can be leveraged again. 

• Child Tax Credit: Machin has objected strongly to this point… but many Republicans actually haven’t, they have taken no position. Polls show that 41% of Republicans support the tax credits and less taxes is core to the Republican platform. The original version of the tax credit was championed by President Ford (R), then amended on a bipartisan basis in 1997, and in 2017 the Republicans pushed to doubt the credit as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). There are clearly Republican votes that can be won here if disconnected from the rest of the act. 

• Funding Post High School Apprenticeship Programs: southern states have been pushing this line for a while now and with great success. Specifically Alabama which has been quietly building one of the best technical college systems in the country. 

• Adding New Immigration Courts: Florida, Texas, and Arizona senators have all spoken up in favor of additional immigration courts as they are often the states that deal with the influx of immigrants. That is 6 open red votes readied to be swung on this topic. 

While the Build Back Better bill has failed, I believe it is possible for Democrats to get the bulk of it into law by other means. The votes are there, it is just not always the same combination of votes. In all cases, you will need to recruit a Republican or two. There are plenty of options… but you have to actually cut a deal with them and make it happen.

… and this is where I am confused. President Biden was a US Senate for 36 years. He had a long history on both the Judiciary Committee and Foreign Relations Committee working closely with Republicans and finding a mix of both moderate and liberal issues to support. He knows this game better than anyone. How is he missing this? Louisa Terrell is his Director of Legislative Affairs. She has been working in his circle in and out for 20+ years. She is one of the few human beings liked by both Republicans and Democrats on the Hill and in interviews she is blunt about being realistic on legislative issues. I am unsure where this break down on the scope of bills is coming from.