#08election

Yes, in the 2008 election, Democrats managed to widen their majorities in both houses of Congress.  In the 110th Congress that served from January 2007 through January 2009, Democrats held a 35 seat majority in the House and a single seat advantage in the Senate, which included Independent Senators Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom caucused with the Democrats.  The 2008 election saw that majority swell to 78 seats in the House and nine seats in the Senate.

How is that possible, you ask?  Everybody says that the Democrats had a full filibuster-proof majority?  The math doesn’t add up. If there are 100 seats in the Senate, and Republicans, as of January 2009 had only 40 of them (technically the Republicans had 41 of them initially, but we’ll get to that), doesn’t that mean that the Democrats had the remaining 60, giving them the supermajority in the Senate?

No, not necessarily, because it was a very odd year in Congressional politics.

Remember that Minnesota Senatorial election in 2008?  The one that pitted former SNL writer/cast member and Air America Radio host Al Franken against Republican incumbent Norm Coleman?  That race dragged on forever, resulting in several challenges and recounts until the Minnesota Supreme Court finally concluded on June 30th, 2009, that Franken was indeed the winner.  Franken wasn’t sworn into office until July 7th, 2009, a full six months after the 111th Congress had taken charge.

But there is more. Even if Franken had been seated at the beginning of the legislative session, the Democrats still would only have had a 59-41 seat edge.  It wasn’t until late April of 2009 that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter defected from the Republican Party to caucus with the Democrats.  Without Franken, the Dems only had 58 votes.

But the Dems didn’t have a consistent, reliable 58 votes.  Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy was terminally ill with a brain tumor, and could only muster up the energy to vote on selected legislation.  His presence could not be counted on, and thus his vote in the Senate could not be counted on.  During the first year of the Obama presidency, due to his illness Kennedy missed 261 out of a possible 270 votes in the Senate, denying the Democrats the 60th vote necessary to break a filibuster.  In March of 2009, he stopped voting altogether.  It wasn’t until Kennedy passed away in late August, 2009, and an interim successor was named on September 24th, 2009, that the Democrats actually had 60 votes.

And even then the 60 vote supermajority was tenuous at best.  At the time, then 91 year old Robert Byrd from West Virginia was in frail health.  During the last 6 months of 2009, Byrd missed 128 of a possible 183 votes in the Senate.  Byrd passed away on June 28, 2010 at the age of 92.

In all, Democrats had a shaky 60 vote supermajority for all of four months and one week: from the time Kennedy’s interim successor Paul Kirk was sworn in on September 24th until the time Republican Scott Brown was sworn in as Kennedy’s “permanent” replacement after his special election victory over Democratic disappointment, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.  In a state that is heavily Democratic, it seems that Coakley figured she didn’t have to actually campaign for the Senate seat, that Massachusetts voters would automatically elect the Democrat to replace the legendary Kennedy.  No way Massachusetts would send a Republican to replace Ted Kennedy.  Brown took the election seriously, Coakley did not, and Brown won (he did, however, lose the seat to Elizabeth Warren, and all was right with the world again).