The Discussion Democrats Need to Have

by Josh Weisman



The Senate Democratic Caucus currently consists of 47 members. In order to pass any
progressive legislation in 2021-2028, a (hopefully) Democratic president will need a majority in
the Senate, so let’s break it down. The path to a Senate majority means flipping Arizona,
Colorado, and Maine and holding all other seats. With Alabama Senator Doug Jones likely to
lose re-election, Democrats need 1 more seat for 50 seats and two more for outright control. If
Stacey Abrams runs for Senate in Georgia next year, this is the best option.
However, if the environment is very Democratic friendly and Democrats nominate
excellent candidates, then other seats are flippable. In the 2014 North Carolina Senate race,
Republican Thom Tillis beat incumbent Democratic Senator Kay Hagan by 1.5%. In Iowa,
Republican Joni Ernst flipped the Senate seat by an 8.3% margin with five-term Democratic
incumbent Tom Harkin not running for a sixth term. In 2018, Democrats won 3 out of 4 House
seats, Steve King only won by 3.3%, and Democrat Fred Hubbell lost by only 2.8% to the
incumbent Republican governor. With 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates spending a
considerable amount of time in Iowa, maybe the grassroots energy could help flip a Senate
seat. Finally, in 2014, Republican Dan Sullivan beat incumbent Democratic Senator Mark
Begich by 2.2%.

Arizona Democrats won four statewide races in 2018 including Kyrsten Sinema
defeating Martha McSally to replace outgoing Senator Jeff Flake. McSally was later appointed
to fill the seat vacated by former Senator Jon Kyl who was appointed to fill the vacancy left by
the passing of Senator McCain. In order to beat McSally again in the 2020 special election,
Democrats should follow the same path and platform Sinema took. She is a moderate who ran a
centrist campaign which included a statement explaining she would need more time and would
need to meet with Kavanaugh before deciding on confirmation. Also, she doesn’t support
Medicare-for-All, and although she voted no on the final version of the 2017 GOP tax bill, she
voted yes in a vote during the legislative process.  Likewise, in 2017, she voted in line with
President Trump about half the time.

Progressives and especially the Bernie part of the caucus have beef with moderates
(like Joe Manchin) as believing they are not Democrats. It’s naive to think that a Democratic
socialist or someone running on a Bernie-like platform can flip consistently red states. We see
someone like AOC win a primary on that platform, but that’s in a NYC district which is a
guaranteed general election win based on Democrats essentially always winning urban districts.
With Democrats winning back the House in 2018, people may believe that since the
Party has moved left since 2016 that the candidates were running on progressive ideas such as
Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal. However, that’s not the case. 22 of the 30 freshmen
New Democrats come from districts that lean Republican. Here is an excerpt from a recent Vox
article that gives some more detail on the freshman Democrats.

These members are less interested in a 70 percent top tax rate or a Green New Deal
than they are in passing targeted fixes to protect the Affordable Care Act and lower the
cost of health care, promoting renewable energy, and maybe looking for an
infrastructure deal to fix crumbling roads and boost rural broadband to speed up slow
internet in their districts. They’re happy to discuss the more ambitious policy ideas
animating the left, like Medicare-for-all, but they still have serious reservations.
The discussion Democrats need to have surrounds the idea of moderates as well as
moderate legislation. In terms of moderates, there are two types. There are the moderates such
as Manchin and Sinema whose ideological scores fall somewhat around the middle.

Additionally, there are moderates such as Klobuchar who work across the aisle to get legislation
passed. During the 115th Congress, Klobuchar introduced the most bills, got the most bipartisan
cosponsors on her bills, got her bills out of committee the 2nd most often, and wrote the 3rd
most laws compared with anyone else in the Democratic caucus. To look at how effective
moderates are, let’s examine the last time one party controlled the White House and both
chambers of Congress. Moderates such as Murkowski, (8 laws written during 115th Congress),
Portman (8), Collins (6), and Flake (6) wrote more laws than the four most conservative
senators which were Inhofe (3), Enzi (2), Cotton (2), and Rounds (1). People talk about how
politics is broken, and DC is always gridlocked. Clearly, the moderate lawmakers typically do a
better job at LAW MAKING which is obviously what their job is.

When discussing politics, there’s some value to labels because there’s a clear difference
between Bernie and Manchin, but politicians and voters never 100% fit their respective labels or
identity. The Democratic Caucus has two Senate seats in Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Vermont, and Maryland, but all 4 states re-elected GOP governors in 2018. Trump won West
Virginia by 43% in 2016, but Manchin won re-election by 3.3% in 2018. The main goal of
Republicans since 2010 was to repeal and replace the ACA, but Collins, Murkowski, and
McCain voted no.

This moderate discussion also includes legislation. The ACA is a moderate healthcare
expansion law that was born from The Heritage Foundation’s individual mandate and modeled
after “Romneycare” in Massachusetts. Context is key as to why it’s not “progressive.”
Democrats had a filibuster-proof 60 Senate vote majority for some of 2009-2010 and
used that to pass the ACA. This meant everyone had to be on board, so when Joe Lieberman
and a group of senators demanded a public option be withdrawn from the final bill, it had to be
done. What gets lost is why they held this position. A public option would mean millions of
people moving away from private insurance. These companies would lose business and as a
result may cut jobs. Lieberman represented Connecticut whose capital Hartford is the
“Insurance Capital of the world.” An elected official will rarely vote for a bill that could mean
fewer jobs for their constituents.

However, the ACA is an achievement in numerous ways. More than 20 million
Americans gained coverage which cut the uninsured rate in half. It created the 10 essential
health benefits that every plan must include which are: 1. ambulatory patient services
(outpatient services), 2. emergency services, 3. hospitalization, 4. maternity and newborn care,
5. mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, 6.
prescription drugs, 7. rehabilitative and habilitative services (those that help patients acquire,
maintain, or improve skills necessary for daily functioning) and devices, 8. laboratory services,
9. preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, and 10. pediatric
services, including oral and vision care. Additionally, people with pre-existing conditions cannot
be denied coverage, and it banned lifetime caps. I could go on and on, but the most important
impact is that it moved the goalposts for universal health care. Since we know the ACA and its
implementation weren’t perfect, policymakers have drafted legislation to expand upon it (like
Medicare-for-all). Since there’s no issue (pro-choice vs pro-life, bigger vs. smaller government,
etc.) that holds up through either party or its voters, I think it’s dumb for voters to pick out a
piece of proposed legislation or a label to use as a litmus test. Even Bernie has said Medicare-
for-all isn’t a litmus test for Democrats. What does unite the Democratic Caucus is protecting the
ACA which is healthcare expansion.

So, if it’s a 50-52 seat majority, we need the conservative part of the caucus on board
(Manchin, Tester, Sinema, maybe Jones, and probably at least 1 2020 Democratic Senate flip)
just like we did for the ACA. As mentioned before, Sinema is against Medicare-for-all, but she
could always change her position. Tester and Manchin have not ruled out supporting it. Tester
said, “Maybe it’s something we should, quite frankly, take a solid look at.” Manchin said, "It
should be explored” but is “skeptical.”

Any Democratic legislation would likely require the removal of the legislative filibuster or
budget reconciliation. I’m not sure the votes are there to get rid of the filibuster. In early 2017, 61
senators including 32 Democrats sent a letter to McConnell to uphold the 60-vote threshold.
Since that time, two Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed mostly on party lines.
Several 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidates and Democrat Chris Coons have yet
to fully move on from the filibuster.
Dylan Scott, a reporter for Vox, recently broke down what budget reconciliation means
for Medicare-for-All. It’s an extremely great read, and I highly recommend it. The difficulties
mentioned likely apply for any progressive legislation such as a Green New Deal. And this
assumes Democrats have the White House and Senate and can get at least 50 senators on
board.
Legislating ultimately comes down to compromise, so the entire caucus must come
together on any legislation under the next president. The biggest takeaway is the moderate wing
will ultimately decide whether unified Democratic control of DC passes any progressive agenda.
This may inhibit large-scale progress, but as Obama has said in the past, “Better is good.”