Saxby Chambliss’ flattening of Jim Martin, 57-43, Tuesday night in Georgia ensured the Democrats cannot get to a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate, but what else did it do? It changed the cost-benefit analysis for Democratic senators on jumping into the fray for Al Franken, whose close battle with Norm Coleman is meeting with mixed results in the courts, leading to speculation that the Democratic senate might decide the issue, ala Wyman vs. Durkin. It’s hard to imagine Obama, invested enough in his post-partisan image that he wouldn’t risk it to stump for Martin, wanting the Senate to go to the mats for a 59th vote in what would surely be perceived as partisan overreach. Democratic senators up for reelection in 2010 will have to wonder whether gaining a foul-mouthed comedian through aggressive means will help their fortunes, especially when Chambliss’ victory shows that Obama’s coattails are shrinking:
The bottom line: The Obama campaign did a magnificent job of turning out black voters in rural and small-town counties in Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia for the November 4 election. But it was not able to replicate those results in the Georgia runoff. Black turnout pretty much matched white turnout in the inner Atlanta area, where black political organizations have been active for many years, but it failed to do so in the outer suburbs with increasing black majorities and in North Georgia counties with few blacks. Black turnout did match statewide levels in black-majority cities in southern Georgia, but not enough to outweigh similar white turnout in adjacent suburban counties. As the analysts at NBC News suggest, Obama coattails that were helpful to many newly elected Democrats in the South in November 2008 may not be so helpful to them in 2010 and any special elections that occur between now and then. That suggests another hypothesis: that the Obama turnout effort among blacks may not be replicable. You can only vote to elect the first black president once.
Chuck Todd, speaking on “Morning Joe” this week about contacts with senior Dems, indicated even they are wary about opening the Hollywood floodgates with a Franken victory:
TODD: The concern is this on Franken. If Franken wins and, you know, who knows? When you are at the point they’re in, it’s a tie and it really goes down to how many votes are left to count and what gets counted and this and that. So it’s a tie which tells you voters didn’t want either guy. That’s another whole story. The concern according to a couple of Democrats on Franken was then everybody on the left on the hollywood left would try and run for office. You know, the Tim Robbinses. They were half-joking, but half-serious. There would be concern you can run anybody now. It’s that easy to become a U.S. Senator or a governor, and that if Franken loses, it would be a little bit of a reality check for the Hollywood Left that, you know what? This isn’t so easy. You can’t just esopuse – just jump out and espouse little things and get elected.
Chambliss’ win reinforced the picture of Sarah Palin as a base-rallying political superstar who’s more than willing to be a team player, even as criticism of her persists:
“I can’t overstate the impact she had down here,” Chambliss said during an interview Wednesday morning on Fox News. “When she walks in a room, folks just explode,” he added. “And they really did pack the house everywhere we went. She’s a dynamic lady, a great administrator, and I think she’s got a great future in the Republican Party.”
Finally, James Taranto cheers a win for decency in politics, as Chambliss’ win will put to rest the idea that he won in 2002 by attacking Max Cleland’s patriotism:
Cleland was seeking a second term in 2002 when Chambliss ran against him. Chambliss criticized Cleland’s voting record–specifically, his repeated votes against the legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security. Cleland and fellow Democrats objected to provisions in the law that gave the new department more flexibility vis-Ã -vis union work rules. Chambliss accused Cleland of cravenly pandering to special interests. Democrats, unable to defend Cleland’s position on the merits, falsely accused Chambliss of questioning Cleland’s patriotism–and thereby introduced into the debate the notion that Cleland’s patriotism was in question… This year, Democrats hoped to exact revenge for Cleland’s 2002 loss by defeating Chambliss. Had Martin prevailed, there’s little doubt his fellow Democrats would have claimed vindication for their McCarthyite effort to smear Cleland as a man whose patriotism is in question. Chambliss’s win therefore should be seen as a victory for civility and decency in politics.
Surely, the party of Obama the Political Healer can get behind that.
