Heavy Blow

The Democrats have lost their control over the Senate following the surprise victory of little-known Republican state senator Scott Brown in the race to succeed Edward M. Kennedy as one of Massachusetts' two senators. The Democrats' Martha Coakley, Massachusetts' attorney-general, saw a wide poll lead evaporate in the final weeks as her opponent built populist appeal and exploited voter concerns over healthcare reforms. Ironically, Massachusetts should be one state where the healthcare reforms should not be a big issue—it has already introduced an overhaul that helped inspire the national plans. In the end, Brown's margin was decisive, with 52% of the vote to Coakley's 47%. He did particularly well in rural areas of the state and in the outer suburbs of Boston. Coakley's strongest support was in major urban areas such as Boston itself. Kennedy had occupied the seat for nearly 50 years up until his death in August and he was a key champion of the healthcare reforms that his successor could now scupper. Coakley did not help herself with a rather low-key campaign and some widely publicised gaffes.

Brown won the vocal support of the influential right-wing anti-establishment "tea party" movement with positions including support for water-boarding terrorist suspects, a hard line on illegal immigrants, and opposition to cap-and-trade carbon emissions policies. These views are at odds with the mainstream in what is usually a strongly Democratic state, but his victory shows how independents have drifted away from the Democrats in recent months. The Republican leadership is of course celebrating the victory in Massachusetts, but it has problems of its own as the "tea party" lobby has sought to dominate the party and marginalise moderates. The leadership is caught in a dilemma over whether to embrace the populist right-wing agenda wholeheartedly when this may jeopardise national votes where moderate voters need to be courted. The Republican leadership kept a generally low profile in the Massachusetts campaign.

Legislative Deadlock?

The defeat would be a heavy political blow to the administration in any circumstances, but it is all the more critical because of the seat arithmetic in the Senate. The Democrats, allied with two Independents, currently have precisely 60 seats in the 100-seat chamber. This is the magic number that allows them to overcome Republican blocking tactics ("filibusters") and go it alone on legislation. If they are short of 60 votes they either need to win over moderate Republicans or resort to controversial procedural methods to get legislation through in smaller chunks.

The biggest immediate question is whether the Democrats can steer the ambitious healthcare reforms through Congress. They have a handful of options, none of which is especially palatable:

• The House of Representatives simply approves the Senate draft without amendments. This would mean that the Senate did not need to vote again, but it would entail the representatives abandoning their preferences. There are significant differences between the two chambers' versions, and a significant number of Democratic representatives could rebel against such a move. The Democrats do nonetheless have a relatively comfortable majority in that chamber, so this option is one of the more likely. There is moreover the option of introducing changes to the legislation after it is passed.
• The Senate votes before Scott takes up his seat. This tactic would be highly controversial as it would seemingly go against the stated will of voters. It is also a major challenge for Senate Democrats to agree on a new text in time. There has been talk of holding up Scott's arrival with procedural tactics, but Democratic senators have been distancing themselves from this of late. One centrist Democratic senator, Jim Webb of Virginia, has urged any votes to be suspended until Brown is sworn in.
• Piecemeal reforms are pushed through with the help of procedural tactics. Scaled-back plans could be pushed through with special procedural rules that bypass the threat of filibuster. This would provoke loud criticism from Republicans and the reforms themselves would lose some of their potency.
• Centrist Republicans are won over. This option is not out of the question—some moderate Republicans worked on the legislative drafts and the comparatively centrist reforms should, on paper, be palatable for them. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine is one of the most likely converts. However, the political landscape has become so polarised and the right-wing "tea party" movement so influential that Republican moderates are extremely wary of showing any kind of support for Obama's agenda.

These options may not be palatable, but there is still a strong desire among Democrats to prevail on healthcare after all the months of fraught build-up. Reform plans have faltered under numerous presidents and Obama remains determined not to join their number.

Outlook and Implications

The result is certainly ominous for Democrats who are up for re-election at this November's mid-term elections. It will galvanise them and energise their campaigns, but it may also prompt them to distance themselves from the more ambitious elements of Obama's programme. For Obama himself there is a difficult choice between adopting a more bipartisan approach to win over sufficient Republican support in the Senate, and a confrontational approach that would appeal to the party's liberal core but which would mean minimal legislative progress. He has already come under attack from liberals for being too pragmatic; by embracing bipartisanship he may end up impressing no-one and the Democrats could lose even more heavily in November. Key legislation that he intended to push through this year includes tighter financial sector regulation and carbon emissions reduction measures. Both are potentially in jeopardy, as are many less high-profile policies. Obama has already signalled that he intends to adopt a more populist line than in the past, picking easy targets such as Wall Street bankers. He will also need to improve his fiscal image—one of the major complaints voiced by independent voters is that he is fiscally reckless and building up dangerously high debt levels. Obama's supporters deny that he is being reckless, but this message needs to be broadcast more effectively. Job creation is also likely to figure more strongly, a topic that will appeal to poorer Americans who should be the Democrats' core constituency.

Global Insight (Reino Unido)