John Lacny wrote:
>Nathan Newman asks:
>
>> And how pray tell, can the Democrats exercise "party discipline"
>> on Senators who choose to defy them? The Republicans who
>> control executive and legislative power can discipline their
>> caucus by threatening to deny them pork for their districts or
>> otherwise threaten their reelection
>
>Stop, Nathan! You are engaging in "the concrete analysis of concrete
>conditions," and that is not permitted in discussions like this.
-Wait a minute - the Dem leadership can't cut off campaign funding for -the disobedient, or run opponents against them in primaries?
Doug-- You don't understand how it works. Incumbents raise money FOR the party, not the other way around. Individual Senators are powerhouse fundraisers who, if they feel safe in their own seat, send money for the party to fund challengers or the occasionally weak incumbent. But the latter only acount to a handful of Senators in any year.
And it would be a bit of a game of chicken for the Dem leadership to cut off funding for the handful of Senators who might get some money, since they'd be weakening their own power to allow a Republican to take the seat. Running folks in the primary is a more viable option, but again its a big gamble to waste money on a primary challenge against an established incumbent.
But as I said, most Senators don't even need the money, so there is zero leverage over most of them.
On big critical issues, they might pull out all stops. But since it's not even that effective, it would have to be reserved for a big issue. Given that Roberts will get confirmed no matter what, nuclear option if needed, why waste the ammo?
Nathan Newman