If Holder and Democrats want to learn anything from Harry Reid’s legacy, it should be this: If you want to govern, you have to win elections first.
In response to the news of Harry Reid’s death, former attorney general Eric Holder tweeted:
Harry Reid was a giant of the Senate and a great American. He did much to improve the lives of people too often forgotten by those in Washington. Many Democrats today need a dose of his toughness as we confront those determined to undermine our democracy. https://t.co/KYDSkiwAzj
— Eric Holder (@EricHolder) December 29, 2021
Merits of his political efforts aside, Harry Reid was indeed an effective Senate majority leader for Democrats, far more effective than Chuck Schumer. But if Holder thinks it’s “toughness” that made Reid effective, he’s deluding himself and his party. Reid may have been tough, but he had something that matters far more than any personality trait.
Reid had 60 senators.
2008 was a great year for Democratic Senate candidates. They had help from Barack Obama’s coattails, but they were winning in places that Obama lost, places that seem unthinkable today: Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota.
By the summer of 2009, after Arlen Specter switched parties and Al Franken was seated after the disputed Minnesota election, there were 60 senators caucusing with Reid. That majority was so big that even after the historic Republican wave in the 2010 midterms, Reid was still majority leader.
In 2012, Democrats won Senate elections in Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Ohio, and Florida. Nine years is a long time in politics, but it’s not ancient history, especially considering the prevailing narrative on the left today that says the Senate is structurally rigged against Democrats.
Nothing about the structure of the Senate changed between 2012 and today. The “Big Sort” has had more time to play out, but it’s hard to chalk up such a dramatic swing in fortunes to something as slow-moving as demographic trends. Indiana and Missouri didn’t go from battleground to solid-red because people moved.
What changed? Democrats under Harry Reid understood the Senate for what it was. They understood they had to win statewide elections to earn Senate seats. They nominated candidates and funded them accordingly. And guess what? They won a bunch of elections!
Under Reid, it would have been unthinkable to let a sure loser like Amy McGrath suck up national media attention and $80 million in fundraising challenging Mitch McConnell. A weak and scandal-tinged candidate like Cal Cunningham wouldn’t have been the nominee in a competitive state. A nationwide slogan as obviously self-destructive as “defund the police” would have been disavowed immediately and explicitly by every candidate. Senate Democrats rarely made mistakes like those under Reid’s leadership.
They nominated boring, inoffensive candidates — such as Mark Begich, Joe Donnelly, Bill Nelson, Heidi Heitkamp, Mark Pryor, Mark Udall, and Jeanne Shaheen — and let them run campaigns suited to their strengths in their states. They turned out their base and won independents (Politics 101). And it’s not like they were a bunch of moderates, either. They voted in lockstep with President Obama when they arrived in Washington.
Perhaps Reid was able to appreciate these dynamics because he was from Nevada, geographically separated from the coastal progressive politics that are so toxic to many Americans. But it probably wasn’t any personal quality of Reid that made him effective.
Chuck Schumer can take a “dose of toughness” every day for the rest of this congress. It won’t change the fact that he only has 50 Democratic senators. It won’t change the fact that Democrats under his leadership lost winnable Senate races in North Carolina, Maine, Iowa, and Montana in 2020.
Control of Congress has never been more up for grabs. Majorities of 60 percent or more were normal for most of American history. Neither party has held over 60 percent of the seats in either chamber since 1995. Stop complaining that it’s unfair that California only gets two senators. Knock doors, run ads, shake hands, kiss babies — win elections.
The Democratic Party under Harry Reid was much better at winning Senate elections than the Democratic Party today. And Reid did stuff that Democrats wanted: passed Obamacare, passed Dodd-Frank, passed the stimulus, nuked the filibuster, and lied about Mitt Romney not paying taxes. If Holder and Democrats want to learn anything from Harry Reid’s legacy, it should be this: If you want to govern, you have to win elections first.