Hello Strategists. I am another "probationary" blogger who graciously has been afforded the opportunity to entertain y'all with thought-provoking and well-conceived posts. A few short words about me: I'm an attorney in Los Angeles whose real passion is politics; my interests center around gay rights and, of course, getting Democrats elected. Although this is my first official foray into the blogosphere, I am (like Nathan below) a long-time Kossack.

As a shout out to this blog's name, my first post is about strategy. While the prospect of John Kerry’s victory is tantalizing, it is potentially complicating in terms of control of the Senate. This should not come as any surprise, but the importance is sometimes underappreciated. Even if temporary, control of the Senate by Republicans during the first few months of Kerry’s term will impact confirmations of Kerry’s cabinet nominees, passage of critical legislation, and possibly even the budget resolution. So what should be done about it?

The Background: Currently, Massachusetts law gives the Governor power to appoint a (temporary) replacement to fill any Senate vacancy. The Massachusetts legislature has passed, with veto-proof majorities, legislation requiring a special election to fill the seat between 145 and 160 days after the Senator files a letter of resignation (even if the actual vacancy occurs later). A veto from Massachusetts Governor Romney (R-Utah) is almost certain (he must act by July 24), as is the subsequent veto override.

Kerry's Options:

1. Resign January 20, 2005, upon taking the Presidential oath of office. Perhaps the dumbest idea. The earliest a replacement election would take place is June 14, 2005. In a closely divided Senate, 6 months is too long to go being short one Democrat.

2. Resign on November 3, 2005. A special election would be held between March 28, 2005 and April 12, 2005. That's two or three months being short one Democrat.

3. Resign when the new Massachusetts law become effective. Depending on when that is, a special election would likely be held early in January 2005. Note: the language I read in the new law is, to me anyway, confusing as to whether a special election could be held on November 3, 2004. My conclusion is that could not.

There are only two arguments against immediate (or near immediate) resignation. The first: it would leave Massachusetts with only one Senator. The significance, apparently, is that constituent service would somehow suffer, but Senator Kennedy's constituent service is legendary. In any event, according to media reports and legislative summaries (I haven't found a copy of the bill as amended), the legislation allows a special election to be called upon the submission of a resignation letter even if the resignation is effective at a later date. The second: Kerry might lose. Well, c'mon. Either take the plunge or not. It's for the best of the party. Even Dole did it in 1996. (Joementum Lieberman, you'll remember, decided to stand for re-election while also running for Vice President - a situation permitted by Connecticut law - even though a Republican governor would appoint his replacement. Well....whatever.)

The arguments for immediate resignation - well, their weight depends on what odds you give for a 50-50 Senate-elect come November 3. I, for one, am not willing to take the chance. Many argue that Kerry should have resigned a few months ago, thus requiring a special election to fill his seat this November, even under the current law. Although the result likely would have been a Republican Senator for 6 months, the Senate is (after all) already under Republican control. As an added bonus, a November special probably would've cut down on the number of Democrats running, since many Representatives might've balked at giving up a safe House seat for a chance at the Senate. In any event, Kerry has the chance now to minimize the negative impact from his grabbing the brass ring. He should.