There are all sorts of close elections. We all remember Florida in 2000. I intensely remember the Pennsylvania House in 1978, where the Democrats had 101 seats (down from 118) and the Republicans had 101 seats (up from 84), and the tie-breaking Adams County district was tied on election day. Ultimately, the Democrats won the Adams county seat, but lost control of the House anyway when a Democratic incumbent in the Allentown area died in his twenties and the Republicans won the special election.
This year is another cliffhanger. The Democrats have 101 solid seats (up from 93.) The Republicans have 99 solid seats, and two probable seats (down from 109). And then there is West Chester, proud home of West Chester State College, where the Republicans lead by 19 with over 200 absentee and provisional ballots outstanding.
Neither party knows who is going to win. The Republican attorneys are playing the percentages, and challenging the sealed absentee ballots and provisional ballots of voters they believe are likely to vote Democratic. Democratic attorneys are working to have the vote of every registered voter count, even if election officials or voters made mistakes in processing these ballots.
Out of this mess comes serious questions. How big was the student turnout? How can we make it bigger next time? What are the effects of delay and deadlock going to be? How will the legislative calendar change if the Democrats get into power?
The last question is the easiest to answer. Progressive legislation, especially popular progressive legislation, is not going to be bottled up indefinitely.
While we will still often need Republican votes, our bargaining position with the Republicans will be immeasurably bettered if we, not they, control the agenda and the timing of the legislation.
Expanded health care protections, expanded minimum wage protections, expanded senior citizens benefits are just three of the many policy goals that would be strengthened by an empowered Democratic majority, even a paper thin one.
Democrats are talking about getting one or more Republicans to switch parties--a Republican trick that gave the Republicans control of the House after the 1994 elections and control of the Senate after the 1980 elections. Both of these decisive switchers never won an election again.
In a blatant act of political partisanship, Philadelphia Inquirer writer Mario Cattabiani--at http://www.philly.com-- has a front-page story in today's Sunday paper recounting the sad saga of Democrat to Republican switcher Tom Stish, one of the top targeted Democrats in 1994, who immediately switched to the Republicans following the election of Republican Governor Tom Ridge.
In his exclusive interview with Cattabiani, Stish tells of how the stress of his switch cost him friendships and his marriage, as well as his legislative seat. Stish urges others not to follow his example, an example he says was the biggest mistake he ever made in his life.
The irony here is incredible. First Stish costs us the House majority in 1994 by switching to the Republicans after the Democrats poured in huge amounts of time and money to his re-election campaign. Even though we defeated Stish in 1996, having the majority strengthened the Republicans' ability to win other seats, and they held on ever since.
And now Stish--a cousin of Rudy Giulani's third and current wife--is publicly lobbying against any Republican switches to the Democrats by telling how switching cost him so much and the party he switched to proved so ungrateful in the long run. And Mario Cattabiani--an incessant basher of Pennsylvania legislative compensation, which he relentlessly tries to sell as outrageously high--is evoking pity for poor Stish, currently unemployed and living on a "meager pension" in Florida.
Anyone interested in helping with the long recount process can contribute directly to the Pennsylvania House Democratic Campaign Committee--at http://www.pahdcc.com--or to my campaign committee, Pennsylvanians for Representative Cohen, 105 Cliffwood Road, Philadelphia, Pa. 19115.
Yogi Berra's aphorism--it ain't over till it's over--is relevant here. Democrats are not strong enough to claim victory at this time, but we are certainly strong enough to stay in the game and fight like hell for our vision of the public interest.