Has replacing a Dem. senator with a Rep. senator proven beneficial in the past?

[JohnnyLib2]

"Beneficial" in regard to policies and programs of Democratic administrations, that is.

Are there historical examples? I've been around a long time, but can't think of any.

[MineralMan]

1. Nope. Not to my knowledge.

[backscatter712]

2. Nope. And certainly wouldn't be helpful in Massachussets on Tuesday.

So the lurking freeptards can STFU already.

[spanone]

3. wtf?

[JohnnyLib2]

4. Seems to me, we've heard mostly about HCR.

But--the next Senator will be voting for 6 long years.

[karynnj]

7. The Senator will be up again in 2012 - but that is still too long

It goes by when Kennedy would have been up again.

[JohnnyLib2]

8. Thanks for the catch

[OHdem10]

5. if done to send a message, I guess the voters feel they got what

they wanted.

[JohnnyLib2]

9. Interesting.

Seems like I've heard some discussion along those lines on DU this year!

[Hippo_Tron]

6. I'm sure there are some good examples from the 1860's

[David Zephyr]

10. Only after the Civil War and during Reconstruction, but that's about it.

It won't be good to have a reactionary for six years in the Senate from Massachusetts. There's nothing good that can come from that.