We could win the Senate and then immediately lose it

[DavidDvorkin]

Suppose the results are 51-49, in favor of the Democrats - an outcome I've seen predicted.

If Lieberman switches parties, or if he gets a cabinet appointment and Governor Rell appoints a Republican (assuming that Connecticut law stipulates that the governor appoints a replacement), the result would be a 50-50 split, with Cheney available to break the tie.

As I fuzzily understand it, such a result would mean that the official leadership of the Senate would remain in the hands of the GOP.

So for solid control, we really need a 52-48 result, or to have at least one current Republican switch parties after the election.

[gully]

1. He's not going to switch. He has said, he'll vote with Democrats

and remain essentially a Democrat.

[movonne]

7. Bull shit...he will not change parties as he can do more for this

administration by staying a dem...as far as what he says about voting with us...DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH...the repugs didn't put all their resources behind him for him to vote dem..I find it funny that anyone would think he would still be a dem...HE IS A REPUG THROUGH AND THOUGH...AND ALWAYS WAS...

[gully]

11. Sorry, in spite of your venom, his voting record proves you wrong

with the exception of the war.

[MiniMe]

26. Like his vote on the bankruptcy bill?

That bills sticks it to the electorate

[gully]

31. No, like his vote(s) on choice, the environment,

education, health care, labor, etc.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Lieberman is certainly in line for some post in the Bush administration.

Take that to the bank, especially if Rummy gets axed.

[NoPasaran]

12. I cannot believe

I cannot believe that anyone who has gone to as much trouble as he has to stay in the Senate would then resign his seat to join Junior's cabinet... especially given Bush's well-known disdain for listening to anyone's advice.

[TheCowsCameHome]

17. His aim is to further the ambitions of Joe L, no matter what path he takes.

Make no mistake, it's all about himself.

[NoPasaran]

24. Climbing aboard the sinking SS George Bush would an odd way of doing it

[acmavm]

3. For whoever or whatever's sake, will you people who are so damn

determined to be negative just wait until after we see what happens on Tuesday?

Please. I am asking nicely.

I understand being prepared, but when we know what we have to deal with, we will deal with it.

All this doom and gloom shit is getting obnoxious.

[caledesi]

5. Amen! nt

[NavyDavy]

6. i cannot agree more!!!!

[DavidDvorkin]

8. I'm a pessimist by nature

And after the last six years, I'm even more pessimistic than before.

However, in this case, I'm just pointing out something that I think we should bear in mind.

[Radical Activist]

14. Negativity makes liberals their own worst enemy.

Its a major reason why more liberals don't get elected to office.

[gully]

32. Hear hear! 'THE SKY IS FALLLLLLLLLLLING'

gets damn old.

[JeffR]

4. We could win the Senate and a giant comet could hit the earth

Wiping out all Democrats. Maybe we better start worrying about that, too.

[DavidDvorkin]

9. The odds are rather different

[JeffR]

15. But it could happen

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Lieberman shouldn't be allowed to win

Anyone who votes for Lieberman is a traitor to his party. At least, that is what I'm always told when I mention voting for a third party or independent.

[American Jesus]

33. Lieberman shouldn't have been allowed to run at all.

Once you lose a primary, you should be out of that election. As it is, if Holy Joe wins, it's only because Republicans refuse to endorse their own candidate.

[ldf]

13. yes, we do need a 52 - 48 majority

then mr. lieberman can quickly become irrelevant, whether he wins or not.

[Lexingtonian]

16. So what?

It doesn't matter in the longer term. 49 Democrats in the Senate plus a good House majority (and competent, smart, Speaker) is a lot more than our side has now, and Republicans- especially in the Senate- are simply not going to hang together in the next Congress.

The GOP is barely hanging together at this point. Their moderates don't believe in The Cause of social and economic stagnation/retrogression to a colonial/Empire caste system anymore. Their "hardline conservatives", i.e. Christian Right, know they are defeated in their efforts at (a) 'Christian'izing the world, (b) 'Christian'izing the country, and (c) keeping their young people 'Christian'. (Their version of Christianity is essentially that of Agrarian Age Europe; the practices are more those of European paganisms and occultisms than conformity to the spirit and meanings of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth or Paul.) Their Party's third contingent, the classical radical Right, have worn out their one method of solving the world's problems- killing people. They've all fought Modernity together and they know they have lost.

I think the Party would be better off kicking Lieberman out. Even defeating Chafee and the like, we'll have so many Republican Senators from states that are Blue or Purple (about 15) who know the political ground has shifted to neutral and is trending Left in their home state and nationally, that getting 51 votes for anything sensible isn't going to be a problem. Remember, these 15 have also been treated quite badly by the White House and their own leaders for 6+ years. Then there are the small state Senators, who can't afford a lot of highfalutin' principle because their political roles consist largely of sucking up to the big state Senators of the majority Party in return for pork barrel spending and not getting beat up.

There will be deaths and resignations. On our side, Bob Byrd is expected to bail, he just wants to be Chairman of some committee one more time for a short bit I think. On theirs, Arlen Specter still has cancer and can't last long; Ed Rendell has told him that a Democrat will be appointed in his place.

So, things are in flux. And behind the Republican Senators, whether 52 of them or 47, is a Presidency that's in desperate straits and fighting a losing battle. Iraq is the millstone they tied to their necks, they're standing on the dock of a global 'War' gone bad that they walked out on of volition, and they've been too profligate- their domestic "political capital" to fight back their enemies and opposition is closing in on zero.

We don't know much about the mandate resulting from this election, and it probably won't become entirely clear until 2008. But reining in the Iraq misadventure and restoring federal government from its grossly dysfuntional state is a minimum.

[greendog]

18. Another "OMG, Lieberman's gonna bail!!!" post....

...:eyes::crazy::eyes::crazy::eyes::crazy::eyes::crazy:

He's running for a six year seat.

He's promised the voters of Connecticut he'll caucus with the Democrats.

He's young enough to run again in six years.

He's in the Senate to look after the interests of his "supporters". Defense Contractors. Insurance Companies. Drug Companies. They'll gain more from him with 6 years in the Senate than they would from a "stunt" that would net them (at best)a temporary advantage.

The political momentum is shifting toward the Democrats. The advantages of being with the winners outweigh any advantage he'd gain by jumping to the losers.

Bushco will be gone in two years(possibly much sooner).

Bushco will under investigation for the next two years.

The Senate majority could change before 2008 anyway (illness, scandal).

Why would he want to replace Rummy? The war is already lost. It'll be just as lost if Joe takes over (and who wants to put their name on that?).

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Dems could refuse to confirm Traitor Joe unless Rell apoints a Dem

[LeftishBrit]

20. Wishing you as big a Senate majority as possible...

and I may be nuts, but I think that if the Republicans really wanted Lieberman in their party, they'd have made him switch already, before they supported him for the Senate. I suspect that with all their control-freakishness and desire for their party members to act like cloned sheep, they don't even want to have to cope with a new, rebellious, relatively liberal Republican, who has already shown that he doesn't place much value on party loyalty. I suspect they'd much rather have him as as a pet Democrat to give their nutty policies the respectability of 'bipartisanship'.

But I do hope that you get enough Democratic senators to be able to give senate boss Cheney the sort of message he understands - "Go fuck yourself"!

[Bluzmann57]

21. What about Bernie Sanders?

Isn't he running for the Senate as an Independent? If he wins, he usually votes with the Dems. If he isn't running for Senate, then I apologize for being wrong. It's just that I thought I heard that somewhere.

[Solon]

22. He's running for Jeffords(I) seat, and he won the Democratic Primary...

by a LARGE margin, he simply doesn't accept the results of the primary and isn't officially a member of the party.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. There's no Democrat running against Bernie Sanders

For all intents and purposes he has the support of the democratic party and he will caucus with the dems if he wins.

[ihelpu2see]

23. Here is the Proof David D is correct... A Military Times Editorial to be Released

MONDAY http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2333376.php

All four branches of the military want Rummy Gone!!! and Joe is on the short list!!

[cmkramer]

30. And?

I read the editorial which never mentioned Liebeman at all. However, even if he were on some kind of short list, it means nothing unless he were to accept or if it came out that he approached the White House and intimated that he'd be interested. After all, Mario Cuomo was on the short list for Democratic presidential candidates for many years. He never actually ran, did he?

[Hippo_Tron]

25. If Rell gets to appoint a Republican...

Dems need to force her to call a special election ASAP. Ned Lamont should run again because he'd crush any Republican that Rell could find.

[Robbins]

28. Lieberman

I have been worried about him.But he will remain a DINO.Only Kerry,Clark,Dodd,and to a lesser extext
Edwards have worked for Lamont.He will likely get the chair of the Homeland security committee.I wish Lamont would win but I am resigned to the fact Lieberman will win just like I know Schwanneger will get reelcted In California as Governor.I don't like It but at least Republicans will have more not to like.

[DavidDvorkin]

29. If they can force her to do that

Surely it depends on what the state constitution specifies, along with any applicable laws. For all I know, those may specify a special election in Connecticut.