A 50/50 Senate in these times, would seldom vote 50/50 ?

[kentuck]

Things really did change on November 7th. The 109th Congress could be depended upon to stand together by Party label. That will no longer be the rule in the 110th Congress. The only possible exception might be with the appointment of judges. Even a unanimous vote on judges will be unlikely, in my opinion.

Why? Because the political ground has shifted. Senators and Congressmen know they will be held liable for their votes. Their could find themselves on the outside looking in. Senator Gordon Smith speaking out against the war in Iraq, a couple of days ago, was not just an isolated incident. He is up for re-election in 2008, I hear?

Even if the Repubs had maintained control of the Senate in the last election, it would be very difficult to get all of them to vote in unison. They are running scared and rightfully so. We can anticipate few fully partisan votes in this new Senate.

[AndyA]

1. I think you have a very good point.

They do know they're being watched, and they realize that most Americans are fed up with their bullshit agenda. They will forever be known as a part of the "do nothing" Congress. They will have to make big changes over the next two years to maintain their seats.

I think they realize this now. The winds in America are blowing in a different direction now.

[RB TexLa]

2. And you are always going to have Dem senators from red states

and gop senators from blue states. There is a different coalition for every issue.

[n2doc]

3. They would for leadership and committees

And that is where much of the Senate's power lies. That is the biggest issue.

[kentuck]

4. But there is a limited number of prime committees....

However, you are correct that some might vote a certain way or even switch Parties with the promise of a plum committee assignment...

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. I Think You're Dreaming

You're confusing the repubs for Democrats.

This would be a monumental kick in the Groin if the Democrats were to lose control of the Senate before they even got it.

I PRAY to God it doesn't turn out that way, because you're 100% naive if you think the repubs have suddenly changed their ways, or if this would not be a MONUMENTAL loss for the Democratic Party.

You can bet that King george, KKKarl, Dick, & Every Single Repub Congressman are all Praying for the opposite outcome. Don't doubt it for 1 Second.

[kentuck]

6. If that were to happen, it would be a loss for the Democrats...

As for the ability to investigate and to chair committees, however, I do not believe will vote to continue this war up right up to the next election, for example. They have already confessed their sins to their supporters. They cannot backslide so quickly. I think you may see the most "bi-partisan" Senate we have seen in some time. Simply because, some see the bulls-eyes on their backs...

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. A 50/50 Senate means Cons Chair the Committees

Votes are important, without a doubt. But the problem with the 50/50 isn't the votes...it's the bills and amendments won't get to the floor. It would likely almost guarantee gridlock as well. Anything that the WH doesn't like wouldn't get to the floor in the Senate, and anything the WH disagrees with the House on would be stopped in the Senate.

[kentuck]

9. True but...

Some Repubs might look at it as a second chance? They realize they were rejected on a mass scale. Many are up for re-election in 2008, and that will be paramount in all of their minds, and they might see it as a second chance to redeem themselves to the voters? Possibly? Then again, they might resort back to their same old partisan habits and issues?

[Norquist Nemesis]

13. Unfortunately, issues that get stalled in committee are often

not widely reported. The media, generally, covers bills and amendments coming to the floor for votes by the entire body. The 'average American' voter doesn't pay a whole lot of attention or takes the time to inform themselves regarding all of the things covered by the numerous individual committees.

By stopping things in committee (and in Conference which always seems to happen behind closed doors), there's no need to put up a facade of redemption for the voters.

JMHO.

[LSK]

8. its not about the votes, its about the Committees

I was really really looking forward to Leahy as chair of the Judiciary Committee.

Bush is likely to veto anything anyways, and the House will not be pushing BS Crap through that has to be filibustered anymore.

[kentuck]

10. The last time the Senate was 50/50, they split the Committees...?

As I recall? There was no "majority" in the usual sense.

[LSK]

11. from what I understand, the Committees to go the party of the President

Maybe Im wrong thou. I hope so.

I just hope Sen Johnson pulls through.

[kentuck]

12. We all pray for Senator Tim Johnson...

Even without this incident, we always have the possibility of Joe Lieberman...So the Senate is in a very precarious hold regardless.