Senate math should probably assume that Lieberman switches

[CreekDog]

In other words, if Democrats hold 50 seats (+ Biden), I would not assume continued control.

A more realistic floor is 51 seats.

[WI_DEM]

1. Well, you certainly can't put it past him.

[CreekDog]

35. I'm not meaning to discourage folks, but would love it if the leadership played hardball with him

that's all.

he's an opportunist, and not the first among politicians. be nice if we could somehow make him really worry about taking the positions he's taking now --and we can.

i keep saying, run ads all over the state proclaiming thanks and support for his liberal positions: unions, civil rights (well in some respects), environmentalism, etc.

will it help him? perhaps, but it will help make him toxic to the Republican primary voters, ask Richard Riordan of LA (when Gray Davis did the same to him) or Steve Poizner, who had the same done to him by Whitman. Do you realize that this approach basically ended their political careers for a good long time?

you wanna be nice? i'd like to be nice but more important than being nice is protecting the people and things we care about. this is war, act like it. sorry folks, that's the way it is.

don't even have to do it --just say, "heyyyy Joe, guess what, we have this idea, because you've been a good Democrat on many issues all these years...why don't we help you with that Democratic support..." :evilgrin:

[bluestateguy]

2. If he plans to retire in 2012

cuz he ain't getting reelected in a dark blue state in a presidential year as a Republican.

[sadbear]

3. It ain't dark blue if Linda McMahon is still competitive in October

[bluestateguy]

4. Don't pee in my Wheaties

[sharp_stick]

5. She's down by six

using a stacked likely voters index that IMO isn't really correct for Connecticut. She's been running ad's non-stop for the last 4 months going directly after Dick Blumenthal who has only started his campaign. (R)asmussen, I think has her down by 9 and change using a Registered Voters poll.

I think she's hit her high water mark already. I'm willing to bet she doesn't get anywhere near the Senate seat she's trying so hard to buy.

That being said though, I'm not happy that she's even been able to break into single digits, Blumenthal should be blowing that idiot out of the water.

[Dawson Leery]

26. 37% of the electorate in CT will not be Republican.

The Quinnipiac poll assumed that the GOP would be that much of the electorate. The Republicans comprise 21% of registered voters in the state.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Would voters in CT re-elect him as a Republican?

As I understand it, he won in 2006 because of a strong combination of Republican AND Democratic votes. If he runs as a Republican in 2012 (and more importantly if he switches to give the GOP the US Senate in 2011), he's almost certainly going to kill any chance of winning Democratic support for him and additionally could foment resistance among the "teabaggers" (if they're still around then) since he was a former *gasp* Democrat and caucused with them. Lamont would've probably won in 2006 had Lieberman hadn't been such a "sore loser" who felt entitled to the seat. If we had had Lamont, we might've even been able to get the PO (or an expansion of Medicaid coverage) in HCR. *sigh* What could've been.

:argh:

[AtomicKitten]

6. Hopefully we can knock his dumb ass out in 2012 permanently. nt

[sharp_stick]

7. I know I'll be working on it

I don't care who his opponent is, I'm already decided and I'll work on the campaign.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Lieberman has burned his bridges. All of them.

Lieberman jokes about running as a Republican in 2012:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/22/lieberman-republican-2012/

Lieberman does not rule out running as a Democrat in 2012:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/22/lieberman-republican-2012/

Lieberman likely running as independent in 2012:
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/04/13/joe-lieberman-likely-running-in-2012-as-an-independent/

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. The nice thing is that we won't have to worry about anybody having to "primary" him

We just need to get a good strong progressive candidate to run on the Democratic ticket to knock "Holy Joe" out. If Lieberman decides to switch to the Republican Party, he will probably face a strong GOP primary challenge from the "teabaggers" crowd because he was a former Democrat and caucused with them and then possibly even face a "reverse Lieberman" that will split the vote AGAINST Lieberman.

[AtomicKitten]

11. That's a fine mess he's manuevered himself into, isn't it?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Yup

He's only been "good" on one or two issues since 2006 but other than that he's been a vicious backstabber and his endorsement of McCain/Palin '08 was inexcusable. How that alone didn't get him booted out of the caucus we'll never know- though I suppose that Obama, Reid, et. al probably thought that he might just create more headaches and havoc if they kicked him out and opted to keep him where they could at least keep an eye on him ("keep your friends close and your enemies closer" sort of thing). :shrug:

[Blue_Tires]

40. Sadly, there WAS a good progressive candidate in '06

But a sizeable number of Dems (including several on this site) teamed up with moderate repubs who ignored their own candidate and hung him out to dry...

One of the most shameful things I'd ever seen on DU...

[Proud Liberal Dem]

41. I thought that most people here were pro-Lamont back in 2006

but, of course, it's been a minute since then and I do remember that some people here were suggesting that Lamont hang it up after losing the Gubernatorial primary. I definitely supported Lamont in 2006 (would've voted for him had I been in CT) over "Holy Joe".
:eyes:

It would be so sweet if Lamont were to run against Lieberman again in 2012. It'd probably be the best "I told you so" campaign ever.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Lieberman will go to the highest bidder.

But I'm bettin we have 54 seats on November 3.

[Kdillard]

14. Nate has us at 52 or 53 so you could be right if the polls continue to

strengthen.

[CreekDog]

15. Well, I would say the lowest bidder

:eyes:

[Ozymanithrax]

16. lowest morally, but for the highest offer he can get.

So, I expect that Lieberman will continue to head his committee.

[Canuckistanian]

17. Oh, yes, the committees

Lieberman is chair of TWO committees - Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs AND Subcommittee on Airland (Senate Armed Services)

He'll stay RIGHT where he is, thank you.

[Ozymanithrax]

18. They need to keep him on the Democratic side.

[Canuckistanian]

20. Yes, unfortunately

But as long as they keep him as chair of those committees, he'll stay and maybe caucus with the Dems.

Booting him will ENSURE he jumps ship.

[CreekDog]

37. i understand that argument

if he's not the best person to use the hardball tactics on, then perhaps strategic use of it where it WILL be effective will make those whom it's best not to use the tactics on wonder if in fact they will be used on them.

but it's got to be done somewhere and not to punish those who tow the line in favor of those who don't.

[CreekDog]

22. of course they should, but how will they?

do you approve hardball tactics? would that work?

[Ozymanithrax]

23. From what I've seen, he has played hardball tactics...

They could punish him be removing him from his committees. They could punish him by punishing his state and removing money from programs. If it comes down to Lieberman deciding the balance of the Senate, it will be Lieberman playing hardball.

I think that only comes up if it is Lieberman at the balance point. Yes, play hardball. He who has the gavel sets the agenda. I think it is better if Democrats set the agenda, though with a Senate ballanced that close nothing will get done at all.

[CreekDog]

27. And will our leadership play hardball tactics if they have no other option?

what do you think?

[Ozymanithrax]

28. To play hardball, they have to have something to take away...

that he can not get on the other side. If it should come down to Lieberman being the balance point, he will be the one playing hardball, not the Democratic Senate Leadership. If they take away his power, he goes to the other side. If you know something they can hold over his head, you should let them know.

[CreekDog]

29. if he doesn't pledge to stay a dem, he loses his chairmanship

if they keep the Senate.

then they run ads in Connecticut thanking him for his pro choice, pro gay rights record.

in other words, they END him.

honestly of course. :D

[Ozymanithrax]

30. Actually, Lieberman has a pro-choice record. That would not hurt him...

because everyone knows it. And, He introduced and co-sponsored the Senate's first DADT bill in March of this year. Those aren't issues that will hurt him with Repugs, because they already know it. From what I heard, it was his pro-choice stance that kept him from being VP for McCain, who wanted someone staunchly pro-life to keep the Christian right vote. Those things won't hurt him, because Republicans already know it.

The right loves his hawkish stance. I think they would be happy to get him if it brings the gavel and control of the Senate. But he could go as an Independent if he wanted to, and they would take him warts and all. He won his last election as an independent with Republican help. I think the Democrats had anything to hold over him they would have already used it.

[CreekDog]

31. it will kill his future as a Republican

does anybody in the Democratic Party know how to play a little hardball?

for the sake of the people they represent, is it better to be nice or tough on pols that will undermine?

[Ozymanithrax]

39. This is about power and who has it. Lieberman isn't going to become a Republcian...

If he switches, he will simply be an independent that caucauses with the Republicans. Democrats tried to kick him out in the 2006 primary. As an independent, he won a bunch of Republicans, a lot of independents, and enough Democrats to win. If he wants to run again in 2012, I bet he runs as an Independent. That would probably be his best shot, and keeps his options open to caucaus with whoever gives him the most power.

[ShadowLiberal]

19. Impossible, Lieberman hasn't been making many headlines lately opposing democrats

If Lieberman were in the news opposing a lot of the big things we wanted to do then I could believe it, but right now, I don't believe it's possible that he'd flip. I can't think a major thing that he's opposed us on for months, and he hasn't been vocally criticizing Obama over his handling of the Iraq/Afganistan wars either, even though he's a prowar democrat and those issues helped him lose the primary in the first place.

[CreekDog]

21. "Lieberman Organizing Against Obama On Bush Tax Cuts"

want to revisit your opinion?

Lieberman Organizing Against Obama On Bush Tax Cuts

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/lieberman-organizing-against-obama-on-bush-tax-cuts.php?ref=fpblg

President Obama has been absolutely clear that he wants to see the Bush tax cuts for the top two income brackets expire. So who better to lead the charge in the Senate to see all the Bush tax cuts extended than Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

"I know that many people, including the President, have argued that the tax cuts should not be continued for people making more than $200,000 a year," Lieberman told the Stamford Chamber of Commerce today. "But to me these are the people we need to be using their income to spend and invest to spur growth and job creation."

Thus, he adds, "I have had promising discussions over the past several days with colleagues from both sides of the aisle who see a bipartisan path forward on a permanent extension of the middle-class tax cuts and a temporary extension of the tax cuts for the highest income brackets to make sure that nobody's taxes go up while the economy is still struggling to recover."

The statement comes just as Democratic leaders coalesce around a legislative game plan to pass Obama's proposal.

--------------------

And why would you need any proof to believe that this is what Lieberman was doing? This IS precisely what he does.

[golfguru]

24. GOP needs only 41 seats to filibuster

or a couple more just to cover couple of defections.

So, if they get majority in house and 43-44 seats in senate,
forget about any progressive bills passing.

[Ter]

32. They have 41 now I think

Probably will have 6 pickups, and maybe lose one seat, so that's 46. Ouch, if he switches, that's 47.

[golfguru]

34. But they don't have the house.

That will be the key difference.

[Ter]

38. I'm more worried about the House than Senate

I think the House may go Republican, but at best the Senate will have 46 Republicans out of 100.

[craigmatic]

25. Seems very likely. The only way he can win is to run as a repub next time.

[Ter]

33. He would get trounced in a Republican primary

Either way, he will lose in 2012. His only hope is to split the vote and win again as an independent.

[CreekDog]

36. we can depress his numbers among the Republicans who like him so much

and tell him we'll hit him on his warmongering to finish him off with the left.

oh, i can practically taste it.

ON THE OTHER HAND...he could stay a dem and stop being a demogogue and none of this has to happen.

Joe it's your call.

Will our leadership do this? Some have the guts...you know what's ironic, the guy most capable of doing it will call it off --Rahm Emanuel.

Someone remind him that we're fighting for people who are at the present moment LOSING to the bullies in the USA.

I don't think that calls for being pals.