NYT: Senate control hinges on 7 states. Would Lieberman and/or Nelson jump to the Rs

[ProgressiveEconomist]

if it's close to a Republican Senate majority two weeks from now? Are there other current senators with Ds next to their names whom McConnell might bribe successfully to switch parties?

The NY Times said yesterday that the Rs need at least five wins in the sevenmost competitive Senate races to take control. Those seven states--all with Democratic incumbents--are
California,
Colorado,
Illinois,
Nevada,
Pennsylvania,
Washington and
West Virginia.

But, with the possibility of defections by Lieberman (CT) and Nelson ("D"-NE), might the Rs need only THREE wins out of the seven?

WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?

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

From http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print :

"G.O.P. Is Poised to Seize the House, if Not the Senate

By JEFF ZELENY and CARL HULSE October 23, 2010

WASHINGTON � A costly and polarizing Congressional campaign heads into its closing week with Republicans in a strong position to win the House but with Democrats maintaining a narrow edge in the battle for the Senate, according to a race-by-race review and lawmakers and strategists on both sides.

President Obama campaigned for a fourth consecutive day on Saturday as the Democratic Party threw its full weight into preventing a defeat of historic proportions in an election shaped by a sour economy, intense debate over the White House�s far-reaching domestic agenda and the rise of a highly energized grass-roots conservative movement. But Republicans have placed enough seats into play that Democrats now seem likely to give up many of the gains they made in the last two election cycles, leaving Washington on the brink of a substantial shift in the balance of power.

The final nine days of the midterm election are unfolding across a wide landscape ... In the Senate, Democrats were bracing to lose seats, but the crucial contests remained highly fluid as Republicans struggled to pull away in several Democratic-leaning states. ...

In the Senate, races for Democratic-held seats in California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington and West Virginia are rated as tossups by The Times. Republicans seem assured of taking Democratic seats in other states, including Arkansas and Indiana, but must win at least five of the seven most competitive remaining races to seize a majority, and Democrats improved their standing in at least three of those states last week.

In the final week of campaigning, Democrats are planning new investments to protect Senator Patty Murray in Washington, while Republicans are strengthening their effort to defeat Senator Barbara Boxer of California. Candidates began closing arguments on Saturday, reprising divisions over Mr. Obama�s economic stimulus bill and clashing over private investment accounts for Social Security, an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts and a host of domestic policies."

[saigon68]

1. Joementum Limpmann will move

[sharp_stick]

2. I don't think Lieberdouche would jump

he still has some weird idea that he can win re-election and the pukes hate his guts almost as much as the rest of the world does.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Does it matter if he does? Lieberman accommodates the Republicans well enough where he is.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. "Does it matter"? IMO YES it matters who heads crucial Senate committees and

controls the legislative process. Republican committee chairman will bring corporate lobbyists back to write legislation overtuning financial reform, overturning health care reform, etc. President Obama will have NO help if Rs control all committees of Congrress.

[no_hypocrisy]

6. With due respect, Lieberman would have to have assurance that he would

retain his chairmanship or get another chair for another Committee before he jumps. Not a promise but an assurance. IMO, it's not that he likes republicans more than democrats as much as what's in it for Joe Lieberman and his interests.

[AlinPA]

5. If the margin is close (3 seats or so), Lieberman will definitely switch; Nelson will

be a reliable vote for the republican agenda, as a "Democrat".

[KharmaTrain]

7. If Joementum's Offered Seniority

That's what's keeping him in the Democratic caucus. If it were me, he would have been drummed out and stripped of his senority when he lost the Democratic nomination in '06 and was no longer a Democrat, but Harry Reid soooooooo desperately needed to appease his old buddy and we've been suffering ever since.

He's made it clear in the past that he'd jump if the GOTB offered him seniority to maintain his committee chairmanships and assignments. So far Pruneface McConnell has refused, but if that's what it took to get a majority, all bets are off. Hopefully it won't come to that. As for Nelson, he's a pain in the ass no matter whose caucus he's in...only out for himself.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

8. Thanks for the backstory. Wikipedia documents what you say, at LINK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate .

Lieberman (ID-CT) is in the top quarter of the seniority list, at number 23, with the following note:

"10. Joe Lieberman won re-election as a third party candidate in 2006 and caucuses with the Democratic Party. However, he has chosen to refer to himself as an "Independent Democrat." Despite the party change, Lieberman retains his seniority since there is no break in his Senate service."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

10. And maybe that "appeasement" may be what keeps him caucusing with US

instead of the Repubs? :shrug: I thought that it was a bad idea to keep him around in our caucus after the 2008 elections b/c of his endorsement of McCain/Palin, however after thinking about this very hypothetical situation- with the Repubs potentially using him to try to take control of Senate in the event of a closely divided Senate-I'm beginning to think that not ostracizing him might have been a good idea in the long run. He's got a leading role in the Democratic Caucus in the Senate and an important chairmanship that he was able to retain during this Congress. He's continued to be jerk about things like HCR to be sure but he's still not endeared himself much to the Repubs and he'd have to feel like he can trust the Repubs to keep him feeling suitably important if he threw his lot in with them to help them attain majority status in the Senate and I'm not sure he can. Plus, I don't think that he will manage to win re-election in 2012 as a Republican- if re-election is even a consideration with him, which it may or may not be. Has he stated whether he is going to run again? :shrug:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

11. Won't "win re-election in 2012 as a Republican". Yau and sharp_stick (#2) raise a key

issue. Lieberman chose in 2006 to call himself an "Independent Democrat". At the least, he'd have to start calling himself an "Independent" if he started caucusing with Republicans next year. With Palin and TeaBaggers pushing Rs further and further right, Joe might fear suffering the same fate as CT 2010 Senate candidate Linda McMahon, currently down 13 points in the polls.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

12. Excellent Point

Joe's status of being a former DEMOCRAT and current "Independent DEMOCRAT" is going to make him a prime target for being "teabagged" in 2012 if he tries to run as a Republican. Furthermore, his successful 2006 run as an "Independent Democrat" hinged on his ability to draw in enough Democratic, Independent, and Republican votes. If he caucuses with the Republicans in the next Congress to give them a majority, no sane Democrat is going to want to vote for him IMHO and he'll have to struggle to eke out enough votes from the dwindling number of "non-teabagger" moderate Republicans and independents to win, especially if we get a good strong Democratic candidate.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. LINK to Senate.gov: History of Senate party-switching. Since 1890, 21 Senators have switched

parties, some more than once.

The last three have been Specter (PA), Lieberman (CT), and Jeffords (VT).

See http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_changed_parties.htm .