You're on to something here. Several less-than-ultra-rightist Republicans -- Arlen Specter, George Voinovich, Charles Grassley, Judd Gregg, Mel Martinez and (ahem) John McCain -- are up for reelection in 2010. They presumably will calculate that contributing to gridlock during an economic crisis is not a promising route to reelection. Add to that group Lieberman, Robert Bennett, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and you can plausibly get well past 60 on a lot of domestic-issue Senate votes.

All the Democrats have to do to prevent filibusters is pick up a few seat. Even if they're shy of 60, I don't believe the Republicans are going to filibuster much, as the Dems will appear to have the mandate and most the Senate Republicans are wimps, anyway.

I think one potential key is whether McConnell is defeated (which still seems unlikely). If he loses, I think the Republicans in the Senate will be shell-shocked for several months, giving Obama a crucial opening.

The situation in Congress, especially with the perverse Lieberman possibility, is the first reason why it makes a real difference if Obama just wins, or wins big. 350+ EV and a clear margin in the popular vote would give him authority to steamroll opposition from Republicans, Democrat Blue Dogs and Lieberman.

But wait. We only needed Lieberman to take control of the committees. When it comes to a filibuster proof majority everything is unofficial. That means we don't need 60 Democrats in the caucus per se. Rather we just need 60 willing to vote for cloture on Democratic legislative priorities. Now maybe if Lieberman was kicked out of the caucus he would have a fit and refuse to vote for cloture on everything. But its worth remembering that Lieberman is still fairly liberal when it comes to non-foreign policy issues. I don't think removing him from his committee chairmanship would necessarily lead to his filibustering health care, cap and trade, card check etc.

If anything the real challenge on those domestic issues will be getting red state Democrats (like Nelson, Landrieu etc.) to vote for cloture.

My point is that 60 is the goal for votes on various pieces of legislation. Having 60 Democrats in the caucus is in itself unimportant.

Stating that Norm Coleman is a "likely loser" is a big overstatement. Coleman is a possible loser. Too many Minnesotans who might otherwise vote for him are turned off by his comedy, his carpetbagging, or his lack of "experience."

If Minnesota had a better candidate, he'd be a likely loser. This could be just like two years ago when Pawlenty was reelected because the DFL put up a shitty candidate to oppose him.

Then there is Lieberman. We need to get to 61 so we can tell Holy Joe to go eff himself.

Someone who actively supported McCain and spoke at the RNC has no place in the Democratic party and if you think we can rely on him for that 60th vote, then God help us all.

You can't assume that all 60 Dems would vote for cloture on every issue. Also you can safely assume that all 40 Republicans will vote to filibuster everything. They cannot afford politically to have Obama be the next FDR, so they will try to stall his legislation as much as possible.

Get to 59. Then quietly remind Snowe & Collins that Maine could really use some outside help, and switching parties would make them very popular with the new administration.

I don't like your probability reasoning. Just because eight things have a likelyhood better than 50% doesn't mean that you can count on all eight to happen. That's not how it works.

Sure, it's possible to hit 60, but is it likely? Nate (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) has it at about 25% to hit 60, and I think he's nailed it.

Actually, under a democratic administration with a large democratic senate majority, Lieberman's priorities would likely do a 180. At the moment his best shot of a continued political career is the State department in a McCain administration, but failing that, I'm thinking he'd be desperate to stay on his nominal party's good side for the remaining four years of his term. There's an outside chance he'd be forgiven by his constituents in that time.

If Lieberman wants to be spiteful, he'll just resign (giving Rell a safe republican seat) and go make money in the private sector. I think those are the two likeliest options--he's not going to cross the aisle to a party deep in the minority and sulk for four years. If he stays and we need him, he's ours.

Liberman is no longer a Democrat, he may be a left leaning independent, but he has completely burned his Democratic bridges.

Lieberman won't be much of a problem, I'm thinking, even if the Dems come a few seats shy of 60. He is, at his core an utterly shameless opportunist, and will easily find a rationalization to fall in line with the increased Senate majority and the new administration.

Allbetsareoff makes a good point about Voinovich, et al, not wanting to contribute to gridlock. Voinovich, in particular, has made blasphemous noises about raising taxes in recent years. They don't amount to anything due to Republican control of at least one government branch these last eight years, but under different circumstances he could go along to get along.

I currently figure 57 seats for Dems (pickups in VA, NH, CO, NM, GA, OR). I don't think Dems pick up AK, especially if Stevens gets acquitted. Alaska is loyally Republican. I don't think Dems pick up MN, either, though Barkley's presence in the race could help Franken.

I don't see switchers, either. Lieberman doesn't get kicked out of the caucus unless he does something personal to Reid. Collins and Snowe are New England Repubs, and they don't leave the party easily. (It took a *lot* of abuse for Lincoln Chafee to leave, and he didn't become a Democrat.) Specter's maverick-nature is overrated; he never bucks his party unless he has a lot of cover (cf. Robert Bork). Shelby won't switch (back) because he can read Sessions's poll numbers just as well as anyone else; he knows Alabama is Republican country.

According to that, the Noreiga-Cornyn (8 points, according to Rasmussen) race in Texas is much closer than Maine.

A small caveat from ethanol-central:

Grassley may be up for re-election, but that's beside the point. I can't imagine he'll be staying up nights worrying about it - as far as anyone can tell, Iowans have elected him Senator-for-life. He might be malleable because he's reasonable, but not because he's worried about being unseated.

Speaking of the groundswell of African-American votes in Georgia, check out this analysis from DailyKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/9/43319/1832/703/624770

It's going to be a close election for Martin and the other Democrats in Georgia, but we may just be able to pull it off.

The more actual Democratic senators we have, the LESS need for a POS like Lieberman. If we were to get to 60, you might see a Repub switch over to Dem.

I want that SOB to lose all this committe seniority, etc.

Lieberman has burned too many bridges. Giving him a chairmanship is out of the question, particularly when you have others whose seniority

My gut feeling is that he quits so that Jodi Rell can replace him with a Republican.

Ultimately, anything over 55 in the majority caucus is likely enough to detach moderates on the other side with sufficient sweeteners or elections on the horizon.

Now, here's the interesting question, perhaps: an Obama-Biden victory means two vacancies in the Senate. Who takes their place?

Thank you for writing this post -- I've been thinking about this for the past couple of days and hoping you would comment on it.