Lieberman is not a Democrat.

Which is why, as distasteful as it is, they're looking to keep Lieberman caucasing with the Dems and not stripping him of his post as chair of Homeland Security and Governmental affairs.

60? Shit. So much for getting rid of Lieberman, then. The sad thing is that getting to 60 isn't really that important, does anybody think he would vote for cloture on something that matters? Or at least, do they think he's more likely to vote for cloture than Hagel or the remaining New England Republicans?

I think 58's basically as good as 60 for Reid's purposes, as the GOP can't possibly hold Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe to the line on a filibuster against, say, card check (which Specter has co-sponsored) or the judge Obama nominates to replace John Paul Stevens. And of the 56 Democrats + Sanders and Lieberman, who's going to be gettable for Mitch McConnell? Ben Nelson (NE), who's not up again until 2012 and whose state got a lot bluer this year? Blanche Lincoln (AK)? She's up in 2010 and her state was the only one that went notably bigger for McCain than for Bush, but unless Huckabee runs she's safe.

dave beats me to the point, especially with respect to snowe and collins. i'm still astonished that lieberman isn't going to be kicked out, given, as cyrus notes, he isn't a reliable vote anyhow.

Good stuff. I'm really aggravated by the way the MSM jumps to conclusions and decides its story about the election on the following morning, when many races remain undecided and many votes uncounted. I read so many damn stories about how the Dems failed to reach 60 votes, when the truth is that 58 now looks like a lock, 59 is probable with the MN recount, so it's probably going to be decided by the GA runoff where no votes have even been cast yet.

In an ideal world, we'd have a uniform, fast, and accurate voting system which gave us verified results quickly. But until we get that, I wish the MSM would report the reality rather than making shit up.

Anyone who thinks that Joe Lieberman, caucusing with the Democrats, would vote for cloture less often than Snowe, Collins, or Specter is an idiot.

Anyone who suggests that Chuck Hagel will vote with the Democrats is a bigger idiot, and for two reasons: 1. he never has, and 2. he'll be gone.

I'm not even sure if Lieberman can vote against Reid right now on procedure, which includes cloture. He's probably under the same agreement as Bernie Sanders, which means that in exchange for being a Democrat for committee and seniority purposes, he has to get permission from Durbin in order to oppose cloture. Were Lieberman to switch parties, he'd be in the mirror of that position with McConnell and Kyl.

What Richard said. In Time Mag's coverage, they said the Dems didn't come close to 60, and said this meant the population doubted the Dems.

Fucking lazy media.

The only way 60 votes in the Senate matters is if it is used at the beginning of the term, to change the Senate rules to reduce the number of votes for cloture, as has been done several times in the past. If we are at 60, and Lieberman is willing to vote to reduce the number of votes for cloture, I am willing to make a deal with him, as suddenly we can pass health care, nominate judges, etc. without worrying about a filibuster.

Dave Weigel,

I do think 60 is pretty important, in fact. Take a closer look at EFCA and you will see that old votes are not to be trusted. Recently, Arlen penned a piece in the harvard law review basically criticizing the "overreaching" aspects of EFCA.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jol/vol45_2/311-334_Specter-Nguyen.pdf

His new tone is likely representative of an approach to distance himself from the real teeth of EFCA in hopes of some sort of "compromise." So dont count all you chickens on such things.

These "swing" republicans will be there, but on more contentious issues,like EFCA, which the ever powerful Chamber of Commerce labels "Armageddon," in fitful biblical fashion, they may not.

The Republicans and many Democrats that voted in favor of EFCA did so knowing full well that it was a free vote to please labor and demonstrate their faux bona fides. It was not going to pass the Senate and the President would not sign it, so no harm in voting for something with no chance of becoming law.

But this time around is different. So dont assume 58 is enough.

From Wikipedia:

Following the election, Lieberman struck a deal with Democratic leadership allowing him to keep his seniority and chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In return, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless he asked permission of Majority Whip Richard Durbin.

As it stands, Lieberman is required to vote with Democrats on rule changes, cloture, etc. That's why Reid wants to keep him.

All open races will be won by democrats, contrary to rules of probability. Fraud wins, ACORN delivers

Anonymous was me.

Jeff raises a good point. Specter, by the way, was the only Republican to vote for cloture on EFCA the last time it came up. Why would anyone think more Republicans would support it now?

i'm still astonished that lieberman isn't going to be kicked out, given, as cyrus notes, he isn't a reliable vote anyhow.

According to Evan Bayh, Lieberman has basically gone nuclear and promised that he'll quit the Senate and let Republican CT Gov. Jodi Rell replace him if he doesn't get his way. That's a problem for Democrats because the CT GOP has a ready candidate to replace Lieberman: Chris Shays, the moderate Republican who barely lost re-election this year despite his district going Obama by 10-15 points. Shays could actually win re-election in the state, backed (as he was this year) by Holy Joe, St. of Nonpartisanship.

Democrats can't safely destroy Lieberman until 2011, when Democrat Richard Blumenthal will (almost certainly) take over as governor and control the Senate replacement. If Lieberman keeps his gavel and uses these two years to screw Obama, that's when the party can safely screw him back. A powerless Lieberman would either retire or be defeated.

There's a good tactical argument for the Dems not being able to break GOP filibusters in the next Congress. It would force vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection in 2010 -- Specter, Voinovich, Grassley, McCain, Burr, Martinez, Bunning -- into unpopular obstructive votes. And it probably wouldn't significantly delay big policy initiatives such as healthcare or alternative energy, which will take more than two years to sort out and a rebound in the economy before they're affordable.

dave, even if i assume you're right about the lieberman nuclear option (we should be so lucky that he would walk away, but i digress), i'd live with chris shays over the costs of keeping lieberman, which are both direct (continued sunday morning talk show love for even democrat joe lieberman to criticize the obama iraq withdrawal) and indirect (i didn't give a penny to the democratic senatorial committee this year, even yelling at the fundraiser calling me, because of aggravation on the FISA capitulation, and i'm certainly not going to give a penny to a caucus that is scared of joe lieberman).

i'd live with chris shays over the costs of keeping lieberman, which are both direct (continued sunday morning talk show love for even democrat joe lieberman to criticize the obama iraq withdrawal)

Well, you're not a Democratic strategist. It would be quite hard to defeat Chris Shays if he got the Senate seat, as he's cultivated an image as a glum moderate in the Susan Collins/Olympia Snowe model, who just wants us to get past this partisanship, gosh darn it. He'd have a ton of money and be seen as the Republican hope to rebuild the party in the northeast. You want him out of there.

Is Lieberman annoying? Is it annoying to see him on TV attacking Democrats? Oh, sure. But he's irrelevant! His endorsement of McCain carried him all the way to the biggest GOP defeat in Connecticut since Goldwater. McCain lost Jewish voters in a landslide. He lost independents, big-time. Lieberman's a joke, a clown, a beltway personality whom the average voter (especially in Connecticut) views as a dull, slimy traitor. Let him twist in the wind for four years.

You need 51 for the resolution that counts, which is the organising one. Everything after that is ad hoc, based on what's at stake and how wibbly the senators might be. You're as likely to gain a Snowe or Collins as you are to lose a Landrieu or Nelson.

Fuck Lieberman. He has no leverage, and if he turns into a spite vote, fucking over the Dems for his own personal satisfaction, he'll have to make sure that he's not back in Connecticut that often. Let him resign in pique and have Rell give the seat to Chris Shays -- or better, let Shays get the Peace Corps job offer first.

As said upthread, you've got a lot of first-term and/or vulnerable GOPpers up in the 2010 Senate race, and if McConnell wants to play games, he's playing with their seats.

Having the Dem. in Alaska win after all the votes counted has a couple of major benefits beyond the Senate power: we won't have weeks of media orgasms on whether the Senate will throw out Stevens, and we won't have even more multi-orgasms on whether Palin will get Stevens job if he's thrown out. I'm more than ready for Palin to be impaled and forgotten.

Evan Bayh on Rachel Maddow's show last night said that if Joe is retained as Chair in his current committee, that the caucus can anytime (under the rules) vote him off if he gets too far off the Dem. reservation. He must think the nation is as dumb as he looks licking Joe's butt. Has that EVER happened after the Congress has organized at the start of the term?

Frankly, I can't imagine what LIEberman has over these fellow Dems. Giving Joe the charter to start investigating the guy (Obama) who he's repeatedly maligned in the campaign is just idiotic.

Forget the 60 vote filibuster thing. Joe won't observe any restraints on his action. I see him in full retribution mode for the next four years. The Dems should URGE him to join the Rethugs, where he'll have to compete with the other old-timer wingnuts for committee ranking-member status. Maybe they will give him the Post Office Committee.

As to the threat (that Bayh cites as the reason his nuts have retracted) that he'll resign and give a chance to a CT Repub. to be appointed. That doesn't pass the laugh test. Ridiculous.

Despite everyone getting all hot an bothered about 60 Democratic votes in the Senate, even if it does happen, the sky will not rain manna and ambrosia will not fill progressive cups. There are pretty conservative members of our party who will oppose many 'radical' policy changes. These are also Senators, who know they'll outlast most presidencies and have a monsterously high rate of reelection.

Regardless, I hope Franken kicks Coleman's ass and Begich tosses Stevens out on his ear! Besides, it's even more difficult for the conservatives to bleat softness on Homeland Security when one of their own is the committee chair.

dave, just to emphasize the point, it goes against everything we know about joe lieberman to believe he would quit, but let's put that aside.

but really, i appreciate your strategic point, but sometimes we can outthink ourselves: lieberman has actively worked against the democratic party for a few years now. if he pays no price for that, why should anyone in the future not do the same?

in my view, it's far more important strategically to make it clear that there is a price for apostasy than it is to worry about chris shays and the rebirth of moderate republicanism in the northeast.

obviously, though, my view is not going to carry the day....

Dave, Lieberman isn't going to be reelected regardless, so what does he have to lose? I can't see any reason the Democrats should trust him, or any real leverage they have over him once they've caved. There's no way politically they can strip him of his chairmanship in the middle of the Congress.

Didn't Lieberman vote however he wanted on cloture during this Congress? Why would he be any different in the next?

According to Evan Bayh, Lieberman has basically gone nuclear and promised that he'll quit the Senate and let Republican CT Gov. Jodi Rell replace him if he doesn't get his way. That's a problem for Democrats because the CT GOP has a ready candidate to replace Lieberman: Chris Shays, the moderate Republican who barely lost re-election this year despite his district going Obama by 10-15 points. Shays could actually win re-election in the state, backed (as he was this year) by Holy Joe, St. of Nonpartisanship.

Democrats can't safely destroy Lieberman until 2011, when Democrat Richard Blumenthal will (almost certainly) take over as governor and control the Senate replacement. If Lieberman keeps his gavel and uses these two years to screw Obama, that's when the party can safely screw him back. A powerless Lieberman would either retire or be defeated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Lieberman resigned, wouldn't his appointed replacement only serve until the 2010 elections, at which time there would be a special election to choose a replacement for the remainder of the 2006-2012 term? If that's the case, it's hard to see Shays surviving a statewide election in 2010 if he couldn't even win the House district where he was reasonably popular in 2008.

All of that said, I think that it is important to keep Lieberman in the caucus until Obama makes his obvious Supreme Court appointments, given that it is highly unlikely that Joe would oppose them.

Blanche Lincoln (AK)

Blanche Lincoln is from AR. Sarah "Hillbilly" Palin is from AK.

The only way 60 votes in the Senate matters is if it is used at the beginning of the term, to change the Senate rules to reduce the number of votes for cloture, as has been done several times in the past.

Leaving aside the "nuclear option", whereby on a point of order a simple majority can decide that the rules say something other than what they actually say, changing the cloture rule would take more than 60 votes, if all senators are present. When they changed the cloture rule in 1975, they changed the requirement from 2/3 of senators present and voting to 3/5 of senators duly sworn, except for matters involving changing the senate rules, which remains 2/3 of senators present and voting. So if all senators are present and voting, they'd need 67.

would force vulnerable GOP senators up for reelection in 2010 -- Specter, Voinovich, Grassley, McCain, Burr, Martinez, Bunning -- into unpopular obstructive votes.
Except that Specter, McCain, and Bunning are all retiring, and there's a decent chance Voinovich does, too. Specter and Voinovich are voting conscience this time, not party line, and it will be pretty easy to tell where they stand early on.

While I can see that Begich will probably win, what's the best information at this point as to whether a recount in Minnesota will change anything? Is this stuff about undervotes favoring Franken in a recount very solid information?

Lieberman simply cannot be alowed to keep the chair of a commitee that oversees executive policy under any circumstances, no matter what it costs. It would be convenient to kkeep him in the caucus, for obvious reasons, but not with a gavel he can wield as a bludgeon against Obama.

A suggestion: Arlen Spector is facing a re-election fight in 2010. If holy Joe wants to quit the caucus, I'm betting Spector could be bought. At least he's honest. The deal would be an agreement to vote with the dems on cloture for any filibustier in exchange for not fielding a challenge to him 2010.

Lieberman simply cannot be alowed to keep the chair of a commitee that oversees executive policy under any circumstances, no matter what it costs.

Well, he almost certainly is going to keep his DHS chair, at least for the time being, according to Senator Bayh on the Maddow show last night.

i'm still astonished that lieberman isn't going to be kicked out, given, as cyrus notes, he isn't a reliable vote anyhow.

They will kick him out of the caucus and take away his chair if he strays too far off the reservation. It looks to me that Obama and Reid are thinking it may not be wise to take an action this very instant that may not be necessary for a little while longer yet. They want to preserve an extra vote for as long as they can, in other words, because they may well need that vote to get their domestic agenda passed (IIRC Lieberman votes with his caucus about 90% of the time).

Jasper, if that's what they are thinking, they are taking an awful big gamble: lieberman is not reliable, and what happens if he decides to open an investigation into an action of the obama administration on a nonsensical basis (something i don't at all put beyond him).

how are they going to bounce him then? the optics will be terrible. if they let him stay, they are stuck with him as far as i can tell....