Just a question: (4.00 / 2)

Shouldn't we expect Lieberman to switch caucuses if he swings the majority?  That seems to be the type of kingmaker crap that he relishes.  Also, I don't see how he can hope to get reelected running as anything but a Republican.  

If he's not the deciding factor, I can see how he enjoys his committee chairmanship and his 'independent' façade.  But I don't think that we can count on him to be the 50th Senator voting for whoever wins the caucus's leadership battle.  

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 18:50:36 PM UTC

Don't like speculation being so central to a forecast (0.00 / 0)

This is about polling and percentages--not about putting speculation front and center.

Lieberman could have switched in 2007-2008. He didn't. Maybe he would in 2011-2012, but stating that he would switch, like it were a fact, isn't something I am going to do.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 18:52:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good call (0.00 / 0)

That's right, Chris.  For a Lieberman flip to matter, the Dems would have to, at best, live down to the GOP's best-case scenario anyhow. That is, a 50-50 split Senate, where a Lieberman defection would flip the Senate to GOP control.

And even with a 50-50 Senate, a Lieberman defection is unlikely because Lieberman would instantly make himself the least-important Republican instead of the most-important Democrat. See Brown, Scott, for reference.

By that I mean that the kinds of things Republicans would pursue with a one-seat majority in the Senate would not include Lieberman as a thought leader. He also would not likely be welcomed with open arms into the GOP Senate caucus since the only issue where he really shares any of their views is Israel.

---

by: gas28man @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 19:25:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That makes sense (0.00 / 0)

And I probably shouldnt' say that Lieberman will definitely flip, just that it would be plausible for him to flip.  

But then again, the argument that he wouldn't get to determine all legislation is plausible, too.  

---

by: Valatan @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 21:23:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ben Nelson (0.00 / 0)

is actually more likely to switch, I think, if for no other reason than for reelection.  His approval ratings are getting creamed and if he wants to run for reelection his only chance may be through the Republican Party.

Lieberman is also a likely candidate for switching.  But I don't know how much help it'll be if he wants to get reelected, cuz I think he's doomed no matter what.  He probably won't be nominated as a Democrat so he'd have to compete in either the Republican primary or run on another ballot line (presumably he won't be able to use CfL again since that party's been taken over by anti-Lieberman activists).  Either way I think he's fucked for 2012 and his best option may be retirement.  But switching to Republican might be his way of screwing over the Democrats one last time on his way out.  Nelson may cajole him into switching over with him if it's at 51 Democrats after the election.

If Democrats get to 52 seats, I don't know if there'd be a 3rd caucus switcher.  Mary Landrieu could potentially benefit as it's highly likely she'll lose in 2014, and more so if she stays a Democrat.  I don't know if she'd actually switch though.

In any case, while I agree with Chris Bowers that this kind of speculation can't be incorporated directly into a quantitative polling-based analysis, I also agree with Valatan that we can't ignore the not-insignificant chance that caucus switching, not an election, will be the deciding factor in who controls the Senate in 2011.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:06:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Tommy was NEVER running. (0.00 / 0)

All the hype was national GOP trying to drag him into it.



This is a Test of the Emergency Free Speech System. This is only a Test. In an actual Free Speech Emergency, I'll be locked up.

---

by: Ben Masel @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 19:14:34 PM UTC

If Reid is going down... (0.00 / 0)

When should we start discussing whether we'd prefer Durbin or Schumer to be the next Majority Leader? Durbin's number 2 in the Senate and BFF with the President, but Schumer is quite ambitious and can claim credit for getting us from 45 seats to 60. Both will have a good claim on the top spot.

Who do we think would be better at 1) putting forth progressive priorities and 2) getting bills through Republican obstruction?

Unfortunately, I get the feeling that Durbin would be better at #1, but Schumer would be better at #2.

---

by: Kal @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 19:21:41 PM UTC

Neither (0.00 / 0)

---

by: DTOzone @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 19:48:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then which will be more ineffective (0.00 / 0)

 at 1) putting forth progressive priorities and 2) getting bills through Republican obstruction?  

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 22:31:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Depends on the issue (0.00 / 0)

I've heard some compare leading the Senate as herding cats...it's more like hearding blind, deaf, stubborn cats.

---

by: DTOzone @ Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 02:40:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

One man's opinion (4.00 / 1)

I've never liked Schumer. I've warmed to him at times over the years because he really is pretty effective when he wants to be, but this is a guy who is not really a progressive at heart. He represents the Wall Street Democrats, people who aren't comfortable with the Republican Party's nutty religious social agenda and anti-science crusade, but like their economic ideas just fine. And even at that, he's one of the most hard-core Drug Warriors in the Congress. Yuck.

I wouldn't expect much out of Durbin, but at least he has a solid progressive voting record across the board, which is not the case with Schumer. Ultimately, though, I think it will be Schumer, but that the views of the majority leader don't much matter in policy terms because the leader reflects the views of the caucus. So mostly it comes down to effectiveness, and in my limited experience I would expect both of them to be better than Reid, but I don't have and opinion as to which would be better.

---

by: dbeach @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 05:38:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're mostly right about policy questions, but aggressiveness and political strategy questions are very relevant (0.00 / 0)

The ultimate factor in the Leader's position is, should we pursue the politically safe strategy of caution and incrementalism (which usually leads to centrist results, because that's perceived as "safe"), or go all-out with a high-risk but high-reward aggressive agenda (which usually leads to liberal/progressive results, because that's perceived as "risky")?  In this case, it's not so much a matter of which policy solution is better, but rather which political strategy (which can lead to different policy solutions) is more effective for getting things done.

I know Durbin has been an advocate for aggressive legislative strategies in the past.  I don't know where Schumer is, though I suspect he might be in the caution camp.

There's also a chance that someone else could run, like Patty Murray maybe?

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:57:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How can you get a "Progressive Agenda"? (0.00 / 0)

When you have to depend on Lieberthug, Landrieu, and Baucus to pass anything? None of them will give an inch to pass anything progressives want.

With 52 votes Democrats are screwed period. If they really ARE losing 7 seats then the Republicans are in de-facto control of the U.S. Senate.

And that's even WITH the assumption that Democrats make some move to lower the filibuster rules to 55 or something -- which is highly questionable given that they would have just been badly beaten in the election and all the media will be screaming that it's all because they listened to those dirty F'ing Hippies who were so "Partisan" in opposing all the wonderfully reasonable things that nice Mitch McConnell was trying to do.

I can't see Lieberman, Landrieu, or Baucus voting to end the filibuster can you?

NO. Ergo, Obama will be called on to be "bi-partisan" and "work with Republicans to lower the deficit" -- by cutting Medicare and ending any hope of a jobs program or global warming legislation, or meaningful financial reform, or a jobs bill or basically anything that this country needs for the next 4 years.

It will be even tougher for Dems to maintain control of the Senate after 2012 with the Class of 2006 all coming up for reelection, if they can only afford to lose 2 seats!

Its vitally necessary for them to pick off at least ONE Republican seat from among Ohio, North Carolina or Florida and then manage to beat Scott Brown in 2012 to offset at least one other inevitable defeat.  

---

by: Cugel @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 20:21:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's the difference between an aggressive strategy and a cautious one (0.00 / 0)

An aggressive strategy would be to get rid of the filibuster, or find other ways to pass as liberal legislation as can be done, and fight back against obstructionist centrists (e.g. by removing Lieberman from his Homeland Security chairmanship).

The cautious strategy is to avoid such in-your-face maneuvers and just focus on whatever incrementalist or regressive solutions that can be passed with ConservaDem support.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Fri Apr 16, 2010 at 03:50:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Latest NC poll from PPP (4.00 / 1)

Burr up 6 over Marshall and +8 over Cunningham and Lewis. Burr's approval rating is 32-41. After the primary this race will be in single digits overall and Dems "best-case" will be at 58. Throw in a Crist independent run in FL, and just a little tightening in KY (esp if Paul wins) and NH, and Dems "best-case" could be 60-61 by the end of May.

DemConWatch

---

by: msn1 @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 21:50:06 PM UTC

agree about best case (4.00 / 1)

All four of those scenarios are more likely than someone besides Rossi gaining the R's a seat in Washington.  If Rubio persists in his social security overhaul, it could even get interesting here in FL without an indy bid by Crist.

Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com for a free audio thriller.

---

by: egtalbot @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 22:33:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's already interesting in Florida (0.00 / 0)

Latest poll from Quinnipiac shows Rubio-Meek at 42-38. There hasn't been a non-Rasmussen poll showing Rubio with a double-digit lead since January.

DemConWatch

---

by: msn1 @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 12:38:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I do not think we are in a spiral down. (4.00 / 1)

I think we are in a low holding. Thats just me. A week is a long time. I know the very clever demons of the Rethuglicans will come up with "talking points" but dems have most of the issues. Our job is to work then margins for progressive victories in seats we can effect.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 22:34:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I understand your methodology (4.00 / 3)

but my gut says we have more than a 0 percent chance in Indiana and New Hampshire, and a lot more than an 11 percent chance in Pennsylvania.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 00:10:48 AM UTC

feeling nervous about WI-Sen (0.00 / 0)

Why would Thompson announce at a tea party rally on tax day that he's not running for Senate? That seems like the kind of venue where you announce you ARE running. Maybe all the leaks today were a head-fake to make sure tomorrow's news gets more coverage.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

---

by: desmoinesdem @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 03:47:49 AM UTC

I think this is worst case (4.00 / 1)

As long as the economy continues to improve (and I think it will), it seems exceedingly far-fetched to me that the Dems could lose even five seats, much less seven. The fundamentals matter more than anything in elections, and the "throw the bums out" mentality is gonna dissipate quite a bit if the economy grows at a 6% annual pace the rest of the year.

The electorate is very silly.

---

by: dbeach @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 05:43:23 AM UTC

Delaware (0.00 / 0)

I'm unwilling to write off Coons just yet; it's a cheap state, and dynamics like the Carper-Roth race in 2000 might take hold again.

---

by: Adam B. @ Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 18:36:56 PM UTC