It seems like the Dems will be taking both houses of Congress.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, only half of them.

Meant to say "Democratic Senator", but misspoke.

[Drake Tungsten]

No, only half of them.

And how many of those actually have the ability to switch parties without alienating their supporters and screwing themselves in the next election?

Of course, if Lieberman brings down Democratic Senate control I'm sure that the good people of Connecticut will know how to thank him

The hardcore Dems in Connecticut voted for Lamont. Obviously Joementum doesn't need them...

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

No, only half of them.

And how many of those actually have the ability to switch parties without alienating their supporters and screwing themselves in the next election?

Collins and Snowe.

I very very very much doubt that Lieberman would defect, the dems will definatley gain Senate seats in 2008 so he doesn't want to risk getting sidelined then if he switches to the Repubs.

[Drake Tungsten]

Probably Ben Nelson, as well. So, two Dems and two Republicans. Far from "every Senator"...

I very very very much doubt that Lieberman would defect

I also doubt he'll defect, but that doesn't change the fact that he has an inordinate amount of power at the moment.

the dems will definatley gain Senate seats in 2008

I'd be careful about counting your chickens before they hatch...

[Bosh]

Well in 2008 there's 21 Republican and 12 Democratic Senate seats up. The ods STRONGLY favor democratic seat gains.

Although its not a sure thing, I very much doubt that Lieberman would split when there's a better than even shot that the Dem would take the senate back in 2008...

[Lancer]

There's only two things on the menu, crap sandwich and **** sandwich. This time people elected to have a **** sandwich because they're really sick of the taste of the crap sandwich. There was much partying over the choice as there always is, but now it's time to eat.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

No, only half of them.

And how many of those actually have the ability to switch parties without alienating their supporters and screwing themselves in the next election?

Of course, if Lieberman brings down Democratic Senate control I'm sure that the good people of Connecticut will know how to thank him

The hardcore Dems in Connecticut voted for Lamont. Obviously Joementum doesn't need them...

If you think that he would win after caucussing with the Republicans then you need to have your head examined, son.

One third of registered Democrats voted for Lieberman.

Without them he loses even to Lamont.

Never mind the fact that he'd probably lose some registered independents. Or maybe even most of them.

But I'm sure that the 21% of registered Republicans who voted for the Republican candidate would be happy to switch their vote over.

Lieberman joining the Reps means an end to Lieberman's days as a Senator. Period.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Lancer
There's only two things on the menu, crap sandwich and **** sandwich. This time people elected to have a **** sandwich because they're really sick of the taste of the crap sandwich. There was much partying over the choice as there always is, but now it's time to eat.

But the crap sandwich was laced with arsenic. At least the last time we had this **** sandwich it wasn't laced with arsenic.

JM

[Drake Tungsten]

One third of registered Democrats voted for Lieberman.

Without them he loses even to Lamont.

Why would he lose them if he caucussed with the GOP? They already decided to vote for an independent Lieberman rather than their own party's candidate. Seems like they like Lieberman more than they care about partisan labels...

Never mind the fact that he'd probably lose some registered independents. Or maybe even most of them.

Again, why?

Lieberman joining the Reps means an end to Lieberman's days as a Senator. Period.

I suppose you also thought Lieberman was done when he lost the primary to Lamont...

Stick to Canpol threads in the future, sport. You're out of your element here.

[KrazyHorse]

No, I was 90% certain that Lieberman would win.

And either you're deliberately being obtuse here, or you're just plain dumb.

[Drake Tungsten]

And either you're deliberately being obtuse here, or you're just plain dumb.

You can call me names all you want. It won't change the fact that your speculation is completely at odds with what Lieberman's election has shown us about his broad popularity amongst the citizens of Connecticut.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, I was 90% certain that Lieberman would win.

And either you're deliberately being obtuse here, or you're just plain dumb.

He's just being Drake. Which doesn't mean either of the above aren't true.

BTW Pelosi has officially backed Murtha over Hoyer to become Senate Majority leader due to his long standing anti-war stance and that Murtha has actually had the balls to present a withdrawl plan. This could be the end of Hoyer's attempts to become Majority leader. Either way it is kind of a pissing on Reid.

[Drake Tungsten]

See? Oerdin agrees with you. You must be right!!!

[KrazyHorse]

Drake, I'm seriously worried about you if you think that voting for a Democrat-leaning independent who had already promised to caucus with the Dems is the same as voting for a moderate Republican. For pity's sake I'll plod through it for you.

A lot of Connecticut Democrats were pissed that Lieberman got the boot, so they voted for him. A lot of independents voted for him because they liked him better than Lamont and they knew that if he was elected it was equivalent to electing a Democrat.

If Lieberman caucuses with the GOP then:

a) Loyal democrats who felt he got a bad shake will be righteously pissed off with him. It's one thing to vote for somebody who's been forced out and who still wants to help your side. It's another thing entirely to vote for somebody who's been forced out and has taken the opportunity to go work for the enemy.

b) Democrat-minded registered independents will be pissed off that they voted for the Lieberman who was going to help bring Washington back into balance and they got the Lieberman who handed the Senate back to Bush.

At a guess, I'd say that Lieberman going to the GOP loses him 80% of his support among registered Dems and 40% of his support among registered independents (while picking up the 10% of independents who voted Schlesinger and the 21% of Rs who voted Schlesinger).

That adds up to him losing 55-45 or so to an unnamed Democrat

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


He's just being Drake. Which doesn't mean either of the above aren't true.

BTW Pelosi has officially backed Murtha over Hoyer to become Senate Majority leader

Given that neither of them are Senators, I doubt it.