If Joe wins, he should keep his senority period.  Stripping him to give away a majority or possible future majority in 08 is the height of dumb.

It's happened before.

Wayne Morse after abandoning the Republicans and declaring himself an independent was in a position to cast the deciding vote as to who would control the Senate after the following election.  

Both sides made offers.

Morse waited to the last minute before joining the Democrats.

He got his chosen committee assignments and then was forgotten again as before.

Best,  Terry

I wrote a much more poorly written diary on this very subject yesterday on Kos.  The poll and the comments were overwhelmingly in favor of taking a stand on principal, and if that means we don't control the Senate, then oh well.

The comments also indicated that even if Lieberman remained a "Democrat" he would undermine every investigation.

What's frustrating is that Lieberman's arrogance is being rewarded by the way everything is shaking out.

in the event of a 49-49-2 scenario, Joe Lieberman goes to the highest bidder. The Republicans will offer him anything necessary to maintain their majority, and the price of keeping him in the Democratic caucus will be steep. I realize Lieberman has said he would caucus with the Democrats, but he has also laid the groundwork for leaving the caucus by talking about all the things party leadership has "promised" him. All he has to do is say "they broke their promise to me" in order to justify switching. If he is re-elected it will be by the grace of Republican voters and Republican money, so it is not hard to imagine where his loyalties will lie.

Just as much as anyone else, I hope that Joe isn't there to throw wrenches in the works, and plan to do my part in nearby Connecticut to make sure it's not an issue. But if it ends up that seniority for Joe is the cost of majority control, "I'll buy that for a dollar".  To be honest, I certainly hope my blue-state Senators feel the same.

Look, many people have said "Joe is toast" if he pledges not to go with the GOP, but then does.  If there's one thing we've learned about our national polity, it's that there is no longer any penalty for lying.  So even if Joe says "I wouldn't go with the GOP even if the Dems appoint me to the Dogcatcher Subcommittee", I wouldn't expect that to count for much.

But the real issue in a 51-49 Senate, to my mind, is this: late December, Donald Rumsfeld resigns to "spend time with family", and suddenly Hadassah receives offers to join lots of corporate boards at $100k apiece as SecDef is offered to Joe.  GOP Governor Jodi Rell gets a chance to return Senate control to the GOP.  

Is there anyone who thinks Joe would turn that job down?

Clearly, if Lamont wins, this is a non-issue, which is why it's important to make this happen. But if, in addition to what now appear to be likely pickups in RI, PA, OH, MT, MO & TN, we pick up VA as well, then this also becomes a non-issue, as we'd have a 2 seat majority (or 1 if Lieberman won and caucused with Repubs, but then why would he do that if he'd be in the minority).

I think it's clear that we need either 7 pickups if Lieberman wins, or 6 seats if Lamont win, to have a meaningful majority. Of course, 7 pickups PLUS a Lamont win would be even better. And is there are chance of Pederson or Carter pulling off a miracle in AZ or NV, respectively?

I expect that Sen. Lieberman is going to keep his seniority regardless of how many seats Democrats pick up. The real question is whether the netroots will make it difficult politically.

As for his potential chairmanship of the Gov't. Reform committee, couldn't the caucus just move him to chairing another committee? I'm not that familiar with caucus or Senate rules but that might solve the problem.

From the decidely tepid support Lamont has gotten from sitting Dem Senators, Kerry being the only exception as far as I can see, I'm guessing Reid et al have assurances from JoMo that he'll at least vote for Reid as Leader, and keep his seniority, etc.

Also, I firmly believe that Lieberman is useless to the Republicans (and FoxNews) without a D after his name, and he won't get the attention and the ego-stroking that is obviously so important to him if he's not a 'maverick' within his own party. McCain and Hagel already play that part with the R's, there's no room for Whiny Joe criticizing the Republicans from within. He's not butch enough.

So he'll caucus with the Dems, and he'll continue to undermine them at every step, and (if he wins) he'll probably be back on Hannity the moment the polls close.

Chris, what do you think about this strtegy?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/11 /11400/389

I think it's a winner for Lamont.

he deserves all the seniority that his party, Connecticut for Lieberman, can provide him.

Any granting of seniority by Dems to the C-for-L party member would be a slap in the face to the Democratic Primary Election voters of Connecticut, the integrity of the nomination process, and voters generally.  Not that that would stop the Republicans-lite wing of the Democrats from doing it.

Oh, and waiting for Lieberman to "say what he will do" is a joke.  C-for-L is the party of expediency, whatever else it is.

If Lamont wins - not a problem.

If Lieberman wins - he maintains his seniority, if it means Dems keep control of the Senate.

As the Dems did with Jefford.

What I would love to see is for Lamont to ask Lieberman, during one of their debates, to pledge to never caucus with the Republicans.  I don't think Lieberman could answer that.  Of course, he could make the pledge then break it, but the repercussions of that move would be fun to watch.

I think Lieberman will almost certainly caucus with the Democrats. In 2008, Dems will have the following quality pickup opportunities:

VA: John Warner (if Mark Warner decides to run, or John retires and Webb runs)
MS: Cochran (the guy who was going to run as a Dem if Lott retired stood a good shot).
MN: Coleman (Paul Wellstone's seat; Franken or Hatch [if he loses the gov race] can go after it)
CO: Allard (Udall)

Plus outside shots at OK (if Henry runs), and AK (if Knowles runs).

They would have to defend LA, AR, SD, and maybe MI if Levin retires.

I think there is a good chance that Democrats will be in the majority in the Senate going forward, so it's in his interest to stay on the Dem leadership's good side.

Republican support for Lieberman kicked in almost immediately after the primary votes were counted. He's gotten money, endorsements, appearances, and most importantly, the Republicans throttled Schlesinger's campaign.

Are we to believe that this was all spontaneous and not pre-arranged?

Are we to believe that Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman are putting out for free, and that no payback will be expected from Joe?

If we win more than 6 R seats, Joe will certainly stay with us, and the Beltway Dems will welcome him back. If we win 5 or less, it'll depend on whether or not Joe wants to be in the majority and have a chairmanship. If we win exactly six, he'll screw us in some fashion eventually, if not by January (He no doubt knows that a staggering 21 R seats are up in 2008, though).  Whenever and whatever he does, he'll proclaim that he's putting his principles or the country before the party, and the David Broder's and Juannabe Williams' of the world will salute his bipartisan courage.

As for the SECDEF scenario, that job will only last until Bush is done, unless he's already got something worked out with McCain.  

 With Likud.

if key Democrats, HRC and Schumer, would host a Lamont fundraiser and campaign with him.  Lieberman would drop like a rock.  It's too bad that they only give Ned token support; it harkens back to similar lackluster support for Gore in 2000 and you realize how much better off the world would be if Gore had won.  

I noticed that the CT AFL-CIO is endorsing all the Democratic congressional candidates but has made no endorsement in the senate race.  Again, their endorsement would not only help Lamont but also would improve the chances of the congressional candidates they are endorsing.

I think Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats. Why? A couple of reasons:

1) Despite an almost pathological impulse to undermine the party at every opportunity, he still thinks of himself as a Democrat.

2a) Say he joins with the Republicans. Sure, they'll promise him all kinds of incentives. But do you think they'll give him any real power? Even though he undercuts the Dems at every turn, his voting record on a majority of issues still puts him at odds with the Republican positions.

2b) So he joins the Republicans. 2008 rolls around. A lot can happen in two years, but I think as things stand Democrats are likely to pick up a seat or two. Now he's in a party determined to keep him from wielding any real power that itself has lost much of its power. Now he's got four years of being in the minority, and he has to face re-election basically as Republican.

3) Lieberman clearly absolutely loves acting as some sort of warped "voice of reason" for the left in the national media, supporting the president and "bipartisanship".  By not being a Democrat any more, he will have already lost much of that role. If he wants to still have some shot at doing that, he needs to make nice with the Democrats, because the Republicans keep too tight a leash on their caucus to really let him do it from the other side (McCain plays at that sort of thing, but he rarely undercuts the GOP the way Lieberman does the Democrats.)

Anyway, hopefully he loses and this is all moot.

In a 49-49-2 Senate, Lieberman and Landrieu will caucus with Republicans. Good riddance to them both.

In previous discussions on this topic the matter of giving Lautenberg back his seniority if Joe gets his has always been raised, not this time.  Just sorta wondering why.  It would certainly make sense from a realpolitik standpoint to throw Frank under the bus and cater to Joe for two years, I'm just not sure how happy the two NJ senators might be about that.  Not that we have to cater to them cause they got no place to go.

this should be the ad running ad nauseu in NJ- that this is about whether CT wants Bush to remain in charge or not- and that with Lieberman- no one can be sure. At the very least- by pushing this we guarantee that he is forced to come out strongly to caucus with the Dems - without any reservations.

A lot depends on the House.  If we take the House, Lieberman loses a lot of power.  We can conduct investigations, with subpoena power, with or without his traitorous, lying ass.  So the Senate Dems can tell him to go shove it, and what's he going to do, really?  If we don't take the house, in a 49-49-2 situation, then he's got power.  Either he gets the assignments that lets him stonewall investigations, or he jumps to the Republicans and they stonewall investigations.  In the 49-49-2 scenario, it all depends on the House.

we have to let Joe keep his seniority, as much as that would stink.  Why? Because the majority - even a narrow one - controls the committees and the agenda. And because being in the minority will encourage more GOP incumbents to retire in '08, opening up all sorts of new possibilities for Democratic pickups.

The fact that there is legitimate doubt about who Lieberschnitzel would caucus with is reason enough to make sure he is defeated in this election.  If his party loyal is so suspect, how can he even be considered worthy of support by CT Democrats?

... than are dreamt of in your Philosophy.

One possibility overlooked is that Leiberman will retain his Dem caucus seniority, but be horsetraded out to a less sensitive committee post -- one where he has less opportunity to run interference for an embattled Bush administration.

This is a fair settlement which the overweaningly fair-minded Sen. Lieberman would be bound to repect.

into thinking Dems are going to hand Lieberman seniority only because they have no choice in case he wins and not because they like him. Seriously, if they really preferred Lamont, they had an easy solution to neutralize Lieberman and not be blackmailed later - Support Lamont wholeheartedly once the polls were swinging Lamont's way even before the primaries or just stay out of the fray until they were sure Lamont won the primary. They cashed their chips in with Lieberman a long time ago. Dodd kept his mouth shut even when Lieberman was saying he would not forget that people like Dodd switched over to Lamont. Dodd has lost my respect.

Schumer definitely likes LIeberman better. Hillary would rather see Lieberman in there not because she likes him but to make her look to be not the only fringe democrat on middle eastern issues.

People like Wes Clark, Edwards, Feingold are lonely voices. I was surprise Mark Warner threw in his support for Lamont. But we needed more voices. And if you wanted any more proof that a lot of democrats were better at pandering towards Adfrican Americans than actually care about them, the proof lies in the fact that when Lieberman was singling out black leaders in his sour grapes post primary interviews, you did not see major Dem leaders attack Lieberman as hateful.  I am still puzzled why Ted Kennedy doesnt have more influence in getting more vocal support for Lamont. It's obvious Ted Kennedy prefers Lamont. But isn't he influential enough in that part of the US for him to get some big guns over?  Can someone explain?

If Lieberman gets elected, this is the harm he will cause the dem party despite giving them his support to maintain a possible majority - his victory will make it tougher for every single progressive candidate in the future. People will keep looking back at this election, ignore the fact that Lamont getting this close itself against a powerful long term incumbent was an achievement, and say "we told you so. you anti war guys are just fringe". What lieberman's win will do is maintain the tired old narrative that it is the dems, and not the repubs who are way off center on the Iraq war and other related issues despite the fact that polls are showing otherwise on the issues, but some of the same people seem to be prejudiced against progressive candidates because it has been drilled into their heads for so long that a progressive cannot be strong on national security.

Lamont built on Dean's gains. But if he loses, someone is going to have overcome the unfair spin people will put on a possible Lamont defeat. We need for Lamont to win. It will be the biggest win progressives will have had in recent memory.

Excellent post.

My biggest fear is that the Senate will be split 49/49/2, and then Joe Lieberman will be the most powerful man in the country.  He will continue to caucus with the Dems, holding the most cowardly of them under his thumb, entirely neutered.  And then, right when the House starts impeachment proceedings, he'll switch to the Republicans.

aaaarrrrghhhhh!!!!!