If we do get a 49-49-2 Senate

[MaC]

(I know this isn't "Presidential" but I thought it important to ask)

Well, how do we know what part is in control of the senate-which party gets leadership positions and such?

[Nation]

Democrats will control, due to Lieberman and possibly Sanders caucusing with the party.

[MaC]

ok, here's one: if they didn't caucus and it was two totally independent senators?

[ag]

They'd have to negotiate. This is not a statutory issue - it would be entirely the matter of coalition politics.

[BushKenya]

Wouldn't it still be in Republican control thanks to Dick Cheney?  Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, but they weren't elected as such, they were elected as Independents.  Dick Cheney wouldn't have to break ties a whole lot because in terms of voting it is 51-49 Democrats.

I don't know, I'm just asking.

[TexasGurl]

The Democrats will offer Lieberman anything he wants to keep him on their side.
Sanders would never caucus with the Republicans.

[DanielX]

The Democrats will offer Lieberman anything he wants to keep him on their side.
Sanders would never caucus with the Republicans.

The very Democrats who dumped Lieberman like a sack of potatoes in favor of Lamont?

Just saying...

[TexasGurl]

The Democrats will offer Lieberman anything he wants to keep him on their side.
Sanders would never caucus with the Republicans.

The very Democrats who dumped Lieberman like a sack of potatoes in favor of Lamont?

Just saying...

You have a point?

[J. J.]

The Democrats will offer Lieberman anything he wants to keep him on their side.
Sanders would never caucus with the Republicans.

The very Democrats who dumped Lieberman like a sack of potatoes in favor of Lamont?

Just saying...

You have a point?

He owes the Democrats nothing; either party would owe Lieberman everything.

[TexasGurl]

I never said he did, that is why they need to kiss his ass.

[Frodo]

ok, here's one: if they didn't caucus and it was two totally independent senators?

Then Republicans will control the Senate with Vice-President Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. 

[Everett]

Haha, I can't wait to see how much the Democrats are going to pander to Lieberman to keep him on their side.

[True Federalist]

Haha, I can't wait to see how much the Democrats are going to pander to Lieberman to keep him on their side.

Actually they only keep him from joining the Republican side, since we can safely assume that Sanders will vote for Reid as Majority Leader.  50-49-1 is sufficent if not optimal.  That said, I don't think Joe will demand any groveling (though given the circumstances he'll certainly take any unsolicted grovels without asking for them to be stopped).

[Vasall des Midas]

Wouldn't it still be in Republican control thanks to Dick Cheney?  Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, but they weren't elected as such, they were elected as Independents. 

No, they were elected as Senators. The vote for presiding officers is a vote like any other.

Btw, and unrelated. Just noticed that if the 2008 election goes to the House, Democrats now control at least 26 state delegations there.

[ag]

Lieberman can't dump Dems that easily. At least not immediately. Had he not pledged in no uncertain terms that he'd caucus w/ Dems, he wouldn't have been elected, no matter what (Sen. Chaffee could tell you all you need to know about it).  Going back on that pledge immedeately, giving the Senate to the Reps straight after such an election would only make sense for a CT senator if he has already decided he is never again running for office in his state. Reps would have to give him an iron-clad promise of, at least, the Vice-Presidencial candidacy in 2008, which, obviously, they can't. Even then, he'd be an idiot to do this: since Senate Dems would remain out of power under this scenario (something that most citizens of his state would be very unhappy about), everything that goes wrong in this case would be politically the liability of one and only one man: Sen. Lieberman. He'd be poisonous by 2008, he wouldn't be able to walk down a street in Hartford without being spit on.  CT is strongly moving into the Dem column - there is no reason for any CT politician to become A Rep. The probability of him voting for Dem committee chairmen in January is very close to 1 (well, unless I am mistaken about him not being an idiot).

That said, if Dems turn out to be a major disappointment later, Lieberman would always have a gracious way of deserting them: he wasn't elected as one, he indeed owes them nothing. I am far from certain Lieberman stays a Democrat in 2008 - but he doesn't have much of a choice now.

[Platypus]

OK, so  if the whole senate votes on majority leader, do they also vote for minority leader? If so, why didn't the GOP elect Ted Kennedy to the role?

[Nym90]

OK, so  if the whole senate votes on majority leader, do they also vote for minority leader? If so, why didn't the GOP elect Ted Kennedy to the role?

As I understand it, each party votes on their own party leader within their caucus, and then the full Senate votes between the two for the role of majority leader, with the loser of that election becoming minority leader.

[Platypus]

Ah.

[Gabu]

OK, so  if the whole senate votes on majority leader, do they also vote for minority leader? If so, why didn't the GOP elect Ted Kennedy to the role?

As I understand it, each party votes on their own party leader within their caucus, and then the full Senate votes between the two for the role of majority leader, with the loser of that election becoming minority leader.

Out of curiosity, why do they bother with the full Senate vote?

[Verily]

ok, here's one: if they didn't caucus and it was two totally independent senators?

They'd have to negotiate. 49 Republicans + Cheney still doesn't make a majority vote for things like President Pro Tem and Majority Leader; the Republicans would need one of the Independents, and the Democrats would need both (as they have).

[Verily]

OK, so  if the whole senate votes on majority leader, do they also vote for minority leader? If so, why didn't the GOP elect Ted Kennedy to the role?

As I understand it, each party votes on their own party leader within their caucus, and then the full Senate votes between the two for the role of majority leader, with the loser of that election becoming minority leader.

Out of curiosity, why do they bother with the full Senate vote?

There haven't always been two parties. Think Unionists before the Civil War, the Farmer-Labor and Progressive Parties during their heydays, or the Era of Good Feelings when there were no real parties.

[Padfoot]

OK, so  if the whole senate votes on majority leader, do they also vote for minority leader? If so, why didn't the GOP elect Ted Kennedy to the role?

As I understand it, each party votes on their own party leader within their caucus, and then the full Senate votes between the two for the role of majority leader, with the loser of that election becoming minority leader.

Out of curiosity, why do they bother with the full Senate vote?

There haven't always been two parties. Think Unionists before the Civil War, the Farmer-Labor and Progressive Parties during their heydays, or the Era of Good Feelings when there were no real parties.

Each party elects its own leader and whip.  The Majority Leader controls the agenda by scheduling debates and votes.  There is a largely ceremonial position known as the President Pro Tempore which is generally held by the majority party's senior member (109th: Ted Stevens-AK; 110th: Robert Byrd-WV).  The job of the PPT is to fill in for the VP when he is not presiding over the Senate.  However, the PPT rarely presides over the Senate himself and usually appoints junior memebrs of his party to preside over the Senate so that they may become better aquainted with the rules.  The job of the presiding officer is to announce vote results and call on Senators to speak during debate.  Senate rules compel him to recognize the first Senator to stand up to prevent party favoritism.