Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 02:42:58 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  If we do get a 49-49-2 Senate
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: If we do get a 49-49-2 Senate  (Read 7884 times)
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9824


View Profile
« on: November 07, 2006, 10:18:30 pm »
Ignore

(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?
Logged

Faster than a legally fired bullet.
More powerful than railroaded legislation.
Able to leap giant bureaucracy in a single bound.

It's an anarchist.  It's a free marketer.

It's... It's...        Super Libertarian
Nation
of_thisnation
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5587
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.06, S: 1.14

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2006, 10:35:53 pm »
Ignore

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

i dont know, but i've been told
that a yankee politician ain't got no soul
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9824


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2006, 10:40:14 pm »
Ignore

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

Faster than a legally fired bullet.
More powerful than railroaded legislation.
Able to leap giant bureaucracy in a single bound.

It's an anarchist.  It's a free marketer.

It's... It's...        Super Libertarian
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6280


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2006, 09:28:37 am »
Ignore

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

Курица - не птица, Болгария - не заграница.
Christmas Bushie 2014
BushOklahoma
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21268
Kenya


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2006, 01:54:51 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

My earlier comment notwithstanding, I do think that the site would be better off if Inks left his position. (The fact that the village idiot has dropped in to express his support for him only confirms this.)
TexasGurl
texasgurl24
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8362
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -9.57, S: -7.91

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2006, 03:47:44 pm »
Ignore

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

DanielX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5166
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

P
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2006, 04:32:56 pm »
Ignore

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...
Logged

Yankee Capitalist Scum!
TexasGurl
texasgurl24
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8362
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -9.57, S: -7.91

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2006, 04:39:15 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged

J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32037
United States


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2006, 05:05:42 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
TexasGurl
texasgurl24
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8362
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -9.57, S: -7.91

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2006, 05:12:01 pm »
Ignore

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

Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13461
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2006, 05:26:20 pm »
Ignore

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. 
Logged

Everett
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3585


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2006, 02:17:12 am »
Ignore

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

"People aren't people. They're just political positions."
- Lucas

It's a shame natural selection doesn't seem to apply to threads.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28061
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2006, 03:06:20 am »
Ignore

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).
Logged

I wonder why Van Heusen never bothered to make women's clothing?
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2006, 05:33:45 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
ag
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6280


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2006, 09:21:38 am »
Ignore

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.
Logged

Курица - не птица, Болгария - не заграница.
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21450
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2006, 02:48:13 am »
Ignore

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?
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15187
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2006, 01:08:40 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21450
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2006, 08:52:41 am »
Ignore

Ah.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28562
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2006, 03:20:40 pm »
Ignore

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?
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16807


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 12, 2006, 06:29:05 pm »
Ignore

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).
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16807


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 12, 2006, 06:31:13 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4424
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 12, 2006, 07:17:07 pm »
Ignore

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. 
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines