Control of the 110th Senate could be in Republican hands

[Deano963]

I hope Johnson gets better, and if he doesnt does not resign unless Rounds appoitns a Democrat. If he doesn't agree to appoint a Democrat, Johnson should stay in that seat until 2008 even if he does not ever go to Washington.

If he were not there to vote in January for reorganization, would that not mean that the GOP would win the election of a majority leader?

Nooooooo.......b/c Democrats would still have a 50-49 majority.

[Deano963]

sh**t,he is not even 60...

Anyway,as the article says,he could be removed only in the event he died...even if he had to spend a year in that hospital,he'd be a senator and democrats would have control of the senate.

Correct. Everyone seems to be overlooking this. Unless Johnson actually dies, the chances of a replacement being appointed to fill his seat are next to zero. The Senate throughout its history has often held seats for Senators who are forced away by illness for months, even years.

[Deano963]

I think everyone is a little too high on:

1.) Stephanie Herseth is a lock for winning a special election
2.) Tom Daschle does not try to get the seat

Herseth won 69% of the vote in a statewide election that South Dakotans knew might determine control of Congress. There's no way she would lose to anyone except maybe Rounds himself.

Also, Daschle might try to get the seat, but he'd fail miserably.

Why would Daschle fail?  Against a weak Republican it is likely he would win seeing as he netted 49% in 2004 against a fairly strong opponent.

Thune is widely regarded as the strongest Republican in South Dakota. Seeing as how Daschle lost to him by the slimmest of margins in '04 when Bush was carrying the state by 20 points, saying that he would fail miserably in a special election is a pretty darn ignorant statement, to put it nicely. But this won't even be an issue unless Johnson dies, and even then a special election wouldn't happen.

[Deano963]

There are only 49 members of the US Senate that were elected as Democrats, 49 as Republicans.  In Connecticut, the voters rejected the candidate nominated by the Democrat party.  In Vermont, the Democrats did not even nominate a candidate (the Democrat candidate for Governor was defeated by 15 percent).

The people of Connecticut also rejected the nominee of the Republican Party.  Schlesinger wasn't even able to net more than 10% of the vote!  At least Lamont was within 10 points of Lieberman.  What CT voters DID choose to elect was a self-declared Independent Democrat so essentially they voted for another Democrat.  In Vermont the Democrats DID nominate a candidate and he won the general election, however he declined to accept their nomination.  So again, another Democrat is elected.  To even suggest that the people of CT and VT or the majority of the US didn't want the Democrats in control is absolutely ridiculous.

Furthermore, the Vermont Governors race has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand whatever the result.  Its like mentioning the Freudenthal (D) landslide in the Wyoming Governor's race in the same sentence as Senator Thomas's (R) win there.  Totally irrelevant.

Further, the people of Connecticut elected a Republican governor, knowing that she would appoint a Republican in case Lieberman was appointed Secretary or Defense. 

Similarly, the people of Vermont elected a Republican governor in case that something should happen to Sanders.

Yeh......I'm sure that's exactly what the people of Connecticut and Vermont were thinking when they elected Rell and Douglas......

B/c people who knowingly vote for an avowed socialist like Sanders usually vote for a Republican Governor with the specific intent of having him name the socialists' replacement....

That was the dumbest argument ever.

[Deano963]

No matter what happens to Johnson, (which I sincerely hope he makes a full recovery, not only to keep Harry Reid as Majority Leader, but for his family's sake as well), the Republicans will still have a LOT of power in the Senate because with it only being a 51-49 majority for the Democrats, that still leaves a tie very possible, because it is very possible that a Democrat will side with the Republicans on an issue, and that would give the Republicans the victory on that bill with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaker vote.  I just hope my party's majority leader, Harry Reid, knows that he's not going to win every bill with the Senate being so evenly split.  The Republicans will win some bills.

True, but it also works both ways - there's also just as good of a chance that on any given issue, a Republican Senator will side with the Democrats. Think Specter, Snowe, Collins, even Sununu and Gregg now that it is apparent that their conservatism does NOT play well in their turning-bluer-by-the-day home state of New Hampshire. They realize they will have to be more moderate if they hope to survive. Also look for Coleman and Smith to start taking more moderate positions now that both of them are in very real danger of losing thier seats in '08. Sure there are a few conservative Democrats you allude to (Nelson, Johnson, Salazar, etc) who will side with the republicans on some votes, but it looks as if there are even more combined liberal republicans and extremely vulnerable republican senators up for reelection in blue states in '08 who will break ransk as well.