The Democrats are going to get their 60 seats

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This is scary, but it looks like Franken and Merkley are going to win their races, which would give the Democrats a 60-40 lead in the Senate, assuming Lieberman still caucuses with them.

[opebo]

Oh, they can get there without Begich in Alaska?

[exopolitician]

This is scary, but it looks like Franken and Merkley are going to win their races, which would give the Democrats a 60-40 lead in the Senate, assuming Lieberman still caucuses with them.

Really? Franken and Coleman are still pretty close....and Merkley is actually down now.

[2952-0-0]

Nah. Lieberman is now a member of the Likud Party.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh, they can get there without Begich in Alaska?

Assuming Lieberman still caucuses with them, yes.

This is scary, but it looks like Franken and Merkley are going to win their races, which would give the Democrats a 60-40 lead in the Senate, assuming Lieberman still caucuses with them.

Really? Franken and Coleman are still pretty close....and Merkley is actually down now.

Well, according to CNN, Minneapolis is one of the only remaining areas still out, and I'm sure that won't be good for Coleman. If it's close to where they wait for military ballots, then it may turn out alright.

And only 31% is in in Portland, so I doubt Smith survives.

[opebo]

This is scary, but it looks like Franken and Merkley are going to win their races, which would give the Democrats a 60-40 lead in the Senate, assuming Lieberman still caucuses with them.

Really? Franken and Coleman are still pretty close....and Merkley is actually down now.

It looks pretty clear from the counties-that-are-still-out map on c-span that Merkeley will make it, but I can't see any sign which of the Minnesotans will win.  

[cinyc]

This is scary, but it looks like Franken and Merkley are going to win their races, which would give the Democrats a 60-40 lead in the Senate, assuming Lieberman still caucuses with them.

Your math is off.  Chambliss will likely win outright, and the corrupt, not-quite convicted felon from Alaska is currently ahead.

Plus,  Coleman pulled ahead again.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

This is scary, but it looks like Franken and Merkley are going to win their races, which would give the Democrats a 60-40 lead in the Senate, assuming Lieberman still caucuses with them.

Really? Franken and Coleman are still pretty close....and Merkley is actually down now.

It looks pretty clear from the counties-that-are-still-out map on c-span that Merkeley will make it, but I can't see any sign which of the Minnesotans will win.  

Actually, the GOP has 40 now, so Stevens would have to lose for them to reach 60. RIght now, it looks like he'll actually be reelected.

[BlueSwan]

538.com is speculating that early voting in Georgia somehow hasn't been counted since turnout has been surprisingly low. This could explain the fairly large McCain win in that state and could mess with the senate race there.

[Nym90]

Alaska, Oregon, Minnesota, and Georgia all have to go Dem to get to 60. Best case scenario for Dems is 59 seats and then Georgia going to a runoff, which they'd likely lose. So no, 60 won't happen, but maybe in 2010, and it's not that critical anyways. I doubt Specter, Snowe, or Collins will be voting to uphold many filibusters.

[emailking]

For filibusters, is it that you actually need 60 to break it, or 40 to uphold it? Just wondering what happens if they're not all there.

[Хahar 🤔]

For filibusters, is it that you actually need 60 to break it, or 40 to uphold it? Just wondering what happens if they're not all there.

Three-fifths to break.

[Gustaf]

I betted myself into a large number of beers yesterday night. 2 came from betting against the Democrats getting filibuster-proof majority.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Alaska, Oregon, Minnesota, and Georgia all have to go Dem to get to 60. Best case scenario for Dems is 59 seats and then Georgia going to a runoff, which they'd likely lose. So no, 60 won't happen, but maybe in 2010, and it's not that critical anyways. I doubt Specter, Snowe, or Collins will be voting to uphold many filibusters.

59 seats is the Democrat's ceiling.  The Dems are at 56 right now.  I'll give Alaska and Minnesota to Harry Reid, but I'm going to give Georgia and Oregon back to the Republicans, making it a 58-42 Senate.  Plus, if the Democrats kick Joe Lieberman out of the caucus before the new Congress is sworn in and he defects to the Republicans, then it will be a 57-43 Senate.  In theory, then, the Democrats would need 61 seats to be assured of a filibuster-proof Senate, and they're not going to get that.

I kinda think the Republicans are in for a better year in 2010.  Of course, we'll have to see what President Obama does, but the Republicans should pick up a few seats in both Chambers.  I don't see them retaking either Chamber in 2010, but they should pick up more seats, simply because the Democrats have more seats to defend, and things cannot get much worse than they are now for the Republicans.  Remember, a lot of us thought the Democratic party was dead after their huge 2002 and 2004 losses, now look.  The GOP will come back and they will come back very strong.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I doubt Specter, Snowe, or Collins will be voting to uphold many filibusters.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They can always play the "I was against the bill/appointment but I don't believe in holding up the process" card.

What the Democrats want, the Democrats are gonna get.  If they go hard left, though, they're going to get slaughtered in 2010.

[J. J.]

I don't agree that 2010 will be the slaughterhouse for Senate Democrats, though their gains of today might vanish.  I don't think the GOP will get the majority.

If Obama fails, 2012 could make 1980 look like 1932.  I think 21 Democratic seats are up, and two of them are facing serious health problems.

There are some methods that could be used to break the filibuster (some of which are actually legitimate).

[Gustaf]

Alaska, Oregon, Minnesota, and Georgia all have to go Dem to get to 60. Best case scenario for Dems is 59 seats and then Georgia going to a runoff, which they'd likely lose. So no, 60 won't happen, but maybe in 2010, and it's not that critical anyways. I doubt Specter, Snowe, or Collins will be voting to uphold many filibusters.

59 seats is the Democrat's ceiling.  The Dems are at 56 right now.  I'll give Alaska and Minnesota to Harry Reid, but I'm going to give Georgia and Oregon back to the Republicans, making it a 58-42 Senate.  Plus, if the Democrats kick Joe Lieberman out of the caucus before the new Congress is sworn in and he defects to the Republicans, then it will be a 57-43 Senate.  In theory, then, the Democrats would need 61 seats to be assured of a filibuster-proof Senate, and they're not going to get that.

I kinda think the Republicans are in for a better year in 2010.  Of course, we'll have to see what President Obama does, but the Republicans should pick up a few seats in both Chambers.  I don't see them retaking either Chamber in 2010, but they should pick up more seats, simply because the Democrats have more seats to defend, and things cannot get much worse than they are now for the Republicans.  Remember, a lot of us thought the Democratic party was dead after their huge 2002 and 2004 losses, now look.  The GOP will come back and they will come back very strong.

I am fairly certain that a majority of the senate seats up in 2010 are Republican seats. That's the class that came in on Bush's coattails in 2004. The earliest moment at which Republicans can retake the senate is in 2012, when they have 9 seats to defend. I don't think it's gonna happen till they get a new chance at this class though.

Meaningless early prediction: If Obama isn't a success Republicans should take back congress by 2014, possibly by 2012. If he's successful he may be able to keep down losses in 2012 sufficiently.

Anyway, interesting years to come. I sure hope Obama can solve some of the major problems facing America. I'm still scepital of the man himself, especially given the kind of hope pinned upon him now.

[TheresNoMoney]

I don't think there's any way we get to 60 seats until 2010. Oregon, Alaska, and Minnesota all look very shaky right now. I'd be happy if we get 1 of the 3 and very happy if we got 2 of the 3.

I am just shocked about the Alaska results though. I thought for sure Begich would win by a good 10% or so.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm surprised that Smith pulled ahead late in Oregon. I guess the outstanding precincts in Portland was favorable to him. Coleman is ahead by less than 1000 votes, and it looks like Stevens won.

[tokar]

Nah. Lieberman is now a member of the Likud Party.

Bwaaahaha...

Reading a little too much Israeli News are we?
I'm not sure anyone else got this joke...

[platypeanArchcow]

I'm surprised that Smith pulled ahead late in Oregon. I guess the outstanding precincts in Portland was favorable to him. Coleman is ahead by less than 1000 votes, and it looks like Stevens won.

Actually, most of Portland hasn't reported yet.  Look at the presidential race, and at previous Multnomah turnout.  There's some sort of mistake there in the Senate race.  I think Merkley will win in the end, making 58, which I guess isn't too bad.

[cinyc]

I'm surprised that Smith pulled ahead late in Oregon. I guess the outstanding precincts in Portland was favorable to him. Coleman is ahead by less than 1000 votes, and it looks like Stevens won.

Actually, most of Portland hasn't reported yet.  Look at the presidential race, and at previous Multnomah turnout.  There's some sort of mistake there in the Senate race.  I think Merkley will win in the end, making 58, which I guess isn't too bad.

The way Oregon tallies their mail in ballots thoroughly baffles me.  I remember from the primary that a county's precincts reporting could go from 33% to 100% with little or no new results added. 

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be so sure that Merkley wins.  Smith's lead has been fairly stable throughout the night and into this morning.  Then again, see my previous paragraph.

Still, how do you get to 58?  Franken is losing with 100% in, pending a recount.  Corrupt Alaskan Senator Ted "not-convicted yet" Stevens is up by 1.5 points with all but 3 (likely small) precincts in and 40,000 absentees (which usually break slightly Republican).  And Chambliss will likely win outright or face a run off that he'd likely win anyway.

Even if Merkley wins, Democrats + the 2 independents should be at 57, not 58.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If Obama fails, 2012 could make 1980 look like 1932. 

huh?

[platypeanArchcow]

I'm surprised that Smith pulled ahead late in Oregon. I guess the outstanding precincts in Portland was favorable to him. Coleman is ahead by less than 1000 votes, and it looks like Stevens won.

Actually, most of Portland hasn't reported yet.  Look at the presidential race, and at previous Multnomah turnout.  There's some sort of mistake there in the Senate race.  I think Merkley will win in the end, making 58, which I guess isn't too bad.

The way Oregon tallies their mail in ballots thoroughly baffles me.  I remember from the primary that a county's precincts reporting could go from 33% to 100% with little or no new results added. 

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be so sure that Merkley wins.  Smith's lead has been fairly stable throughout the night and into this morning.  Then again, see my previous paragraph.

Still, how do you get to 58?  Franken is losing with 100% in, pending a recount.  Corrupt Alaskan Senator Ted "not-convicted yet" Stevens is up by 1.5 points with all but 3 (likely small) precincts in and 40,000 absentees (which usually break slightly Republican).  And Chambliss will likely win outright or face a run off that he'd likely win anyway.

Even if Merkley wins, Democrats + the 2 independents should be at 57, not 58.

You're right, my arithmetic is pathetic.

[cinyc]

I'm surprised that Smith pulled ahead late in Oregon. I guess the outstanding precincts in Portland was favorable to him. Coleman is ahead by less than 1000 votes, and it looks like Stevens won.

Actually, most of Portland hasn't reported yet.  Look at the presidential race, and at previous Multnomah turnout.  There's some sort of mistake there in the Senate race.  I think Merkley will win in the end, making 58, which I guess isn't too bad.

The way Oregon tallies their mail in ballots thoroughly baffles me.  I remember from the primary that a county's precincts reporting could go from 33% to 100% with little or no new results added. 

For what it's worth, I wouldn't be so sure that Merkley wins.  Smith's lead has been fairly stable throughout the night and into this morning.  Then again, see my previous paragraph.

Still, how do you get to 58?  Franken is losing with 100% in, pending a recount.  Corrupt Alaskan Senator Ted "not-convicted yet" Stevens is up by 1.5 points with all but 3 (likely small) precincts in and 40,000 absentees (which usually break slightly Republican).  And Chambliss will likely win outright or face a run off that he'd likely win anyway.

Even if Merkley wins, Democrats + the 2 independents should be at 57, not 58.

You're right, my arithmetic is pathetic.

Maybe not.  The MN Senate race seems to be tightening, even though 100% of the precincts are supposedly reporting.  Coleman's lead is down to 462 votes.