Utah Senate: Special Election?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

or he could be really clever and ask joe lieberman.  rell would pick his replacement. 

That would so make my day.

I'd probably like whoever Rell picks more than Lieberman. She's a good example of a likeable Republican, and he's a good example of a despicable Democrat.

rob simmons would probably be the replacement.

i guess you all would like majority leader mcconnell too.

Too bad there is no clause in the 110 Congress' organizing resolution allowing for the Senate to be reorganized in case a of a party switch.

In other words, if Lieberman switched or he was replaced by a republican, Harry Reid would remain Majority Leader for the remainder of the 110th Congress (at least) .

I doubt it. The Republicans would try to force through a new organizing resolution, and if the Democrats filibustered it, I would hope that the Republicans would have the sense to "shut down" the Senate. Trying to rule from the minority isn't good politics, and I don't think the American people would stand for it.

The American people wanted a Democratic Senate and voted for one. They don't want to lose it over some political manipulations rather than elections.

The American people wanted a split senate in 2000 and voted for one.  They didn't want to lose it over some political manipulations, but that's exactly what happened.

The Democrats made massive gains though, and if every seat was up would've probably taken it. And do you really think most people in Vermont wanted a Republican Senate? The fact is, Zeus' argument is stupid, the people don't want the Republicans back in power, period.

[minionofmidas]

or he could be really clever and ask joe lieberman.  rell would pick his replacement. 

That would so make my day.

I'd probably like whoever Rell picks more than Lieberman. She's a good example of a likeable Republican, and he's a good example of a despicable Democrat.

rob simmons would probably be the replacement.

i guess you all would like majority leader mcconnell too.

Too bad there is no clause in the 110 Congress' organizing resolution allowing for the Senate to be reorganized in case a of a party switch.

In other words, if Lieberman switched or he was replaced by a republican, Harry Reid would remain Majority Leader for the remainder of the 110th Congress (at least) .

I doubt it. The Republicans would try to force through a new organizing resolution, and if the Democrats filibustered it, I would hope that the Republicans would have the sense to "shut down" the Senate. Trying to rule from the minority isn't good politics, and I don't think the American people would stand for it.

The American people wanted a Democratic Senate and voted for one. They don't want to lose it over some political manipulations rather than elections.

The American people wanted a split senate in 2000 and voted for one.  They didn't want to lose it over some political manipulations, but that's exactly what happened.

They did vote for a Democratic Senate... and would have gotten it if Joe Lieberman hadn't run for reelection as Senator while successfully running for the Vice Presidency.

Also, note that in 2000, the rules were different because otherwise there would have been a Democratic organization throughout, due to Congress' term beginning earlier than the President's (so at the time of organizing, Al Gore held the tiebreaking vote).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

or he could be really clever and ask joe lieberman.  rell would pick his replacement. 

That would so make my day.

I'd probably like whoever Rell picks more than Lieberman. She's a good example of a likeable Republican, and he's a good example of a despicable Democrat.

rob simmons would probably be the replacement.

i guess you all would like majority leader mcconnell too.

Too bad there is no clause in the 110 Congress' organizing resolution allowing for the Senate to be reorganized in case a of a party switch.

In other words, if Lieberman switched or he was replaced by a republican, Harry Reid would remain Majority Leader for the remainder of the 110th Congress (at least) .

I doubt it. The Republicans would try to force through a new organizing resolution, and if the Democrats filibustered it, I would hope that the Republicans would have the sense to "shut down" the Senate. Trying to rule from the minority isn't good politics, and I don't think the American people would stand for it.

The American people wanted a Democratic Senate and voted for one. They don't want to lose it over some political manipulations rather than elections.

The American people wanted a split senate in 2000 and voted for one.  They didn't want to lose it over some political manipulations, but that's exactly what happened.

The Democrats made massive gains though, and if every seat was up would've probably taken it. And do you really think most people in Vermont wanted a Republican Senate? The fact is, Zeus' argument is stupid, the people don't want the Republicans back in power, period.

Thank you for illustrating a key point: people vote for individual US Senators, not for party control.  I doubt people in Virginia wanted a Democratic Senate as much as they wanted to get rid of Allen.

[ag]

or he could be really clever and ask joe lieberman.  rell would pick his replacement. 

That would so make my day.

I'd probably like whoever Rell picks more than Lieberman. She's a good example of a likeable Republican, and he's a good example of a despicable Democrat.

rob simmons would probably be the replacement.

i guess you all would like majority leader mcconnell too.

Too bad there is no clause in the 110 Congress' organizing resolution allowing for the Senate to be reorganized in case a of a party switch.

In other words, if Lieberman switched or he was replaced by a republican, Harry Reid would remain Majority Leader for the remainder of the 110th Congress (at least) .

I doubt it. The Republicans would try to force through a new organizing resolution, and if the Democrats filibustered it, I would hope that the Republicans would have the sense to "shut down" the Senate. Trying to rule from the minority isn't good politics, and I don't think the American people would stand for it.

The American people wanted a Democratic Senate and voted for one. They don't want to lose it over some political manipulations rather than elections.

The American people wanted a split senate in 2000 and voted for one.  They didn't want to lose it over some political manipulations, but that's exactly what happened.

American people didn't want anything. The people, in general, doesn't want anything - individual citizens do.  And vast majority of individual citizens of Connecticut didn't want a Republican-controlled Senate, that's most obviously true.

CT is not going to revolt, of course - no state has since 1861.  But, if Rell dares to switch control of the Senate from D to R she runs a serious risk of going from the most popular to the least popular local politician overnight.  Most residents of New England  do not instinctively hate every Republican - you are absolutely right about that. In fact, many local Republicans are locally popular, respected, admired, etc. But most of them don't like the national Republican party (that's a mild way of puting it).  If local Republicans make the federal Senate go R, R will become the scarlet letter. I wouldn't be surprized if it were to cause an emergence of a notable "third party" locally - in fact, chances are that party would be the Republican.

[Stranger in a strange land]

In any case, I don't think appointing a Republican would be a smart move for Rell and CT Republicans. Not only would it ensure a Dem pick-up of the CT governor seat at the first opportunity, it might also destroy Shays in 2008, and would have nasty conseqences for even the most popular of Vermont and RI governors: a realization, that a Rep governor means a Rep senator might make it impossible for anyone with (R) after his/her name to be elected to any governorship in New England.  Even if she has a chance, I'd expect Rell to appoint a nominal independent. More likely, I'd expect her to simply sign whichever the Senatorial vacancy bill the legislature passes (whether it would require immediate election, or legislative confirmation or same party appointment, or whatever).

You've got to be kidding -- that's ridiculous.  Connecticut isn't going to revolt over a moderate like Rob Simmons being made Senator.  And they're not going to boot Chris Shays because someone appoints someone else to some other office.  Whatever.

Rhode Island didn't revolt over Linc Chafee being appointed to the US Senate.  And then Don Carcieri won election as Governor as an upset.

Despite what you think, New England doesn't instinctively hate Republicans unless they have a good reason to.

Chafee was appointed to replace his highly popular father, John Chafee, who had died in office. Also, that appointment didn't swing control of the senate.

New Englanders would not be happy if a republican were appointed to replace Lieberman. This would hurt republicans not only there but across the country as well.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I thought we had already established the fact that a Rell appointee wouldn't swing control of the Senate regardless, since the Senate cannot be reorganized until 2009.

[Adlai Stevenson]

http://www.politics1.com/

Speculation continues to grow that six-term US Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- is aggressively posturing behind the scenes to replace Al Gonzales in President Bush's Cabinet as the next Attorney General. Hatch would be certain to win swift Senate confirmation by a nearly unanimous vote. A Hatch appointment would also help improve Bush Administration relations on Capitol Hill. Numerous news reports, including inside-the-Beltway sources like Roll Call, all say Hatch very much wants the post as a nice way to close out his lengthy political career. Although Hatch was once a Presidential hopeful, most who know him say his real ambition for many years was to secure an appointment to the US Supreme Court. Now, at age 73, a realistic Hatch knows an appointment to the high court is most unlikely. If Hatch becomes AG, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (R) would select an interim replacement who would be required to face voters next year in a special election for the remaining four-years of Hatch's current term. Several prominent Utah Republicans are already jockeying -- just in case -- to run next year.

[socaldem]

http://www.politics1.com/

Speculation continues to grow that six-term US Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -- former Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- is aggressively posturing behind the scenes to replace Al Gonzales in President Bush's Cabinet as the next Attorney General. Hatch would be certain to win swift Senate confirmation by a nearly unanimous vote. A Hatch appointment would also help improve Bush Administration relations on Capitol Hill. Numerous news reports, including inside-the-Beltway sources like Roll Call, all say Hatch very much wants the post as a nice way to close out his lengthy political career. Although Hatch was once a Presidential hopeful, most who know him say his real ambition for many years was to secure an appointment to the US Supreme Court. Now, at age 73, a realistic Hatch knows an appointment to the high court is most unlikely. If Hatch becomes AG, Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (R) would select an interim replacement who would be required to face voters next year in a special election for the remaining four-years of Hatch's current term. Several prominent Utah Republicans are already jockeying -- just in case -- to run next year.

I'd love to see a Sen. Olene Walker but I don't think that's happening.