What are the odds that Ben Nelson and Lieberman caucus/switch with/to the r's?

Just read this from Nate Silver-

...However, Republicans have roughly even odds of finishing the night with at least 49 Senators, in which case they could conceivably lobby Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut to join their party at some point after the election.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/republicans-are-clear-underdogs-to-flip-senate/

Even if they SWITCHED parties to give the GOP a majority, they'd lose their seniority, just like Specter did. They'd lose their committee chairs ... wouldn't be worth it to them.

The Repukes will promise them anything to get them to switch, including committee chairs.

Of course that depends on him trusting that they can hold back the tea party.

Good luck with that one, GOP...

teabaggers. Not by a longshot.

...grant turncoats their existing seniority, especially if the Senate
originally organized with Nelson and/or LIEberman in a Republican
majority.

Tesha

Nate's been doing a lot of what ifs and maybes lately

It is difficult to say which one is a bigger snake...probably Lieberman. He is such a sleaze.

Worthless fucks.

51 votes decides the Senate's rules and committee assignments for the next 2 years.

A blue dog who caucuses with us beats a RINO who sometimes votes with us any day.

The Senate majority controlls roughly 2/3 of committee staffing.

That's lots of laid off Democratic political servants looking for new jobs - all because one senator decided to CALL himself what he already was.

to keep their seniority and committee chairs if they switch. Control of the Senate is that important to McConnell and the republicans.

But he's enough against most of their agenda that I don't think he would flip the chamber.

if he switches AGAIN his numbers will sink even lower. It is kind of pointless for him. A lot of us are sick of him in CT and he has a low level of trust from all sides.

None of these Senators have given any indication that they want to flip. This isn't like Shelby in 1994 or Specter, who was literally driven away by the GOP, in 2009.

Those in the House had just won their seats running as Democrats.

I remember when Shelby beat Jeremiah Denton who was more of a winger than he was.

Nighthorse-Campbell was March of the following year.

Richard Shelby was just an asshole and Ben Nighthorse Campbell was targeted by environmentalists.

Lieberman doesn't fit the mold and Ben Nelson, while an asshole, had plenty of opportunities to switch. He simply doesn't have the same issues as Shelby or Campbell.

Why would he switch from the overwhelming majority over to the minority side?

Shelby and Campbell didn't switch until they knew they had something to switch to (note that both happened right after the elections in '94). We know that they both delight in cashing in big bargaining chips for their own benefit (and to the detriment of the rest of the party). This is the biggest chip out there. We both know that there could be some "give me what I want or else..." from either or both of these guys.

But no... I agree that it's unlikely (or maybe that's just me taking up prayer?). What I have said is that I could see Lieberman brokering a power sharing arrangement (with himself in a key role of course) if the senate ends up split.

Why didn't he switch in 2003 or 2005 when the GOP controlled the Congress and WH?

He has split with the party more frequently (and over larger issues) since then.

I'm sorry, did Nelson indicate that he's disgruntled and wanting to switch?

How on earth do you know what he's thinking when he hasn't announced any such move?

Did Shelby or Nighthorse Campbell announce a move prior to the election?

His disagreements?

Abortion?
His vote on Iraq?
The Gang of 14?
Kagan?
Who held us hostage on HCR?
Who is the only democratic senator to sign the "Taxpayer Protection Pledge"?
Who worked to cut funding for head start, schools, and early nutrition out of the stimulus and increase spending on the DOD?

Need I go on?

you believe you know Nelson better than Nelson.

Feel free to continue to speculate, you might even change his mind for him.

If the senate to split and he makes the difference... he's going to have bribes all the incentive in the world (from both sides) trying to woo him.

Evidently you believe you know Nelson better than Nelson

Dodge all you like... but how many party switches in '94 could you have said the same thing about?

And once again... I said that I don't think it will happen. Just that it isn't "bogus speculation".

"I'll put it this way: I don't think you leave your party, your party leaves you. And my party hasn't left me," he said. "My party gives me a great deal of latitude to do what I think is right on the basis of policy and interests, rather than just what party philosophy seems to be. So I'm very comfortable where I am."

Translation? It's the same thing as the HCR stickup... if I'm the vote you need, then you're going to pay for that vote.

How much "latitude" do you think he's going to get when every vote is the difference between a win and a loss?

"I'm very comfortable where I am"

"And my party hasn't left me," he said. "My party gives me a great deal of latitude..."

I can see where you read "shot over the bow" in that.

Now, all the GOP has to do is win the Senate to prove your reading-between-the-lines analysis accurate.

but lose it by one seat. Then you may see a bidding war (potentially on both sides).

If republicans WIN the senate, then they don't need Nelson/Lieberman to switch.

Do you think Nelson would have held us up on HCR if we had 63 votes? Of course not. He would have no leverage.

If republicans win 51 seats, then the only reason Nelson would switch would be if he thinks it improves his chances of reelection. It's the narrow LOSS that gives him something to bargain with.

Now, all the GOP has to do is reach within one seat of taking control of the Senate to prove your reading-between-the-lines analysis accurate.

Better?

I said that I don't think he would do it.

It's just not an unreasonable speculation. It has happened in the past when politicians think that they understand which way the wind is blowing.

We talked about this a day or two ago. There's about to be a big debate on both sides (that some have tried to preemptively attack) re: "why we lost". With each side in each party (yep, at least four positions) trying to push their own position. There's no guarantee that all of the Democrats in the senate will agree on "why we lost". If we do lose nine seats there, that's almost half of the seats we had up for election... and there's a big batch coming up in 2012. How they read the exit polls is what's important.

You really going to tell me that it's impossible for Nelson to stab the party in the back given his track record? Again... I'm not saying I think it happens... but that it isn't a ridiculous thing to consider.

An easy lesson to learn.

If he has any last chance to run again in CT in 2012 he can't switch again. One too many times. Lieberman also was not wanted as McCain's running mate. The teabaggers won't want to put up with him just like we don't want to. Look, old Holy Joe is my Senator. There has been zero speculation of him switching here in CT. Nelson I would see more but he might not survive a challenge in the primary against an even more conservative Repub. Lieberman wouldn't survive in CT as a Repub period.

he's an Independent now but caucuses with the Democrats.

I live in Omaha, NE. The only people in this state who hate Nelson more then the Dem's are the Republican's.

His seat will probably go to Heinimin (our current R Govenor) in '12. Switching sides now will just make him hated more, and get him outed quicker in the primary instead of the general.

He'll stay put, and vote R anyway to try and save his butt. Ugh.