Replies

It would be a tie and not a majority change. wouldn’t it?

I believe so. Cheney breaks the tie.

For about five minutes, then one of the liberal republicans will break to independent and caucus with the democrats.

37 posted on 07/18/2007 9:55:02 AM PDT by Not A Snowbird (Some people are like slinkys, the idea of them tumbling down a flight of stairs makes you smile.)

To: SandyInSeattle; KC Burke; italianquaker

It would be a tie and not a majority change. wouldn’t it? I believe so. Cheney breaks the tie. For about five minutes, then one of the liberal republicans will break to independent and caucus with the democrats.

Perhaps a Republican would defect, but they wouldn't need to.

The reason Jefford's defection in 2001 changed the structure of the Senate was that the majority Republicans agreed to, and passed, in advance, rules that specified a change in structure IF the majority changed.

This time around, the majority Democrats agreed to no such thing, and THEY passed rules that say, if the majority changes, all the RAT chairmen stay in power and the RAT leader retains control of the agenda.

275 posted on 07/19/2007 3:11:42 AM PDT by Jim Noble (Trails of troubles, roads of battle, paths of victory we shall walk.)

To: SandyInSeattle

then one of the liberal republicans will break to independent and caucus with the democrats.

...and LOSE the next election!

279 posted on 07/19/2007 6:15:43 AM PDT by painter (Oval Office, Fred. Might be something you ought to think about.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794