How does the nominee affect senate control?

11/4/02

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

What happens to senate control after elections with the new Ventura appointee?

[Fred Mertz]

Yes, I'd like to know too.

[jdege]

Nobody knows.

The control stays the same, unless they pass a reorganization resolution.

How would Barkley (sp?) vote on that resolution?

Nobody knows.

[kcamtx]

Seems to me that its even and even and two independents. But the VP makes the difference. One up for the Reps.

[BillCompton]

Since they are not in session, nothing.

There are many what-if cases, but the practical significance is probably not important. Mary Landreau, Jim Talent, Alaska plus who wins the Senate are all factors. As a practical matter, there will be no lamb-duck Republican control efforts (which will succeed) unless the Republicans gain control of the Senate. Then the power shifts.

[Fred Mertz]

How long will Barkely serve? Until January?

Or, until Jesse appoints the garbage man next month?

[BSunday]

The person that Ventura appointed is only a senator until the election results are certified. This does not effect control of the senate at all.

[Dog]

49 Dems....49 Repubs.....1 Jeffords ....1 MN guy.

Nothing changes unless the MN senator caucus with the Repubs.

[Dave S]

Seems to me that its even and even and two independents.

Not true. While Jeffords is independent in name only, he caucases with the Democrats and votes for Dascle as Majority Leader, thus Dems control the Senate.

[Credo]

It may not matter, but just as a general constitutional question, does anyone know how the Senate organizes with no majority?

I know Jumpin' Jim is basically a Dem. Is there a precedent for a minority coalition organization in the US Senate?

[dirtboy]

The person that Ventura appointed is only a senator until the election results are certified. This does not effect control of the senate at all.

I'm not sure about that - since there is no vacancy in place at the time of election, I think Barkley serves until January 2nd. The key factor is the Talent/Carnahan race - if Talent wins, he is seated immediately, and can make the count 50-48-2 - so both independents can vote with the Dems and it won't matter, because Cheney will be the tiebreaker. But it's hard to tell how much the GOP can do with those numbers - the Dems could probably both stonewall certification of a Talent win and fillibuster any temporary changes to the Senate leadership structure.

[Nataku X]

Dems are still in control.

It's 49-49-2. Jeffords caucuses with the Demoncrats. The new independent caucuses with himself in the bathroom (his words).

So vote-wise it is 49-50-1. Rep-Dem-Ind. No change.

[HamiltonJay]

VP only votes if senate ties.... has nothing to do with how many Dems v Pubs... If a reorg were put up, and the new independent voted for it and all republicans did, and jeffords and dems all voted against it then chaney would cast tiebreaker. I would love to see it happen, but not likely. What's up with Missouri? Hows that looking? The winner there takes seat immediately.. if its a republican would love to see the republicans take advantage of the 1-2 months majority and get their judges in and all the other nonsense Dachles been stonewalling, regardless of how the breakdown would be in Jan.

But of course that would require the republicans to accept that they are the LEADERS and act like the majority party.. something they seem unwilling or unable to do.

[dirtboy]

It may not matter, but just as a general constitutional question, does anyone know how the Senate organizes with no majority?

The way it did before Jeffords jumped ship - Cheney was the tiebreaker, so the GOP had marginal control of the Senate.

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

Thanks.

Ventura names Barkley to succeed Wellstone

[Robert A Cook PE]

IF Dasshole "wanted" the matter to come up for a vote .... (Har/Har/Har) ...

Then Dasshole could allow his own position to be voted on ...

And Ventura's appointee (after getting sworn in and all after the appointee gets to Washington - IF ANYBODY IS THERE! ... and the swearing in is NOT EVEN CERTAIN TO BE PERMITTED at all before the election!)

Then Ventura's appointee might, or might not, vote to retain Dasshole as leader of the Senate.

... And dearest sweetness and life Lott's of Luck would have to challenge Dasshole for the leadership position in any case to even hold the election - and only then, after Dasshole RELEASES powers over committee chairs after that vote (assuming it actually is held!), ONLY THEN does Lott have a chance of naming new chairmen.

FAT FRIGGEN' CHANCE!

[steve in DC]

If history is any yardstick, the Republicans should presume control of the Senate.

At which time, Trent Lott will immediately pen some Byzantine "power sharing" claptrap of a plan which will cede all practical power (plus 10%) back to the Democrats.