What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election

I am going to do something unusual here and ask someone else to do some research. But first I want to set up a scenario that I think is being ignored by the blogosphere.

A lot of people are suspicious that Joe Lieberman, if he wins re-election, will caucus with the GOP. I don't think that is very likely unless a very specific set of circumstances takes place. If Joe Lieberman is denied seniority by the Democratic caucus he will seriously consider caucusing with the Republican Party. But, knowing that, the Democrats will not deny Lieberman seniority unless they can afford to lose his vote and still maintain a majority. That means, the Dems would only consider stripping Lieberman of his seniority if they have a majority of 52. To get a majority of 52, the Dems would need to pick up seven seats. In order of likelihood, these are the seats we could pick up: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia, Arizona.

Now, how likely do you think it is that we will win seven of those seats without losing either New Jersey or Maryland? It's not very likely. How likely is that we will win six of them? Taking Arizona out of the mix makes it at least plausible, but how likely is it that we will win Virginia AND Tennessee?

If we get to 51, and Lieberman is re-elected, then Lieberman will be able to decide which party controls Congress. It will literally be his decision. And as much as he will owe his victory to GOP financing and votes, he will be unlikely to screw all his lifelong friends on the Hill by denying them desperately desired Chairmanships.

Just think about the other Connecticut Senator, Christopher Dodd. He stands to chair the Rules and Administration committee and, since Sarbanes is retiring, he is in line for the the Chairmanship of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. He'll only get one of them, but does Joe want to deny him both? Does he want to deny John Kerry the Small Business chairmanship? He will not screw over his friends lightly.

But, there is another problem that people are not considering. What if, as Sally Quinn predicts, Donald Rumsfeld resigns his position after the midterm elections? Who will replace him?

If the Dems take the House (as is almost assured at this point) and the Senate, the President will be forced to forego his former governing style and seek opportunities to blunt the mandate for change that such a repudiation at the polls will authorize. Offering the Pentagon to Joe Lieberman will be a very attractive way for Bush to attempt to ride out his bumpy last two years in office. The Establishment will fall all over themselves applauding such a move.

Lieberman would have to be crazy to trade a freshly won six-year term in the Senate for a two-year term at the Pentagon where all the chickens will be coming home to roost. But Joe is a vain man. And Joe would love to be in charge of all those weapons, even if only for a short time.

If Lieberman is given the choice between throwing the Senate to the GOP (when he could just as easily chair the Homeland Security and Govermental Reform Committee as a Democrat) and running the entire Pentagon, I suspect that he will take the job at the Pentagon.

So, here is my question: assuming Jodi Rell wins the election for Governor of Connecticut, who will she select to replace Lieberman? And, once that Republican joins the Senate and tilts to a 50-50 Senate where the Republicans control all the committees, how long will that Senator get to serve before a special election is held?



Display:


Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

I think this is a question that someone ought to be asking Jodi Rell BEFORE the election:

"Given that Connecticut voters will likely cast 90% of their votes for a Democratic candidate in the Senate election, will you commit to appointing a Democrat in Lieberman's place should he take another post?"

An alternative possibility would be a Supreme Court appointment.  That would last a lot longer than two years.


by danielj on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 04:14:46 PM EST

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

I agree completely. Rell should be asked that question...until she answers it.
Booman Tribune.
by BooMan on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 04:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

Naah, she'd just say "I'm focused on my own reelection, not far-off hypotheticals."

The truth is that she'd likely appoint the youngest of the incumbents who lose their House races.


by Adam B on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 04:37:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

Chris Shays would make sense. I still want to know how mc=uch time this would buy them.
Booman Tribune.
by BooMan on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 04:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

In terms of time, I would assume that they'd have a special election by November in the year the vacancy was established, or thereabouts depending on timing.


by Adam B on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 05:14:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

It's my understanding that senate vacancies arent like house vacancies, when you replace a senator it's for the rest of that term whereas a house seat needs a special election after a certain time. I think the rules can be altered by state law, but I'm not certain of it.

So whoever were to replace Lieberman wouldnt have to face an election until 2012.

In NJ, for instance, Corzine was able to pick his own replacement to serve out the remainder of his term.

It might be like presidential succession, a replacement after/before a certain time can fill out a term, I just dont remember.


by hellenica on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 07:41:51 PM EST

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

I looked in the U.S. constitution, and it says:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

It seems to me that this means that governor appoints a replacement, and depending on state law this replacement either serves the entire remaining term (i.e., until 2012) or there is an election at some point.  I am pretty sure that in many states there is an election in the next even-year election to fill out the rest of the term.  (i.e., an election in 2008 to serve until 2012) I could not find CT law on this.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:16:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the state legislature (none / 0)

sets the rules:  For example, in Hawaii the governor is required to appoint someone from the same party as the senator being replaced.  In MA, when John Kerry was running for governor I believe the law was chanegd so the Republican governor did not appoint the replacement, but instead a special election was held.  So we need to find the law.  If CT Dems were clever, they'd pass a law like HI or MA's.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

I couldn't find anything either.  

In PA, when John Heinz died in spring 1991 (term ending in 1994), Harris Wofford was appointed by Bob Casey Sr to serve until a special election held that November, at which point he was elected to complete the term.


by Adam B on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:20:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

Apropos to nothing other than John Heinz:

Heinz was slated to speak at my college graduation that year. In his stead was sent some rich friend of his who lectured us about the importance of noblesse oblige.  

It was a tad galling for someone who's dad was a cop.  


by danielj on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, a little more (none / 0)

I now think from reading various websites that the Amendment I list REQUIRES that there be a special election to fill the seat, and that state law can allow the governor to appoint a replacement until the election.  Everyone agrees that CT allows an appointment, since it was widely reported in 2000 as well as 2006.  According to the link I provide below, most states allow the governor to schedule the special election and usually it is picked to conicide with a regular election  (plus there's a primary beforehand.  (saves money) Since CT is not listed as one of the exceptions to the general rule, I think we can expect that the Republican governor would appoint a Republican (perhaps Shays?) who would then be able to serve until the fall of 2007 and perhaps even the fall of 2008.  

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/hist ory/resources/pdf/Vacancies.pdf

This obviously would be disastrous if control of the Senate were at stake since it delay any investigations beyond the Bush's term of office.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 08:38:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What-Ifs in the Lieberman Election (none / 0)

During the 2004 Presidential Election when their was a 50-50 chance the John Kerry was going to become President. The Democratic Controlled State Legislature of Massachusetts took the US Senate appointment power away from the Governor- making Kerry's Senate Replacement occuring during a Special Election. rather than having Romney appoint a Replacement.

In Connecticut- a Democratic Controlled Legislature- assuming they have a veto-proof majority can take the Senate appointment power away from the Governor and have Liebermans' seat occur during a Special Election assuming he replaces Donald Rumsfeld.

Which Republican is tough to defeat
1)Bob Simmons
2)Chris Shays
3)Nancy Johnson


by CMBurns on Thu Oct 19, 2006 at 09:18:36 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.