I think there is a chance that this might happen but less than 50% chance. The outcome won't been known until the late hours of the campaign. I think if the Dems pick up 25 seats this can happen but if they make 15 or less then it is unlikely.

An idea..

move Claire from HELP to Judiciary
move Sherrod from Judiciary to HELP

move Ned from HELP to Homeland Security
move Bob Jr from Homeland Security to HELP

Or something close to that. Bob Jr and Sherrod would be pretty good on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Claire was the Jackson County DA for awhile. As for Ned, he could always get moved to another committee instead of HS. Such as switching with Tester and going to Finance.

You've got Tester and Baucus doubled up on two committees--pretty unlikely. I'm not sure how often a state has double representation on committees, but my impression is that the preference is to spread the love and influence a bit.

Nice job.  Interesting list.  One quibble with the Chairs - if I am Dan Akaka I'd chair Homeland Security before Veterans Affairs which is a nothing committee.

Also, there is no way that Sheldon Whitehouse or Jon Tester will end up on Finance as freshman.  This is one of the most coveted committees and there are more senior members who will move off their current committees to take a seat there.  It took Schumer 3 Congresses to get on it which gives you an idea of how hard those seats are to come by.

Schumer will want banking or finance. He is not ranking member but with a Democratic take-over and him heading up the DSCC he will probably be able to get one of the two.

I would say Schumer get Banking and Dodd takes Rules. The Rules committee is incredibly powerful and Dodd would probably take it over banking anyhow.

That's the only thing that really jumps out at me.

That... and... Sanders on Homeland Security?

Hmmm....

I'm losing hope about the Senate.  New Jersey and Missouri look unlikely.

And suddenly, according to Political Wire, Santorum isn't so far behind.  Aargh.

Minor, minor point. Ford would not be beating an incumbant senator. He would be taking an open seat.

You've got Lamont and Dodd on Banking and on Health, Education & Labor.  It's not gonna happen.  Also, you have no CT Senator on either Homeland Security or Armed Services.  Also, not gonna happen, not with United Technologies and Electric Boat in Groton.  I would suggest you go back and rethink the distribution again, making sure that you don't have two Senators from any state on any of the committees.

John Rockefeller replacing Roberts is a big deal.

Patrick Leahy replacing Spector is as big a deal.

And Boxer replacing Inhofe? Come on? That's just wonderful.

phat

That's not really the point. The point is is that the agenda changes. The message from DC changes.

With Boxer as chair of the Committee on the Environment we could see a seriously different response to global warming. With Rockefeller as chair of the Intelligence Committee we might actually see some accountability concerning the NSA spying.

phat

If Democrats win the Senate this year it is very likely that Democrats will increase their Senate majority in 2008 (lots more Republicans up for reelection and in more Democratic states).  Republicans would not have a chance to regain control until 2012 and probably wouldn't really be well poised until 2014 or 2016.

Hey Matt, curious to see how you are going to spin this one.  If Lamont keeps this up, he's a sure bet to get to the Senate.

THE NEW YORK TIMES
September 9, 2006
Lieberman Points Out a Turnabout by Lamont
By JENNIFER MEDINA

NEW HAVEN, Sept. 8 -- Ned Lamont, who this week chastised Senator Joseph I. Lieberman for his public rebuke of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, wrote to Mr. Lieberman at the time praising the eloquence of his speech on the Senate floor.

"I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Mr. Lamont, then a cable television executive, wrote in an e-mail message to the senator's Washington office on Sept. 16, 1998, two weeks after Mr. Lieberman's speech.

Mr. Lamont defeated Mr. Lieberman in last month's Democratic primary in Connecticut, but will face the incumbent -- now running on his own party line -- in November. In an interview with reporters and editors on Wednesday night in Washington, Mr. Lamont said he shared Mr. Lieberman's "moral outrage" over Mr. Clinton's sexual misbehavior but thought the senator should have handled it behind closed doors before making a public speech.

"You don't go to the floor of the Senate and turn this into a media spectacle," Mr. Lamont said of Mr. Lieberman's remarks. "You go up there, you sit down with one of your oldest friends and say you're embarrassing yourself, you're embarrassing your presidency, you're embarrassing your family, and it's got to stop."

At the time, Mr. Lamont wrote that he had "supported the moral outrage" Mr. Lieberman expressed reluctantly because he "thought it might make matters worse," adding that "unfortunately, the statement was the beginning of a process that has turned more political and morally offensive." He urged Mr. Lieberman to "stand up and use your moral authority to put an end to this snowballing mess," and suggested that "It's time for you to make up your mind and speak your mind as you did so eloquently last Thursday."

"I'm the father of three and the thought that Clinton testifying about oral sex before the grand jury may be broadcast into my living room is outrageous," Mr. Lamont wrote. "This sorry episode is an embarrassment to me as a father and to us as a nation."

A campaign aide to Mr. Lieberman alerted a reporter to the e-mail late Friday, after an article about Mr. Lamont's recent comments appeared in The New York Times. Mr. Lieberman's Senate office then faxed a copy of the message.

Casey Aden-Wansbury, a spokesman for Mr. Lieberman, said that after Mr. Lamont announced his candidacy, the senator recalled corresponding with him, and the staff culled old files. She said the 1998 missive was the only correspondence found from Mr. Lamont.

Mr. Lieberman's campaign aides pointed out Friday night that Mr. Lamont contributed $500 to his campaign shortly after the speech, in 1999, and did not donate to Mr. Clinton's legal defense fund.

Mr. Lamont, who declined to discuss the 1998 speech when an Associated Press reporter asked about it on Friday, was unavailable to explain the apparent discrepancy between his recent remarks and his e-mail at the time.

His campaign manager, Tom Swan, did not address the content of the message, but said in response: "It is clear that Senator Lieberman would prefer to try to cloud Ned's statements from eight years ago, instead of talking about the important issues of national security, the war in Iraq and health care. It is shocking to see that his Senate staff, at taxpayer expense, is spending their time trying to make up dirt on Ned Lamont."

Senator Lieberman, asked about Mr. Lamont's recent comments, said on Friday that "it was important for someone who was a Democrat to stand up and call on him publicly to accept more responsibility for what he had done."

Back in 1998, he wrote to thank Mr. Lamont, saying his "kind comments and words of support mean a great deal to me."

"This was the most difficult statement I have had to make in my 10 years as a senator," Mr. Lieberman wrote, adding a handwritten "Thanks, Ned" at the bottom. "So it is very reassuring that you feel I made the right decision in speaking out."

on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs? I think we should moving away from putting DLCers on these committees.

In related issues, I have sixteen chickens in my backyard tucked away neatly in sixteen eggs.  I'm sure they'll all hatch without difficulty!  I've counted them, after all.

... and (as you may have noticed) does so Energetically!