55! Just 55!

There are only 55 dems in the Senate. With Independent Socialist Bernie Sanders, they can increase their caucus to 56.

Adding Traitor Joe, who is OFFICIALLY not a democrat, but the only member of the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party," still gets you only 56 votes in the dem caucus.

56 plus LIEberman equals 56.

What Yellow Dog said. Let's keep this straight.

Bernie Sanders is a reliable vote for the Democrats, so that's a solid 56. Lieberman can't be counted on if it's a question of national security or probing past Republican abuses.

Since he can't be counted on, not just on Iraq, but on anything related to "homeland security", he has to be removed as committee chair.

56 plus LIEberman equals 56.

Did anyone hear all of what the Joe the Bummer said today? I heard him talk about the need for bipartisan cooperation, and then say that what he does depends on whether Dems do that. I'm not exactly sure what that meant, but I'm pretty sure treason is not a bipartisan virtue.

What Yellow Dog said. Right now, we can plan on 55 self-identified Dems in the Senate, plus Bernie Sanders.

There may be more Dems (Franken, Martin, Begich).

There may be a guy who wants to keep caucusing with Dems - Lieberman - but it'd be a tragic mistake to assume his vote will be there for Dems at any meaningful point, ever.

Jim Martin (D- GA) needs your help. Saxby Chambliss (R - GA) is poised to obstruct, frustrate, and attempt to block President Obama from enacting the changes our country needs. He has publicly stated his intention of doing so. Help if you can. (I know we are all weary from giving, but just one more time could mean the difference in getting progressive legislation passed vs. filibuster after filibuster.)

http://www.martinforsenate.com/

The Democratic establishment absolutely wanted Merkley to win the nomination. He was hand picked by Schumer.

Here: http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/06/smith-08-jeff-m.html

"...the Democratic establishment did not want Merkley to win the party nomination for this contest, fearing he was too liberal to be electable."

Sorry, Steve, you're thinking of Steve Novick, Merkley's opponent in the primary. The Democratic establishment gave Merkley a lot of money and support during the primaries, because Novick was more of a wild card. It annoyed a lot of progressives around here. Novick was seen as the more progressive candidate.

Just a little clarification: Merkley was a fine candidate, will be a very good senator, and way better represents the interests of Oregon better than Gordon Smith, it was actually Merkley who enjoyed the early support in the primary from Schumer and the DSCC. His competitor, Steve Novik, is the one who was shunned by the Democratic leadership.

There is no magic number of 60 in the Senate, because several senators--in particular, Landrieu and Nelson--vote 50% of the time with the Republicans. I can only think that this number was floated either in genuine ignorance, or by some of the more spineless Dems, such as Reid, who want an excuse to once again throw up their hands and admit defeat on every vote they face.

As for Merkley, like Tom Udall, it's great to see a genuine progressive make it into the Senate. Hopefully they can inject some fire under the palsied Dems who are there.

Alas, it hardly sounds like Reid is showing any spine.

55 + Sanders is fine (and hopefully we'll pick up some of the remaining three - DOJ needs to investigate Alaska) - go ahead and kick Traitor Joe to the curb where he belongs with the rest of the trash.

At this point, I think an important question would be: Which REPUBLICANS, if any, would be willing to break rank to enact progressive change? They need to start being politically courted and wooed. I don't mean kissing their ass, but hoping they can see reason, that voting for Dem issues is in their constituents' best interest, and therefore their own best interest when it comes time for re-election.

I hope that enough Republicans see the writing on the wall, that for all the recent bluster about how America is a center-right nation, it's really center-left and going more left all the time. I'm sure the GOP strategy is to block and filibuster any meaningful legislation, then claim that Obama's administration is a lame duck Administration, and that obviously "the people" really don't want the sorts of changes Democrats are offering. Therefore, America MUST want to swing back to the right and they'll use that to push their candidates in 2010. We simply can't let them. We need to make them filibuster if they threaten to filibuster, and line up all of the bills for which they threaten to filibuster one after the other, let them wear themselves out, let them be seen standing in the way of the progress this nation wants. If they're going to gum up the works, force them to be public about it, so the voters know who to thank, and who to blame. I'm sure there are a few Republican senators up for re-election in 2010 who would want to be on the right side of History, as opposed to the Right side of history.

Coleman's lead is already under 400 votes and they haven't even started the recount yet. Coleman says we should just accept the results and move on. Franken says not quite.

I'd like to see Coleman try to turn this into another Florida. The Minnesota DFL (Democratic Farmer Labor, that's what we call ourselves up here) is going to make sure every vote gets recounted no matter how many of the Brooks Brothers Bandits show up.

Agree with the anti-Lieberman sentiments above.

This magical 60 is a pipe dream, with or w/o Joe. I hope Harry Reid understands that, but I understand his need to have all bases covered before making a decision.

following up on slappy's point, it shouldn't take too much work to set January's legislative agenda. there were many bills introduced by D's, passed by the House, which had majority support in the Senate but which were killed by the threat of a filibuster.

with at least a 5-vote pick-up, and the kind of electoral numbers that should put a certain fear in the hearts of thinking Republican Senators, I suspect many of those bills now pass - and if they don't, those R's are really going to look bad for blocking them now. Given Chris Shays' loss, do R Senators from New England who really don't buy the hardcore party line anyway want to appear obstructionist on popular things like SCHIP, or expanding unemployment benefits? (I'm looking at you, Sens. Collins, Snowe, and Spector)

(an apology in advance, the 3:28 post was actually the second thing I posted, or tried, to this thread; the prior one said it was held for review by the moderator - if it shows up later it will seem terribly out of order.)

Who cares about Lieberman. Why don't the Democrats grow a sack and let the repubs filibuster there asses into oblivion.

This is some just desserts for the repubs. They get angry every time they lose, but in the heat of the battle they gleefully belittle whole regions of the country. They routinely ridicule 'Elitist New Englanders', and 'Leftist West Coasters' and where did it get them? The only repubs left in New England are in a wax museum, and they're well on their way there with the west coast. Add in their open contempt for Hispanics and there goes the southwest.
But they're strong in Appalachia...or as some might call it, The Inbred Belt. What a way to build a brand!

Franken's deficit is now only 341 votes.

The MN recount will be performed by hand, using a "voter intent" standard. This almost guarantees that the totals will move by a small fraction of a percent. In which direction? Who knows: did certain partisan precincts get counting machines that were flaky? Were older voters more likely to mark their ballot incorrectly? First time-voters?

There are no "provisional" ballots in MN, and most absentee and military ballots were already included in the first tally, so some of the issues that come into play in other states won't be issues here.

What Gandalf said. How big a majority will it take for dems to stop fellating the repugs? 70-30? 95-5?

Ball-less cowards. They deserve Lieberman.

According to the latest updates, Harry Reid has held onto his status as the most pathetically flaccid and impotent Senate Majority Leader in history for a little while longer, as it was announced that he has not made a decision yet on Lieberman's committee chair assignments.

The fact that the Dem Senators who campaigned hard for Obama, raised money for him, and defended him against the attacks of people like Lieberman don't deserve these committee leadership positions more than the turncoat Lieberman says all that needs to be said about Reid. I hope to God some other Dem Senator with testicles challenges Reid for the Majority Leader position. Hillary would be vastly more effective, especially in the testicle department.

Who's replacing Biden and Obama?

Beau Biden will probably replace his dad, and Jesse Jackson Jr. will replace Obama.

Looks like I'm far from the first to say it but yeah, Merkley was the establishment candidate and his primary opponent Steve Novick was the one deemed "too liberal to be electable." Considering how close this race was, they were probably right.

Re: Merkley vs. Novick

Rian wrote: "...primary opponent Steve Novick was the one deemed "too liberal to be electable." Considering how close this race was, they were probably right."

I don't know if that's true, Rian... I don't want to rehash the primary battle -- I liked both candidates just fine -- but one thing Merkley lacked was a certain charisma. He's qualified, he's smart... but you could see in the debates how he came off as a bit stiff, a bit uncomfortable in front of the cameras. I thought the same thing of his press call this morning.

Smith banked a lot on being perceived as personable, friendly, warm. I met him at PDX Airport once, just by chance, and even though I can't stand him, could see how easy it is for people to like him. To fight this kind of opponent, who masks bad policy behind charisma, it helps to have a charismatic candidate on your side, too. I think Novick was far more charismatic, and this may have made up for any perceived deficits from being "too liberal".

"I had a paragraph about Merkely's primary fight that was totally wrong. I simply confused Merkley with someone else..."
What is it about names ending with l and y that gets us so commonly mis-spelled? On the rare occasions anybody links to me, I'm usually "Wimberly".

I'm with Slappy Magoo and zeitgeist - the GOP is in shambles, so it's time to start envisioning a solution to filibuster that involves breaking their party unity. Time for some courtesy visits to those Northeast Republicans to "commiserate" about what just happened to Chris Shays, and remind them what a shame it would be if they got a reputation back home for blocking the new President's agenda.

Little known, completely useless political fact: The two newly elected Udalls are first cousins, and their second cousin is newly defeated Gordon Smith.

I met Jeff Merkley last week on a campaign swing and found him personable and with a good sense of humor. He's also highly intelligent (Stanford undergrad, Princeton masters) and very progressive, once a director for Habitat for Humanity. He is a policy wonk. Just what we need in the Senate. As Speaker of the Oregon House last year he pushed through a lot of good legislation including limiting the interest rate that can be charged on payday loans.

Jeff has not forgotten his roots as the son of a Southern Oregon millworker and carpenter. In his acceptance speech this morning he saluted two men who have had a profound impact on his life, one being his late father, whom he credited for shaping his view on government, and secondly, former Oregon Governor (1959-1967) and Senator (1967-1997) Mark Hatfield, one of the great moderate Republicans of his generation, and a staunch opponent of the Vietnam War. Merkley worked as an intern for Senator Hatfield back in the early 70's and vowed to be the same kind of Senator - working for all Oregonians: Democrat, Republican, young, old, rural, urban. You can be sure Oregonians will hold him to it.