An Intriguing Possibility

UPDATE: I'm not the only one discussing this scenario and considering it at least plausible. See a brief discussion of the issue at Talking Points Memo.

Imagine that this scenario comes to pass on election night:

Democrats, needing to gain 6 seats in the Senate to wrest control from the Republicans, win exactly those 6 sits by winning in Montana, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island (and holding off a strong challenge in New Jersey). There is rejoicing throughout the Blue States, as everyone contemplates the narrow 51-49 majority that will be enjoyed starting in January.

And then the other shoe drops. Joe Lieberman, who easily beat Ned Lamont, announces that he cannot justify caucusing with the Democratic Party after they treated him like a leper following his decision to run after losing in the August primary. Instead, he decides to caucus with the Republicans, who have promised him a Committee chairmanship and pride of place as a Republican hero for pulling a reverse Jim Jeffords.

Far fetched? I don't think so. Democrats are leading in each of the six states that they need to take over; Menendez is winning again in New Jersey and seems to have the momentum; Joe Lieberman is clobbering Ned Lamont. I think it is probably that this exact scenario plays out on election night.

The only real question is what Lieberman will chose to do when January rolls around. Harry Reid should read the handwriting on the wall and start making nice with old Joe, or things could start to unravel quickly after election night.

A Week Late...

I finally got a chance to watch last week's Meet the Press, which featured a debate between Missouri Senator Jim Talent (R) and his challenger, Claire McCaskill (D). I love the Meet the Press debate series, because it gives you a chance to see Tim Russert try to make both candidates uncomfortable with his often ludicrous questions (I'm a fan of Russert, but he tries way to hard to find "gotcha" moments when he's interviewing in these things).

As for the debate itself, the candidates took the positions that you would expect members of their party from Missouri to take, so there was nothing particularly remarkable there. Here were my thoughts on the less substantive aspects of the debate.

1.) Both are more interesting, engaging, charismatic people than either candidate in the race in Virginia, Senator George Allen (R) and Jim Webb (D). At least there are articulate people running in Missouri.

2.) McCaskill has a "John Kerry" problem in that she is waaaayyyy too obvious about discussing her background as a prosecutor. I call this a "John Kerry" problem in that, when running for President in 2004, he took every opportunity to remind people that he had won three purple hearts. Well, McCaskill never missed a beat when the opportunity to talk about her prosecutorial past came up.

3.) Talent is a Bush toadie - but why is that wrong? Talent is from a "values" state, Bush is a Republican . . . is Talent supposed to somehow be opposed to all of his positions just because Bush's approval numbers are in the tank? I agree with Russert, though, that it's fair to equate a vote for Talent as a vote for Bush because of Talent's high "votes with Bush" numbers (mentioned in MTP as 94%).

Bottom line: I think Talent will hang on in this race. Unless the "Democratic wave" gains steam over the next 24 days, I don't see McCaskill picking up enough votes to win. It will be very close, probably no more than 52% going to Talent, but that'll be enough.

Warner Out for '08

Frankly, this surprises me. It should delight Republicans, because had Warner won the Democratic Primary (which was doubtful; more on that later), he would have made a formidable opponent. By all accounts he's a moderate, thoughtful, articulate former Governor of a Red State (that'd be Virginia). Instead, he wants a "real" life, and presumably will go make a lot of money somewhere.

There are several possible reasons for this move. One is that Warner is telling the truth; he decided that the rigours of living life in the public eye just aren't worth the benefits of power and a place in history. If that's the case, then I applaud him for deciding to stay home with his family. I think there are two more likely scenarios, however. The first, and I think best, explanation is that Warner's "people" told him it just wasn't going to happen. Contrary to some of the early CW, Warner didn't catch on and was finishing towards the bottom of most of the star polls. The reality is that we're 15 months from the first primary - if things are looking bad now, there's still time to fix them, but it wouldn't be easy. I think someone looked at the numbers, looked at the crowded field, and made a judgment call to advise Warner to strongly think about getting out. Of course, the other possibility is that there is something in Warner's past (real or perceived) that would prevent him from winning an election, or at least would be extremely embarrassing. It's impossible to say whether that's the case, but if it is I think Warner made the right decision to get out now rather than have his name sullied.

Bottom line; this is good news for candidates on both sides of the aisle who are considering running for President in 2008.

The Big Three

According to this story, Republicans are focusing on three Senate races with hopes of preventing the Democrats from gaining too much ground and taking over the upper chamber in November. All three of these races (Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee) are exceedingly close; the extra money they will get by being the highlighted races could very well make the difference in all three. My early read on things is that the Republicans will win in Missouri, but lose in Ohio and Tennessee; however, I think any of these races could shift quickly.

The important thing, though, is the fact that this leaves several prominent Republicans out in the cold: Conrad Burns in Montana is seemingly left for dead, and Lincoln Chaffee, who received significant help against his very conservative primary opponent, doesn't seem to be getting any love under this new strategy. Rick Santorum also isn't mentioned here. The likely reason in each case is that the Republican's have written off these races. Probably a good idea, as only Chaffee seems to be within legitimate striking distance.

It's going to be a very interesting last month in the runup to the General Election. Watching where the resources go will speak volumes about which races the parties think are winnable.

Of Course He's Running

Here's another article posing the question that's on NONE of our minds: Will John Kerry run for President again? Look, of course he's going to run. His ego is too big for him not to. And he's going to lose. With a host of other mediocre candidates who haven't lost a general election, why would you nominate a mediocre candidate who has?

Incidentally, this logic doesn't apply to Al Gore because he has the "out" of saying, quite correctly, that he picked up more votes than the other guy. That will provide him with a little bit of a "get out of jail free" card on the "general election loser" side of things. His wooden personality? That's still a problem.

Future of SCOTUS

The New York Times has an article on what Washington would look like in the next 2 years if the Democrats were to win one, or both, houses of Congress in a month. There is a mention about halfway through the article discussing how such a situation would affect judicial appointments, with bravado being offered from Patrick Leahy, suggesting that no ideological partisans would make it to the Supreme Court.

I think things would be more drastic than that. Conservatives have a phobia about "moderate" judges. After all, they may turn out like David Souter, who most now believe is a complete lost cause, or Anthony Kennedy, who is close. Instead, tea leaves must be read to ensure that future Justices are "really" conservative.

There's a big problem, however. Justices, like anyone else, often revise their opinions after they've been banging around the echo chamber that is Washington for awhile. Harry Blackmun rather famously became one of the Court's staunchest liberals. Souter and Kennedy both started off as relatively "Conservative" (and really, that term doesn't perfectly work in the weird world of judges, but it's close enough) only to start drifting, Souter quickly and Kennedy in fits and starts.

Hence we get picks like John Roberts (who seems to be a phenomenol Justice, but whose jurisprudence is not particularly well-known due to his seeming high regard for stare decisis, the doctrine of leaving previous decisions in place rather than over-turning them unless obviously wrong, and maybe not even then) and Samuel Alito, clearly Conservative in a general sense but not an avowed partisan.

Even picks like Roberts and Alito would, I suspect, fail to pass muster in a Democratic-controlled Senate over the next two years, however. The reason? Democrats will hold out for a candidate acceptable to them (and they will not compromise). They will do so with the knowledge that they have a good chance of taking over the Presidency in 2008 and getting one of their own on the bench.

The result? I suspect that if a vacancy is created in the next 2 years, either because of a death or retirement (highly unlikely unless a serious illness was involved), President Bush's only chance to fill it would be through a recess appointment. The atmosphere won't allow for anything else. And then things will get really interesting following the 2008 Presidential election.