You and I have kicked around the various outcomes for the Senate. The WSJ.com takes it to the limit.
Tennis Anyone?
As we noted in the previous item, the winner of the Minnesota Senate race takes office immediately. That means if Republican Norm Coleman prevails, the GOP will immediately capture control of the chamber. (Democrats now have an effective majority of 50-49; Vermont's Jim Jeffords, though nominally an independent, votes with the Democrats.) Control will also change if Jim Talent wins in Missouri. Appointed senators, like Talent's opponent, Jean Carnahan, serve only until a replacement is elected.
The 107th Congress has already seen three shifts of Senate control:
* After six Republican years, the Senate moved to Democratic hands on Jan. 3, 2001. Democrats held a 51-50 majority, with Vice President Al Gore providing the tie-breaking vote.
* On Jan. 20, 2001, Dick Cheney became the vice president, giving Republicans a 51-50 majority.
* On June 6, 2001, Jeffords bolted the Republican party, giving Democrats an effective 51-49 majority (cut to 50-49 by Wellstone's death).
Now, imagine this scenario:
* On Nov. 5, 2002, either Talent or Coleman, but not both, wins, giving Republicans an immediate 51-50 majority.
* Sen. Frank Murkowski (R., Alaska) wins his race for governor and is inaugurated on Dec. 2, 2002, leaving the Senate and giving the Democrats a 50-49 majority.
* On Dec. 7, 2002, as Larry Sabato points out, Alaska law authorizes Murkowski (if he does become governor) to appoint his Senate replacement. He picks a Republican, returning the GOP to a 51-50 majority.
* The Democrats, assuming they suffered no net Senate losses on Election Day, retake the majority when the 108th Congress is sworn in on Jan. 3, 2003.
It's possible, in other words, that control of the Senate will have changed seven times between Jan. 3, 2001, and Jan. 3, 2003. |
