Discussions that have I've been having with my colleagues at PIPC this week:
(1) What happens to Joe Lieberman if the Democrats take the White House and expand their Senate majority to 56 or 57 seats? Despite his support for McCain, I think Democrats will want his vote on non-war-related issues, so they'll hold their nose and let him keep his seniority in the caucus. Others say he'll be stripped of his seniority, lose his chairmanship of the government affairs committee, and then leave the party to become a Republican.
(2) What happens in the fall campaign if John McCain is outspent 3:1 or 4:1 by Barack Obama? Obama has raised more than $250 million in the primary and seems likely to raise at least that much for the general. McCain will most likely only have $85 million in public financing. If money ever matters in politics, this is the time.
PS In his column today, Paul Krugman makes a similar point to the one I've been making here -- namely, that the political fundamentals are heavily tilted against John McCain. The combination of those fundamentals and Obama's vast fundraising advantage may be enough to offset his likely underperformance among downscale white voters.
Update 5/11 9:13 PM: In response, Matthew Yglesias argues that "there's very little logic to keeping [Lieberman] in the party," but TNR's Josh Patashnik raises the key caveat:
My sympathies are with those who'd like to give Senator Lieberman the boot... The question that needs to be asked, though, is this: Is Joe Lieberman the type of vindictive, thin-skinned individual who would be likely to cast aside his longstanding moderate-to-liberal record on most domestic issues in order to join Republican filibusters and make life miserable for Democrats in retaliation for their snubbing him? I think the answer is quite possibly yes, and that's a very good reason for biting the bullet and putting up with his shenanigans until 2012.
Josh is right. The Lieberman-defenstrators out there don't appreciate the fact that the Connecticut senator's overall voting record in the current Congress is actually pretty close to the middle of the party. If he switches parties, that's unlikely to continue -- previous party switchers have drastically changed their voting patterns. The resulting shift would make it that much harder for a President Obama to end Republican filibusters and get his agenda passed. My guess is Democrats will realize this and let Lieberman stay in the caucus. (However, if McCain defies the odds and wins, it's possible that Democrats will take Lieberman down in their post-election wrath, particularly because they'll want the Government Affairs committee in reliably partisan hands.)
Update 5/12 9:49 AM: Via email, Yglesias makes a point I may have neglected -- the danger of Lieberman retaining his chairmanship for Democrats is that he might aggressively investigate an Obama administration. Once he launched those investigations, removing him from the chairmanship could provoke a major controversy, hence the possible need to remove him before that point.
Brendan, don't be disheartened by the fact that Paul Krugman is making the same point you are. Maybe this is one of the rare occasions when he makes sense.
Posted by: Rob | May 09, 2008 at 09:57 AM
I'd say it's about an 85% probability that if the Democrats have a 6- or 7-vote advantage, they're not going to let him chair HSGAC anymore. It's just not worth it.
Posted by: Cbass | May 09, 2008 at 10:16 AM
What happens to Joe Lieberman
I don't know. Is he planning to give the Zell Miller speech at the RNC this year?
As Glenn Greenwald points out, Lieberman has voted with the Republicans on a lot more than just the war:
Add to that, that there are actual Democrats who'd like his perks and committee chairmanships. I think he only keeps his seniority if he has really close friendships within the Democratic party.
Posted by: Jinchi | May 09, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Right, but to Lieberman, those -- and the war in Iraq -- are all part of the war on terror. His overall voting record in the 110th is actually not far from the middle of the Democratic Party. And of course he does have a lot of friends in the caucus.
Whether he gives a Zell Miller speech may tip things one way or the other.
Posted by: Brendan Nyhan | May 09, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Brendan, I wonder if anyone at the conference spent time talking about McCain's finances. I'm not an expert on the subject but I understand there's an element of McCain wanting to have it both ways -- to go both outside the public financing system but still be able to count on that system for funds.
Posted by: Ben | May 09, 2008 at 11:53 AM
As far as fundraising goes, the higher ceiling on party giving means that McCain will be able to stay relatively even.
While he was restricted to $2,300 contributions in the primary, the reality of the general is that the joint committee through the RNC raises at the $25,000 level. While the Repubs are hurting for a grass roots donor base like Obama's, they are not hurting for $25,000 donors. That will allow them to stay in line. I imagine they'll be outspent, but by 20-30%, not by 100-200% as they were in the primary.
Posted by: BG | May 09, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Right, but to Lieberman, those -- and the war in Iraq -- are all part of the war on terror.
The question is whether they are the same thing to the Democratic Senators who'll be making the decision to keep him or toss him.
If Lieberman spends the next 3 months campaigning for John McCain and other down-ticket Republicans, then he'll lose support of actual Democrats regardless of what Lieberman thinks, personally.
Posted by: Jinchi | May 09, 2008 at 03:01 PM
You have got to strip him of his seniority and committee assignments.
A. He's not a democrat
B. He's supporting Republicans.
C. He's serving his last term in the senate.
The people of CT are dumb, but they aren't idiots. They'll toss him at the first opportunity.
Posted by: Davebo | May 09, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Permit me to sum up the Democrats' position on Lieberman:
1. Lieberman has publicly dissented from the other Democrats about the war on terror and about John McCain.
2. He must be crushed!
Posted by: Rob | May 09, 2008 at 06:26 PM
Just a note to that last comment: Obama's fundraising advantage is directly correlated with the fundamentals you reference. If the fundamentals somehow fall apart for the Dems, so too would the fundraising. So, it's not really the fundraising plus the fundamentals, it's just the fundamentals.
The caveat: McCain is an exceptionally poor fundraiser, exceptionally in the traditional sense still responsible for most Republican dollars. This could threaten to give Obama an added fundraising advantage.
Posted by: BG | May 10, 2008 at 08:09 PM