2006-11-08 15:43:36 · 14 answers · asked by V for Vendetta 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Because it's no longer 49-49-2. It's 51-49.
2006-11-08 15:45:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
It is technically 49-49-2 at the moment. In the Senate, there are two caucuses: The Republican and Democratic caucuses. Out of the two independents, one is Democratic leaning and the other is a Democrat who lost his primary and was forced to run independently if he would get to run at all. Both have expressed that they will join the Democratic caucus once the next session of Congress begins. Therefore, when it comes time to vote on things like committee heads and such, there will be 51 Democratic votes.
2006-11-08 23:49:01 · answer #2 · answered by Robert 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Independents tend to vote with Democrats. But I don't think the house is tied. Virigina and Montana both went Dem...
2006-11-08 23:51:58 · answer #3 · answered by BeeB 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is assumed that the independents will align with the Democrats. They may well do that but will certainly be wooed by both parties and I expect will be more likely to vote based on issue rather than party. If they do it will be something rarely seen from the major parties.
2006-11-08 23:48:42 · answer #4 · answered by dano 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because the 2 Independents, Lieberman and Sanders will caucus with the Democrats on leadership votes.
2006-11-08 23:46:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Democrats won both now.
2006-11-08 23:52:13 · answer #6 · answered by Luekas 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well the Dems won another.. but to go with your question.. you mean Lieberman isn't a Democrat
2006-11-09 00:03:55 · answer #7 · answered by katjha2005 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The independants are plants the democrats put out so they have the advantage......Hey hows that...now I can start new conspiracies.
2006-11-08 23:51:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are no longer tied. Dems won both Senate and congress.
2006-11-08 23:45:46 · answer #9 · answered by Gettin_by 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
The independent, Liberman was dem and would not have won without conceding to the dem's.
2006-11-08 23:49:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋