Will Likud Joe be booted from the caucus in 2009?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes.

Now the interesting thing is if he'll actually flip-flop on abortion and other stuff after that.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

"Likud Joe"

I like.

Sadly I can't take credit for it. Thank Tweed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Booted?  Unlikely.

Democrats should want to keep him around in case things fall apart in the 2010 elections.

The odds of the Dems losing around 5 or so seats in 2010 is almost zero, simply because of the map.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What everyone seems to forget is that in the U.S. Senate, 50 votes is not the sole hurdle that matters.  Democrats need Lieberman to stay on their side for veto overrides (maybe?), ending filibusters (especially if McConnell gets re-elected), and passing controversial legislation that they'd rather not have their vulnerable freshmen voting in favor of.

I really doubt Lieberman would vote much differently outside of the caucus then he is now, other than changing the way he votes on 100% party-line legislation. He's still supported the Democrats' economic agenda for example.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What everyone seems to forget is that in the U.S. Senate, 50 votes is not the sole hurdle that matters.  Democrats need Lieberman to stay on their side for veto overrides (maybe?), ending filibusters (especially if McConnell gets re-elected), and passing controversial legislation that they'd rather not have their vulnerable freshmen voting in favor of.

I really doubt Lieberman would vote much differently outside of the caucus then he is now, other than changing the way he votes on 100% party-line legislation. He's still supported the Democrats' economic agenda for example.

Party-line legislation is kinda where you need Lieberman to back your side.  If something is passing 88–11, who the hell needs an 89th vote?

No, 100% party-line legislation is where it doesn't matter as long as we have a majority.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If he tries to block Obama's agenda in any substantive way (i.e., filibustering or at least supporting one) then yes.

Otherwise, no reason to cost ourselves a seat. He'd certainly be the most liberal Republican senator since at least Jacob Javits.

More liberal than Chaffee?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Jeffords fit well with the liberal wing of the GOP;

Which really doesn't exist anymore.

Lieberman fits well with the conservative, DLC wing of the Democratic Party.

How many others have endorsed McCain?

Lieberman has also voted to the right of Ben Nelson on some issues after 2006.