I really hate to add another Lieberman thread, but I just need a point of information

[Bucky]

I've heard several people say that even if Lieberman switches to caucus with the Republicans over the funding issue, it won't change control of the Senate. I don't see how that can possibly work. Under identical circumstances, Jim Jeffords switched caucuses in 2001 and the control of the Senate did switch hands, including all the chairman ships and control of the floor agenda.

In 2001 the Jeffords switch swapped the "50+Vice President vs 50 Democrats" Republican-controlled Senate over to a 51 Dems vs 49 GOPs Democrat-controlled Senate. Why would the reverse at any point in the next two years not changed the Senate from 51 Dems-49 GOPs down to a 50-50 split with the Lone Ranger casting the controlling ballot?

Are these theories misinformed? Or is this some procedural rule that allows a party organization in the Senate sometimes to maintain control even after they lose their majoriity? Or are these people counting on one of the Maine ladies to cancel out a Lieberman switch? I seriously doubt they'd throw their careers away just to make Joe shut up. What's the scoop, o constitutional scholar of DU?