# Lieberman may bolt from the Dems **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 6, 2006, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323 "2006-07-06T04:11:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/41 "2006-07-06T16:44:10Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Depends on what you think of Lieberman, wouldn’t it? True, but what we think is irrelevent, since we’re not residents of CT. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > How do you figure that? 😕 > > I think what you may have meant is, if Lieberman can win the general election as an independent, doesn’t that put the will of the voters in Connecticut ahead of the party structure? Well, if your stance is that the method he’s chosen is sleezy, but it’s fine for him to run and the will of the people of CT should win out, then that’s an opinion that you’re entilted to. However, I was speaking more to people lik Elvis who seem to think that by running as an independent, Lieberman is commiting some great crime against democracy. Although I must admit seeing Mr. “Florida was stolen!” post “In US electoral etiquette, losers accept the fact and drop out.” did send me into gails of laughter, so it’s not all bad. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/42 "2006-07-06T16:44:55Z")
But can anyone in any state wait until _after_ a primary to delcare party affiliation? ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/43 "2006-07-06T16:45:56Z")
Crap. Reply to **BG**. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/44 "2006-07-06T16:46:24Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > And if they show up and vote, and end up with a different candidate than they voted for by a 2-1 margin 😕 Anyone who cares votes. Anyone who doesn’t vote doesn’t care. That’s the presumption. > [@](#): > > I’m espousing that what TR did was against the _party_’s interest, but **not** that of the public’s. Taft would have beaten Wilson head to head, right? And his approach to governing more closely matched Roosevelt’s than Wilson’s did, right? Their differences were more of personality than policy, right? More people wanted the Taft/Roosevelt approach to presidenting than the Wilson approach, right? They didn’t get it, right? TR’s petulant split from his party therefore helped _prevent_ the public’s interest from being served, right? > [@](#): > > In the mean time, I’m finding your inability to seperate out what is good for the general public from what is good for the party very interesting. No, it’s only your inability to digest what you’re being told. It isn’t interesting at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/45 "2006-07-06T16:47:21Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Although I must admit seeing Mr. “Florida was stolen!” post “In US electoral etiquette, losers accept the fact and drop out.” did send me into gails of laughter, so it’s not all bad. There’s an important difference between **accepting** defeat and **admitting** defeat. Gore had (and still has) good reason to believe he had actually won. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/46 "2006-07-06T16:50:26Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > But can anyone in any state wait until _after_ a primary to delcare party affiliation? For a voter, it stops mattering after the primaries. It is not necessary to declare an affiliation at all, and it’s irrelevant in the general elections. You simply have to declare which party you align with in order to participate in that party’s choice of its candidates, via the primary election. Even those rules are pretty lax in some states, some of which have nonpartisan primaries (the top 2 votegetters go to the finals, unless one wins \>50% of the vote in the primary). ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/47 "2006-07-06T16:50:26Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > But can anyone in any state wait until _after_ a primary to delcare party affiliation? Dunno. That would require a state-by-state search of ballot access laws – all of which were drafted by Pub and Dem legislators, and are generally grossly unfair to independents of any stripe. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/48 "2006-07-06T16:50:39Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > There’s an important difference between **accepting** defeat and **admitting** defeat. Gore had (and still has) good reason to believe he had actually won. Suuuuure he did. _pat pat_ You’re so gosh darn _kyoote_! ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/49 "2006-07-06T16:53:00Z")
Thanks **BG and EL**. More ignorance annihilated! \ ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/50 "2006-07-06T16:53:28Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > However, I was speaking more to people lik Elvis who seem to think that by running as an independent, Lieberman is commiting some great crime against democracy. That is so disconnected from anything that’s been said here that it seems futile to try to put it in simpler terms for you. IOW, _pat pat_ You’re so gosh darn kyoote! ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/51 "2006-07-06T17:03:03Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Suuuuure he did. > > _pat pat_ > You’re so gosh darn _kyoote_! You know what? I take this back. Gore did have a reason to wonder. It’s the _way_ he tried to demand a recount so that it could only possible benefit him that I have a problem with, and with the partisan folks who are still, six years down the road, after the process played out and everything has been settled, claiming that the election was “stolen” that I have a problem with. Somethimes your side loses Accept it and move on. Gore conceded honorably when he lost the recount. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/52 "2006-07-06T17:08:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Taft would have beaten Wilson head to head, right? Not necessarily. Wilson managed to pull 43% of the vote anyways, so if 1/3rd of those voting for TR voted for Wilson, Wilson would have won. > [@](#): > > And his approach to governing more closely matched Roosevelt’s than Wilson’s did, right? Their differences were more of personality than policy, right? Keep digging, Elvis; you keep proving you don’t actually know what you’re talking about. Roosevelt was a progressive reformer. Taft didn’t move at all forward with TR’s reforms, and attempted in places to roll them back. It was _that_ difference- that TR felt that Taft had sold out to the interests of the monopolies and was undoing TR’s presidency - which caused TR to decide he needed to run again. The only real difference between Roosevelt and Wilson’s positions was that Roosevelt wanted to be relatively fair to blacks and Wilson supported the ascendancy of Jim Crow. > [@](#): > > More people wanted the Taft/Roosevelt approach to presidenting than the Wilson approach, right? What is the “Taft/Roosevelt approach” as compared to the “Wilson approach”? As I’ve already stated, Wilson and Roosevelt were as close or closer in political outlook than Taft and Roosevelt. > [@](#): > > They didn’t get it, right? TR’s petulant split from his party therefore helped _prevent_ the public’s interest from being served, right? So, would you argue that Clinton’s election in 1992 was against the public interest? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/53 "2006-07-06T17:12:52Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > True, but what we think is irrelevent, since we’re not residents of CT. But you asked **us** the question. So are you interested in the answer, or not? 🙂 Besides, what we think is quite relevant. We may not have a _vote_, but who’s in the U.S. Senate affects us all, the Senators from other states just as much as our own. So we’re free to influence the CT election if we choose: we can contribute money, argue on message boards, or go up there and volunteer if we want to. We can do many things to influence the voters of Connecticut; the only thing we can’t do if we don’t live there is vote there. > [@](#): > > Well, if your stance is that the method he’s chosen is sleezy, but it’s fine for him to run and the will of the people of CT should win out, then that’s an opinion that you’re entilted to. Hey, if I thought the Invisible Pink Unicorn should decide who CT’s next Senator should be, I’d be entitled to my opinion. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/54 "2006-07-06T17:15:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That is so disconnected from anything that’s been said here that it seems futile to try to put it in simpler terms for you. Really? You didn’t accuse Liberman of trying to sabotage the general election? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > They don’t stay in and sabotage their party’s candidate’s chances in the election that counts. You didn’t say that a candidate winning the general election wasn’t important, just the primary? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If they want it, they can be arsed to show up for the primary, eh what? As usual in a single-party-dominant state, that’s the election that counts. Don’t you think the CT voters who give a damn know that? You didn’t say that the will of the citizens of CT (in electing Lieberman running as an independent in the general election) was immaterial, Joe’s not giving them what they want, he’s being selfish? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Putting self before either party or country is worse. You didn’t say all those things? Who, pray tell, is posting from your account then? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/55 "2006-07-06T17:32:09Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > You know what? I take this back. Gore did have a reason to wonder. It’s the _way_ he tried to demand a recount so that it could only possible benefit him that I have a problem with, Without wanting to get too far afield here, I think this one was a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’ choice. If he’d asked for a recount of the entire state, lots of people would have derided it as a fishing expedition for votes, a request for election officials all over the state to do a whole bunch of extra work for no apparent reason other than because Gore wanted the numbers to change. One way, you’re cherry-picking; the other way, it’s a fishing expedition and boondoggle. > [@](#): > > and with the partisan folks who are still, six years down the road, after the process played out and everything has been settled, claiming that the election was “stolen” that I have a problem with. Somethimes your side loses Accept it and move on. I’ll second what \*\*BrainGlutton said. I don’t bring it up out of the blue, but I’m always happy to correct the record when someone else does. > [@](#): > > Gore conceded honorably when he lost the recount. Speaking of correcting the record :), I don’t recall a completed recount, other than the 5-4 kind. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/56 "2006-07-06T17:38:08Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > Not necessarily. Wilson managed to pull 43% of the vote anyways, so if 1/3rd of those voting for TR voted for Wilson, Wilson would have won. _That’s_ what you’ve got? If you can show any relevance to Lieberman’s situation, you can start describing it at any time. That’s an interesting theory you promote, that TR split Wilson’s vote rather than Taft’s, but even if true you have to say that he made that approach to the Presidency \*less \* likely to win. Which, if you’re keeping score, \*is \* relevant to Lieberman’s situation. > [@](#): > > So, would you argue that Clinton’s election in 1992 was against the public interest? Come on now, **John**. :rolleyes: You know, or at least _should_, that Perot was so close to Clinton in outlook that he actually dropped out in favor of him for a time before his ego got the better of him. The vote he split was the Democratic/Clinton/center-progressive/responsible one, and yet Clinton \*still \* won. But that has never stopped GOP partisans from yelling that a majority voted against him anyway, as if an even larger majority hadn’t voted against Bush. **weirddave** , scroll up and _read_. Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/57 "2006-07-06T21:24:55Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Gore conceded honorably when he lost the recount. He did not **lose** the recount, it was short-circuited by Scalia. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/58 "2006-07-06T22:20:22Z")
Look, I don’t see what the big deal is. If Lieberman wants to run as an independent, then fine. The voters in his state can take that into account and vote for him or not. He may be putting his interests above the interests of the party, but he certainly isn’t putting his interests above the interests of the country. There’s nothing unethical about running as an independent. What IS odd is the willingness of other Democratic party members to endorse an independent run. They should be saying, “We support Lieberman in the primary, and we’ll support the Democratic candidate in the general”. Why would any member of the Democratic party pledge to support someone who lost the Democratic primary? The only time this would be proper is if there were some horrible revelation about the winner of the primary…he’s secretly a Scientologist or reads Playboy for the articles, or some such. But if the primary winner isn’t an obvious fruitbat then the party should support them. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, this does not make sense. ---
**Author:** ![borschevsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/97f17d/32.png) [@borschevsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/borschevsky)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/59 "2006-07-06T22:52:39Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Why would any member of the Democratic party pledge to support someone who lost the Democratic primary? An optimist might say that it’s because they think he’s the best man for the job. And in some sense it might be inconsistent to say Lieberman is better than Lamont, but then turn around and say Lamont is better than Lieberman in the general election. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2006, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323/60 "2006-07-06T22:56:37Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > What IS odd is the willingness of other Democratic party members to endorse an independent run. They should be saying, “We support Lieberman in the primary, and we’ll support the Democratic candidate in the general”. Why would any member of the Democratic party pledge to support someone who lost the Democratic primary? The only time this would be proper is if there were some horrible revelation about the winner of the primary…he’s secretly a Scientologist or reads Playboy for the articles, or some such. But if the primary winner isn’t an obvious fruitbat then the party should support them. Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, this does not make sense. They haven’t been saying that they would endorse him as an independent-- they’ve said they’re not looking beyong the primary yet. If they think their guy will almost certainly lose in the general election, why not support the other candidate who is, in their eyes, better than the Republcan? Especially if they expect Lieberman to caucus with them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lieberman-may-bolt-from-the-dems/363323.md?page=4)