Thanks for the link. I prefer a link to the original source over an article quoting a statistic.
You and me both, Frank .
What use is a Colorado senator’s endorsement in a Connecticut election?
As someone who supported John Anderson’s 1980 Presidential candidacy, first in the GOP, then as an independent, I’m less than convinced that this is an established bit of political etiquette.
Here’s what I think about it:
-
It’s kinda sleazy of Lieberman to not actually make a choice, but to be working both sides of the Dem/Ind fence at the same time, rather than simply dropping out of the GOP contest and going independent like Anderson did. But I expect Connecticut voters will be able to reach their own judgment of the sleaziness of this, and vote accordingly. I may or may not like what they do about it, but it’s their call.
-
I think the Democratic Party has a strong interest in protecting the integrity of their processes. If there are no consequences for primary losers who break away and run against the party nominee in the general election, and still want to be accepted by the party, that sends a strong signal to the voters and activists that the Democratic Party belongs to the insiders, and not to the rank and file.
One can argue about whether appealing to the center or one’s base is the better strategy for an election, but it’s damned hard to win elections without one’s putative base. And this is an excellent way to lose the base.
The Democratic Party needs to be unequivocal that the primary winner will have the Party’s full support, and that a primary candidate who opts for double-or-nothing in the general is off the bus. The Sore Loserman can do whatever he wants, but the party can’t afford to tell its voters to go take a flying leap. Political parties kinda need voters, and all that.
Wait, what? Elvis, you’re smart enough to either know more about the subject or to know to keep from referencing a topic you don’t understand.
TR won every primary there was in the 1912 campaign. There may not have been many, and they had no effect on who the candidate was, but TR beat Taft by landslides in 8 out of 12 of them (and by a close victory in a 9th). Cite
It was only the machinations of party insiders, acting on their own interests’ rather than the public’s, that secured the nomination for Taft. And in the final polling, TR pulled out 4% more of the popular vote, and 80 more electoral votes.
So, the public stated they wanted TR more than Taft in the primaries, then said they wanted TR more than Taft in the general election, and you say he put his own interests in front of the public’s? Unless by “public” you mean “Republican Party officials”, you’re demonstrably wrong.
Sorry for the hijack, but don’t slander the Bull Moose.
Got to love the partisan hand wringing on this one. How dare he run and maybe beat our candidate on his own! Well, if he can, more power to him. Which kinda brings me to my question. First, a couple of assumptions:
Assume that Lieberman loses the Democratic primary. This could happen for any one of a number of reasons, but primaries (on both sides), do tend to be driven by voters on the more extreme ends of the political spectrum rather than the middle.
Assume also that Lieberman, after losing the Democratic primary, files as an independent and procedes to win the general election. Now such an outcome would be “bad” for the Democratic party, but would it be a bad thing overall? After all, the voters of Ct would have gotten exactly what they wanted and elected the man whom they want to represent them. Isn’t that the point? Isn’t that the only point?
I find it interesting that many of the posters in this thread decrying Lieberman’s possible “abandonment” of the Democratic party are some of the same ones who are most vocal in decrying some Republicans for “putting party before the country”. If Lieberman can win the general election as an independent, aren’t you putting party before the will of the voters in Ct? :dubious:
Don’t let your grudges get in the way of understanding what you’re told. TR *did * run as an independent after losing his party’s nomination, and thereby *did * sabotage his party’s nominee in the general election. Now go back and compare that to what I said, m’kay?
It *is * of passing interest, as you note, that he was more popular within the party rank and file (which he failed to control even after almost 2 full terms as President, as you note) than its nominee, but that has jack squat to do with Lieberman’s possible loss of his own primary. Got it now, chief?
Why? He’s made it clear he’d be back in the fold.
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?
Look closer. Putting party before country *is * bad. Putting self before either party or country is worse. You can only find hypocrisy there via strawmanning.
What you said:
Ah, my mistake. I didn’t realize that you equated what is best for the party with what is best for the public.
Explains why you’re upset over Lieberman; God forbid the people of Connecticut choose a Senator who is what the public wants, without being what the party wants.
The “public” includes members of both major parties, some minor ones, and none at all. :rolleyes: All of whom, btw, are perfectly capable of showing up to vote if they actually give a damn.
Whatever position you may be espousing (if it’s something other than Anti-Elvisism, that is), you’re not helping it here.
Finally I get to see that phrase used where it fits! 
Simple, probably stupid question: Once Lieberman makes the jump, can he jump back? Can he run as a Dem. in the next election, should he choose to run again?
Right. And if they show up and vote, and end up with a different candidate than they voted for by a 2-1 margin, then that candidate continuing to run outside of the party is somehow “against” the public’s interest.
I’m espousing that what TR did was against the party’s interest, but not that of the public’s. 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.
I’d have no beef with Joe Lieberman if he bolted the party right now and announced that he was running as an independent. And if he wins as an independent – well, that’s the will of the people of Connecticut. That would actually be an **improvement ** on the current situation. He’d still vote with the Dems on most issues, but he would no longer be able sabotage the party from within.
What I hate is the weaseliness of trying to have his cake and eat it too. And the weaseliness of other people in the Democratic leadership who are supporting him while he does it.
Legally? AFAIK. Politically? Tougher question.
Wow. If it can be done legally, I’d say they need to fix the laws, because CT is just asking for more folks to game the system à la Lieberman if this goes unremedied.
Depends on what you think of Lieberman, wouldn’t it?
OK, you mean would it be bad in terms of small-d democracy? No, it wouldn’t. If, by November 7, more CT voters still want Lieberman to represent them than want Lamont or Schlesinger, then that should be their choice.
I do indeed decry the GOP’s “putting party before country.” But you notice my attitude towards Lieberman is that while I think he’s chosen the sleazy route - IMHO, if he’s already decided he wants to put his name before the voters in November, regardless of how the primary turns out, he should just skip the primary altogether - he should go ahead and do what he wants to do, and let the voters of Connecticut make their judgment.
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?
That IS pretty much what the Dem insiders are saying about Lamont, isn’t it? 
The question I’d like to see someone ask Lieberman is, what exactly does he see as the point of the Dem primary, given that he plans to run in the general election anyway?
As it is right now, the Dem primary is a one-way elimination deal: if Lamont wins, both Lamont and Lieberman remain in the race. But if Lieberman wins, Lamont is out. Someone should ask Joe if he thinks Lamont should have any qualms about gathering signatures for an independent run if he so chooses - and if Lamont did so, would it reflect badly on his loyalty to the Democratic Party?
If Lieberman were to answer that Lamont shouldn’t collect signatures for an independent run, or that it would reflect badly on Lamont’s party loyalty, then he’s a hypocrite.
But if Lieberman says it’s fine if Lamont prepares to run as an independent in the general, and it doesn’t make him any less a Democrat, then the question for Lieberman is, why have primaries at all, if they don’t serve any weeding-out function for who can run in the general election while claiming to be the true Democrat in the race?
Well, actually, “party discipline” in America has always been pretty loose. The two major parties have no party dues or party membership cards, and no mechanism for expelling a member from a party. David Duke is able to run for office as a Republican because nobody has the authority to say he isn’t one. So if Lieberman wants to run as a Democrat in 2000, an independent in 2006, a Republican in 2012 – he can; and the problem there (if it is a problem) goes a lot deeper than any one state’s electoral laws.