True, but what we think is irrelevent, since we’re not residents of CT.
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.
Anyone who cares votes. Anyone who doesn’t vote doesn’t care. That’s the presumption.
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?
No, it’s only your inability to digest what you’re being told. It isn’t interesting at all.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, would you argue that Clinton’s election in 1992 was against the public interest?
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.
Hey, if I thought the Invisible Pink Unicorn should decide who CT’s next Senator should be, I’d be entitled to my opinion.
Really? You didn’t accuse Liberman of trying to sabotage the general election?
You didn’t say that a candidate winning the general election wasn’t important, just the primary?
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?
You didn’t say all those things? Who, pray tell, is posting from your account then?
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.
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.
Speaking of correcting the record :), I don’t recall a completed recount, other than the 5-4 kind.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyone who cares votes. Anyone who doesn’t vote doesn’t care. That’s the presumption.
