Ooops, a self-correctionion: 15 members of the Senate have been expelled, not four. Four members have been convicted of crimes, the last being Harrison Williams in 1981. The last member expelled was of course Bob Packwood in 1995.
Chest thumping, or non-demonizing? 
FWIW, my ‘chest-thumping’ comment was targeted at the general crowd, not at yourself.
I would agree. I would think it would be wrong to deny the electorate the ability to vote for a Democrat, if that’s what they want. It serves nobody properly to leave the ballot blank and have democratic voters unrepresented in the election.
On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to allow the law to be broken simply for expedience, or simply because the preliminary results seem unsatisfactory to some people.
We’ve had dead people on the ballot. Wouldn’t it be a viable and fair solution to have Torricelli’s name remain on the ballot.?
Otherwise it seems to set a very dangerous precedent. If candidate switching becomes a viable political technique than we’re no longer voting and giving our campagn contributions to people, we’re giving them to they parties, and we don’t have as much say in who’s representing us.
My understanding is that it is the preliminary parts of the campaign, and primaries and such where the parties settle on the candidates, and these deadlines exist for sound reasons.
This one seems to be being broken simply for expediency, and that shouldn’t be allowed to happen no matter what’s at stake.
Okay, here’s another possibility: Torricelli, madman and scumbag, sees the poll numbers dropping, thinks “fuck this, I’m outa here”. Anyone with a spine would grit his teeth and go down with the ship, accept the loss, but Torricelli is lacking in said organ.
Torricelli instead walks into the party offices and hands them a fait acompli, no choice: he’s quitting. Coffee cups spill, dogs bark, general panic.
OK, you’re the state GOP, what do you do? You put the best face on it that you can: “It’s better this way”, or somesuch, and try to field a candidate, any candidate (silently cursing this madman incumbent).
Torricelli, in his “I quit” speech, makes whatever noises the state party tells him to, what does he care? It beats saying “I quit cuz I wuz gonna lose anyway”.
So (to nobody in particular) why is this being pinned on the entire Democratic party by some? Isn’t Torricelli enough of a madman to warrent your scorn?
Scylla, I generally agree with your last summary, but one more thought:
I’ve heard some general worry about this, and, at least to me, the probability seems slight: the chances of Forrester not prevailing in this horserace after so much confusion and wierdness in the Dem camp seems slight.
Why would anyone in thier right mind choose to operate a campaign this way? "I know, we’ll put in a candidate who can’t possibly win, then field [insert favorite Astronaut or somesuch here]. Bwuahahaha!
Or perhaps this is seen as a way to protect every incumbent who screws up/dies/whatever from losing?
It just seems so…far fetched.
Minty green
Where do you think the cut-off should be on changing names on a ballot? There has to be a cut-off, could you tell us when you personally think the cut-off should be?
…and…
Torrecelli was not widely uspported by NJ voters. Not only was he plummetting in the polls, but new information kept coming out everyday that had not had time to be registered in the polls.
It is very disengenuous to even try and claim that he was a viable candidate when he withdrew.
Last random thought, then time for bed:
This troubles me as well.
OTOH, some of this already happens: there’s no guarantee how exactly money will be spent when you contribute to a candidate. Sometimes some of it goes to a national party, sometimes it’s held for a future campaign cycle.
Hijack: what does happen to unspent campaign funds in other cases? Say, a Governor has a war chest for reelection, and drops out for personal reasons or somesuch. What happens to the money?
In any case, it may be a good point, but I’d like to know what happens under other circumstances before passing judgement.
Problem is, that’s not the way it happened. He was ‘advised’ by Bill Clinton and two other powerful members of the Democratic party. As Scylla says, no one is really denying this. And frankly, I wouldn’t care if this happened before the deadline - both parties do it. And they should. It’s up to the parties to work to control their membership.
And this isn’t partisan for me. I feel no great attachment to the Republican party. I’ve been a lukewarm supporter of Clinton’s, and have a lot of respect for a number of Democrats.
What bugs me more than anything is the explicit disregard for 3rd parties. As someone who supports Libertarians here in Canada, it drives me insane how the systems in both countries are rigged to keep dissenting voices out of the game. Let me ask you, if a Libertarian candidate did the same thing, do you think the court would have let them pick a new one? Not a chance, because the court’s decision according to them was to uphold the two-party system.
Democracies are supposed to be about the people picking their candidates. If two parties start being favored explictly by the legal system it damages the viability of the other parties, which in turn limits political discourse. Bad precedent.
Oops, state Dems.
Already stated: How long does it take to print and distribute ballots? That’s your answer.
I just finished reading this week’s Newsweek, which goes to press Saturday night. They seemed to think he was still quite viable, if likely to get beat. Spin away, moin froind.
Who’s dismayed? I’m glad the s.o.b. is gone, independent of the effect on the election. What does that have to do with your conspiracy theory?
I’m still thinking about the rest of your post, and it’s getting late, but please cite this. I honestly haven’t seen those reports. Googling ‘torricelli clinton’ yields a boatload of irrelevant cites.
And oh yeah, pray tell what law has been broken? Remember, the statute only provides procedures for replacing party nominees, not putting or changing names on ballots. And please, be specific. None of this “by implication” or “inconsistent” vagueness, please.
Hmm. I could have sworn that Packwood choose to resign before the Senate could do anything to him.
Ah, good point. The U.S. Senate site confusingly lists him as expelled in the summary, but clarifies that he resigned in his expulsion listing.
Ah, good point. The U.S. Senate site confusingly lists him as expelled in the summary, but clarifies that he resigned in his expulsion listing.
Philadelphia - Republican candidate for governor Mike Fisher announced today that he is quitting the race. As of yesterday, Fisher was behind front-runner Ed Rendell by 15%. “I haven’t got a chance” said Fisher when asked why he was quitting, “Rendell is kicking my butt!” Asked to elaborate, Fisher noted that the NJ Seante race “…made it all possible, I can quit and we can put in a better candidate.” “When the NJ Supreme Court allowed Lautenburg to run, we decided to give it a go”, said Fisher. Replacing Fisher will William Scranton III, former Lt Governor. Scranton’s qualifications? “In our poll numbers, Bill is beating Ed by 18%. 18%!!!” said a GOP hack, who asked not to be identified.
The Democrats will appeal.
So, to this mess, a free market approach? Let the people decide? Give the people credit?
Does this also go for social security, medicare, welfare, etc… ? Issues where the left is quick to say that people can’t take care of themselves and need the help of government because they are helpless in the face of overwhelming forces?
squeegee:
You bring up some good points. Again. I am not asserting my concerns as facts, just concerns.
Your scenario about Torricelli could be correct, but I doubt it, as it does not jibe with the facts as presented us by Torricelli and the other Dems as well.
By everything I’ve seen, they’re being very upfront that this is a team effort. Torricelli is bowing out and being replaced specifically because he is losing, and the seat is so important.
To me it seems they are deliberately circumventing the law, and holding the electorate hostage to be allowed to do it.
I don’t think that should be allowed.
Repeating the Big Lie does not make it true, Scylla. Please demonstrate where New Jersey law says you can’t put candidates on ballots after 51 days before the election.