2006 Mid-Term Elections

[KayJay]

Personally, I think it's time for a brand new party: STOBS (stands for Sick & Tired of Bull Shit)

[Mary]

chrisfan said:

mary said:

I don't really understand the "contradiction" that you are pointing to, Chrisfan. I also think you have to put yourself in the mindset of a voter who considers the war in Iraq not just a mistake, but a total fucking atrocity and catastrophe. In that context, it doesn't matter if Lieberman votes with the Democratic Party 99% of the time (besides, if any Connecticut voters are like me, who gives a shit?? I could give two shits about "party loyalty" to the frickin Democrats!! No hypocrisy there...) I suspect you wouldn't vote for a Republican who agreed with the Republicans on 90% of the issues but also happened to be a virulent, outspoken racist. I'm not saying that's the same offense as supporting the war in Iraq, but it's only to demonstarte that sometimes it's not illogical to allow one issue to trump others and to control your voting decisions.

Mary, I can't really say that I disagree with any of this. But in contradicts the ideals that people say they want. Why do we hear over and over again things like "Vote the incumbants out" and "Don't support the candidates who buy their way into office" but we don't see it actually getting done? Because it's not that simple. When your choices are the guy who didn't buy his way into office vs the guy who has the same stand on you on the one issue that matters more than any other ... then suddenly the ability to buy your way into office doesn't matter. Is that a bad thing? No. If anything, the bad thing is the idealistic rhetoric that is trumpeted over and over again, but not really meant, in a realistic manner, by anyone.

Aw crap. I had a lengthy response to this all typed out, at which point the very weak wireless signal which I am presently pilfering from some hapless neighbor died on me. That better not happen again, as I attempt to reconstruct my post from like 7 hours ago...

So, a couple of things. First off, if people are saying both "vote the incumbents out" and "don't support candidates who buy their way into office" then Democrats in Connecticut are obviously between a rock and a hard place. Either they vote for Lieberman, and violate the "vote the incumbents out" rallying cry, or they vote for Lamont, and violate the "don't support the candidates who buy their way into office" rallying cry. If your position is really that failing to live by both slogans with every single vote cast makes you an instant hypocrite, then it would seem Connecticut Democrats are doomed to hypocrisy - either that, or they have to vote Republican, or for a no-name no-chance outside candidate.

Obviously something is wrong here. And what's wrong is that these slogans you quote are just rhetorical sound-bites which reference much more sophisticated and complicated positions. I find it hard to believe there is a single voter who sincerely believes it is a moral obligation to boot every single incumbent in Congress out. But taking the second slogan - "don't vote for candidates who buy their way into office" - it's possible to be critical of the role of money in campaigns without seriously adopting such an impossible credo. Rather, one can support systematic change which reduces the influence money can have in electoral campaigns - this can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including placing limits on various kinds of financing and contributions, and encouraging various forms of public campaign funding. Someone might well support these kinds of things, and lament the role of money in politics, without imagining that before the systematic change happens, they can never vote for a wealthy candidate. That's kind of like condemning a socialist who opens a bank account for being a hypocrite. As long as we live in a capitalist society, the socialist has to get by somehow - all the while hoping and pushing and advocating for systematic change. Similarly, the voter who wants campaign finance reform still has to get by in the meantime and support the best and most viable candidates - all the while hoping and pushing and advocating for systematic changes in electoral law. I don't see any contradiction here. The problem isn't with candidates who have money; the problem is that, in so many cases, these are the only candidates who can effectively get their messages out. If they have good messages, more power to them - but the point is that we need a system whereby other people can also get their messages out. We're not trying to eliminate wealthy candidates - we're just trying to render their wealth irrelevant. It may be that in an alternate system, Democrats in Connecticut would still vote for Ned Lamont, because they liked his ideas the best - and he wouldn't have to spend a fortune broadcasting them. Or it may be that some other lesser known average Joe would have even more attractive ideas. Either way, the point is absolutely not that you can never vote for wealthy, self-financed candidates.

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

poseidon said:

chrisfan said:

Hey man, don't go knockin the giraffes! Even I'd vote for a giraffe over a Republican.

I thought you were a die-hard Republican Chris ...you did vote for our current President.

Yes ... but there was no giraffe on the ballot.

[poseidon]

Oh! Duh.

LOL.

[chrisfan]

mary said:

chrisfan said:

Mary, I can't really say that I disagree with any of this. But in contradicts the ideals that people say they want. Why do we hear over and over again things like "Vote the incumbants out" and "Don't support the candidates who buy their way into office" but we don't see it actually getting done? Because it's not that simple. When your choices are the guy who didn't buy his way into office vs the guy who has the same stand on you on the one issue that matters more than any other ... then suddenly the ability to buy your way into office doesn't matter. Is that a bad thing? No. If anything, the bad thing is the idealistic rhetoric that is trumpeted over and over again, but not really meant, in a realistic manner, by anyone.

Aw crap. I had a lengthy response to this all typed out, at which point the very weak wireless signal which I am presently pilfering from some hapless neighbor died on me. That better not happen again, as I attempt to reconstruct my post from like 7 hours ago...

So, a couple of things. First off, if people are saying both "vote the incumbents out" and "don't support candidates who buy their way into office" then Democrats in Connecticut are obviously between a rock and a hard place. Either they vote for Lieberman, and violate the "vote the incumbents out" rallying cry, or they vote for Lamont, and violate the "don't support the candidates who buy their way into office" rallying cry. If your position is really that failing to live by both slogans with every single vote cast makes you an instant hypocrite, then it would seem Connecticut Democrats are doomed to hypocrisy - either that, or they have to vote Republican, or for a no-name no-chance outside candidate.

Obviously something is wrong here. And what's wrong is that these slogans you quote are just rhetorical sound-bites which reference much more sophisticated and complicated positions. I find it hard to believe there is a single voter who sincerely believes it is a moral obligation to boot every single incumbent in Congress out. But taking the second slogan - "don't vote for candidates who buy their way into office" - it's possible to be critical of the role of money in campaigns without seriously adopting such an impossible credo. Rather, one can support systematic change which reduces the influence money can have in electoral campaigns - this can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including placing limits on various kinds of financing and contributions, and encouraging various forms of public campaign funding. Someone might well support these kinds of things, and lament the role of money in politics, without imagining that before the systematic change happens, they can never vote for a wealthy candidate. That's kind of like condemning a socialist who opens a bank account for being a hypocrite. As long as we live in a capitalist society, the socialist has to get by somehow - all the while hoping and pushing and advocating for systematic change. Similarly, the voter who wants campaign finance reform still has to get by in the meantime and support the best and most viable candidates - all the while hoping and pushing and advocating for systematic changes in electoral law. I don't see any contradiction here. The problem isn't with candidates who have money; the problem is that, in so many cases, these are the only candidates who can effectively get their messages out. If they have good messages, more power to them - but the point is that we need a system whereby other people can also get their messages out. We're not trying to eliminate wealthy candidates - we're just trying to render their wealth irrelevant. It may be that in an alternate system, Democrats in Connecticut would still vote for Ned Lamont, because they liked his ideas the best - and he wouldn't have to spend a fortune broadcasting them. Or it may be that some other lesser known average Joe would have even more attractive ideas. Either way, the point is absolutely not that you can never vote for wealthy, self-financed candidates.

Cheers,
M

Again Mary, we're not really in disagreement here. Perhaps my comments were misunderstood. Or perhaps you're making these comments to state your agreement with me, and I'm misreading the tone.

The intent of the observations I made was not to say "Those damn voters -- they should have voted for Lieberman because they SAY that's what they want". As I said yesterday - I don't have a horse in that race. If I were a voter in Connecticut, I would not have voted for LaMont nor would I have voted for Lieberman. If it's perceived that I'm lamenting Lieberman's loss, that's a misperception.

The actual intent of my observations was to say much of what you said. Those soundbite "desires" of voters that so often seem to be picked up and parroted by the media (and by media here I mean reporters AND both right-wing and left-wing pundits) which I mentioned are not realisitic desires. They're nice and utopian, but they don't play out in the real world. The Liberman / Lamont race - for many of the reasons you've stated - is a great example of that. That's all I was saying.

[kmc]

Joe Lieberman, this morning, effectively became an enemy of the Democratic Party.

Lieberman launches independent bid
Connecticut faults state party for moving too far left


Stripped of Democratic Party support and with most of his staff gone, Sen. Joe Lieberman launched a new campaign as an independent Thursday with a pizza party in a city where voters supported him and the mayor understands his unusual position.

The "thank you" stop in Waterbury was Lieberman's first public event since losing Tuesday's primary and his first since dismissing his campaign staff.

Waterbury gave Lieberman 60 percent of its Democratic vote in the primary, though the three-term senator lost the statewide count to anti-war businessman Ned Lamont. The gritty factory town also has a history with independents winning office: Its mayor was re-elected as a write-in candidate last year after he lost the Democratic primary.

"I think in a primary you are dealing with a very limited audience," Mayor Michael Jarjura said Thursday.

"Unfortunately, here in Connecticut, the Democratic Party has shifted, I think wrongly, too far to the left and that limited audience does not reflect the majority view of the people of the state of Connecticut," he said. "That was very evident in my election, and I think it will be extremely evident in Joe Lieberman's re-election in November."

Lieberman hopes for the same fortune.

Although top Senate Democrats, including John Kerry and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, Harry Reid of Nevada, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, are throwing their support to Lamont, Lieberman filed petitions Wednesday to get on the ballot as an independent candidate.

"While I consider myself a devoted Democrat, I am even more devoted to my state and my country," Lieberman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. "I think it would be irresponsible and inconsistent with my principles if I were to just walk off the field."
Manager, spokesman fired

Lieberman said he fired his campaign manager and spokesman, and asked for the resignations of his campaign staff. He planned to hire two longtime aides as campaign manager and communications director, and to begin the search for a new pollster and media consultant.

"I do not blame my staff for my loss on Tuesday. I bear that responsibility," said Lieberman, 64. "But now that we are entering a new and very different phase of the campaign, I wanted to bring in a new team."

Lieberman's 10,000-vote loss in the primary set up a three-way race this fall among Lamont, Lieberman and Republican Alan Schlesinger, who has trailed far behind both Democrats in recent polls.

Kenneth Dautrich, a public policy professor at the University of Connecticut, said that Lieberman's name recognition and moderate stances will draw strong support from independent and Republican voters in November.

Lamont's views that appeal to liberal Democrats will likely turn away many unaffiliated and Republican voters, Dautrich said.

"For a variety of reasons, I think Lieberman is now in the driver's seat," Dautrich said. "We probably would expect to see Lieberman with a fairly handy lead as the election campaign begins."
The fundraising challenge

The biggest challenge, Dautrich said, will likely be fundraising. Lamont, a multimillionaire who put $4 million of his own money into the primary, will also get donations from traditional Democratic sources.

"The one handicap is he doesn't have the deep pockets that Lamont has," Dautrich said. "Lamont can put his hand in his pocket and come out with a few million bucks, and Lieberman can't do that."

One strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Lieberman had about $2 million remaining after the primary race against Lamont.

Lamont had hammered at Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and accusing him of being too close to Bush, repeatedly noting an incident in which Bush appeared to plant a kiss on the senator's cheek after his 2005 State of the Union address. His campaign also was embraced by liberal bloggers, who saw a chance at a larger role in the party.

Republicans seized on the results to paint Democrats as careless with the country's security.

"It's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy," Vice President Dick Cheney said from Jackson, Wyoming.

Connecticut voters have embraced other independent candidates, though. Former Gov. Lowell Weicker, a former Republican who lost his Senate seat to Lieberman in 1988, ran for governor as an independent in 1990 and won.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

I think if anything, there could be a plurality and Liebermann could very well wind up getting a Republican elected.

[shin]

So you're saying a liberal third party just enables Republicans?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Nope. Don't have any 2 of clubs. Go Fish.

[Galactus]

Let's face it Leiberman's been falling out of favor with dems for quite a while now. I think more people will vote democrat more then many of them will care who's name is in that box. Now especially with Republicans coming out of the woodwork to support Leiberman, probably in hopes of splitting the vote but I really don't see Lamont losing this.

[shin]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

I think if anything, there could be a plurality and Nader could very well wind up getting a Republican elected.

[chrisfan]

skvorisdeadsorta said:

I think if anything, there could be a plurality and Liebermann could very well wind up getting a Republican elected.

How? The split for the Liberman vote isn't going to come among Democrats. Their support for LaMont was made quite clear. The split is going to come from independents,and from Republicans who like Lieberman's war stand, and can't bring themselves to vote for a pipsqueak, even if he has an "R" by his name. Lieberman's presence in this race undoubtedly takes more support away from the Republican than it does the Democrat. It is still a two way race between the same two guys - just with more voters than the primary.

I looked and I couldn't find one ... who was the last Republican to be elected to statewide office in Connecticut?

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Nice fishing expedition. Welcome to Shin's limited views of democracy.

VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS ONLY!!!!
DNC UBER ALLES.
DNC UBER ALLES.
MEIN DNC.

[rockysigman]

chrisfan said:

Lieberman's presence in this race undoubtedly takes more support away from the Republican than it does the Democrat. It is still a two way race between the same two guys - just with more voters than the primary.

I don't understand how that's undoubtable at all. Why shouldn't many of the Democrats who did vote for Lieberman in the primary vote for him again in the general election? He's likely to take quite a few votes away from Lamont.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

Chrisfan, I think the last Republican to be elected to the Senate in CT was 1952.