With Lieberman likely to lose the primary, what does it all mean?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Lieberman will eventually accept an offer to run as the primary winner's vice presidential candidate. It will be a gesture to consolidate the ticket.

God forbid!

[Parrot Head]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

If the public really wanted moderates, they would influence the primary system to get them. The problem is that the public by and large doesn't get involved in the political process until election day, if at all. By then, the loudest and most extreme individuals have already elected people to the party conventions and have voted in the primaries.

People need to get involved and stop complaining or things will never change.

Like homeboy, I believe El Guapo is EL Wrong-o on this one. The 5-10% on either end are the most vocal and the squeaky wheel gets something (pork barrel grease?). I'm sure if you asked the general population, they would say the majority of research money should go towards saving lives affected by diseases that affect the most people, yet AIDS money is WAY up there. WHy? Because they are vocal and mobilized.

How many people vote a certain way only because of the abortion issue? So why is that brought up over and over and over in every freaking election higher than the Barstow Dog Catcher race? On the right, how many people really don't care if the government puts some sort of limitations on owning military assault rifles? Yet the NRA would have you believe it's vital to our existence.

It'd be interesting to take the mic out of the hands of those who vote straight-ticket based solely on party affiliation. I think our elections and campaigns would be much more productive.

[il Padrino Ute]

Lieberman is the only Dem for which I would consider voting.

What I believe is that the Dems are again being stupid by eliminating Lieberman. All other Dem candidates are on the left fringe and for some reason, the Dems haven't figured out that putting up a candidate like that doesn't work. One would think that after what happened in the '04 election - the White House was theirs for the taking and they send Kerry in to reclaim it? - that they'd try to get someone like Lieberman.

For being the enlightened ones, they're really not very bright.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Parrot Head

Like homeboy, I believe El Guapo is EL Wrong-o on this one. The 5-10% on either end are the most vocal and the squeaky wheel gets something (pork barrel grease?). I'm sure if you asked the general population, they would say the majority of research money should go towards saving lives affected by diseases that affect the most people, yet AIDS money is WAY up there. WHy? Because they are vocal and mobilized.

How many people vote a certain way only because of the abortion issue? So why is that brought up over and over and over in every freaking election higher than the Barstow Dog Catcher race? On the right, how many people really don't care if the government puts some sort of limitations on owning military assault rifles? Yet the NRA would have you believe it's vital to our existence.

It'd be interesting to take the mic out of the hands of those who vote straight-ticket based solely on party affiliation. I think our elections and campaigns would be much more productive.

I've been fed up with both parties and with politicians in general, but party politics serve their purpose. Countries with party-centered systems generally do better than those with candidate-centered systems. In some coutnries the party just puts 4 or 5 candidates on a ticket and you vote for the party.

It's supposed to focus the electorate on the national interest and avoid particularism. Unfortunately, this aint happening with Delay's system of earmarks. I couldn't believe my ears when Bush told him to look for more areas to cut spending, and he said there weren't any more. Freakin' politicians.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by Parrot Head

Like homeboy, I believe El Guapo is EL Wrong-o on this one. The 5-10% on either end are the most vocal and the squeaky wheel gets something (pork barrel grease?). I'm sure if you asked the general population, they would say the majority of research money should go towards saving lives affected by diseases that affect the most people, yet AIDS money is WAY up there. WHy? Because they are vocal and mobilized.

How many people vote a certain way only because of the abortion issue? So why is that brought up over and over and over in every freaking election higher than the Barstow Dog Catcher race? On the right, how many people really don't care if the government puts some sort of limitations on owning military assault rifles? Yet the NRA would have you believe it's vital to our existence.

It'd be interesting to take the mic out of the hands of those who vote straight-ticket based solely on party affiliation. I think our elections and campaigns would be much more productive.

Like I said, you take the mic out of their hands by speaking up yourself and participating, either through voting, donations or otherwise. The answer isn't to silence the opposition, it is to speak louder and more clearly. Far too many people complain about the process and how it is "broken" while sitting home on voting day and not donating to politicians they approve of. If you don't like it, do something about it.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Lieberman down by 13 points

I haven't been following this and don't know much about Connecticut politics, but I am curious. Lieberman says that he will run as an independent if he loses the primary, which appears like a done deal. If he does, what does that do to the race? Normally, two Democrats running in a general election would help the Republican. Is such the case here? Is there a viable Republican candidate? Or are they offering up some crazy Alan Keys clone?

According to the article, Democrats are saying they will support the party's nominee. If so, how much pressure will be applied to keep Lieberman from running as an independent? Are Democrats cutting off their noses to spite their faces?

Nonetheless, as with its counterpart on the other side of the aisle, it looks like the Moderate Democrat is increasingly becoming an endangered species.

Not sure why Republicans get up in arms about this. It's clear among the dems that the war is a major issue. If they want to go with the anti-war candidate, so what. What will be interesting will be if Lieberman can still win as an independent, and if that happens, I think it's probably better for the GOP because he won't care about keeping the dems happy on other issues and will be someone the GOP will be able to go with on their side on different things. But in reality Lieberman's voting record isn't as "moderate" as some Republicans think it is. On tax and economic issues he's very much a democrat.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Not sure why Republicans get up in arms about this. It's clear among the dems that the war is a major issue. If they want to go with the anti-war candidate, so what. What will be interesting will be if Lieberman can still win as an independent, and if that happens, I think it's probably better for the GOP because he won't care about keeping the dems happy on other issues and will be someone the GOP will be able to go with on their side on different things. But in reality Lieberman's voting record isn't as "moderate" as some Republicans think it is. On tax and economic issues he's very much a democrat.

Exactly. Republicans keep talking as if what is happening to Lieberman is the result of a plot by the national Democratic party. He has been endorsed by most major national Democrats. What is happening here is that Connecticut Democrats don't like him. Why is that a big deal? If he was running in Tennessee, he would be very popular among Democrats there. If he was in Utah, he would also be quite successful. If he was in California, he would have been lyched by now. People need to stop making this a national Democratic party issue. It just isn't.

[Robin]

Republicans suck, and the reason why is because they refuse to hold their leaders accountable for their sins, and we end up with leaders who fail to represent their people.

On the other hand, Democrats suck, because the fact that we DO hold our leaders accountable mans that we may not ever gain majority power against the Republicans. Here is a personal letter I just got from Michael Moore that shows how 'we' hold our leaders responsible for their actions:

Originally Posted by Michael Moore

Friends,

Let the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman send a cold shiver down the spine of every Democrat who supported the invasion of Iraq and who continues to support, in any way, this senseless, immoral, unwinnable war. Make no mistake about it: We, the majority of Americans, want this war ended -- and we will actively work to defeat each and every one of you who does not support an immediate end to this war.

Nearly every Democrat set to run for president in 2008 is responsible for this war. They voted for it or they supported it. That single, stupid decision has cost us 2,592 American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives. Lieberman and Company made a colossal mistake -- and we are going to make sure they pay for that mistake. Payback time started last night.

I realize that there are those like Kerry and Edwards who have now changed their position and are strongly anti-war. Perhaps that switch will be enough for some to support them. For others, like me -- while I'm glad they've seen the light -- their massive error in judgment is, sadly, proof that they are not fit for the job. They sided with Bush, and for that, they may never enter the promised land.

To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?

To every Democratic Senator and Congressman who continues to back Bush's War, allow me to inform you that your days in elective office are now numbered. Myself and tens of millions of citizens are going to work hard to actively remove you from any position of power.

If you don't believe us, give Joe a call.

Yours,
Michael Moore

[myboynoah]

My prayer tonight:

Please, please, please, PLEASE, let Democrats listen to Michael Moore.

PLEASE!

Also, bless mpfunk to find a wonderful woman with whom to spend the rest of eternity.

Amen

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

My prayer tonight:

Please, please, please, PLEASE, let Democrats listen to Michael Moore.

Amen and Amen.