clocker bob wrote:Joe Lieberman needs to find some new advisers if he's got this kind of leakage inside his campaign.

If the Dems split their vote in November between Lamont and Joe the Independent, then what prevents Schlesinger from winning the most votes?

Good question. Lamont's saying that Republicans like Lieberman (so far so good), so Lieberman the independent will split the Republican vote, not the Democratic vote. That's stump-speech optimism, I think. If he actually believes it, I think he's kidding himself. But Lieberman can make it happen, I think.

And why would Rove prefer a right-wing Democrat like JL over an actual Republican, unless JL can do more for their cause as a Bush plant on powerful committees?

Well, there's the answer. If he stays in those committees, that is. But I don't think Rove wants Lieberman to win. I think he wants Lieberman to do as well as possible, because he thinks that Lieberman can't win. If Lieberman can, with Rove's help, keep the Connecticut voter thinking that he's the real Democrat and Lamont is the spoiler, that will be very effective in splitting the Democratic vote. If the Democrats succeed in framing the election more accurately, then Lieberman might actually split the Republican vote. Framing is key, but unfortunately, framing isn't the Democrats' strong suit, I don't think.

It's one to watch.

LVP is right on.
It's like Rupert Murdoch giving money to Hillary for Pres.

If she gets the nomination, she will lose. It is guaranteed. Some people like her just fine, but the people who hate her, really hate her and will turn out to vote against her. She is devisive and can not pull it off.
If hell freezes over, and she wins, Fox News has a story for 4 years.

If Rove helps keep Lieberman alive, the Republican can slip in and win,

I can't help but think that Hillary and Joe know this, but like all politicians they are thinking "if I get the money now, I can work out the strategy later!"
That's how hubris works.

-A

If the Democrats succeed in framing the election more accurately

What do you mean, more accurately? Do you just mean more to their liking, or to what suits them winning in November?

I guess after 2 1/2 years on this board I'm still surprised by the two-party loyalism on this board. I would've never suspected it from the "indie" community, or whatever the hell you call it =)

Anyway, I hope this event is the beginning of a third party. Someone earlier mentioned this probably won't happen. I hope they're wrong!

alex maiolo wrote:I like the idea of a multi-party system, but this isn't a step towards that. The Leib has flat out said "I reject these results"
"I can't let [democracy] stand."

Come on now. That's not at all what he's saying. He believes with the primaries only including 1/3 of potential voters that democracy in fact hasn't spoken, and the only way to really gauge what the people of Connecticut want is to allow everyone to vote him in or out.

What's wrong with that? If people really don't want him, they'll vote him out, right?

Let there be 3 people. Hell, let there be 10. I wish it was that way everywhere, and with good funding. Most of America has lost its voice in the current system.

I know I just said it but I'll say it again...I'm honestly surprised at the loyalism to the two-party system being shown.

I'm honestly surprised at the loyalism to the two-party system being shown.

I don't think it's loyalty to the two-party system so much as disdain for lieberman sidestepping the results. If he had run as a third-party candidate from the start I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.

there are even states that have sore losers election rules that won't allow someone who loses in a primary to run under another party banner in the general election. joe lost. he doesn't like that he lost. he thinks enough of his supporters will vote for "indepedent" joe than voted for faultering democratic joe. i don't think he's right.

DailyKos wrote:While only about 3 percent of Democrats voted in the Virginia primary a few weeks ago, about 50 percent will have participated [yesterday].

The people have spoken, Lieb. Don't be such a sore loser.

I don't think it's loyalty to the two-party system as much as it is an acknowledgement that there are only two viable parties in this country. Both parties have ginned the political machinery and control the money. Combine that with a historically lazy media that only covers the people they determine to be the front-running candidates and you see why even after Ross Perot's strong campaign in 1992 that third parties have never gained traction in the States. Third parties have never risen above the level of token opposition in this country. Even the much-respected Teddy Roosevelt lost when he ran as the leader of the Bull Moose Party, and he was a former president.

But at least most of the country can choose between two parties. Here in Chicago and in Illinois we have one party -- the party of power.

unarmedman wrote:

If the Democrats succeed in framing the election more accurately

What do you mean, more accurately? Do you just mean more to their liking, or to what suits them winning in November?

Neither. The fact is that there is a mechanism for determining which candidate Connecticut Democrats would prefer to run as their candidate. That mechanism showed that CT Democrats prefer Lamont to Lieberman. For Lieberman to portray himself, as I described, as the "real Democrat", and to portray Lamont as a spoiler, is a factually inaccurate way of framing the race. To frame it the opposite way, is factually more accurate, your cynicism notwithstanding.

I guess after 2 1/2 years on this board I'm still surprised by the two-party loyalism on this board.

That's not it at all. I'm all about independents and third-party candidates. I voted for Nader in 2000. If Bush hadn't turned out to be shittier than imaginable, I might have voted for him again in 2004. In fact, if it weren't for George Bush, I wouldn't care about Democrats at all. What's objectionable about this to me is not that Lieberman is an independent, or even that he switched, but the timing and the motivation behind the switch. He basically used the Democratic Party as much as he could, and when it rejected him, he showed what his real priorities are, which have nothing to do with Party, country, or Connecticut, and everything to do with keeping himself in power.

I would've never suspected it from the "indie" community, or whatever the hell you call it

Smile when you say that.

=)

That's better.

Anyway, I hope this event is the beginning of a third party.

I'd love a viable third party. For some reason, I don't think "devotion to George W. Bush" is the best basis for one.

[Someone earlier mentioned this probably won't happen. I hope they're wrong!]

They're not.

My cynicism? Ok. Nice post there.

Back on target:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:He basically used the Democratic Party as much as he could, and when it rejected him, he showed what his real priorities are, which have nothing to do with Party, country, or Connecticut, and everything to do with keeping himself in power.

This is reading between the lines, not his lips. When one has a near 50/50 split of the Democrat-registered electorate vote them out after being pretty handily voted in 3 times by a much larger electorate, one would have to wonder if this opinion is consistent with the larger electorate. Joe Lieberman suspects that's not the case, and so wants to run on. He's said as much.

What's the big deal?

I'd love a viable third party. For some reason, I don't think "devotion to George W. Bush" is the best basis for one

I doubt Joe Lieberman thinks that either.