Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another audit produces more bad news
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Goo-Goos; Geo; IFT; Tracy; Schock; Poe; Target News Feed (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
I hesitate to do this because it’s a national story, but it has generated such intense interest on blogs throughout the country I figured why not.
I’m curious if you think that Joe Lieberman’s loss yesterday has any implications for Illinois.
This is off-topic, but for once I’m proud of Illinois election laws. If you lose a primary race in this state, you can’t run for the same position in the general election. That’s as it should be. Can you imagine what would happen if every self-centered goof who lost a primary decided to run again in the fall?
Also, in Illinois, if your campaign website goes down on election day we’d assume you did it to yourself. The media coverage of that incident was remarkably shallow and sensationalistic. There’s no way that his site could be taken down for that long. If it was hacked or hit with a Denial of Service attack, even a computer crew with a microgram of Internet savvy could have had it back up in a few hours tops.
Anyway, back to the question. Let’s please try to stick to Illinois implications and not get into a big debate over side issues. Thanks.
UPDATE: I posted this in comments but it’s worth repeating here because the discussion has already degenerated.
The reason I tend to avoid QOTD’s like this is because people tend to spew regurgitated Limbaugh/Kos rhetoric instead of coming up with their own thoughts.
So, please, take a deep breath and THINK before you hit that “Say it” button. Don’t be a boring regurgitator! The future of questions like this depends on it.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:34 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another audit produces more bad news
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Goo-Goos; Geo; IFT; Tracy; Schock; Poe; Target News Feed (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Can you imagine what would happen if every self-centered goof who lost a primary decided to run again in the fall?”
yes…the monopoly of the political parties in Illinois might come to an end. *SHUDDER*
Comment by Leroy Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:38 am
Maybe the voters have finally awoken to the fact that they have the power to change things. Now maybe the same can happen here in Illinois.
Comment by Mr . Ethics Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:45 am
Definitely more bad news for Republicans. The Dem base is fired-up, Republicans aren’t. The national mood is only magnified in Illinois.
Blago’s done a good job pinning the Republican label on Topinka, despite her best efforts to avoid being a Republican.
The Dems will easily sweep the statewide ticket.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:51 am
No, this has zero impact on Illinois.
Comment by Tom Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:05 am
I would also mention that in IL you can pull yourself off the ballot, so a Tom Delay could be removed, if he so wanted.
Maybe more important to IL is the loss in MI of a liberal Rep incumbent to a more conservative challenger. Illigal immigration was a big deal there, as the incumbent supported the amnesty plan.
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:10 am
I disagree with you Rich. Voters should be the focus of our political system, not the two party system. We believe in democracy, and the more power you give to voters, the better the government. To those who claim that voters are too stupid or manipulative, well, take a look at the stupidity and manipulation that is going on among your highly esteemed elected officals. Pols shouldn’t be the only ones that get to screw up, give voters a chance too.
Lamont will be paraded as the clown he is. His victory will shove Democrats even further from their base of voter support. Republicans are going to have him in every attack about the Democrat’s “cut and run” hysteria on the GWOT. Like Goldwater, Keyes, and McGovern, Lamont will be ridden by a gleeful opposition party right into the polling booth. It will effect Illinois if the MSM plays Lamont as the second coming, and I believe they will.
Just take a look. As bombs rain on the Jewish state by Iranian sponsored terrorists, the Democrats throws out their most important public Jewish leader - once their VP choice. They don’t want to win elections, they just want to show everyone how much they hate Bush, who isn’t even running. It is political suicide for Connecticut Democrats, and perhaps all Democrats who continue to cry about fighting this war.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:10 am
I don’t think this will have any effect on Illinois. Your right this is a national issue. Those crazy left wingers have definitely taken over the Democratic Party. This is great news for the Republicans. The Democratic party has no room or patience for moderates. Thank God for MOVE ON.ORG.
Comment by Chinaman Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:13 am
I’m not sure there is any direct impact on Illinois … it might amplify or magnify some issues that already exist but I don’t see it really having any major impact in Illinois … it may have some impact on Illinois as it fits in the national scene. If there’s one impact from this that I’d like to see happen in Illinois, I’d like to see people get more interested in elections and see a higher turnout at primaries … that would be one positive impact on the state from this. B ut I’m not hopeful.
Comment by YNM Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:13 am
Rich you couldn’t be anymore wrong, why can’t an independent decide to vote for Lieberman? Shouldn’t the people of Connecticut choose and not the party? What if he wins? Then the PEOPLE of Connecticut voted him into office.
Illinois Election laws are designed to keep moderates and independents home on Election Day.
Comment by moderate - half way between crazy and crazy. Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:16 am
The Socialist Democratic party has gone so far Left it will again be rejected on the National level. Yesterday didn’t go bad for Republicans, Fighting Joe is going to run as an independant. The congresswoman from Georgia , that hit the Capitol police officer, lost big. The Conservative Republican in Michigan beat the Liberal Republican. The Republicans in Missouri where returned with no problem.
Comment by The Conservative Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:18 am
1) Rich, I got into an argument with Ravenswood Left Winger re: one who loses a primary cannot run for the same office in the general election. Do you have a statute I can cite?
2) I think Connecticut has no impact on Illinois in the fall. The main issue for Illinois voters in the fall is whether they want Blago back.
Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:20 am
Moderate, et al: Didn’t “people” vote in the Democratic primary? If you want to run as a Democrat, then run as a Democrat and accept the will of the “people” who vote in the primary. If you want to run as an independent, run as an independent from the beginning. You won’t ever change my mind on this one.
Now, back to the question, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:20 am
Mike Madiagan would never let this happen. The combine/government employees would never let this happen. IL is an odd creature. The only grassroots in the Democrat party is Mike Madigan..and Alexi/Barack. The GOP has grassroots, but goofballs like Roesser, Jack have too much coverage.
As for being proud of IL election laws, the worst that would happen is Oberwies making a fool of himself in another election and Rauschy getting embarrassed by his lack of fundraising ability.
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:21 am
Also, to the people on the Right side of this equation, I seem to remember much the same moaning and groaning when Alan Dixon lost his 1992 primary race.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:21 am
One last thing. The reason I tend to avoid QOTD’s like this is because people tend to spew regurgitated Limbaugh/Kos rhetoric instead of coming up with their own thoughts.
So, please, take a deep breath and THINK before you hit that “Say it” button. Don’t be a boring regurgitator. The future of questions like this depends on it.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:25 am
I doubt it. Isn’t the liberal wing of the Dem party quite strong (and quite wealthy, as well) in Connecticut. They seem to be spearheading this
anti-Lieberman crusade.
Our local wealthy Dem libs seem to have disappeared lately, perhaps exhausted by explaining Blago/Public Official A, the Toddler, ongoing abuse and neglect of children in the Dem-controlled Juvenile Correctional Center in Chicago, Hired Truck, the Sorich verdict, the Hate Crimes controversy, nepotism, raiding the oldsters’ Illinois pension fund, amd on and on.
They don’t have enough energy left over to lead a protest about the Iraq war…and in fact, Illinois anti-war protests have been far weaker than, say, the pro-immigration reform rallies.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:27 am
No moderate is safe in either political party. Staying in the middle is now hazardous to your political health.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:27 am
VanillaMan makes I think the most important impact on IL politics.
Jewish voters. Will they feel angry about Lieberman losing? Add it to the “hate commission” fiasco and decide that something unpleasant is brewing, and they need to nip it in the bud?
That might be JBT’s only real hope.
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:27 am
One big implication for Illinois: Lieberman’s defeat underscores the yearning in the Democratic Party for a presidential candidate who had the courage and wisdom to stand up against the war at the time when the war was popular. All the serious candidates for president played it safe and supported the war, thinking Iraq II would be a re-run of Iraq I, which was a “popular” war.
These unprincipled cowards include front runner Hillary Rodham Clinton. She showed once again that she is all about political calculus and ambition, nothing else.
So what outlet do angry Democrats have in 2008, especially now that they’ve flexed some of their muscle in Connecticut? Just like in 1860, a surprise and principled candidate, known for his honesty and insight, waits in the wings in Illinois–Senator Barack Obama.
Check out his speech against the war before military action began. It not only lays out the practical case against the action, it predicts much of the carnage and problems that have emerged since.
Comment by War Critic Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:28 am
Well, if anything this election shows how tough it’ll be for Republicans to win…Lieberman lost because of the failed war in Iraq, which he supported. So people like Roskam here and throughout the County shouldn’t assume any seat or district is safe.
A new poll today showed 60% of the American people are against the war…that’ll translate into strong support for those candidates against the war, which are Democrats.
Comment by Time Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:34 am
For those interested, the sore loser prohibition on a defeated primary candidate refiling as an independent candidate for the November election came to be after Ted Lechowicz pulled off such an election victory following a primary loss. The General Assembly promptly revised the Election Code to put an end to such a possibility.
Comment by Honest Abe Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:43 am
Interesting isn’t it that we’re saying no moderate is safe in either party … and saying that somehow the fact that the D’s in CT rehected a moderate is somehow good for the R’s … I don’t know, seems to me that this highlights the current polarization in our country but I don’t think that will be the eventual impact nationally or in Illinois. Recently Rich highlighted some numbers showing the percent of voters in IL that vote D, R and I … and it seems to methat the only way to get elected in a general election is to be moderate, and personally I think that good for the people. Moderates are willing to not simply speak the party line. I don’t know, it’s a huge beast, but I think in the long run/big picture a race like the one in CT could be a good thing in IL if it encourages candidates to run based on more than party line and encourages voters to use their voice.
Comment by YNM Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:47 am
I doubt it. Lamont ran a good race, no question, but he couldn’t have won this campaign if Joe hadn’t first lost it. Give the liberal blogosphere some credit, but not half of what they’re gonna try and claim for this.
It was only 10,000 votes out of 278,000 cast. Joe didn’t realize he was in trouble until too late. He reportedly didn’t cooperate well with some of the local GOTV operations that could have saved his neck. His announcement that he would run as an independent probably lost him votes because it turned off partisan Democrats. Joe ran a goofy ad. But above all, he clearly hadn’t done his homework over the years keeping in touch with the local activists, organizations, veterans and VOTERS that any Senator needs to cultivate.
If there’s an Illinois analogy here, I nominate Carol Moseley-Braun or Crane: pols who felt they deserved reelection, ignored too many home state constituencies, ran a lazy race and got the results they politically deserved.
I don’t see any D.C. Dems or Repubs in Illinois this cycle who are gonna be caught napping.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:54 am
Hey, did anyone see who pushed me under that bus??? Joe, was that you??
Comment by Lon Monk Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:58 am
for those who are interested, you can find the statutory restriction in 10 ILCS 5/10-3.
Comment by out of the know Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:59 am
I think that Lieberman’s loss is a small warning to incumbents and the incumbent party that they had better have something to run on besides political inertia and support of Mr. Bush’s failed policies.
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:01 am
More than a referendum on Iraq this was a referendum on Bush and incumbents. In Conn, Michigan, and Georgia we saw incumbents lose and in Conn. there is little doubt that the Bush/Lieberman relationship is what cost Lieberman the primary.
That being said, I think this could have the most impact in Illinois in the 6th CD race where Peter Roskam has said such things as he would defer on issues such as ethics to what the Republican leadership thinks is best. This kind of blind partisanship will be a big negative for Roskam in the conservative yet fairly independent 6th CD.
Comment by HANKSTER Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:09 am
I think the implications from yesterdays Democratic primary will be felt here in Illinois. I have been saying it since I started blogging on this site. If you agree with “W’s” policies, you are toast! People have seen what the Right wing is all about-scaring people with color coded “threat levels” and war as far as the eye can see. Ms. Topinka has associated herself with George Bush, and she too will feel the effects on election day. Had the President went after Bin Laden and not Sadaam Hussein he and his supporters would not be in this pickle (they would still be a cucumber but the Iraq war is the brine that has made them a pickle). The right-wing propoganda machine convinced over half of our population that Iraq was the reason we got attacked; talk about wrong, there it is. Democrats are mad as hell for being in this war, albeit a lot of Democrats supported it in the beginning but have “wisely” changed their minds. I think the Democrats are going to win back the House and probably come close to recapturing the Senate. Republicans are going to be scarce in this state for a long time to come.
Comment by SilverBackDemocrat Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:13 am
The biggest implication this might have is if both Lieberman and Lauter lose to the Republican and the Dems lose out on taking over the U.S. Senate. Instead of having Durbin #2 in the majority he stays as minority whip. They probably won’t win enough seats anyway but this may be the one that ends up putting them over the top.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:13 am
What happened in Connecticut with Joe Lieberman yesterday might just be a shot across the bow of those continuing to support the war in Iraq. Durbin might be in trouble as he is an avid supporter of Israel (dance with the one who brung you to the party) and we are their surrogate army in the Middle East. We now see that error as we are in the middle of a quagmire brought about by Israel saying “let’s you and him fight.” The loser in Illinois may well be Durbin, who is in full support of the war, though he utters from the side of his mouth that he may not be. It’s not because of a movement started in Connecticut…it’s because we are all seeing the error of being led by the nose into a war we can’t win. For once I agree with the French…choke…get out and stay out. Can you say ‘civil war’. Anyone supporting the war and good ole George will have a voter scrutinizing them very carefully this time around, with dire consequences in 2008.
Comment by Sam Hill Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:21 am
I have disagree with your comments, Rich. How is limiting voter choices a good thing for Democracy? Was it wrong for Adali Stevenson to create the Solidarity Party after the voters had “spoken” in the Democratic primary over who thye “wanted” for lt. gov.? primaries tend to hurt centerist candidates like Lieberman or Alan Dixon. They may have plenty of appeal with most voters, but they can be easily alienated by by extremes in their party. Give the voters some credit. If someone is perceived as a “sore loser” he’ll do badly in the general election. But if he is perceived as still having something to offer he’ll do well.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:23 am
I guess the question is how much truth is in this… especially in the financing…
But over the last six years this old model has broken down. As anyone who hasn’t been living in a cave knows, traditional Democratic interest groups have steadily lost ground to a more partisan, progressive movement skilled at using the Internet to communicate and raise money. The most visible faces of the new movement are the thousands of political bloggers — and their millions of readers — who delighted in panning Mr. Lieberman these last several months.
But the movement also consists of national fund-raising and advocacy groups like MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (the current incarnation of Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign). Call them the counter-Bushies, after the president whose singular talent it is to drive them to paroxysms of rage.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:24 am
Should buck-up the true believers of both parties. Beating a powerful incumbent like that is proof-positive that grassroots still matter, and hard work pays off.
Even as a Republican I have to say I respect the way the Democrat base stood up for themselves and doled out some accountability. Illinois needs more of that kind of healthy partisanship. What the Dems did in Conn. yesterday is the antithesis of the Combine.
If we had more with that kind of backbone here, we wouldn’t be looking at such a boring election with no real differences between the 2 candidates for Gov.
What the Repubs did in Michigan, also good.
Illinois: Land of Wimps.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:28 am
To keep with Rich’s request, a Poshard type candidate could benefit from the ability to run as an independent. A primary vote requires the voter to choose the party and for various reasons very few voters will change party affiliations. As an example, I would much prefer Poshard over Tim Johnson, but in the primary I would stick to the republican ballot hoping Poshard would win the Dem. ballot. Poshard could make an independent run and secure both Rep. & Dem. votes. If he was able to get elected, would that be a sore loser?
Comment by Logical Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:30 am
It’s all about Choice - the choice to beat a long-time ( by most accounts very effective for Connecticut) incumbent over the head with a single issue totally unrelated to the broader issues at hand. The Choice to vote out an incumbent - no matter how much he/she had done for the voters and the country - based upon a ‘total detestation’ of the President’s War-mongering bloodlust and oil jonesing!
The mobilizers and the balkanizers of both parties with help of Limbaugh/Kos/Hannity/O’Reilly/Franken & etc. continue to lazer-cut political vision. So long as the single note drum beaters can get an audience we will get political anomalies like Ned-boy, Keyes, and the peripheral nut-balls like Cindy Sheehan and Randall Terry.
Look at what the local Chicago papers do for gang-bangers - they become community activists - tell me with a straight face that media is panning for nuggets of truth.
Comment by Pat Hickey Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:40 am
Blogs are simply an alternative media and communication structure. As such, they are nowhere near as powerful or important as the grassroots door-to-door canvassing, phone-banking operations, and GOTV efforts to winning elections. For all the hype about blogs, it is the resurgence in volunteers willing to do these tried-and-true methods that are propelling change. Controversial issues like the war, inspiring candidates, and community development via blogs and linkups are what help to provide these additional volunteers.
Democracy for America played an important role in supporting the candidacy of Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman. While many understand DFA as the continuation of the Howard Dean phenomenon, they claim it is nothing but folks on the internet. DFA delivered masses to Dean’s effort in Iowa, but the volunteers didnt have the skills. DFA has now developed a training program to spread the skillset for running campaigns to the masses, and there was a training in Warrenville recently.
As evidenced in the support given to Lamont by DFA, DFA is focused on using grassroots support and volunteers to make the Democratic party a better party. Fiscally responsible, socially progressive. Willing to stand up and fight for Democratic principles. How else do you convince voters that the party does stand for something and is willing to fight for those values?
The strategy of national DFA is to take back the Democratic party instead of building a third party. Lamont’s victory was a step on that path, and victory for Lamont in November will make it mean even more. The question that remains is whether Democratic politicians choose to support Lamont or Lieberman’s independent bid. To support Lieberman will mean they care more for their friends and maintaining their own power and the old boys’ club than they do about the party. I believe that DFA’s decision to focus on changing the party means the opposite, that the party and what it has and could and should do for the country is more important than ego. Wasnt that the major complaint against Nader in 2004?
Locally, DFA groups that have been in a loose coalition are developing a slightly more formal entity to be known as Democracy for Illinois. We aim to change the local Democratic parties here, mainly by getting better Democrats elected. Isnt this what so many folks have been complaining about forever? People seem to believe in the Democratic party’s values but are tired of the corruption and unwillingness to truly address all groups equally and honestly. Folks want a better Democratic party. To get there, the strategy is to develop communities of engaged and progressive citizens with the skills to help better folks get elected. That simple, but obviously not that easy.
If you are interested, please email me or join at:
http://dfalink.com/group.php?id=42
Comment by wjmaggos Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:42 am
oh, thought it would show up…
William J Maggos
wjmaggos@gmail.com
Comment by wjmaggos Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:46 am
It is a sad day to be a Dem as I am. When people like Ned Lamont and Rod are our leaders we are in trouble. They are both nothing more than sound bite politicians backed by millions (in Ned’s case his own, and in Rod’s case from a handful of very wealthy donors). Reasoned, intelligent people like Joe Lieberman should have a place in the party. If we are to become a party of the extreme left, bloggers than perhaps even a liberal, progessive like me who holds FDR, Truman and Kennedy up as heros may no longer have a place in this party. Those who cheer Lieberman’s defeat should pause to reflect on what is likely a short sighted view point. You will drive out people from the party. Joe may very well win in November because I think that he will retain some of his Dem voters and attract liberal GOP’ers as well.
Our system is broken. Just because there is still no better system in the world doesn’t mean we should’t work to improve ours. Stagnation is not good, even for electoral policies. Partisan primaries have resulted in great leaders never even being elected or being thrown out because they don’t cater to the extremes of either party. On balance, the country is somewhere between Ned Lamont and the Limbaughs of the right. When will that middle ever have a voice? It lost one yesterday.
I won’t even debate the ridiculous, bigoted comments about Lieberman and his allegiance to this country and its policies. I thought we settled questioning our leaders religious life 46 years about in Houston.
Comment by Niles Township Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:47 am
CT will have no practical impact on IL races.
I’m not at all unhappy with the restrictions here in IL on stopping a defeated primary candidate from re-running for the same position in the general election.
Imagine what could happen if this was allowed:
You could have 8 or 10 people running (let’s say in 2008 for Durbin’s Senate seat) in the General for that seat. Might very well see US reps and senators from IL elected with a minority position of the total vote cast.
In fact, if you did this statewide, why even have primary elections. Let’s say (between the 2 parties), you have 10 people running in the primary. Then you go to the general election, and guess what, you’ve got the same 10 people running for the office. Now it would be unlikely, but strange stuff happens. Talk about an expensive administrative nightmare.
Comment by Making The Wheels Turn Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:51 am
Candidates for office in Illinois should certainly be considering a good website which is freshened continuously and made interactive as it appears Lamont’s was. Voters instintively head for the web first these days when they look for information. Is there any doubt that candidates or their staffs are checking Rich’s site daily for the lay of the political land?
Blogs and websites may not have done the legwork to get out the vote in Connecticut, but they certainly kept the fires of enthusiasm burning.
Comment by diane Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:57 am
If you are truly a “liberal, progressive” Democrat, Niles Township, there is no way you can seriously consider millionaire businessman Ned Lamont an “extreme left-winger.” He’s firmly in the mainstream of the party and America. And please do not smear Lamont by putting him in the same category as G-Rod.
The Democratic primary voters of Connecticut have spoken, and Lieberman should respect their will. Period.
Comment by Chicago Jason Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:05 am
I know I admonished you not to regurgitate Limbaugh/Kos talking points, but Joe Scarborough - the conservative TV talkshow host - sent Kos an e-mail this week and Kos posted it on his site. It’s quite fascinating.
===The conventional wisdom for tonight’s Connecticut primary seems to be that a Joe Leiberman loss will yank the Democratic Party so far left as to make other Democratic candidates unelectable this fall. The logic is laughable and similar to what I heard from Republican leaders in 1994. […]
George Bush’s loss to Bill Clinton in 1992 had put Republican operatives and strategists in a panic. They feared that Bush had been beaten like a drum because radical conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Shaffley and Pat Robertson had hijacked the GOP Convention. So while Bill Clinton spent the next two years moving left, the Republican National Committee desperately sought moderate candidates that would talk, walk and vote like, say, Joe Lieberman. The goal was to blur all differences between Republicans and Democrats. […]
Fast forward twelve years and now we find many making the same misguided arguments, except this time they are giving their stupid advice to Democrats generally and Connecticut voters specifically.
Ned Lamont may be a pencil-necked geek, as Imus claims, but he is the type of candidate that will bring out the Democratic base in an off-year election. That is especially true this year because George W. Bush is even more unpopular than Clinton was when the GOP swept into power.
My advice to Democratic voters this year is “Go left, young man!”====
If true, could this impact any Illinois races? Is the governor’s hard move to the left an indication of this? I wonder.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:06 am
Joe Lieberman, like most, nay, ALL politicians believe they are above the political establishment that elected them. Case in point: “I will run for re-election on the democratic party ticket and if those fools decide to elect someone else, I’ll run as an independent!”
It reminds me of the Eddie Murphy movie, “Trading Places” when at the end of the movie, Don Ameche’s character is being escorted off the trading floor screaming “turn those machines back on! Turn those machines back on!”. I see Joe Lieberman being carried our on a stretcher screaming “turn those voting machines back on! Turn those voting machines back on!”.
He believes that the Senate needs him more than the voters of Connecticut need him. The height of arrogance.
Comment by Chick McGann Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:11 am
Didn’t Don Ameche’s character also say something like, “My family founded this exchange! This is my exchange!” Very appropriate.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:14 am
I can’t think of any candidate defeated in a primary who’s gone on to win election in an indie bid. Even Teddy Roosevelt, after he failed to win the 1912 GOP nomination, couldn’t wrest enough support to win on the Bull Moose ticket.
It would be fun to see how such a campaign by Claypool might affect the Cook County race this fall, but I’d still guess he would lose.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:25 am
One thing that I haven’t seen noted, there is a huge chunk of the CT electorate that is independent (meaning that they don’t draw a D or R ballot in the primary, although 14,000 of them did this time around).
It’s this large chunk of independent voters (which, from what I’ve read, are more overall than voters that identify themselves as D’s or R’s) that many feel will put Lieberman over the top in November.
From an article I found at MSN:
“The voter registration numbers would seem to be on Lieberman’s side, if he attracts support in November from Republicans such as Schmidle.
There are a total of about 1.3 million active Republican and independent voters in Connecticut, twice as many as the number of Democratic voters.
(But will Republicans be willing to overlook Lieberman’s liberal views on the environment, abortion and gay rights?)”
Everything I’ve seen says that Lieberman could win 60% or more of the Independent vote, add that to his Democrat total from the primary and cross over moderate Republicans and he wins easily.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:29 am
Avoiding the war/peace issues and the candidates involved in this case, the question of ballot access in the General Election is the key issue in Rich’s question.
Many voters today think it’s necessary to conduct party primaries to have democracy. That is not the case and it wasn’t in early American history.
We started off without organized political parties, but soon developed them anyway. For decades parties met at conventions to decide their nominees.
Only as the population grew did we develop primary elections.
Illinois election laws are among the worst in the country for third parties, independents and for voters who could lose their jobs if they don’t vote in a particular party’s primary.
These are real issues in Illinois that were never designed to promote democracy, but simply protect the two existing parties.
While I’m personally glad we only have two major parties rather than the multi-party mess found in Europe, no one can honestly contest the fact that Illinois’ ballot restrictions are antithetical to democracy.
As to Connecticut and Joe Lieberman, he knows what the polls show in terms of his likelihood of winning a general election, so why shouldn’t he run as an independent if state law allows him to do so?
Comment by Jon Musgrave Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:30 am
it’s ok Rich, you won’t change my mind either but as always I respect your opinion, you’re a hell of a journalist (even when you’re wrong
glad you posted this!
Comment by moderate - half way between crazy and crazy. Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:32 am
:)
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:40 am
One local outcome of this race will be the Democratic Whip — Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin — receiving demands that Lieberman be removed from his party committee assignments if runs as an independent.
And folks can contact Sen. Durbin’s office here: http://tinyurl.com/m5pgp
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:52 am
Rich, I have a kinda different slant on this I would like to know your opinion on. As I was watching coverage of the results last night I watched the O’Reilly factor. In his story about the campaign and how left wing nut job bloggers crashed Liebermans site, he talked about how the Kos site and others like it were racist among other things. In his story he used quotes from comments just like mine to justify the position. I feel that is about the worst misrepresentation of blogging possible, that has only 1 agenda, to make non bloggers biased towards us internet junkies. I don’t think that if I make a comment spouting about black people and jewish people and homosexuals that you should be held responsible as a racist, do you?
My actual feeling about the events… I think that Lieberman lost because Lamont put a lot of hard work into it. I think the effect of the blog community is grossly overestimated. Sure Kos gets a lot of hits each day, but how many of those people were the ones doing GOTV, phone banking, donating? I think the blog netowrk was simply a little motivation for some people to get involved.
Comment by Robbie Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:52 am
“If you are truly a “liberal, progressive†Democrat, Niles Township, there is no way you can seriously consider millionaire businessman Ned Lamont an “extreme left-winger.†He’s firmly in the mainstream of the party and America. And please do not smear Lamont by putting him in the same category as G-Rod.”
Let me just say this, I’d put my progressive credentials and their long history up against anyone. I am pro-choice, anti-death penalty, a supporter adding sexual prefrence as a protected class to the Civil Rights Act and believe that government can play an important role in people’s every day lives. I voted against Bush twice, and against every GOP candidate in my life. That is my whole point. If what I see out in blogospehere that helped Ned win makes me uncomfortable, than where are we headed. I put this out there as warning sign to the party that I cherish.
As far as comparing Ned to Rod, I did so beacause I believe they are both sound bite politicans backed by money. I do not taint Ned with Rod’s corruption as Gov. There is not too much substance to either man in my opinion.
With respect to the Joe’s e-mail posted on DailyKos, I would be careful allowing a conservative talk show host to guide the Dem thinking rather than listening to worried members of the party like me.
Comment by Niles Township Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 11:59 am
Rich, you are so correct about your questioning why the Lieberman Web Site was down all day as the result of a hacker? Any tech worth their salt could have had that back up in an hour or so. Looked like a calculated action by the folks on Lieberman’s team. Got them lots of press and probably a few votes. Most importantly allowed him to advertise his site on national TV. Nice move!!
Comment by Slap Me Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:07 pm
I agree with Rich that we should keep the Illinois sore loser law (Is Joe “Sore Loserman” again?) One bite at the apple per year per office. If you run for an office as a Dem or Repub, that’s your choice. If you lose the primary, you don’t get to run again that year. You lost.
Comment by respectful Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:14 pm
I think it does have implications for Illinois. There was a record turn out yesterday in the Connecticut Democrat primary. The Democrat base is energized all over the country.
From what I am seeing locally the Democrats will turn out in force this Novemnber in Illinois because they, along with many independents, are upset with what is going on in the nation.
This sentiment along with the fact that many conservative Republicans in Illinois have no interest in backing their Governor Candidate is shaping up to be a good year for Democrats in Illinois.
Comment by (618) Democrat Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:22 pm
While the press focuses on Lamont’s victory as part of an anti-Bush, anti-war movement that will doom the Dems, a careful reading of the news from Conn shows that Lieberman lost because he didn’t court, stay in touch with, or care about members of his own party in his own State. He took them for granted, missed events and insulted Democratic elected officials. Who does that remind you of? Blago! That’s the lesson the Guv should take - but it may be too late. To many in his own party feel alienated from a man they had high hopes for, but now feel dis-ed by.
Comment by Dem Voting R Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:26 pm
There s one big thing that the Socialist Democrats are ignoring. Every special election including yesterdays Michigan primary, where Immigration is made the issue, Republicans win. The Conservative handly defeated the Liberal Republican whith this the main issue. This is a winning issue in every state if the Republicans raise it.
Comment by The Conservative Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:37 pm
There is the spirit of a law and the letter of a law. I wish Madigan and his daughter would keep the spirit of the “sore loser law”. Alexi won the democratic primary and its a shame that the head of the party is actively working against him in the treasurer’s race. Lieberman doesn’t get to pick his party’s nominee for senate, and if someone else wins it, he, as a democrat should respect the will of the democratic voters. Same with Madigan: he doesn’t get to pick the Treasurer’s candidate: and if his favorite loses, then, as a Democrat, he should respect the will of the democratic voters. They both hide their self-serving agenda’s behind b.s. rationalizations that they are worried about the long term health of their parties (lieberman: to keep it from ‘far-leftism’; madigan: to keep it from Alexi’s bank’s purportedly suspect dealings) In fact, they have their own agendas and in both cases it is corrosive their party, as they are helping get a republican elected to their respective seats. The arrogance of both men is offensive…and bad for Democrats…and really bad for democracy.
Comment by alexi fan Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:49 pm
First of all, our GoverNOT will be the kind of person his campaign people tell him to be. There are so many Rods, it’s hard to keep track of him.
Secondly, doesn’t anyone remember the Alan Dixon primary? Al Hofeld, Carol Mosely-Braun & Dixon ran. Hofeld tried unsuccessfully to buy his U.S. Senate seat but his attempt split the primary democratic vote so badly that Mosely-Braun slid in as the primary winner. She didn’t win because people liked her and thought she would do the best job.
Comment by Little Egypt Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:51 pm
There is no relevance to IL races in November because our Democrats act like Democrats and our Republicans act like Republicans (except for JBT). When Republicans start lining up to support a conservative Democratic candidate like they are doing for Lieberman (and our Democrats gets hugs and kisses from Bush-type conservatives), then there will be some relevance. I think this happened with Poshard way back when, but there is nothing like that happening here this fall.
Comment by Lefty Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 12:51 pm
Interesting and difficult QOTD. It certainly is bringing out the wingnuts. If the Lamont win foreshadows anything in Illinois, it would be in relation to the 10th Congressional District race (our own little Connecticut). Mark Kirk could be in trouble if the war issue resonates as deeply as it did in Connecticut and Kirk’s opponent can paint him as a Bush administration enabler like Lieberman.
Comment by R.I.P. McMurphee Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:28 pm
Let me preface this by stating that the two party system has been a boon for the Republic. The parties are not primarily separated by class lines, and class in America is blurred by upward mobility. The net result has been that within the parties accommodation has been accomplished and platforms honored. Compare and contrast that, say, with France.
Yes, it makes it harder for thrid partied to exist other than as a one time personality cult or issue generator. Upon election, independents learn to “cooperate and graduate” as the old college classroom slogan goes.
Which is why we have heds of independents, to be conviced by grassroots party activists. The doenside is that the politicos become a class unto themselves.
What impact Lieberman? The greatest should be that we can and should hold primaries no earlier than August. Think of the savings in campaign funding.
Next should be a lesson that the wings should take to heart. You can organize and perhaps win election as an independent. You can also nominate the same major party person and have his votes tallied with his party votes as they do in new York.
Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:28 pm
The relevance is all about trends and turnout. If this is as big of a Dem year as all of the polls are predicting, and if the Dems show up (which is what I was looking for out of CT yesterday), then that will be an awfully stiff wind into which Judy is running. With a nice blue state like this, and with George Bush growing more toxic by the day, Rod will likely win in spite of himself.
And as to those who say yesterday was about a lurch to the left, let me just say this. I am a Democrat who sometimes votes for Republicans (well local ones anyway). I am a blogger. I am Jewish. I am moderate, pro-business and advocate a generally muscular foreign policy. I was an enthusiastic supporter of his when he ran for VP. And I think Lieberman desperately needed to lose. I was sick and tired of him being used as a useful idiot everytime W needed to demonstrate that he was bipartisan. Joe just wanted to be accepted by the popular crowd and now he’s paid the price. Goodbye and good luck as a FoxNews commentator.
Comment by ChicagoCynic Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:40 pm
I am so tired of hearing Lieberman whine….he is obviously so selfish that if he can’t have it (the senate seat) then he’ll make sure no other democrat gets it. It’s all about ME ME ME with him.
Comment by tired of Lieberman's whining Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:41 pm
It is so sad that the Jewish factor has to be thrown into United State politics. It is true that AIPAC (the Jewish Lobby) has a lot of money to throw around, but the fact is that the Jewish vote in the US is not that big….so the question is, “Why does everyone look at political candidates in the US through a Jewish lense?”
Comment by it's sad Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 1:43 pm
Wow, a democratic primary in New England was won over a “moderate”. Big whoop, it’s not like this is even the general or a presidential race. It is too early to see if this si such a big deal now. It could be the start of something big or the start of a big fizzle.
Comment by Wumpus Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:01 pm
Why does it matter either way that Joe is Jewish? It seems an odd thing that everyone keeps bringing it up. Not all Jews support every action of Israel and certainly not all (or even most) support AIPAC.
Would we be mentioning his religion either way if he were Baptist or Jehovah’s Witness?
As far as IL implications, I don’t see many. Joe lost touch with his voters, which does happen after a few terms.
I support IL sore loser law. It only makes sense. If you want to use the party’s resources to run in their primary, don’t then stab them in the back and run against them in the fall. And the party, remember, is really just a collection of voters.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:07 pm
Joe lost because of his closeness with Bush and his “stay the course” attitude. What translates from Connecticut to Illinois is that many people are tired of the Iraq war and the direction the country is headed and they aren’t going to sit at home.
Expect high turnouts this year in November because people see they can make a change and a lot of people want a change. I think national races may be held to a higher standard of accountability but I doubt it will translate to local races. I think there will be a lot of tight congressional races in traditionally Republican strongholds.
Comment by doubtful Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:10 pm
Is it too late for David Letterman to get on the ballot out there? Excellent thread Rich. I had not thought much about the Illinois implications until reading the above posts.
Do you think the Jewish community in Illinois will keep backing Lieberman financially? They give big bucks to a lot of candidates around the country.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:16 pm
Lieberman got his just desserts. Dixon lost in 1992 because of one vote - to confirm Clarence Thomas Lieberman spit in the eye of the Democratic base repeatedly on a number of issues.
Lieberman’s decision to run as an independent constitutes “sore loser” behavior.
Lamnot is not a left winger or a wild-eyed liberal. There are far more moderates in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party. The Republicans controlling the House of Representatives are reactionaries, not conservatives. Moderate Republicans are leaving the Republican Party.
Lamont’s victory does not signal a takeover of the Democratic Party by the left wing - it simply reflects a strong desire that Democrats stand up to the right wing and the neocons that dominate the Republican Party.
Lamont’s victroy has no implications here in Illinois, other than amplifying what we already know - 2006 is going to be a strong Democratic year - across the Board. People are fed up with the war, the cost of gasoline, and a multitude of other issues. Bean will be reelected on her own merits. Duckworth will prevail because of the rising tide of animus toward Bush, Republicans, and the war: and because the Republican base will not turn out in large numbers.
Republican efforts to denounce Democrats as “cut and run” cowards will fail miserably.
Barring high level indictments, Topinka is dommed because of the Democratic tide that will sweep Illinois and the nation.
It appears plausible tht The Democrats will take over the House in 2006 based upon the present trends.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:18 pm
Would Lieberman now be able to run as an independent were he to be in Illinois?
The answer is no — once again (whine, whine, sorry, Rich) because of our ballot laws. True independents (not to be confused with new parties or writeins) had to file last December — over TEN MONTHS before the general election.
And as if that weren’t enough to stifle all true independents — indies are required to submit five times as many petition signatures as the Democrats and Republicans. Lotsa luck, kids.
The upshot: there will never ever be independent candidates in Illinois. Ever. Which is of course precisely what the entrenched pols want.
And while I’m on my high horse about Illinois election law — did y’all know that petitioning for next spring’s elections (school boards, municipalities, etc.) starts BEFORE the November 7th general election? How bizarre (and wasteful, and confusing, and stupid) is THAT??
Comment by Dooley Dudright Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:29 pm
The reaction from both the DCCC (a bit more hard-nosed) and the DSCC (slightly more genteel) is telling — 2006 will be a referendum on Iraq and, by extension, Bush and conservative policy.
Whether you call them ‘rubber stamp’-ers or ‘go along to get along’-ers, 2006 is going to be a touch year for incumbents.
As Lamont said in his acceptance last night, staying the course isn’t working. If you believe that — whether on Iraq or Katrina or stem cells or selling America off to Red China — then you will likely be voting for the opposition party this November, not the party in power.
National polling trends back this up. Even Jack Carter (son of the president conservatives love to put down) is gaining in Arizona…
—-
Dooley, petition collection begins that early because there is never an ‘off season’ for election cycles. As soon as the April 2007 municipal election comes around the talk will be centering on 2008 primaries…
Comment by NW burbs Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:51 pm
How much time did Lieberman spend back at the home base building his support? I hear him on Imus as almost a regular character. He makes reasoned, thought-out cases and stands by them. He makes great sense and has a braod view. At the same time over the last several years he has run for VP and shows up around the country to support various candidate and causes. He just assumed the election was in the bag because he was a national figure. Now his ego is hurt because he did not get what he wanted. His opponent make be a geek like the talking heads are saying, but that geek did what the voters wanted and pulled it out. Now it is Joe’s turn to be a professional commentator.
Message to Illinois: If ya ain’t serving the people, the people will boot ya.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 2:57 pm
I see impact in Illinois.
1. The Democrats now see the Iraq War as a total winner. Expect all Democrats, including Duckworth and Bean, to push it very hard, even if it means changing their positions.
2. The “Lieberman Primary” will be looked upon as a watershed for the political power of the blogosphere. The liberal blogs in CT casitgated Lieberman, and used the internet to spread an extremist position. He relied upon the party institution and big names. Lookie, lookie, who won?
In Illinois, expect the Lieberman loss to embolden extremists of the Left and Right to use their blogs and the internet to attack the center from both directions. The bad side of the blogosphere comes from the fact that it is an easy place to be destructive, but hard to be constructive, as it favors senational short pieces with screaming headlines. I’m not convinced that this is a healthy development for American Democracy, but it is inevitable, and there have seen eras when newspapers and gazettes engaged in brutal partisanship on a daily basis, stuff that makes today’s claims of “media bias” seem silly, so we will survive.
Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 3:08 pm
My advice to Democratic voters this year is “Go left, young man!â€
It’s a center right country with professed conservatives outnumbering liberals 2 to 1 I think and a majority of independents between them.
Dick Morris had these numbers today,
Those who would consign Lieberman to the dustbin of history need to realize that the Democratic primary in Connecticut is an affair that could be conducted in a good-sized phone booth. About 140,000 people voted for Lamont. But the state saw 1,575,000 votes cast in the general election of 2004. Assume a lower turnout in 2006 (an off year), say 1 million votes, that still leaves 860,000 that can vote for Lieberman.
After hearing him talk last night, I have a hard time believing he can pull it off.
I have a hard time believing Conn isn’t a microcosm of the whole country too except fewer Lamon voters to begin with.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 3:28 pm
Let’s bring this back to Chicago.
Who was that tall guy standing behind Lamont when Lamont gave his big speech last night?
The guy who was sort of disturbingly rubbing the back of the short woman directly in front of him? Wasn’t that our own Rev. Jesse Jackson?
Is Rev. Jackson going to take credit for the win? And if so, will it influence whether his son runs against Daley?
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 3:52 pm
Dick Morris had these numbers today
And if it’s on Drudge, it must be true, right? Especially if it comes out of the odious Dick Morris’s cakehole.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:13 pm
Anon,
The numbers are reality even if spewed from a cake hole.
I can’t see Lamont getting much beyond 140,000.
He was peaking already. I think he’ll be crushed. Watch him in action. A quirky odd millionaire. Just what Dems need.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:41 pm
It’s a center right country with professed conservatives outnumbering liberals 2 to 1 I think and a majority of independents between them.
Every poll on issues shows that people believe in the Democratic platform but vote Republican instead because Republicans seem more ‘together’ (on the same page, working as a team, etc).
It is not a center-right country. It is a center country with one strong extreme (right) and one weak (left). The stronger extreme pulls politics toward it, as demonstrated by the number of ‘centrists’ on the Left who tend to pick up right-leaning talking points, etc — Lieberman, Biden, Nelson 1 and 2, Landrieu, Salazar, etc (and that’s just the Senate). There are far fewer ‘centrists’ on the Right which “sound like” the left.
And I’m not even going to get into your goofy math which is clearly a false analogy. (You really think every voter who didn’t vote for Lamont is going to vote for either Lieberman or Schlessinger? Ummm, ok. A bunch of Lieberman’s voters in the blue collar areas of CT are union folks — and the unions backed Lieberman pretty heavily. Do you think for the general the unions are going to back a rogue running as an independent or a Democratic primary winner???)
I’m veering OT but I think based on yesterday’s results and what areas voted how the only question now is whether Lamont gets a clear majority or a plurality, and who comes in 2nd and 3rd behind him.
Comment by NW burbs Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:52 pm
Bill, I know next to nothing about Connecticut politics, and I don’t care who wins, but I’ll bet you a buck that Lamont gets more than 140,000 votes in November.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 4:56 pm
Bill, I know next to nothing about Connecticut politics, and I don’t care who wins, but I’ll bet you a buck that Lamont gets more than 140,000 votes in November.
Witness!
Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 6:05 pm
You really think every voter who didn’t vote for Lamont is going to vote for either Lieberman or Schlessinger? Ummm, ok.
Just Lieberman, not Schlessinger.
I’m in for a buck.
Remember, between now and the election, Castro will die, Cuba will implode, Cubans will be hopping into boats to reunite with families just like the Germans did when the wall came down (or else get shot on the beeches) and Ahmadinejad thinks the 12th Imam will return this August 22nd to finally rid the world of Jews.
Now go watch some Ned Lamont video and reflect how people will react to that kind of Democrat with this turmoil going on.
Make it two bucks.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 7:11 pm
What’s radical about Lamont? Strongly disagreeing with a President that has a 40% or lower approval nationally and below a 30% approval in CT–about the same as Illinois?
That he opposes a war that 60% of the population opposes?
Are people really that disconnected from reality to see that George Bush and his Iraqi misadventure are not popular?
Lieberman was weaker because he supported an unpopular war from an unpopular President and he had checked out. He was mediocre on constituent services, didn’t work the State very much and had gotten lazy and arrogant. He ran into a guy who challenged him on that laziness and he got beat.
In one of the strongest anti-incumbent years on record, none of this should be surprising–the question will be how broadly it hits as incumbents lose and especially Republican incumbents tied to a President who is often bizarrely out of touch with reality.
I mean, they had an election right—so civil war is out of the question…..Mr. Lincoln?
Comment by archpundit Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 7:25 pm
I like Joe Lieberman, I always have. He was a nice addition to Al Gore’s campaign for president. I am a Republican and I like people who are moderates/independents. It doesn’t matter what party you come from, I would prefer a moderate/independent versus someone very conservative or liberal… especially liberal. I don’t think Lieberman should have even bothered with the democrats. He should have run as an independent originally. But I refuse to think that just because he made the mistake of running as a democrat, that he isn’t the most mainstream and qualified candidate. Additionally, this will probably have no impact on Illinois politics. Rahm Emmanual will still be Rahm Emmanual… and the DCCC will still be the DCCC…
Comment by Lovie's Leather Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 7:51 pm
As I listened to Lieberman’s speech last night I couldn’t help but think how what Connecticut’s Democratic party went through is exactly what Illinois’ Republican party is going through. Here in Illinois we have extreme Republicans (Roser, Stanek, etc. etc.) who would rather elect a moderate Democrat than a moderate Republican.
In Connecticut there obviously were a lot of liberal Democrats who would rather elect a moderate Republican than a moderate Democrat.
Now, comparing Illinois to Connecticut will be like comparing apples to oranges because Lieberman will put together a very good 3rd party choice, but I would be very interested to see what would happen if Lieberman didn’t have that option.
Comment by Long Time Reader; First Time Poster Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:16 pm
What’s radical about Lamont?
Not much.
Look at the demographics who voted for him.
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:22 pm
Long Time Reader; First Time Poster
Except Roeser talks up Giuliani… R’s are going through the same kind of tension except it’s on accepting the National Security Democrats the netrooters are driving out.
So the Republicans have some sorting out to do too… but its about making the party bigger, not purifying it…
Comment by Bill Baar Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:25 pm
You are absolutely right about making the Republican party bigger, Baar. It is time to get back to the good ole fashioned ignoring of social issues and concentrating on what the “conservative movement” should be… Strong national defense. Limited Government. Crime fighting. Fiscal Responsibility. It will make the party bigger and would be the best thing for the country. We’ll let Shrillary, Bayh, and Feingold infight. I think the Republican party will unite around somebody like a Giulliani or McCain… or they will split the moderate vote and Gingrich will be the nominee. Either way, the core issues of what should be the Republican party will be on display. I’m optimistic.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 8:37 pm
Making the GOP bigger? That is such utter crap.
Name one pro-choice Republican. One.
We all know that neither McCain nor Guiliani will get the nod in 2008. According to the Bush Team, McCain is mentally unstable (see South Carolina 2000) and Guiliani will be seen by the GOP as a left wing nut. Neither has a chance.
The GOP has been taken over in Illinois by the right wing dingbats. If you don’t see that, you must be one.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:18 pm
Answering further,
What happened outside Conn. yesterday?
Two Cong. incumbents lost.
In Georgia, a liberal Democrat incumbent lost to a moderate.
In Michigan, a moderate Republican lost his seat to a right wing extremist.
Now tell me about the future of the two parties. Moderates in the GOP don’t have a chance. The right wingers are going after them. Just like it happened in Illinois with Keyes, Salvi, “Rauchy”, Syverson, and the rest of wingnuts who run the ILGOP and have made it absolutely the weakest GOP in the country.
When an Illinois Republicans gives you advice, you are better off doing the exact opposite since those guys have proven themselves over the past four years to be really bad at the whole “election” thing.
Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:35 pm
Name a pro-choice Republican, Skeeter… okay, let’s begin… Giulliani, Specter, Pataki, Topinka, Radogno, Mark Kirk, Christine Todd Whitman, Olympia Snow, etc. Come on!!! There are plenty of pro-choice GOPers. It is true, pro-choicers are not the party base. But now you, Skeeter, are trying to recruit pro-choice republicans based on the abortion issue. That is the kind of crap I am trying to get away from. The contract with America, did that have any mention of abortion? I am saying we need to end the polarization of abortion in the GOP and welcome people in no matter how they feel about abortion. All you want to do, Skeeter, is polarize.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 9:52 pm
“You are absolutely right about making the Republican party bigger, Baar. It is time to get back to the good ole fashioned ignoring of social issues and concentrating on what the “conservative movement†should be… Strong national defense.”
There is one thing you are forgetting, without the conservative issues there is no Republican party. It would go back to the old Republican party and we could all stay home.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 12:14 am
I’m moderate on choice, but I doubt I’ll be voting over just one issue. The GOP is a big tent with room for disagreement.
If you can expand the GOP by bringing in more sensible voters who realize that the Dems have gone off the deep end (they rejected a sensible centrist like Joe Lieberman), then perhaps there won’t be as much need to pander to the far right fringe.
The GOP tolerates social conservs along with the pro-business/free-market/fiscal conservs who are more moderate on social issues, but the Dems DO NOT tolerate dissent at all. Michael Moore stated once that Joe Lieberman was in the wrong party. Huh??? They’re losing it, plain and simple.
Comment by Angie Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 1:46 am
National polling trends back this up. Even Jack Carter (son of the president conservatives love to put down) is gaining in Arizona…
That is fascinating because Carter is not running in Arizona.
Comment by T.J. Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 4:34 am
To bad they end up this way despite party affiliation. But reguritated or not…there is a far left , intense liberal movement within the Dem’s, just look who’s running things over there & in the case of liberal Joe Lieberman who was with his party the vast majority of the time…they threw him under the bus because he had basic disagreement on key issues the liberals are against ! Soooo! rather than resolve them …they finished him off. He is a national figure, their parties VP nominee & they’ve sent a signal to others..walk step or else !! For his sake I really hope he wins as an independent !! Not because I agree with him or a Dem..which I am NOT …but because it’s OK to disagree & debate . This further demonstates the state of the Dem party there & here in Illinois.
Comment by annon. in the stykes Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 6:05 am
There is one thing you are forgetting, without the conservative issues there is no Republican party.
I’m on record somewhere saying the Democrats fail in 2008 and disappear as a national party.
Republicans will go through turmoil too and it will be over the social issues.
The solution, the uniting principle, is what Justice Scalia said, a judge is no better equipped to make moral judgements than anyone else
The Social Issues: same sex marriage, abortion, stem cells, all belong in the legislatures (no more Republicans ducking the issues, they need to vote there) and out of the courts.
That means a Giuliani or McCain (I think one or the other will lead the party in 2008) commits to nominating judges like Roberts and Alito.
That’s the only way to heal the rift in the R party. And I think it’s right and will work.
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 6:38 am
Bill: You still are missing it, the party is the vehicle, to real social conservatives, principle is everything. I am a life long Republican and heavly involved in the party. That said the issues are far more important than the party. There is no way we can support a person such as McCain. There is no trust between a Liberal and a Conservative. The same is happening with the media, nobody believes what they say anymore.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 7:30 am
Conservative,
Sure, my only point is both parties are split and for Democrats it will be fatal, and for Republicans healthy (or at least not fatal).
Healthy becuase Scalia gave a frame for it. No Judge (or Party I’d add) is any better at making moral judgements then any other person. The moral questoins belong in legislatures.
So what’s critical is the selection of non activist judges, and sympathetic legislatures to whatever ones view is… The President becomes the least important player other than to commit one way or the other on vetos.
The Lamont election sets up a litmus test for throwing people out of the party. I don’t think Republicans will go that route.
Comment by Bill Baar Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 8:47 am
So many comments. Adlai started the “sore winner” campaign with the Solidarity Party. A big difference. One that also proved that a large population still does not like to split their tickets.
Lieberman wins in November. I don’t like it but that’s what the law allows there. And finally, while some may consider Poshard a moderate Dem - to alot of us, he’s a Conservative Dem and barely a Dem. Lieberman’s support of Bush and the Iraq war wasn’t his only step out of Dem territory and I don’t think it will be his last. The only place this could come up here - Melissa Bean’s race - has voters that tend more conservative - so I think it won’t make a difference.
Bush’s numbers are sooo bad here that it will be a reverse of 94. FINALLY.
Comment by babs Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 9:03 am
Bill: I am listening. The battle would still rage because we would still want to know who these judges are. Listening though.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 9:15 am
Bill: we never have thrown people out of the party. We have always been more accepting of other views. I grew up in NY with Nelson R. I and lived & worked for candidates in Conn and NY. Both are very Liberal States. I worked for Thompson, Edgar and Ryan and still maintained my Conservative values. Through this I have learned that Liberals do not tell the truth. This is where mistrust comes in. Conservatives have been used and abused and now are taking a less compromise attitude. We where taught it by the Liberal.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 9:26 am
Bill,
How do you explain that outside Conn., the Dems bounced an incumbent liberal and replaced her with a moderate, while the GOP bounced an incumbent moderate and replaced him with a radical right winger?
Is what happens in Conn. really more important than what happens in Ga. or Mich.?
That is the problem with Baar. He comes up with his theories first, and then tries to make the evidence fit. He ignores evidence to the contrary. It is just weak scholarship.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 9:37 am
Make it fifty
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 11:28 am
=== Anon - Wednesday, Aug 9, 06 @ 10:23 am […]
Was it wrong for Adali Stevenson to create the Solidarity Party after the voters had “spoken†in the Democratic primary over who thye “wanted†for lt. gov.? ===
2 points:
1) Adlai, unlike Lieberman, won the primary.
2) Are you seriously comparing those bonafide lunatics to Lamont?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 11:59 am
How could it be wrong to create another party as long as it is legal. It used to be in several states that if you lost the primary you could run as an independant. There is nothing wrong with it. Now if you are a member of a political party and that happens to your party you might have more of an intrest and want others to feel the same. That is what the system is all about. Then you should invest your time working for or against that member depending how you feel. That being said the candidate has every right to do what he or she thinks is right.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 1:53 pm
Skeeter: Why do you call a Conservative a “Radical right winger: they are Conservative and half the Republican party and far more Red States consider themselves Conservative rather than Left wing socialists.
Comment by The Conservative Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 1:57 pm
I eagerly await the day I can put Bill Baar on my ignore list.
To the question at hand, I reallze I am quite late to the party but after the initial aftermath of the Lamont win wore off my first thought was that if this is evidence of a backlash towards Bush/the war/rubber stamping/etc. then the Dems in the 6th district have a chance to capitalize on that sentiment with Duckworth in a way they wouldn’t have had with Cegelis. Not to resurrect the debate of those two candidates from the primary (please!) but for the dems in the 6th to have an Iraq war vet who has sacrificed for her country puts them in a stronger position to tap into this sentiment. I think absent an anti-Bush sentiment in the 6th the district is too Republican to be in play but what we’re seeing now is that they may just have the right candidate at the right time to make it close. I was surprised to have read this whole thread and not seen that angle discussed.
Also for as close as Lieberman made the race at the end you have to think that he lost some votes just for his willingness to run as an independent if he lost. With the margin of victory so small I wonder if he didn’t lose the primary on those votes alone. I enjoy thinking about the possibility that it was his me-first attitude that ultimately cost him the election.
Comment by Late to the Party Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 11:34 pm
in addition to what Ive said above, my opinion is that the me-first attitude is killing the Democratic party in general
Comment by wjmaggos Thursday, Aug 10, 06 @ 11:58 pm
Late to the party: The primary vote was small Fighting Joe will whip Lamont in the general. it will cost the Dems to suffer loss of revenue as monies are diverted from other campaigns to support Joe. Joe will get lots of free press which will distract from other candidates, thus helping Republicans. In Illinois the Dems will have to be hypocrits to support Duckworth but that has never stopped a democrat before. The end justifies the means.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Aug 11, 06 @ 11:02 am