This ain't gonna happen, but I suppose I can fantasize about Lieberman getting fed up with being dissed by his own party and deciding to pay the Dems back for all their "support" by caucusing with the Republicans. This, of course, would give the GOP control of the senate on the Cheney tiebreaker.

Like I said, it ain't gonna happen, but its fun to think about.

....Lieberman getting fed up with being dissed by his own party and deciding to pay the Dems back for all their "support" by caucusing with the Republicans.

OregonMuse: From your lips to God's ear? Let us hope.

What Orman should do is promise every Republican candidate who comes in second in any Connecticut primary that he will work to help them get on the general election ballot.

After all, why should people not be allowed to run in the general just because they lost the primary?

"After all, why should people not be allowed to run in the general just because they lost the primary?"

Great question! Got an answer?

Seams to me, the "People of Connecticut" wanted Lieberman to be their senator.

That's hilarious.

Great question! Got an answer?

The answer is because it undermines the primary election system where the members of a political party get to determine who their candidates are in the general election.

You may as well get rid of the primary system altogether if you want to encourage candidates to do what Lieberman did. What if McCain had decided to run indy in 2000? That surely would have resulted in Gore being elected. This thing can cut both ways.

Larkin:

A simple sollution to your problem: have everyone who wishes to run in the Democratic party, sign a pledge not to run against someone who beats them in the primary. I'll bet you can't get the first signature.

BTW: Seems like I remember something about Ross Peroe(sp).

Here lately, there has been a lot of talk about conservatives being whinners. You appear to be taking up one of our bad traits.

Joe lost to Lamont on one issue..Iraq..
Joe will not switch parties before 08 because of the power in his being a Dem at this time...Where the Dems have to kiss his ass.
Joe is to the Dems..an Independent what Jeffers was to Republicans...
Ya have to admit it is Funny..Joe creates a pretend party..and some guy off the street takes it over. (I will say that Jeffers defection was more serious as the Dems became the majority.)

Larkin, you say it as though eliminating the primaries would be a bad thing.

Isn't there a longstanding complaint about the American political system's hostility/barriers-to-entry for third parties? Isn't the whole idea being able to field more parties, to provide more political voices?

Yeah, McCain could've run, and Gore probably would've won. The problem with this is? Of course, McCain knew that if he did that, and he didn't win (which he wouldn't have), he'd be a pariah in the GOP. I suspect the same is true for Lieberman---had he run and lost to either Lamont or the GOP candidate, then his career would be over, his name would be mud, and he'd be a pariah to the Dems for the rest of his life.

That's the real thing that keeps people from running after losing the primary---fear of being made a pariah.

Think of the CT elections this way: If there were the ability to redistribute votes, folks voted for Lamont in the primary to express their displeasure w/ the war, and voted for Lieberman b/c they figured he'd do a better job representing them (through his seniority) on everything else.

Larkin, you say it as though eliminating the primaries would be a bad thing.

I believe that only party members should get to decide who runs on their ticket. So I am opposed to open primaries and cross-voting where you can choose which party's ballot you want.

I think the rules should be that you can only run in the general on the same party ticket that you ran on in the primary. Otherwise, we will start to see a lot of these sore piimary losers running as spoilers (of course in Lieb's case he won).

I'm not whining about Lieberman. He's a Democrat after all and his winning helped us take the Senate. I am surprised that the Republicans chose not to run a viable candidate. If they had chosen someone who had a chance they might be in control of the Senate today. Instead they supported someone who has 80% liberal voting record. Go figure that one out.

Oh, and don't bet on him switching parties. Who wants to jump on board a sinking ship that is going to be going down further in 2008?

So, Larkin, you want to make 2 party control of Congress the law now, rather than simple reality?
-=Mike