Here is the purpose of a primary, for all those who don't understand

[CTLawGuy]

parties have primaries for the purpose of selecting ONE candidate to go on the GE ballot.

Why does the party want to do this? If the Dem party has 10 factions that each back its own candidate, we don't want all candidates to go to the GE, because if the Republicans have fewer candidates, they will have a greater chance of winning the GE based on sheer numbers of candidates alone.

Ex: If there 5 dems and 2 republicans running, and party membership is 50% - 50%, and the vote is split evenly, each dem gets 10% and each repub gets 25%. That means, in an election where the # of dem voters = # of repub voters, the repub candidates finish first and second. The only reason they finish that way is they put forward fewer candidates. In this scenario, each party would want to try to put as FEW candidates forward as possible

Both parties don't want to be the dems in the above situation, so they have primaries as an orderly way for the factions to select the best ONE candidate. That way the number of candidates are even, and don't affect the electoral outcome.

If those who lose the primary decide to run anyway, the purpose of the primary is lost. You return to the above situation where the party with more candidates risks losing because they have a split vote.

So when joe Lieberman openly threatens to run as an indy if he loses, he is sending the not-so subtle message of "I will put this seat in play if you don't support me in the primary." He is threatening the sanctity of the primary system, and setting a bad precedent that any loser with delusions of grandeur, and opinions, whether founded or not, that the republican "can't win," can violate the spirit of the primary.

that is why Joe is so infuriating. most people here understand it, but some do not.

[SlipperySlope]

1. Would you feel better if he was nominated by the Green party?

[CTLawGuy]

6. no

I don't understand the point of your question.

If he is not a democrat anymore, then fine, leave the party and run as an indy with the intent to stay an indy. but don't pull the shit that he is pulling.

[LoZoccolo]

2. You are completely ignoring the polls and it's becoming tiresome.

In the last poll I saw with a two-way race between Lamont and Schlesinger, Lamont increased Schlesinger's percentage from 8% to 20%, and the undecideds formed a bigger bloc than Lamont had. Lieberman wouldn't be doing this if he couldn't win as the polls show.

[CTLawGuy]

3. polls change

thats why they take them frequently. Or perhaps we should not have the election and just award the seat to Joe?


Also, the repub hasn't started campaigning yet, and has little name ID, and there is FOUR MONTHS to go. Howard Dean crashed and burned in two weeks in Jan 2004.

So how you can say with certainty the race would not be competitive, especially all the way from Chicago, is beyond me.

[CTLawGuy]

4. polls change

thats why they take them frequently. Or perhaps we should not have the election and just award the seat to Joe?


Also, the repub hasn't started campaigning yet, and has little name ID, and there is FOUR MONTHS to go. Howard Dean crashed and burned in two weeks in Jan 2004.

So how you can say with certainty the race would not be competitive, especially all the way from Chicago, is beyond me.

[LincolnMcGrath]

8. You completely ignored the OP here as well.

[Awsi Dooger]

9. That's the interesting question

Would Lieberman still go this route if the GOP had a viable challenger, someone more than capable of earning a 1/3+ split in the general election? Frankly, I think the answer is yes. Joe is all for Joe and it's a convenient situation for him that the Republicans didn't field a Grade A nominee.

[welshTerrier2]

5. "the purpose of the primary is lost"

the first sentence in the OP is correct: "parties have primaries for the purpose of selecting ONE candidate to go on the GE ballot."

however, the conclusion that when primary losers decide to run anyway "the purpose of the primary is lost" is Not correct ...

you can see the problem if you examine the two statements ... the first sentence correctly emphasizes the "parties' purpose" in holding a primary ... but, whether you prefer it that way or not, it is Not necessarily everyone's purpose for competing in a primary ...

the fact that one strives for power using the existing political process does NOT constrain anyone to stop fighting for their cause ... for many, party politics are trumped by issues ... to complain about this is nonsense ... the fact that well funded, powerful corporate interests can perhaps turn out more voters in a primary does not mean you should not continue the fight ... if the primary winner is reasonably inclusive after winning, real consideration should be given to the benefits of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" ... there is a clearly a benefit to unity ...

but if the primary winner, and the party, is not reasonably inclusive, the struggle for power should continue under whatever banner serves the cause ... perhaps the potential of a third party or independent run will encourage more intra-party dialog ... if not, the struggle continues without unity ... these views apply whether the candidate in question runs to the right of the party or to the left ...

so, to conclude, it is indeed the purpose of parties to stand behind a single candidate by holding primaries ... it is not, however, at least not necessarily, the purpose of all candidates to abide by the results ... rules made by majorities should not just be automatically accepted by minority views ...

[loyalsister]

7. Good analysis

If a new candidate is selected, then the obvious conclusion is that the incumbant has not responded to their party constituency.
A senator who absolutely can not accept that his personal ideology does not match that of the majority of the voters who donate to campaigns and vote in elections should consider the possibility that his ideology belongs elsewhere.
Perhaps he is an independent and should stop using the Democratic party for backing if he isn't going to represent the voters.