Should Democrats EVER "mull" about running on another party's ticket?

[wyldwolf]

I've already stated for the record on DU that Lieberman shouldn't run as an Independent and most definitely not as a Republican.

I don't think a Democrat should ever "mull" about running on another ticket after they've lost a race. I couldn't support one if he/she did.

How about you?

[TheVirginian]

1. Lieberman never "mulled" on it. It was a lie spread by TPM Cafe.

They contacted a low-level staff member who gave a non-answer so someone with the authority to speak for Lieberman responded to a question. TPM Cafe interpreted the non-answer as "mulling" a bid, which is complete fiction, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere, interested more in bashing Lieberman than finding out the truth of the matter, hopped on board.

[wyldwolf]

2. I realize that, and I thank you for your research...

but my question remains.

[TheVirginian]

3. Categorically, the answer is "no".

[wyldwolf]

4. I agree.

[Awsi Dooger]

32. That's all true but demonstrates the ineptitude of the Lieberman campaign

One incomparable blunder after another. And that low level staff member had a title, a deputy press manager or something like that. Hardly a first day hire. It's inconceivable a three term incumbent could have someone in that position who didn't have the competence or instincts to answer the question with an emphatic no.

I've been much more dismayed at Lieberman's lauaghable campaign than any votes he's made in congress. I realize that's opposite of anyone here but my ongoing frustration with current top level Democrats is we don't anticipate or strategize as well as the other side. This merely a different type of example.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Only spineless turncoats would do that. nt

[wyldwolf]

6. damn straight!

[MercutioATC]

7. He's not "mulling", he's doing it!

He's started his own political party, "Connecticut for Lieberman".

This isn't an Independent campaign, it's actually a complete political party.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--senate-connecticu0710jul10,0,7530996.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

[wyldwolf]

8. no, thats only if he loses the primary.. so let's not jump ahead...

For the here and now - should a Democrat ever even consider - mull - running on another party's ticket? Simple question.

I have a certain well known loyalty to the party, so I vote no.

[MercutioATC]

11. Agreed, but he's already filed to create the party.

Which means he's at least "mulling" running on another party's ticket.

Regardless, I also vote "no".

[wyldwolf]

12. correct. He's "mulling" it.. and I'm glad you vote "no,"

[dsc]

9. Bloomberg did so in New York

and it turned out all right. I wouldn't encourage such behavior but in some very limited circumstances it can be exceptable. Adali Stevenson III had to run as a Solidarity Party Candidate to escape a LaRouche supporter as Lieutenant Governor.

[wyldwolf]

10. I wouldn't accept him back into the fold

But that's just me.

[dsc]

13. Bloomberg or Stevenson?

I would be loathe to vote for Bloomberg against a Democrat but Stevenson would be fine.

[wyldwolf]

14. speaking more about Bloomberg, but Stephenson...

...eh... I don't know. A LaRouche supporter? You'd think a name like Stephenson could have forced the LaRouche supporter into the background.

[dsc]

17. What happened there was that Illinois elected

the Governor and Lt Governor seperately. Stevenson won the Democratic nod for governor but his chosen Lt Governor, who had a Polish name, lost to a LaRouche in the primary. Thus he had to decline the Democratic nod and start his own party. He wound up barely losing.

[wyldwolf]

19. interesting.

Thanks for sharing. I love reading accounts like that.

[dsc]

22. The poor guy was about as snakebit as a pol could be

He ran in both 82 and 86. In 82 he lost narrowly and then in 86 he had that bizarre happening. He couldn't catch a break.

[welshTerrier2]

15. i think they should "Mull" under certain conditions

i guess i see two views on this ... mine is totally unpopular on DU and probably elsewhere as well ...

the popular view is that you pick a team, you give it a try, you play by the rules ... changing parties after you lose a primary is seen as spoil-sporting and sore losing ... i understand that view; i just don't agree with it ...

i see the political process not as ultimately trying to ascend to power within a political party ... i see it as trying to ascend to power to promote a set of views ... if one is able to gain the support of a major party, great ... in a two party system, that's obviously the best way to get your views implemented ...

but what if you lose the primary? the question i ask then is: should you just stop fighting for your beliefs because they are not the majority view in your party or should you seek a new base and perhaps even take some of your party with you? my view is that your loyalty should be toward your beliefs ...

now, let me temper that a little bit ... first, i don't think it's fair to take your campaign funds with you when you leave ... contributors MAY have relied on your party status when they contributed and you don't have the right to assume you can use those funds outside the party ...

and second, one should recognize the value of party unity ... while you have every right, and maybe even an obligation to continue the fight, you should also make all reasonable efforts to try to work things out in your current party ... if the primary winner is willing to be reasonably inclusive of the constituency you represent, i think there is some obligation to your original party ... if the winner chooses a "to the victor go the spoils approach", off you go ...

[AtomicKitten]

16. I applaud your consistency wt2

We may not always agree, but I respect your opinion because it is reasonable and consistent and well thought out.

In the final analysis, the truth is I just want the bad Republicans to go away. The details of that occurring aren't nearly as important to me at this particular moment in history.

[welshTerrier2]

21. my current read ...

thanks, AK ... i truly appreciate your kind words ...

my take, at least right now, is that Lamont has the Big Mo and probably, barring a major boo-boo, cannot be stopped ... i think Lieberman's early statement about running as an Indie reflected the fact that he had come to the same conclusion ...

however, some Dems plus Indies plus republicans will be tough to beat in the fall ... i don't think the republicans will "let" Schlesinger stay in the race or they'll marginalize him so badly that he'll become almost irrelevant ... you see, the republicans are putting issues ahead of party ... they want Lieberman ... period ...

the only chance i think Lamont has to beat him in the General Election is to have the Democratic Party pour resources into the post-primary race and make the case to "nationalize" the election ... in other words, they need to talk to Democrats and Indies who might stick with Joe that control of the Senate, a "national" issue, is more important that the differences between Lieberman and Lamont in this particular race ...

will it fly? right now, i'm afraid the answer is: No, it won't ...

[AtomicKitten]

23. I sincerely wish the Dem big guns would butt out

and let the primary run its course. I really love Lamont's ads. Nontoxic.

You bet the Republicans are content with Lieberman. Their support along with those cling-on Democrats who hate American democracy may prevail over Lamont and that concerns me.

If the big cheese Dems were smart, and so far they are not, they would step back and not try to brow-beat voters into hanging with Lieberman, particularly since he has declared his intention to leave the party if he loses. That's such unparalleled BS, yet the power Dems are supporting that notion. That's insane from a party solidarity point of view. I wonder if they intend to continue to support Lieberman as an indie. What a piss-poor message that sends the party.

Lieberman can do what he wants, but it is poor strategy for the Dem Party upper echelon to support him since he has declared his intention to bolt. It makes no sense from a strategic point of view, particularly since Lieberman will continue to support any and all war in the ME.

[wyldwolf]

26. Do you also wish the blogosphere big guns would butt out?

They are having a lot of influence as well.

[welshTerrier2]

28. about the blogosphere

i remember the old days when you used to tell me we online lefties represented a powerless one percent of Democrats ... some called us "keyboard warriors" and whiners who did not really participate and had no real power ...

how representative the online community is across the party's spectrum does indeed remain to be seen ... my view, however, is that representative or not, there can be no denying that, even in its infancy, there is a huge amount of power here that has sprung up very quickly ...

my view is not to say "i told you so" ... that's not my point at all ...

my point is that i believe there's been way too much centralized control of decision making in the party ... i truly believe we would be much, much stronger if we found a way to make reforms and give EVERY DEMOCRAT a much greater say ... i'm not arguing here about moving left or right or anywhere else ... i'm saying that we are shooting ourselves in the foot ...

i heard Dean speak a couple of years ago ... it was very sad ... i thought he offered a real chance for reform; i just don't see it ... he said, as best i recall, that he intends to give the "grassroots" a much greater roll in the party ... he said he envisioned getting the grassroots involved with going door to door and campaigning neighbor to neighbor ... that's great ... he sees the value of grassroots campaigning ... so do i ... but where the hell is his statement about reforming the party to give the grassroots a greater voice??? that's the problem ...

right now the "online rebellion" is still small ... we're still isolated ... if Lieberman loses the primary, i think the online world will never be viewed the same way again ... and even if we lose this one, soon our power will become unstoppable ...

instead of fighting the online "lefty, activist" community, the party should, and will have to, learn to "share power" ... if they don't, either they'll be replaced by other candidates or we'll end up fighting among ourselves to the benefit of no one ... when i call for unity, i mean it ... right now, the insiders are holding firm; the processes are still closed; the people do not have an adequate voice ... if the goal is longterm control of the government, that is going to have to change ...

[AtomicKitten]

29. no and here's why

Blogs are opinion pieces. Now I realize some here deify bloggers and bow in awe to their utterances, but that really speaks to their own shortcomings. I believe they are entitled to express their opinions, just as Bill Clinton or any other Democrat is entitled to express their opinion.

I'm talking about the organized Democratic Party machine that doesn't have the good sense to butt out. That kind of organized party support is sending the message that primary challenges are wrong when in reality they are the essence of democracy. Shutting down or attempting to waylay the will of the voters is no better than what the Republicans do vis-a-vis Diebold.

[welshTerrier2]

27. incumbency disease

you know, i could make all sort of arguments against Lieberman's stance on the war and his support of the bush/cheney energy bill ... just hideous ... and then i could proceed to criticizing the Democrats who are supporting him because they are supporting his votes, whether they acknowledge it or not, on critical issues like these ...

but frankly, that's the least of my objections to their supporting him ...

what's really wrong, and big mouth Bill Clinton, a truly arrogant and despicable character, epitomizes the problem, is that many of them don't believe anyone has the RIGHT to run against an incumbent Democrat ... well excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!!!!

the Senate is not a fraternity; it's a representative part of our government ... that means THE PEOPLE CHOOSE; not the Clinton's and the incumbents and the ruling class of career politicians ... HOW DARE HE suggest "Lieberman is ENTITLED to the seat????

it's time we afforded every opportunity to challengers ... i have no problem with individual endorsements but they should be endorsements based on something more than "incumbency" ... as a party, we should insist on a level playing field ... it's time we took the political advantages away from incumbents ...

in my State, they always list incumbents on the ballot ahead of the alphabetically listed challengers ... i called the Sec. of State's office and told them this was outrageous ... at election time, the electoral system should treat every candidate equally; no one should be given a headstart or "a little extra" ... equal!!!

[AtomicKitten]

30. I agree that all attempts to discourage primaries are BS.

Quit dissing my lesser boyfriend (Al Gore being my main man, of course)!!! I have no problem with Clinton expressing his opinion. I happen to disagree with him in a big way.

It is the audacity of the feeling of entitlement that appears to be at issue. I don't think that's really what Clinton is saying though. I think he believes Lieberman can win in the general and is a sure thing, ergo the "nutso" comment. I also think there's a huge element of loyalty that goes way back. But that has nothing to do with us, does it? Voters don't owe politicians anything particularly when their votes in Congress on our behalf stray so far from our will.

But the bottom line is that we the people, not the Democratic Party machine, are in the driver's seat. They can use all the manipulation they want, we don't have to succumb. Assuming our votes will be counted, and that's a huge assumption at this point, it doesn't matter what Clinton or any of the other power Democrats nor the powerful bloggers for that matter think, it's our vote that will decide the course of our future.

[wyldwolf]

18. so, in theory, Lieberman considering other parties might be ok if...

...he is doing so to promote a set of views? I can see that.

Also, am I to understand that it is also ok to change parties after a primary loss? Or did I misunderstand you?

[welshTerrier2]

20. yes, Lieberman's actions are OK

you know i strongly dislike Lieberman ... and i certainly understand the partisan animosity he created with his talk of running against Lamont if Lamont wins the primary ... and even more so if Lieberman runs as a republican ...

but, while i would much rather see Lamont run head to head against Schlesinger, I will not condemn Lieberman's actions ...

we were all pretty damned happy when Jeffords left the republican party ... i know i was ... that seems even more extreme to me in that the voters no longer had a say in his decision ... if Lieberman runs as a republican, the voters still can choose him or reject him ...

[SaveElmer]

24. I agree...but I don't think Lieberman mulled it...

I think he had an idiot Press Secretary who said the wrong thing...

However that he has gone indie is bad enough...and really is no different than if he had gone Republican.

[wyldwolf]

25. regardless, you vote "no," right?

[SaveElmer]

31. Definitely no...

Once a candidate declares he will not support the Democratic nominee of the party, or runs as anything other than a Democrat, against the Democratic candidate...he has lost the right to call himself a Democrat!

[Crunchy Frog]

33. You've finally posted something I agree with.

If you want to be a Democrat, then be willing to respect the party process and get behind the winner of the primary. If you want to be on a different party ticket, then don't screw around with Democratic primaries.

I hold that view every bit as much for progressives as for people like Lieberman. I supported Ken Salazar's progressive opponent in the primaries, but would have lost all respect for him had he not respected the primary's results.