What if we retake the Senate, THEN Joementum switches parties?

[Lefty48197]

What if we Democrats retake the Senate this year: say we win a 50th seat, with Jeffords providing the 51st vote to install Harry Reid as Senate majority leader, but Joe Lieberman suddenly switches parties moving it back to a 50-50 tie, whereby Dickie Cheney would then provide the tie-breaking vote, which would instead re-install Dr. Fristenstein as the Senate majority leader.

I mean would that suck or what?

[Selatius]

1. Jeffords is retiring. It is likely Bernie Sanders will win.

Regardless, yes, it would suck if Lieberman jumped across the aisle. Tough luck from a power stand-point, but on the other hand, he's no longer a Democrat, and that should be welcome news.

[Terran1212]

7. Bernie would REVOLUTIONIZE the Senate

A democratic socialist Independent in the most corporate-controlled government body in the world? He'd raise hell.

Go Bernie!

[Lefty48197]

11. That does sound great.

Senator Sanders. Has a nice ring to it...

[Selatius]

16. Yeah, he'd make some of the socialists here very proud.

For a very long time, people in this country who believed in a way of life built on mutual cooperation instead of cutthroat competition have been ostracized, ridiculed, and even persecuted for their beliefs.

[cornermouse]

2. What if Joementum loses in the primaries?

My favorite scenario. O8)

[Selatius]

3. He said he'd run as an independent if he does, which is...

bad news because he'd split the vote on the left. With only one candidate for the rightwingers, the Republican opponent could win through sheer virtue of having the plurality of the vote, and then once again, the two party system shows itself to be completely inadequate in representing the views of people.

[cornermouse]

4. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I think that peope could be mad enough at republicans to associate jomentum with their policies as well.

I see no real difference between Joementum and a republican myself.

[dolstein]

10. A simple challenge to you

If you can't see any difference between Joe Lieberman and the Republicans, then it should be easy for you to come up with the names of a half dozen Republican members of Congress whose record on evironmental, civil rights, labor, abortion rights, education and taxes are as liberal as Lieberman's.

[Lexingtonian]

20. dunno about that

Lieberman's poll numbers look rather more as if he'd take roughly equal amounts of moderates from each side. That gives Lamont the victory in a three way.

But the basic thing that ruins any hope for Lieberman or the Republican candidate is that moderate Republicans are not looking thrilled about even showing up at the polls this year.

About the only thing worse than a bad two party system is a bad multiparty system. There are very good reasons third parties fail in American politics- they generally represent copouts or bad compromises.

[Selatius]

22. The reason the two-party system dominates is because of...

Duverger's Law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

The fact that only two parties have dominated since the 1800s has more to do with the first-past-the-post voting system we have than the merits of 3rd party political positions. If one consults a history textbook, things such as the minimum wage, social security, and the right to unionize were, at one time, things the Democratic Party did not accept. It only accepted such positions in the face of strong grassroots movements such as the Populist Movement of the turn of the century and the Labor Movement only three decades later.

Your statement that 3rd parties often hold cop-out positions or bad compromises is, ultimately, a subjective call. Germany seems rather stable with more than just two political parties to vote for at the ballot box. The same holds true in Switzerland, France, Spain, and Italy. In fact, they all have higher voter turnouts, and even though that's due to several factors, one of the factors is more choice at the ballot box.

[Lexingtonian]

25. of those

I really only understand the German situation well, and the Swiss and Italian ones to a lesser degree.

In Germany the third parties are worthless. The ex-communists and Republikaner are incompetent to govern responsibly- they exist only as the manifestations of voter blocs who have no future and know it, i.e. copouts. The Greens and the FDP are essentially minor wings of the two major parties when they are not irrelevant. The real dialogue about how to govern and where to go as a country is between CDU and SPD.

The Italian story is not that different. When the going got tough, as in the past two years, two coalitions were formed and held together.

In the UK there appears to be a multiparty system, but if you followed the recent elections the central concern was voting for Tory power or so as to prevent Tory power. A de facto Labour/Liberal coalition exists among voters and a consensus certainty that Tories are a party that is so obsolete so as to be dangerous.

There's a distinction between a movement and a political party. At least in American politics. American parties are always coalitions of movements or interests.

[MADem]

8. Mine, too n/t

[wisteria]

5. I would be more concerned about some of these "new" Dem's

running. You know, the ones that were repubs, but were so angry about the Iraq War, they switched parties to run as Dem's.

[TahitiNut]

6. Ben Nelson is more likely, imho.

He spends more time schmoozing on the fascist side of the aisle than the left.

[dolstein]

9. What if DU'ers stop lying about Lieberman switching parties?

Then I suppose you guys wouldn't have anything to talk about.

Joe Lieberman has been a Democrat longer than most people around here have been a live. He may be a hawk on foreign policy, but so was Truman, Kennedy and LBJ. Are you ready to run those guy out of the party posthumously?

Lieberman's positions on civil rights, the environment, abortion rights, labor issues and taxes would put him so far outside the mainstream of the Republican Party that he'd have only Lincoln Chafee to keep him company (and even that's a stretch, as Chafee's environmental record is nowhere near as good as Lieberman's), and right now there's a good chance that the right-wing equivalent of DU will run Chafee out of the party. So why on earth would Lieberman leave a political party where he agrees with his fellow caucus members 90% of the time to join a party where he disagrees with his fellow caucus members 90% of the time.

[BuyingThyme]

14. There's always that thing about being a self-professed Judaeo-Christian

bigot. He believes ALL morality stems Jewish and Christian traditions.

He's a fascist, right-wing Republican to the core.

[monarch]

17. Who's lying?

Sen. Lieberman has himself said that he wouldn't rule out a run as an independent. I know Joe Lieberman, I like Joe Lieberman. I have followed his career since the late 60's and his record on the issues you cite is every bit as good as you say it is but I can tell you that there is not one CT liberal that I know who is supporting him this year.

[Atman]

24. His new teevee commercial says it all

Regarding his pro-Iraq war stance: "I know neither of us will likely change the other's mind."

IOW, he just doesn't care what his constituency thinks. He seems to feel he is in office to represent Joe Lieberman, not the voters of Connecticut. He's forgotten what his job is, and for that he is likely to pay dearly at the polls.

[cmkramer]

21. But But

He believes in God and is actively involved in his faith. That automatically makes him a far right conservative, doesn't it?

[Lefty48197]

23. Uh... Joe Lieberman is NO Jack Kennedy, nor is he a Truman or LBJ

He's more comfortable around Republicans, that's all there is to it.

[loyalsister]

12. Lieberman's Rhetoric his banner

and the most offensive part of his being in office.
He is as moralistic as the religious right in his criticisms of media, etc. and supports foriegn policies that are further right than most Democrats.
When a person works so hard to justify the things that have put the opposition in office not once but twice, doing what they are supposed to do, by voting for\against the basics is merely symbolic.
He doesn't need to switch parties, he's a bigger asset to them where he's at.

[cali]

19. I'm no fan of Lieberman's

but Dolstein is right about Lieberman and the issues. He may be a sanctimonious prig in many ways but he has little in common with the religious right. He's staunchly pro-choice, for pete's sake. The pro-life agenda is THE cornerstone of the RR's agenda.

[BuyingThyme]

13. Possible scenario.

[GOPNotForMe]

15. Frist is retiring from the Senate. nt

[Anarcho-Socialist]

18. I don't think that will happen

The difference between Lieberman and the typical GOP line is bigger than one imagines. A lot is made of Lieberman being a hawk, but he doesn't come close to the GOP line on reproductive rights. To the Right, Lieberman is considered a "baby killer".

[mandyky]

26. Who says Lieberman will win?

Another Dem is running...