Bottom line is, if you lose a primary you should be out of that election.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

Period. No Exceptions.

What Joe Lieberman did was wrong, and should be illegal.

What Charlie Crist is doing is wrong, and should be illegal.

What Murkowski is doing.... well officially she's not doing anything, since a write in campaign is really nothing but having faith in voters to reject names actually on the ballot. But she still lost, and should be out of it.

What's the point of primaries if they don't eliminate any candidates?

[bobbolink]

1. You can add Tancredo to that list, also.

:puke:

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

5. Forgot all about that racist tool

I heard something a while back about how the "official" GOP candidate in that race was somehow worse than TanKKKredo. Not sure how that could be possible, but yeah, him too.

[joeybee12]

2. technically, Crist didn't lose the primary, he KNEW he was gonna lose,

so he pulled out prior.

Lisa and Holy Joe are sore losers...problem is Ct doesn't have a sore loser law, so he could pull that s**t.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Primaries are carrots on sticks.

:think:

[Deep13]

4. Agreed. If one is going to run without a party, he should do it before the primary. nt

[rfranklin]

6. Primaries are primaries for the parties...

There is nothing wrong with a legitimate candidate running on a third party ticket. In fact, we would have a more representative government if it were possible to break the stranglehold of the Dems and Republicans.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

9. Then they should run as Libertarians (or whatever) at the begining of the campaign season.

If you lose a primary, you should be done for that election. Run next time as a different party? Sure. Run for a different office? Maybe. But one loss per office per election is more than reasonable.

[laughingliberal]

7. Well, that is the law in most states but a few still allow this. I believe it's 6 states. nt

[walldude]

8. NO WAY!

Yeah Lieberman is a freaking joke, but what you are saying here is our choices should be limited to the crappy candidates the party picks for us? Period? No exceptions? How is that a Democracy? You know many of us here on DU like our third party candidates, and write ins, we just aren't allowed to talk about them.

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

10. This isn't about third party candidates.

If you want to change parties, do it at the beginning of your campaign, not after you lose the primary.

[DrDan]

11. why? If a candidate loses a primary, but can still muster the votes

from both major parties to win an election, why should that candidate be excluded?

Makes absolutely no sense to me.

[etherealtruth]

14. !

Exactly

[mdmc]

12. Primaries decide who represents a party - that is all

[LostInAnomie]

13. Why shouldn't the person that can garner the most votes win?

Why do they have to play by an often rigged party primary?

[Bluebear]

15. Sounds undemocratic. nt

[Old Troop]

16. I say the more choices the better. The two party system is a huge part

of all our national problems. Why would anyone want to restrict out choices?

[smokey nj]

17. So sayeth the Lord!

+1