Which '08 Dem presidential contenders will run as independents?

[CTLawGuy]

Thanks to Joe and his hypocritical DLC supporters (who seem to have less than the interests of our party at heart) there is precedent for a megalomaniacal presidential primary loser to stay in the race as an independent.

And after disloyal actions from Salazar, Pryor, Landrieu, Nelson, and Carper (among others), why should Dems not support them?

Why shouldn't liberal dems support the Green candidate?

I mean the DLC hypocrites have no problems with these turncoats flipping the bird to the Dem voters of CT, what's the justification for leftist activists remaining unified behind a possibly centrist Dem nominee in 08, like very many did in '04 with John "I served in Vietnam" Kerry?

What big time Dems supported Nader in '00 or '04?

Do these DINOs not realize what they are doing to our party?

[Sparkly]

1. Let me understand this....

You're upset about someone running against the nominated Democratic candidate because it's bad for the party (I'd agree); ergo, it justifies supporting someone ELSE running against a nominated Democratic candidate, knowing it's bad for the party.

:crazy:

[CTLawGuy]

2. that's not what Im saying at all

I don't think any primary loser should ever run as an independent in the same race.

but after this, it's going to be harder to convince liberal dems to fall in line behind a centrist candidate. Thats my point.

[Sparkly]

3. I don't understand.

"but after this, it's going to be harder to convince liberal dems to fall in line behind a centrist candidate."

Why? (I'm not trying to be facetious -- I truly don't understand your reasoning/your point.)

[CTLawGuy]

5. ok

if you have two candidates in the primary, one liberal and one centrist.

The liberals don't like the centrist, and the centrists don't like the liberal.

But the winner needs both centrist and liberal support to win the election against the Republican.

So, we have a system where we fight it out in the primary and unite behind the nominee, knowing he or she is better than the Republican, even if we don't really like the nominee that much.

Those who have thought that our nominees have been too conservative have been told not to support more liberal third-party candidates, because we don't want the republican to win. Many of them comply and hold their noses.

Now, those very same lecturers are backing the more centrist independent Lieberman against the more liberal dem nominee Lamont. that makes them hypocrites and the moral force of their arguments to fall in line behind a potentially-centrist nominee in the presidential race is diminished, because of their lack of regard for unity in the general election between Lamont, Lieberman and Schlesinger.

[Sparkly]

16. Are both wrong, both right, or one wrong and the other right?

I posted a poll on this, in case you missed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2781438

[CTLawGuy]

19. it is wrong to support a TP candidate becuase your guy didn't win

the primary, regardless of whether you are a centrist or liberal.

[Sparkly]

22. That's how I see it for myself.

I can't tell other people what to do, of course; but it's effectively a gain for the Republican if a Democrat votes third-party whether from the right or the left. So I think it's counter-productive at best.

[WildEyedLiberal]

7. Apparently darboy is assuming the centrist candidate....

... would pull a "Lieberman" and not support the "progressive" candidate if the tables were turned.

Which is complete bullshit, as far as I can tell, with no proof. Unless any of the meager few Dems who have supported Lieberman's run earn the Presidential nomination, this OP is utterly moot. I mean, I guess it's possible, since Pryor, Salazar, and Lincoln are such household names... :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

8. I'd say 4 sitting US Senators is a big deal

and I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying it's POSSIBLE. And what Lieberman is doing is precedent for it.

How many sitting US Senators backed Ralph Nader? in either '00 or '04?

How many Dem elected officials at all backed Nader?

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. So you wouldn't vote for.... say... Hillary because of some no-name DLCers

My point is that this OP has no logical basis unless you were being asked, in 2008, to support a Democrat who willing betrayed the party by backing Lieberman.

Pryor, Lincoln, Salazar, and whoever the hell else are no-name nobodies, and unless they magically get the nomination in 2008, I fail to see what their support of Lieberman has to do with supporting the party's candidate in 2008.

[CTLawGuy]

15. their actions decrease the moral force of calls for post-primary

unity. If the centrists say "support our guy, we have to be unified," the liberals can say "you didn't support our guy in 2006."

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. They only decrease it if you let them decrease it

I don't understand why Pryor, Salazar etc's opinion is so important to you that it would influence whether you'd support a completely different Dem. Bayh and Clinton are the two most centrist potential nominees and they both wised up and supported Lamont. So I fail to see how it's fair to punish them because of three random no-name senators.

[CTLawGuy]

21. again I said NOTHING about what I would do

I'm supporting the Dem nominee always.

it's other people and what they would do, especially those who are sympathetic to the Greens.

and these insignificant senators' behavior is being tolerated by Reid et al.

I'm glad other centrists have gotten behind Lamont, but this rebellion is a concern.

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. I agree it shouldn't be tolerated.

Pryor should be stripped of his post at DSCC - if he can't endorse all Democrats then he has no business being in charge of the DSCC (vice-charge?).

I think that would send a message to the pro-Lieberman faction that you can disagree with other Democrats but the minute you forsake party loyalty all bets are off.

On that, I can agree wholeheartedly with you.

[WildEyedLiberal]

4. Are you seriously comparing Kerry with Lieberman?

What a fucking FARCE. DO you really not understand the difference between supporting the winner of the primary - even if it's not your first choice - and betraying the party because you didn't get your way, like Lieberman is doing?

If you can prove John Kerry would have petulantly refused to support Dean or Clark or Edwards in 2004, then perhaps, but you know good and damn well you can't, so your comparison is bullshit to the extreme.

By the way, I hope you know who sent out a fundraising letter for Ned Lamont today. John Kerry did serve in Vietnam, but he's also a loyal Dem who's raised more money for 2006 candidates than any other Democrat.

God, what bullshit!

[CTLawGuy]

6. No, if you actually read my OP

you'd know I was saying many liberals were not huge Kerry fans but supported him out of a sense that unity was important.

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. This liberal is a huge Kerry fan

But that's neither here nor there. I think it's pretty obvious, from the way you've worded your post, that you are conflating supporting Kerry in 2004 with supporting Lieberman in 2006. IE, you had to "suck it up" to vote for Kerry in 04 ( :eyes: ), but because three or four third-rate no-name DLCers are supporting Lieberman's run, you won't vote for a candidate who is not your first choice in 2008. Which, as I pointed out above, unless one of the proven traitors like Pryor is the nominee, is an incredibly moot point.

[CTLawGuy]

10. Did I say anything about what I would do?

No.

That's wonderful that you liked Kerry.

[zzRevolution]

27. your question on top was extremely poorly worded.

[JI7]

32. i agree

those people have no chance of winning . it's like that idiot Chris Shays supporting Lieberman even while he was a Democrat or Chaffee refusing to officially endorse Bush and try to make it into something that could affect a Republican Primary.

[Sparkly]

12. I'm not at all sure, but I *think* the comparison seems to be that....

Lamont wasn't rightwing enough for Lieberman, and so Lieberman is running against the Democrat and perhaps taking some Dem votes with him.

Kerry wasn't leftwing enough for some Greens, and so they see Lieberman's actions as justification for splitting the party their way, running against the Democrat and taking some Dem votes with them (as if THAT never happened before).

In this comparison, I think Lamont is Kerry, sorta. Split our vote right = wrong; split our vote left = right...?

:shrug:

[WildEyedLiberal]

14. Beats me

:shrug:

If one of the backers of Lieberman got the nomination in 2008 then I could see where this OP was coming from. Why support them if they can't support the Democrat in CT? BUT... does anyone really think a pro-Lieberman Dem is going to get more than 4% of the vote in any given primary?

[CTLawGuy]

18. why is this personal?

its not personal at all.

It's not about those who support Lieberman running for president.

It's about whether those who support Lieberman and those who tolerate their support would have any credibility left to say "get behind a centrist nominee even if you don't think he's the best candidate". They didn't follow their own rule in this case, so their argument loses its moral force.

[Sparkly]

20. I think we should be careful not to group people into "they's"

Other people voted for Kerry despite misgivings that he's too liberal!! (And he is one of the most liberal members of the Senate.)

I'd tell both sides to vote for the Democratic candidate. Most Democrats are NOT supporting Lieberman.

[zzRevolution]

28. the point is moot---mostly Republicans support Lieberman now!

[William769]

11. LIEBERMAN!

[Stinky The Clown]

23. Darboy, I *think* I understand what you're saying .......

The point you're making (**if** I understand correctly) is that because of a name Dem choosing to run as an independent, the precedent may now be set for someone else to choose to run as an indy for Prez after losing the Dem primary.

**If** that's a correct understanding, then I'd be trying to assuage your angst. I think it would be highly unlikely. There's no record of success in this tactic (Pat Buchanan comes to mind). The issue in CT is that the primary was close, the electorate is largely indy and consequently had no part in the primary but will hold an out-of-proportion influence on the general. That's a very different landscape from the national election.

*CAN* it happen? Yes. Will it? I really don't think so.

[CTLawGuy]

26. you think right

it sets a bad precedent.

I hope you are correct in that it doesn't happen in the presidential. But I worry.

All these endorsements of indy Lieberman really upset me, as a Connecticuter.

I say respect what we CT dems decide.

[Sparkly]

29. Didn't know you were from CT, darboy

Stinky and I are both originally from CT, too. (We met down here in the DC area, and still have fake fights about who was from the "good" -- snobbier -- part of CT...!)

[flaminbats]

24. the last time I considered voting for an independent was in 1992..

In 1992 Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and Bush was the man to beat. I had allot of problems with Clinton, and considered voting Perot. I preferred Perot's positions on trade and deficit spending to Clinton's positions on the middle-class taxcut and in favor of NAFTA. But Clinton's positions on universal healthcare and the family and medical leave act ultimately won my vote..along with my growing doubts that Perot could win.

But in 1994 all of that changed with a Republican Congress. How much of Newt's agenda would Perot had vetoed? How likely would we of had any surpluses without a Democrat willing to raise taxes and veto tax cuts?

I voted for Clinton in 1996, and Gore in 2000 without hesitation. And even when Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001, how effective was that in stopping Bush's taxcuts? I voted for Kerry in 2004 for the same reason, all Republicans needed to be stopped..not given more power!

As long as Republicans control either house of Congress, why should I oppose the Democratic ticket? The last thing we need is an unquestioned, one-party government with unlimited power. How will I vote in 2008 if Democrats win back control of Congress?..let's find out! :toast:

[JI7]

30. kind of like i support Dean even though he is way too right wing for me

since he got the DNC Chair.

[JI7]

31. those people have no chance of winning the Dem Nomination for Pres

and it's not about supporting Lieberman as much as about red state politics for them.