pudge's Journal: Joe Lieberman

Joe said he will be on the ballot as an independent if he loses the Democratic party. He is staying a Democrat, just won't be the Democrats' chosen candidate.

It's a great move. He'll win re-election no matter what happens, which means, no matter what happens, the left wing of the Democratic Party will become even more marginalized.

Im trying to recall...

[Dark Coder]

But everytime there is an independent on the presidential ballot, did the Republican win? What's the GOP track record under that circumstance?

1. Anderson
   
2. Perot
   

Are the only two that came immediately to my mind (in recent history).

Re:Im trying to recall...

[ncc74656]

When Anderson and Nader ran, the Gipper and W (respectively) won. When Ross Perot ran, OTOH, he siphoned enough votes away from Bush 41 (and, most likely, from Dole as well) that Slick Willie won.

People were fed up enough with Dhimmi Carter (easily the worst president of the 20th century...maybe even of all time) that Reagan would've won with or without Anderson running an independent campaign. Carter won only six states with 49 electoral votes; Reagan took the rest. Even on a popular-vote basis, Reaga

Re:Im trying to recall...

[pudge]

When Teddy Roosevelt ran as an independent in 1912, the Democrat (Wilson) won.

And that is especially instructive because an independent Lieberman would be the popular incumbent, as Roosevelt sorta was (a few years removed, but still similar), and Roosevelt is the reason Taft, the Republican incumbent, lost the election.

Joementum

[ces]

It's a great move. He'll win re-election no matter what happens, which means, no matter what happens, the left wing of the Democratic Party will become even more marginalized.

Not necessarily. For him to lose his own party's primary is a huge blow and very much puts into question his ablity to win the General election. Also Lieberman's primary challenger is hardly a left winger, in fact Lieberman's own ads are trying to paint Lamont as some sort of Republican in Democratic clothing.

The problem many democrats

Re:Joementum

[pudge]

Not necessarily. For him to lose his own party's primary is a huge blow and very much puts into question his ablity to win the General election.

Well, it depends entirely on how strong the GOP challenger is. If he is weak, Lieberman will get a majority of the GOP and independent vote, and a lot of the Democrat vote too. He is an absolute shoo-in if the GOP challenger is essentially a non-factor. Given a strong GOP challenger, it will be more of a toss-up.

Also Lieberman's primary challenger is hardly a lef

So, its dependent on the affliation

[Dark Coder]

If the independent is liberal, the GOP gets the spoil.

Likewise, if the independent is conservative, the Dems gets it.

So, if we want the GOP to clinch the next election, portrayal of Lieberman merely has to be a liberal.

Why does this remind of Tokyo Rose? (The president is lying, This war is illegal, You cannot win)

Re:So, its dependent on the affliation

[pudge]

Perot was no conservative. He was right of center, but not conservative. And Teddy Roosevelt, although also right of center, was running as a progressive.

But, Bush thought that Perot would draw from Clinton, as Perot was -- though right of center -- playing the populist role. And that totally backfired on him.

Interesting opportunity for the Republicans

[RevMike]

If Joe does run as an independent, it will be interesting to see how the GOP in CT reacts.

In the moderate-to-liberal northeast it is virtually impossible for Texas style conservatives to get elected. The GOP is putting guys like Giuliani, Pataki, Weld, etc. In the bigger scheme these guys aren't far on the spectrum from Lieberman.

Why risk splitting the moderate/conservative vote and electing a Dodd or Moynihan or (God Forbid) Kennedy? Why not get some points for being less partisan? Sit the election

Re:Interesting opportunity for the Republicans

[pudge]

There is, unfortunately, a well-financed Republican in the race.