jasonxctf Posted April 16, 2008 Author Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (southsideirish71 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 09:38 PM) The last time I checked, the Senator is chosen by a bipartisan election in the fall. Your guy won the democratic nomination, however he could not win the general. He lost, move on. not sure how Lamont was my guy, seeing that I live in Illinois, but none the less. The general question remains, is it ok for someone to declare themselves a member of one party and when they cant win in the party, switch to whatever provides them with the best strategic advantage? (this is a general, not a Lieberman related question) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 04:55 PM) not sure how Lamont was my guy, seeing that I live in Illinois, but none the less. The general question remains, is it ok for someone to declare themselves a member of one party and when they cant win in the party, switch to whatever provides them with the best strategic advantage? (this is a general, not a Lieberman related question) And the answer remains pretty clear to me - yes it is. If that bothers you, then don't vote for him. Let the system work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Here are the last five Senators to switch parties while in office. Richard Shelby of Alabama -- Dem to Rep Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado -- Dem to Rep Robert Smith of New Hampshire -- Rep to Independent to Rep James Jeffords of Vermont -- Rep to Independent (caucused with Dems) Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut -- Dem to Independent Dem (caucuses with Dems so far) I think Lieberman might just change full force next Congress. Two current Senators that have changed their parties before running for Senate are Trent Lott and Norm Coleman -- both Dem to Rep. There have to be others, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mplssoxfan Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Also, I love the fact that Lamont and the Dems are bad guys for running against poor ol' Joe. What a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Political parties change through time, members of the party might leave. no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 04:07 PM) Political parties change through time, members of the party might leave. no big deal. That's a valid point, but I don't think there was a radical shift between 2000 (VP nomination) or 2004 (running for nomination) and now. He was all for the Democrats a short while ago. It's different when you look at it over a longer time scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 02:15 PM) That's a valid point, but I don't think there was a radical shift between 2000 (VP nomination) or 2004 (running for nomination) and now. He was all for the Democrats a short while ago. It's different when you look at it over a longer time scale. 9/11 changed everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 05:52 PM) I believe it was the party that 'ditched' him, when they decided to run a challenger to him in the primary because they didn't like his war views. Nevermind all the rest of the votes, that one area was enough for them to tell him they don't want him anymore. And then when he ended up winning anyway, they came crawling back to have him caucus with them to maintain the majority. He could have told them where to go, but he didn't, and stood with his (ex) party. Hell, why don't we just behead him for being the apostate he is, damn him for changing parties! it's not like the Dems have ever accepted a Republican who decided to switch parties or anything (Jim Jeffords). I'm calling BS on this. The party elite did not support Ned Lamont. Not in the Primary and not in the General. Why don't you ask Obama who he campaigned for? Here's a hint, it wasn't the Democratic Nominee. The Democrats stayed the hell away from CT in 2006, and Reid and Schumer cut a deal with Lieberman to allow him the ability to win. The party elite didn't ditch him. Just turns out the people who vote in the Democratic Party itself thought he maybe should have retired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 05:44 PM) I'm calling BS on this. The party elite did not support Ned Lamont. Not in the Primary and not in the General. Why don't you ask Obama who he campaigned for? Here's a hint, it wasn't the Democratic Nominee. The Democrats stayed the hell away from CT in 2006, and Reid and Schumer cut a deal with Lieberman to allow him the ability to win. The party elite didn't ditch him. Just turns out the people who vote in the Democratic Party itself thought he maybe should have retired. You are right, they didn't support Ned. They also didn't support Joe, they stayed away from him like a leper because they didn't want to anger the KosKids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 One word. Joementum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Apr 16, 2008 -> 06:38 PM) One word. Joementum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts