Lieberman should not talk about primaries having low turnout

[CTLawGuy]

When Lieberman was first elected in 1988:

CT had an approximate population of 3.29 million people.
Estimating an adult population of 75% = 2.47 million adults
I estimate that the total turnout was 1.25 million adults or about 50%.*
Joe won 50.6% or 632,500 votes

That means that:
Joe was chosen by 19% of all CT citizens.
Joe was chosen by 26% of all CT adults

also:
38% of all CT citizens decided who was going to be senator
51% of all CT adults decided who was going to be senator

So if Joe wants to whine about how "unrepresenative" the primary is, and how he wants to give "everyone" a chance, he should be worried about his own legitimacy in office (plus the legitimacy of nearly every other officeholder).

--------------------------------
*the info for turnout is not exact,
the hard info I know is that:
Joe beat Weicker 50.4% to 49.6% and by 10,000 votes.
Assuming .8% of the vote (the margin of victory) = 10000 votes, 1% = 12500 votes.
100% would thus equal 1.25 million votes (or about 50% turnout, which is reasonable for a presidential year).

[loyalsister]

1. Another reason

It sounds as stupid as the first time I heard it.
I was listening to floor debate on when when the vote on the marriage amendment would be heald in my state. On a similar note, A Republican said "it's not fair to have it on the August ballot because there aren't as many voters."
What, they disappear?
Liebermann seems to be going for the same thing. I'm sorry, but if voters aren't invested enough to show up to vote in a primary, then he obviously doesn't have the support.
If there is enough groundswell to make sure that Liebermann IS on the ballot, the voters will show.
This victim positioning is really childish.
I hope Lamont wins!

[TheVirginian]

2. Primary versus general election

Between 30%-35% of CT's population are registered Democrats. Regardless of how many Democrats come out to vote, a full 60% to 70% of Connecticut is ineligible to vote on an election that you people want to decide whether Joe Lieberman remains a Senator or not.

[The Magistrate]

3. Funny Thing, Sir, Life, Is It Not?

Decisions affecting all are often made by only some. And persons reveal their bankrupt character by refusing to honor their obligations....

[calico1]

9. Has the primary system changed?

People talk about low voter turnout but how is that different from any other primary? Here in CT we have until noon on Aug. 7 to register or change our party affiliation. The way I see it people who vote in the primary are the ones who care most about what's at stake. If people care that much they have plenty of time to make it so they can also participate. And if they don't care enough or don't want to be bothered, then why should I be all concerned about how they are not being represented? I really don't understand this argument. All of a sudden now we are supposed to have more consideration for the people who don't participate than the ones who do. Go figure.

[TheVirginian]

11. Most people don't change affiliation, though.

Most people don't know that they can, or don't think of that as an option. At any rate, if we truly want to give the rest of Connecticut a voice on whether Joe Lieberman should remain the Senator from Connecticut, its much easier to put Lieberman on the ballot than ask 65% of the state to register as a Democrat.

So the question is, do you want to give the rest of the state a voice in whether or not Lieberman should remain a Senator?

[calico1]

15. What I think and I have stated this before is that

I have no objection at all to Lieberman running as an Independent candidate. But I also believe that if he participates in the primary system then he should abide by the rules and the results. He should choose one or the other. Lieberman is no more special or worthy than anyone else who has ever participated in a primary. If he doesn't believe in the primary system (he apparently did when he first ran) then he should just go ahead and form his own party. Not do both. That is something I have a problem with and so do a lot of other people in CT.

And I know you will reply because you always do. ;)

[TheVirginian]

17. As you say, I always do.

I have two disagreements with your post:

1) Lieberman should abide by the rules and the results.

He is abiding by the rules and results. The primary simply determines who the Democratic nominee is. If Lieberman runs in the primary, and loses, he's not the Democratic nominee. He will be abiding by the rules and results.

2) Lieberman is no more special than any other primary candidate...

This is almost true. Its not Lieberman as a candidate that's special, its the circumstances around Lieberman that's special.

There are typically two sorts of primary elections.

The first primary features two Democrats competing against each other in a race where there's a viable Republican opponent. The two Democrats could be an incumbent and a challenger, or it could be two non-incumbents. Either way, the winner of the primary gets a boost in name recognition and they get party support, which also brings in fundraising and networking across the state. The loser gets nothing. In addition to the pressure to endorse the winner to keep the seat safe for Democrats, there's no chance the primary loser can win in the general. He can't compete for Democratic votes, because they'll all go to the primary winner. He can't compete for Republican votes, because they'll all go for the viable opponent. At best, he'll get 15%, and he'll be burning bridges with everybody in the state. His career would be over.

The second primary features two Democrats competing against each other where most of the electorate belongs to one party. Such is the case, as referenced before, in Chicago city council elections, or certain congressional districts across the country. In these cases, the loser of the primary would find no support with the electorate, and the November election becomes a coronation.

The Connecticut Senate race falls into neither category, an odd quirk of fate that perhaps has never been encountered before in politics. Lieberman has wide support within the state, even if he loses the primary. He has crossover support with non-Democrats, enough to give him the ability to win in a general election against the primary winner. There is no viable Republican to force him into supporting the Democratic nominee or to pull votes away from him. All of this is incredibly unusual, and conventional wisdom about elections and primaries must, at the very least, be temporarily suspended, if not thrown out the window altogether.

[Spider Jerusalem]

5. Of that 60-70%...

fully half (at least) aren't going to turn out to vote in any case, based on voter turnout numbers and trends from previous years; the number would probably be quite low anyway, as this is a mid-term primary election. Given that, your argument about a candidate being selected by only a portion of the electorate is, on its very face, specious, nonsensical, and intellectually dishonest. (Use of the term 'you people' is rather revealing, too; this place is, after all, called Democratic Underground, or hadn't you noticed?)

[TheVirginian]

13. But they don't even have the chance to.

Its a closed primary. I'm not arguing against low turnout elections selecting candidates. After all, decisions are made by those who show up. But when 65% of the state, by law, cannot show up to vote, that's a different story.

And I did notice that this was Democratic Underground. Last time I checked, Joe Lieberman (D-CT) was a Democrat.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. 'Lieberman is a Democrat'...

then he bloody well ought to abide by the decision of the Democrats of the state of Connecticut, as determined by their choice of candidate in the primary. If Lieberman chooses to cast off his party affiliation following a primary defeat, he makes it obvious with a single stroke that he is no Democrat, for if he were, he would not regard the result so cavalierly.

You continue, rather monotonously and in the face of many and various arguments, to insist that Lieberman need not abide by such a decision, and affect perplexity as to why, exactly, others here don't share your view. I'm incapable of deciding whether you're engaging in subtle mockery for your own amusement, or whether you really can be as incredibly thick as your responses make you seem. Either way, you've grown painfully tedious, so I shall bid you adieu.

[TheVirginian]

18. The answer, as monotonously as it is, is easy.

Because Joe Lieberman is the Senator of all the people in Connecticut, not just Democrats.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. ...

He was ELECTED as a Democrat, after securing the nomination of that party. He has CAMPAIGNED as a Democrat, relying on the funds and organisation of the Democratic Party. For him to forswear his party affiliation, after he has enjoyed many advantages of said affiliation, in order to campaign as an independent, is the act of a treacherous swine motivated by base self-interest (because, once again, as a Democrat, he SHOULD feel that the state of Connecticut will receive equally competent representation in the Senate from any other qualified member of his party, especially as the chance of an opposition candidate being elected is nil). He's a Democrat, unless and until the Democratic voters decide that another candidate would best represent their interests. So he's trying to have it both ways, and engaging in extremely unsubtle political extortion by threatening to run as an independent. One would have to be qither quxotic or denser than platinum at zero Kelvin to imagine that this is something that's going to find any favour at all among the members of a Democratic partisan forum. One can't help but wonder what it is you hope to accomplish.

And Lieberman is not the 'senator of the people of Connecticut', he is one of the senators of the state of Connecticut. Senators represent states. Members of the House of Representatives represent the people of their respective districts.

[TheVirginian]

21. What do I hope to accomplish?

I hope to bring a rational discussion to this board that forces people to think beyond the narrow blinders that they've installed in order to make themselves a more loyal member of the Democratic Party. I hope to challenge the conventional wisdom that calls Joe Lieberman a treacherous extortionist. And I hope to educate people on the subtlties of politics that is more often than not lost when people allow their emotional zeal to override any objective analysis of an extremely complicated situation.

Tell me, is this board a lost cause?

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Condescend much?

I'm quite capable of rational discussion, thanks. I also don't happen to have any blinders; my calling Lieberman tracherous and extortionist is based on an objective observation of his actions (I am very precise in my use of language, as I shall illustrate).

From the Oxford English Dictionary -

treachery, n. - Deceit, cheating, perfidy; violation of faith or betrayal of trust; perfidious conduct.

By disavowing his party affiliation, Lieberman is, at the least, guilty of violation of faith (as a putative Democrat), and is therefore by definition treacherous.

Again from the Oxford English Dictionary -

extort, v. - 1. trans. To obtain from a reluctant person by violence, torture, intimidation, or abuse of legal or official authority, or (in weaker sense) by importunity, overwhelming arguments, or any powerful influence. Const. of, from, out of, †upon.

2. To extract forcibly, ‘wring’ (a sense or conclusion) from (a passage, premises, etc.).

By attempting to ensure that he wins the Connecticut primary, and retains his Senate seat, by use of threats to run as an independent, Lieberman is by definition an extortionist.

You overrate your own objectivity, I fear. Perhaps it's you who is the lost cause?

[TheVirginian]

23. "Threats to run as an Independent"?

Who's threatened by that? Honestly. Besides Ned Lamont, who knows he can't get a majority of Connecticut voters to think that he's a better choice than Joe Lieberman.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Again, you seem to miss the point...

his threats to run as an independent are obviously meant as a means of saying 'vote for me, or your vote is wasted' to voters in the Democratic primary who would otherwise vote for Lamont; again, this is clear extortion (cf. definition provided in my post above).

And your apparent need to have the last word when you've nothing of merit to say is really rather pathetic.

[TheVirginian]

25. "Nothing of merit"?

I'm merely correcting the blatant errors I see. Forgive me if my responding to posts offends you. I didn't know that you were opposed to people challenging your posts. Next time, I'll accept whatever you have to say as the unblemished truth, be grateful for your bestowing it upon me, and move on.

[Spider Jerusalem]

26. I've committed no 'blatant errors'.

Point the first: by standing as a candidate in the Democratic primary, Joseph Lieberman is implicitly declaring his intention to run as a Democrat, and his political affiliation as a member of said party.

Point the second: By refusing to abide by the decisions of said primary should he lose, Joseph Lieberman is declaring that he holds both the aforementioned election and the voters of his putative party in contempt, and regards their decision in a contest he freely entered non-binding.

Point the third: By disavowing said party affiliation, and the results of said primary, in an independent bid for election, Lieberman is revealing himself as treacherous (cf. previous definition), disloyal (OED: false to one's allegiance or obligation), mercenary (OED - actuated by considerations of self-interest) and hypocritical (OED: hypocrite - one who pretends to have feelings or beliefs of a higher order than his real ones; hence generally, a dissembler, pretender).

Again, it is YOU who is in blatant error; your repeated protestations to the contrary, your tortured attempts at what you fancy as 'logic', and your appeals to some imagined 'democratic principle' are really rather comic, and your arguments are based more on sophistry than sound reasoning.

[TheVirginian]

27. Point the second...

Why does losing a primary mean that he cannot run in the general election? How does it mean he views the results as non-binding?

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. ...

As a Democrat, running in a Democratic primary, disregard of the results and mounting of an independent bid quite OBVIOUSLY means he views the results of the primary non-binding. Were he truly a Democrat, he should, one would think, abide by the decision of his party as expressed by its voters in the primary election. This is very basic.

(NB: Nowhere have I said that he can't run in the general election; merely that doing so is a treacherous act...which, given that you've not attempted to argue that point in the face of a clear definition of the term, you apparently agree with.)

[TheVirginian]

29. Its not basic; its an assumption based upon a leap of faith.

There is no disregarding of the rules. The Democratic primary doesn't determine who gets to be Senator, merely who the Democratic nominee for Senator is. You're making the false assumption that if a Democratic incumbent loses in the primary, then he or she is, or should be, forced from the November ballot. This is absolutely untrue.

I think the word "treacherous" goes way too far, but you seem to be comfortable with going to extremes to prove your point, so I'm letting it go.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. I'm not making any false assumptions.

Nor does the word 'treacherous' go too far; 'treachery' is, by definition, 'violation of faith'; as a Democrat, Lieberman is violating the faith of the majority of Democratic voters who DON'T want him as their Senator any longer; whether or not the other voters of Connecticut share that view is, for purposes of this discussion, a moot point.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that if Lieberman's intention is to run as an independent ANYWAY, even if he loses the primary, the only honourable course of action for him to take would be to WITHDRAW from the primary and merely run as an independent; as it is, his actions are nothing more than a charade that makes a mock of democratic procedures (again, because he has committed himself to a primary election, yet refuses to withdraw should he LOSE that election).

And for a Democratic incumbent not to abide by the decisions of the voters of his party, in a primary election in which he freely stands as candidate, is a disavowal of his party affiliation, and, indeed, a statement that he sees himself as being above his party's decisions. For you to come to a partisan Democratic forum and expect that anyone should see it differently is, quite honestly, absurd.

[CTyankee]

7. Some unaffiliated and Repub. voters are changing their registrations

this year in advance of the Aug. 8 primary. There is definitely a groundswell of interest in Lamont's candidacy, but there are (probably)fewer who are doing it to be able to vote for Lieberman in the primary. Ned has the real "Mo" in this primary.

We'll see. Go, Ned!

[sendero]

10. This talking point..

.. is as comically stupid as any Republican's talking point.

Yeah, guess what - Democrats get to choose which Democrat gets to compete in the general.

[TheVirginian]

14. That's not the issue here.

I have no problem with the primary determining the Democratic nominee on the ballot. That's the purpose of the primary. I have a problem with people calling for Joe Lieberman to step down as Senator from Connecticut if he loses the primary.

[sendero]

19. Hey..

... Joe can do what he wants. In so doing he merely verifies what many of us have come to think about him as a man.

[Awsi Dooger]

4. Here's a link with the actual numbers

http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/1998_ElectionResults/TurnoutGenElec1988on.htm

1988
Total Registered Voters: 1,795,419
Participated:1,461,962
Percentage of Registered Voters: 81.4%

As of October 1987 the number of registered Democrats was 647,927. So it might be interesting to see how many of those participated in the '88 primary, and voted for Lieberman. I don't have those primary results.

[CTLawGuy]

6. wow, thanks

I was looking all over for those numbers

:yourock:

[calico1]

8. Thanks.

Funny how it didn't bother him then. And if he does win this primary, you can be sure he won't be talking about low voter turnout.

[monarch]

12. If Joe is such a good Dem and he really thinks that

he has such great support among unaffiliated voters, why isn't he urging those voters to register as Democrats. People who do register as Dems can immediately change back after the primary, but some of them might actually stay and find a home in the party. Many unaffiliated voters just think that they are proclaiming their "independence," and don't realize the importance of belonging to a party until a race like this comes up. Maybe a warm welcome is in order.

[Vinca]

31. He also should not talk about Democrats who disagree with him

in a derogatory manner. Actually, it's not what he says, it's how he says it . . . as if we're a bunch of deranged screwballs.