Has it occured to anyone that being Independent gave both Sanders and Lieberman an advantage?

[Clarkie1]

And if Chafee had run as an independent, his fate might well have been different?

Does America want more independent candidates?

[longship]

1. None that I know of at the national level.

But the contrast between Sanders and Lieberman is astounding.

Sanders is an independant because the Democrats are not liberal enough for him.
Lieberman is an independant because the Democrats are not Republican enough for him.

Still, historically, independants have been an altogether good lot. If Chafee bailed and became an independant, I would see that as a good move even though I think he would be very comfortable under the Dem banner.

Maybe Kathleen Sebelius ought to talk to him... ;-)

[barb162]

5. Lieberman became independent because he lost a primary

but knew he could win the state. And he surely won that state with votes to spare.

[lefthandedskyhook]

12. Precisely

If he'd become independent before the only honorable thing to do was to accept his loss in the primary he would have shown some integrity.

[barb162]

37. Do you feel the same way about Jeffords?

you know, no integrity because he switched midstream with no election? AT least Lieberman switched during the election process. Obviously the voters of CT agreed with his choice.

Actually Lieberman has plenty of integrity. He ran as a Democrat, lost and then ran as an independent. I see nothing there which shows lack of integrity. And he certainly won fair and square over rather poor Democratic and Republican candidates. Luckily for the Democratic Party , Lieberman will stick with the Democrats and the Party can keep its majority.

[never_get_over_it]

40. Did you forget the sarcasm thingy

"Actually Lieberman has plenty of integrity. He ran as a Democrat, lost and then ran as an independent. I see nothing there which shows lack of integrity. "

or are you CLUELESS?

[lefthandedskyhook]

44. Apples & oranges

The republican party left Jeffords. The Democratic party essentially stayed with lieberman until he lost fair and square.

[lefthandedskyhook]

2. Painful to see...

...those two names in the same sentence. Sanders has integrity, the other so called independent does not.

[Clarkie1]

3. Well, like or not they both have the same kind of integrity in one sense.

They refuse to be defined by the parameters of party loyalty. Apparently, voters in both states have rewarded them for that kind of integrity.

Just saying.

[rurallib]

4. I agree with the previous post. Sanders has integrity.

Joe is for Joe.

[Clarkie1]

6. The definition of integrity is that one is true to one's own self.

It would seem to me both have demonstrated that kind of integrity by refusing to be defined within the parameters on an outside entity...in this case a Party.

Clearly, voters respect that kind of integrity whether or not they agree on particular issues.

[lefthandedskyhook]

15. Yeah right

Joe didn't want to be a Democrat after he did want to be a Democrat... not very consistent IMO.

[Clarkie1]

17. I don't it was ever about wanting to be a Democrat or not.

It was simply about wanting to continue to serve as Senator of Connecticut. He was rejected by the Democratic Party, but he still wished to serve and the people chose him. Democracy in action, no?

[lefthandedskyhook]

21. Joe serves only Joe

He LOST THE PRIMARY. His ego told him he was still entitled to run.

[never_get_over_it]

42. What dictionary you using?

Ok so someone could be a lying, cheating murdering creep and you're saying as long as they are true to themself they have integrity - puhleeeeeeeeze

Dictionary I use says:

1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

There is NOTHING MORAL or ETHICAL about dissing the wishes of the primary voters - Joe LIEberman is a big fat LOSER and ONLY cares about himself - not too much integrity in that...

maybe if he had opted out of the Dem primary and went Independent BEFORE HE LOST - but he didn't now did he....

[tnlefty]

7. Not quite. Sanders has always (to the best of my knowledge) run as

an independent. Not quite the same thing as traitor joe.

Just saying.

[Clarkie1]

13. Traitor is a strong word. I reserve it for those who are traitors to my country.

Not politicians who are elected by the majority of the People. Whether or not I agree with the choice isn't relevant in this context.

[tnlefty]

19. While I put it in non-cap lettering... how about his support for the Iraq

war? His support for the Constitution busting Bush** cabal? He was one of the gang who refused to filibuster the "unitary executive" favoring Alito.

[Clarkie1]

20. I never said I agree with him on those issues. I certainly do not.

But that's not the point.

[tnlefty]

23. As far as I am concerned you don't have a point.

Just carrying water for Lieberman, and on that point we'll just have to disagree.

[cali]

38. As someone who grew up in CT and has lived in VT

for years, I can tell you that this comparison is flawed. There is real movement in VT for alternate parties and independents. Not so true in CT.

[ShaneGR]

8. Ermmm, what about the 100s of independents who lost?

So, no. Sanders has always been independent and he's from an incredibly liberal state. Liberman is, well, Lieberman.

[Clarkie1]

16. Sanders and Lieberman were both able to break through, but in different ways.

nt

[EST]

9. I think America wants more independents.

But I don't think that's what was playing for NoMoJo. The republicans wanted someone they could vote for and have their votes make a difference. Had Ned Lamont run as an independent, he probably would have gotten about as many votes as the republican candidate did.

NoMoJo pulled a calculated risk and scored. It's doubtful that particular pirouette would succeed in any other circumstances.

[American Jesus]

10. Lieberman claims he would never caucus with the 'Pukes

And it's obvious Bernie won't. So as long as Joementum keeps his word (well, this time anyway) then they're both effectively "Democrats". Which is why the Senate is listed as a 51-49 majority. Chafee might have been a true fence-sitter had he switched to "Indy" for this election cycle. And he might have kept his job.

[EllenZ]

26. But....

What if Bush/whoever offers Lieberman the chair of an important committee if he backs their choices?

He votes Republican, the senate is tied 50 to 50 and we all know where the tie breaker vote comes from.

I would not knock Lieberman too much, he may decide to sell out, he has before.

[lefthandedskyhook]

27. Yes he has sold out before

He most likely will again.

[Greeby]

11. Bernie won because of who he is

At least that's how it looks to me.

[Clarkie1]

14. As did Lieberman. nt

[Greeby]

18. Yeah, that's the drawback to that concept nt

[EllenZ]

22. Independents

The recent series of disgusting attack ads on TV and by snail mail, as well as the continual phone harassment by robot dialers , and both major partys did this here in Az, turned a lot of people off. I notice that our Democratic incumbent governor did not make any attack ads and won by a sizable majority.

The people who put campaigns together need to sit up and take notice, mudslinging does more harm than good.

I feel that a lot of the Independent candidate votes were more of a "none of the above" than anything else.

[lefthandedskyhook]

24. Not in Vermont

Big money was spent against Sanders and he won handily. The people love him.

[Clarkie1]

25. Interestingly, big money was also spent against Lieberman.

Not carrying water for the guy, just making and obervation.

[lefthandedskyhook]

29. Do you have the numbers?

I don't have the funding numbers for the Connecticut race.

[Clarkie1]

32. No, I just know Lamont was superich and spent a lot of his own funds.

I believe he spent tens of millions of his own money.

I'm not trying to carry water for Lieberman. He is certainly not one of my favorite senators. Just trying to stimulate some discussion about independent candidates and the two-party system and why they sometimes win.

[lefthandedskyhook]

35. Good

Glad he's not a favorite of yours. I think you'd get more of an answer for yourself by looking at the actual funding stats. IIRC Lamont put in much less than you think, and didn't Joe get republican money?

I heard that more money was spent per voter in Vermont than anywhere else in the country.

[tnlefty]

28. I love Bernie, and I donated money to him - more than once-

He's always run as an independent, and I sent money to him when he ran in the house and then when he made his senate bid. I only wish that I could live in VT and have representation like Sanders and Leahy, but I am where I am, and I have no representation where I am.

[lefthandedskyhook]

31. Way to go!

That's money well spent. I feel the same way as you do & I'd trade either New Mexico Senator for Sanders (especially Domenici).

[tnlefty]

34. Welcome to DU, EllenZ!

:hi: I hope that you will enjoy!

[Mr_Spock]

30. no

never occurred to me. But a lot of independents voting Dem won us a lot of seats!

[Clarkie1]

33. That is correct.

And yet, independents and some Democrats in CT voted for Lieberman.

Why is that?

[lefthandedskyhook]

36. Many reasons...

Lamont shot himself in the foot, for one.

[SwingVoter2006]

39. YES!! WE DO!!!!

If I had my way, there would be NO POLITICAL PARTIES.

Voters would be educated on the ISSUES and vote on the ISSUES.

My first election was 1992. My Dad, the long-time Republican, and I both voted for Perot. We did it because we both, he in his conservative retirement and me in my libral youth, thought the two-party system was bullshit. We wanted to see if a real maverick could come in and do a better job.

14 years later, I still wonder. I still think the two-party thing hurts us as much, or more, than it helps us.

[lefthandedskyhook]

45. Have you looked at instant runoff voting?

It'd solve the two party mess IMO.

[never_get_over_it]

41. Sanders has been elected as the at large

House Member for VT eight times as an independent - same electorate just voted him in as Senator - he could have run from the monkey party and gotten elected...being independet had nothing to do with it - being Bernie had everything to do with it....I think Bernie's Senate seat was the first to be called on election night and I laughed out loud - they could have called that one six months ago....

Obviously running as an independet was an advantage for LIEberman - otherwise he wouldn't have been able to run at all - you know since the Dem candidate and repunk candidate was already set when the pathetic SORE loser decided to run as an independent. Joe LIEberman makes me sick...

[JI7]

43. their advantage was being an incumbant , not independent

while Sanders was running for a different office the voters were the same as he won statewide for his House seat also.