• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on So, if we don’t like him and w…
    William on Trump disgusts the Republican…
    jmac on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    riverdaughter on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    jmac on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Trump disgusts the Republican…
    Catscatscats on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    Catscatscats on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    riverdaughter on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    jmac on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    jmac on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    riverdaughter on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    riverdaughter on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    riverdaughter on PSA: how to correctly complete…
    jmac on PSA: how to correctly complete…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    November 2010
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Week-end Wrap – Political Economy – September 27, 2020
      by Tony Wikrent Slouching toward denouement Capitulation Will Not Halt Trump’s Coup David Sirota, September 24, 2020 An important review of political events last week. Yoy may not agree with Sirota’s interpretation, but his analyses has proven correct repeatedly. Remember that Sirota accurately outlined the future course of American politics in his 2008 book […]
  • Top Posts

I agree with . . . Booman?


David Broder, Village Idiot and High Priest of Bipartisanship, thinks that Princess Lisa’s successful write-in campaign for reelection means that Americans want more (surprise) bipartisanship.

To which Booman replies:

I should have known that the historic, successful write-in campaign of Sen. Lisa Murkowski would revive David Broder’s tender parts. I should have seen that coming from a mile away, and stayed clear. I think the Alaskan people sent a clear message, and that message was that the electorate of the state as a whole is quite a bit different from the subset of registered Republicans. But to take the unique circumstances of the Alaskan senatorial election and try to make “bipartisan cooperation” the “real meaning of this month’s midterm elections,” is delusional. There are two “real meanings.” One is an estimation of what the electorate wanted, and the other is the consequence of the electorate’s actions. On the latter point, the real meaning of the midterm elections is the exact opposite of what Broder claims. As to the former, the electorate isn’t a person and it doesn’t have an opinion. If most people went to the polls hoping for more bipartisan cooperation, then they are simply going to be disappointed. They are going to get the opposite of that, and get it on steroids.

Back in 2006, when the Democrats were kicking ass and taking names all around the country, Democrat Ned Lamont was defeated by “Independent Democrat” Holy Joe Lieberman. What did that prove about the electorate that year?

Nothing.

If the reelection campaigns of Lieberman and Murkowski after losing their respective party primaries proved anything it was about the power of incumbency and the lengths some politicians will go to to cling to power.



10 Responses

  1. I supported Ned Lamont and think he should give it another go. Go Ned GO!

  2. Whaaa? Triptophane…ZZZZZ

  3. My take has been that Lieberman and Murkowski are both good and bad for Democracy. Lieberman won because Republicans knew he was the only candidate besides Lamont who had a chance to win. In Alaska, the more centrist Murkowski was a better choice for Democrats than Joe Miller, so she had a significant portion of both parties writing her name in.

    The bad part is that, like myiq wrote, only incumbents have the kind of money and power to mount ersatz third-party campaigns. When they come back to the Senate and caucus with their party like nothing ever happened, it thwarts the will of the primary voters.

    Lieberman was lucky. He was the 51st Democrat. If the party punished him, he could have easily sided with the Republicans and left them in charge of the Senate. Murkowski is in a different boat. She’s number 47 in the Republican caucus. If the party stripped her of all her seniority, she would find little recourse in switching to the Democratic Party.

    • Lieberman was lucky. He was the 51st Democrat. If the party punished him, he could have easily sided with the Republicans and left them in charge of the Senate. Murkowski is in a different boat. She’s number 47 in the Republican caucus. If the party stripped her of all her seniority, she would find little recourse in switching to the Democratic Party.

      That’s the problem with the politicians today. They want those jobs because they pay well, have easy hours, lots of benefits, and an awesome retirement. If Lieberman is in this just for himself, he’s void of principles, doesn’t really believe in the agenda of his party, or his obligation to serve the people who sent him there. Is that what anyone really wants in their representation? Lieberman would be a prime example of why the politicians today are more beholden to the big money rather than the voters.

    • happy thanksgiving everyone

  4. Actually – in Connecticut with Lamont….

    After Ned won the primary, the “Democratic Elite'” disappeared. They were sacred to death to show up in support of the people’s choice – Ned Lamont – because of Lieberman. It was sickening.

    The most sickening one was Barack Obama (why am I surprised?). He was in NY for campaigns and then had to go to Mass for his good buddy Devel….but he never set foot in Connecticut – even though he had the time and Connecticut lies smack dab in between NY and Mass.

    Later he “authorized” an e-mail on Ned’s behalf – BUT went batshit when it went to the entire list and not just 5,000 people. His failure to support Lamont was one of the primary reasons this country is still stuck with Joe Lieberman.

    • Type: I mean “scared!’ – as in shitting in their pants.

    • I dare say there were very few sitting Senators who wanted to encourage the candidate who primaried a multi-term incumbent.

      What’s really funny is that the creative class mocked some of the “failures” where an unknown upset a better connected candidate to win the Republican nomination. I think Delaware was the only place where it turned the party directly and Mike Castle wasn’t even a slam dunk. The thing is, in a democracy you should expect that even a primary election should mean something.

  5. They want those jobs because they pay well, have easy hours, lots of benefits, and an awesome retirement.

    sort of, but not really. this is a mistake we Little People often make, being Little People and all. no, Joe and most like him are *already* rich; they are in The Game as ‘elected’ pols so they can get even richer.

    it’s sort of like how some people argue that the health care debate would’ve been better had we forced all congresscritters to switch from the plan they get to medicaid. that would not have changed anything. most of them have or could afford better insurance than 99% of us. and the time they serve as elected officials? sure, the power and media exposure are thrilling to many of them, but what they’re really after? choice jobs as lobbyists, consultants, and other forms of insider “jobs” that pay far, far more than they make as congress people, even including junkets and fundraising.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: