Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The people have spoken

Joe Lieberman has lost the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. I guess that tells you exactly what Connecticut Democrats think of arseholes who kiss-up to Bush. Lieberman will now run as an independent, and he might even win - but his primary defeat should send a message to politicians not to ignore their grassroots.


Um, no I/S - Lamont managed to carve out a narrower than expected victory in a closed primary (i.e. only registered Democrats can vote). Angrying up the base with a campaign that was, to put it politely, pretty gutterball on both sides is one thing. But in the general, Lamont is facing the same challenge his party is - we all know what you're against, but what are you for? 52% of a 43% turnout of registered Democrats in one of the deepest blue states in the US shouldn't be over-estimated.

Posted by Anonymous : 8/09/2006 11:22:00 PM

43% turnout in a primary is fairly unprecedented. Most are around half that, and Virginia got a mere 3.5%.

Lamont may have difficulty winning - Lieberman will run as an indy, and be a tough opponent - but one thing he has done is got people in his state interested in politics in a way they weren't before. And I think that can only be a Good Thing.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/09/2006 11:46:00 PM

What people in the U.S. should really be campaigning for is proportional representation so that voting becomes a meaningful event. As far as the media are concerned there there just is no debate on issues and that won't change until the media can quote/take pictures of people with different views, don't you think?

Posted by Anonymous : 8/10/2006 12:15:00 AM

Anon 1: As the Washington Post says, 98% of incumbents who run are returned to the senate.

It is stunningly unusual for Lieberman to be beaten in a primary, and an indication to other democrats that maybe they should not suck up to Bush quite so much...


Posted by Anonymous : 8/10/2006 08:38:00 AM

Anon 2: US lawmakers are notorious for protecting themselves against actual democracy - gerrymandering, vote counting computers etc so PR is as alien as communism to them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most voing policy etc is controlled by the states as well, so there is little or no federal control.

Posted by Anonymous : 8/10/2006 11:12:00 AM

Anon2: Proportional representation would be very difficult to implement in the US's federal system, as representatives are apportioned between the states. It might be possible however to use it within the larger states to ensure a congressional delegation that matched the preferences of the voters - but conservative Americans would no doubt think that that was communism.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/10/2006 01:11:00 PM