Skip to main content

View Diary: MT-Sen: Okay, the Morrison scandal IS serious (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Contested primaries are a terrible thing (0+ / 0-) my view. I am not trying to win an argument here because I might well be wrong, but I would like to get my ideas into the mix:

    1. I blame Schumer and Co. for not vetting this race. Morrison should be have smothered in his crib.
    1. His contributors should sue him, ask for their money back, and then agree to help with his legal bills--IF he will get the hell out fast and endorse Tester.

    The best chance for a pickup in the entire country, and we get saddled with a crook. Jesus.

    1. Contested primaries are a waste of Dem dollars, and we never have close to enough money.

    The poster has a good point--thank god we have another dog in this particular race--but the Reps don't believe in wasting money on contested primaries and that's one of the reasons they are in power.

    We are better off in RI and OH than we were when our guys were in a tug-of-war with the Democratic Party's guts as a rope.

    1. I'm forwarding my pittance to Tester this morning, in the hope that a cash avalanche from the Net will follow me.

    It may well be that we have to wait for 2008--if they still hold elections by then--to take back even part of Congress. When that day arrives, I pray that the Internet forces and the congressional leadership will have worked hard together to find the best sole candidate in every competitive race.

    •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Do the names Toomey and Laffey mean anything to you?

    •  Completely Wrong and Cowardly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, Something the Dog Said

      I know you want Daddy to take care of it and make everything nice, but that's not real life and it certainly isn't politics.

      Elections use resources but they also generate free media. They are opportunities to build campaign themes and show who a candidate is. Democrats forget this.

      There's no such thing as easy. Ther eis no such thing as simple. You can't store the dollars here and get the results there. You have to do the process because the process means something. It's important.

      A good candidate can prosper in a primary.

      Oh, and it was more likely by far that Tester would have been smothered.

      •  Yep, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Janet Strange

        My Mom ran for MI State Rep in 2004. She did not have a primary opponent. The Repugs did. By the time we got our campaign going the other guy had killer name recognition and had framed the issues.

        We spent the entire summer playing catch up, and got our asses handed to us on election day. If we had been in the race during the primaries, it might have been a different story.

        If you live in fear the worst has already happened to you

        by Something the Dog Said on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 08:57:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  actually (6+ / 0-)

      Republicans contested almost every primary in 2004 and won every race. the primaries built their name ID, kept them in the news, and gave them the aura of "winner" when they won. Our "cleared field" Dems were almost invicible against the drama of nasty contested fights on the Republican side.

      I want to see a contested primary in EVERY race.

      •  Good argument but... (0+ / 0-)

        ...weren't these sham contests with the overwhelming weight of party money behind one of the contenders?

        I'm asking; I don't know.

        BTW, you surely meant the 2004 Dems were not invincible, yes?

        I have seen examples from years ago when contested primaries were helpful. In 1980 in the Calif. Assembly races, two liberals, Berman (now a congressman) and McCarthy both wanted the speakership. Nearly every primary was contested while the GOP chortled. However, in the general election, each would-be speaker got behind his man (or, in my case, woman) and buried the Reps.

        Most of the posters are younger than I, and I am absolutely prepared to learn from them. Nevertheless, I managed and won 30 campaigns out of 39 "back in the day," and I am offering sincere and carefully-reasoned comment here.

        I am unquestionably a bit out of touch; if what you say about 2004 is factually correct, then I'll concede your point. But I have a hard time believing that Bradley's tepid support for Gore, for example, contrasted with McCain's enthusiasm for Bush, was not a signicant factor in that election. In my experience, contested primaries waste money and leave a bitter residue.

    •  I think it depends on the situation (0+ / 0-)

      If you're running against an incumbent, a contested primary is probably worth it, while if you are the incumbent, the last thing you want is a contested primary.

      When it comes to an open seat, assuming that the leading candidate is fine, the side with less of a primary battle probably has an advantage.

      Webpage; Current members: 85,098 (as of 12pm 4/18). Projected Date of 100,000th member registration: August 29, 2006

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 09:06:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In what universe would Schumer 'vet' the race (0+ / 0-)

      and pick Tester? Morrison is the establishment pick.

      Primary fights can go either way, the do bleed cash, but you also drive up name recognition and weed out weak candidates.

      As mentioned elsewhere the twist in all this is MT is one of the states with open primaries, which could allow the GOP to push a corrupt Dem politician into the race just so that they can tear him down.

      To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals. - Mark Twain

      by Windowdog on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 09:55:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site