Party switchers?
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Discuss, Elections, General Politics, NewsThere’s a lot of talk about whether Joe Lieberman or Bernie Sanders will switch from independent to one of the other parties. Sanders could turn Democrat; Lieberman could go either way, though he has repeatedly said he’ll caucus with the Democrats.
But what about moderate Republicans? They were massacred on election night because of their association with the Grand Olde Party. Might they consider switching to friendlier shores?
After the 1994 takeover by Republicans, two Senate Democrats jumped ship: Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Richard Shelby. So there’s a precedent for it.
And Lincoln Chafee is openly talking about it. He’s irrelevant until he gets elected again, but some of his comments are illuminating.
When asked whether he felt that his loss may have helped the country by switching control of power in Congress, he replied: “To be honest, yes.”
“The people have spoken all across America. They want the Democrats and Republicans to work together,” Chafee added. “I think the president now is going to have to talk to the Democrats. I think that’s going to be good for America.”
A lifelong Republican who succeeded his father, the late John Chafee, in the U.S. Senate, Chafee said he waged a lonely campaign to try to bring the party to the middle. He described attending weekly Thursday lunches with fellow Republican senators and standing up to argue his point of view, often alone.
“There were times walking into my caucus room where it wasn’t fun,” he said.
Chafee said he stuck with the party in large part because it allowed him to bring federal dollars home to Rhode Island.
So: Any bets on who among the Republicans might switch?
My money is on the two Maine senators, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Both moderates, both from heavily Democratic states.
Any other contenders?
This entry was posted on Friday, November 10th, 2006 and is filed under Discuss, Elections, General Politics, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:33 am
I often wonder why Centrist groups don’t consolidate: Democratic Leadership Council, Republican Main Street Partnership, It’s My Party, Too , and form a non partisan Centrist group to promote Centrist Candidates and Policy. It seems that Centrists often have more in common with each other than they do with the wings of their parties.
It might attract Chafee, DeWine, John Danforth, and even Colin Powell.
Also it appears that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is assembling a substantial organization to promote his own Centrist political future.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:34 am
A tempting idea, but it’s probably better to have moderates influencing the two major parties instead of leaving to form a third. If they win, it’s great; but if they lose, we get even more radical and partisan government than we do now.
I do agree tht they ought to work together a lot more to support each other against the extremes.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:58 am
a “Centrist” party would have to caucus with one of the main parties to effect any change, subjecting them to the political realities of operating in conjunction with one of the main parties.
The american political system is not designed for this… any credible 3rd party candidate will split the vote with one of his opponents and result in the most diametrically opposed candidate getting elected with 39% of the vote. This is how socialists took power in Chile in the 70’s, for example, and it resulted in disaster.
If we had run-offs, or could pick our second choice on the ballot, then this might have a chance of effecting positive change. Without those voting mechanisms, however, “centrist” party candidates will do more harm then good.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:42 am
I was not proposing a third party but rather a Centrist Interest Group that would raise funds to support Centrists from either party and also a Centrist Caucus in the Congress. Sort of like a combination of Blue Dog Democrats and the gang of 14 backed by something like moveon.org or Actblue and the other groups I mentioned.
Moderates often can not get much traction in their party because they stray too far from the partisan donor base. What if there were an interest group that provided enough money that the moderates didn’t have to rely only on these highly partisan organizations?
I also like the voting reforms ME proposes. I would welcome the opportunity to chose between a conservative or a moderate Republican, or a liberal or Centrist Democrat. Or even a moderate Republican and moderate Democrat.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
We can take care of that the same way — and it lead to partially privatize social security which works beautifully for the Chileans. Who says a you can’t have a good time with a Junta?
November 10th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I gotta figure Chris Shays of Connecticut is considering flopping. He’s just about the last republican left in that state.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Lieberman spokesman Dan Gerstein, said today that senator Lieberman will begin his new term as a Democrat. What? Lieberman just said two days ago that he is going down to Washington with “no party affiliations… just my conscious.â€Â? Lieberman also vows to be an “independent-minded Democrat” Is Lieberman saying that the Democrats in congress are not independent-minded?
And the media… they are really getting behind Lieberman. Trying so hard to cover-up the backstabbing Lieberman did to the Democratic Party. Their approach, and Liebermans, is to black-mail the Democratic party into giving him his chairmanship (like they promised). And the blaming of Hillary Clinton and others for not backing him when he dumped her and the Democratic Party, I haven’t even seen a picture of Hillary in any paper since the election day. They are making her pay. And the press, reminding us that the Republicans will be courting Lieberman as well. Everyone needs Lieberman… Lieberman the conscious of the senate!
(This over used statement about Leiberman does have a Republican ring to it.)
If the Democrats lose in 2008 its because of Lieberman. If Lieberman forces Hillary Clinton and other Democrats running for president to accept him and his views, which are not accepted by most Democrats in this country, the Republicans will use this against us. They already have. Bush and Cheney have told the American people how they love Lieberman and look at the results. Republicans voted for Lieberman big time in Connecticut, it put him over the top.
The Democratic Party going forward must separate themselves from Lieberman. I don’t care if he’s your friend, there are bigger issues here. Plus, we don’t need him. Lieberman said he will vote with the Democrats lets leave it at that. To embrace Lieberman is to embrace the Bush war, which will show an inconsistency in our party. We must be consistent about Iraq. If the Democrats treat Lieberman as one of their own, the Republicans win in 2008.
November 10th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
If we’re going to consider the House, then I’d toss in my own Representative as well, Jim Ramstad. He won re-election easily, but his district is growing bluer, and the Democrats took every statewide office in Minnesota except governor — and they missed on that only because of a third-party candidate splitting the vote.
November 10th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Yep. Lieberman’s fault if the dems lose in 2008. Sounds like Hugh Hewitt blaming McCain for the Republican loss this year.
Can the Lieberman haters drop it? Talk about an unhealthy obsession. Unlike the countless other Democrats who voted for the war and then ran away from it the second the winds changed, Lieberman stuck by his convictions. How is he any more or less oportunistic than any other politician?
Also, should the Democrats be only the anti-war party, allowing no alternative views? Is that really how you hold onto all the moderate voters Dems just won?
Let’s remember, it was the left that made Lieberman such a big player. If they let him be, he’s just another senator. But they couldn’t leave him alone and now his front and center.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:31 am
Al, Lieberman ran because he knew he’d have support from the middle, plain and simple.
So if you’re going to indict Joe, you indict the entire idea of running as an independent. I’m not a big fan of Lieberman’s, but I do respect that he knew he had a decent shot and he took the opportunity.
And let’s be frank, Joe votes with the Dems over 90% of the time. He’s always been very loyal. He was their VP choice in 2000 after all.
In any event, I’d urge you to not judge the Liebe too harshly. He could just help the Dems keep an even keel in the years to come.