<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Joe Sestak Gets A Big Endorsement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: kranky kritter</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-564536</link>
		<dc:creator>kranky kritter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:14:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-564536</guid>
		<description>Loviatar, IMO the person who gets the most votes is demonstrably preferred by that state&#039;s constituents according to the best and indeed only relevant available  test. You wanna use some other test, feel free. I prefer to use the one that counts. FWIW, please take note that I believe that the word &quot;prefer&quot; can only meaningfully refer to which choice you like best &lt;i&gt;from among the available ones.&lt;/i&gt; I doubt that anyone can really prefer something that isn&#039;t an available option.

You&#039;re 100% correct that many among CN democrats grew to dislike Lieberman for his hawkish views on Iraq, in marked contrast to his prior lionization when he was the VP candidate just a few years before that. You&#039;re also 100% right that many Republicans don&#039;t like him either.

But very many moderates and independents admired Lieberman for his willingness to remain consistent with his long-standing foreign policy views even though they had grown to be quite at odds with what had become fashionable among democrats.

&quot;Constituents&quot; refers to all of the people of the state as a whole. This group re-elected Lieberman, Thus they prefer him. It&#039;s a truism. IMO, this preference is due in large part to how seriously Lieberman treats his job of looking out for the whole state and acting in accord with his conscience.

If Lieberman had changed his longheld views to better match democratic fashion, THAT would have been opportunism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Loviatar, IMO the person who gets the most votes is demonstrably preferred by that state&#8217;s constituents according to the best and indeed only relevant available  test. You wanna use some other test, feel free. I prefer to use the one that counts. FWIW, please take note that I believe that the word &#8220;prefer&#8221; can only meaningfully refer to which choice you like best <i>from among the available ones.</i> I doubt that anyone can really prefer something that isn&#8217;t an available option.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re 100% correct that many among CN democrats grew to dislike Lieberman for his hawkish views on Iraq, in marked contrast to his prior lionization when he was the VP candidate just a few years before that. You&#8217;re also 100% right that many Republicans don&#8217;t like him either.</p>
<p>But very many moderates and independents admired Lieberman for his willingness to remain consistent with his long-standing foreign policy views even though they had grown to be quite at odds with what had become fashionable among democrats.</p>
<p>&#8220;Constituents&#8221; refers to all of the people of the state as a whole. This group re-elected Lieberman, Thus they prefer him. It&#8217;s a truism. IMO, this preference is due in large part to how seriously Lieberman treats his job of looking out for the whole state and acting in accord with his conscience.</p>
<p>If Lieberman had changed his longheld views to better match democratic fashion, THAT would have been opportunism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Loviatar</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-564238</link>
		<dc:creator>Loviatar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 15:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-564238</guid>
		<description>KK,

Please stop with the revisionism; as a former CN resident, Liberman was not &lt;i&gt;&quot;preferred by his constituents&quot;&lt;/i&gt;, he was and is as much an opportunist as Specter.

The reason he won (and probaly the sole reason) he won, was because of the faux Republican in the race. Liberman was and is disliked by many within the CN Democratic party, his views are at odds with many within the party, however he was seen as the best to be to had at the time. The war and his views and votes was the final straw which drove him out of the party.

He is also not &quot;perferred&quot; by CN Republicans, however they also see him as the best to be had at the time and their vote for him at the time had the added benefit of putting a thumb in the eye of democrats.

~ L</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>KK,</p>
<p>Please stop with the revisionism; as a former CN resident, Liberman was not <i>&#8220;preferred by his constituents&#8221;</i>, he was and is as much an opportunist as Specter.</p>
<p>The reason he won (and probaly the sole reason) he won, was because of the faux Republican in the race. Liberman was and is disliked by many within the CN Democratic party, his views are at odds with many within the party, however he was seen as the best to be to had at the time. The war and his views and votes was the final straw which drove him out of the party.</p>
<p>He is also not &#8220;perferred&#8221; by CN Republicans, however they also see him as the best to be had at the time and their vote for him at the time had the added benefit of putting a thumb in the eye of democrats.</p>
<p>~ L</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kranky kritter</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-564099</link>
		<dc:creator>kranky kritter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-564099</guid>
		<description>The general rule is that you get one switch, because that can be a genuine change of heart. After that, you&#039;re seen as an opportunist.

Lieberman won in CN because he was really preferred by his constituents. He had a lot of good will in the local bank. Lamont managed to make the dem primary a referendum on the Iraq war at the height of anti-war sentiment. But he lacked broad appeal.

I do not get the sense that Arlen Specter has anywhere near the same measure of local support and good will across the spectrum that Lieberman did. But 3-horse races are tricky.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The general rule is that you get one switch, because that can be a genuine change of heart. After that, you&#8217;re seen as an opportunist.</p>
<p>Lieberman won in CN because he was really preferred by his constituents. He had a lot of good will in the local bank. Lamont managed to make the dem primary a referendum on the Iraq war at the height of anti-war sentiment. But he lacked broad appeal.</p>
<p>I do not get the sense that Arlen Specter has anywhere near the same measure of local support and good will across the spectrum that Lieberman did. But 3-horse races are tricky.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Pajama Pundit</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-563844</link>
		<dc:creator>The Pajama Pundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 01:00:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-563844</guid>
		<description>Silent Cal and Agnostick - thanks for the info!  I was completely unaware of that law/registration deadline policy. Good to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Silent Cal and Agnostick &#8211; thanks for the info!  I was completely unaware of that law/registration deadline policy. Good to know.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Agnostick</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-563816</link>
		<dc:creator>Agnostick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:28:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-563816</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore_loser_law&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Good call, Call.&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sore_loser_law" >Good call, Call.</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Gilmore</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-563814</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Gilmore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:11:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-563814</guid>
		<description>@Cal
Correct, that is one thing that motivated Specter to switch parties, otherwise it would be easier for him to declare himself as a independent and simply caucus with the democrats in the interest of bipartisanship. It would have been a much easier sell then the current situation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Cal<br />
Correct, that is one thing that motivated Specter to switch parties, otherwise it would be easier for him to declare himself as a independent and simply caucus with the democrats in the interest of bipartisanship. It would have been a much easier sell then the current situation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Joe Sestak Gets A Big Endorsement -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-563807</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Donklephant » Blog Archive » Joe Sestak Gets A Big Endorsement -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:47:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-563807</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Mr. Meta. Mr. Meta said: DONKLEPHANT: Joe Sestak Gets A Big Endorsement http://ow.ly/15VnO0 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Justin Gardner, Mr. Meta. Mr. Meta said: DONKLEPHANT: Joe Sestak Gets A Big Endorsement <a href="http://ow.ly/15VnO0" >http://ow.ly/15VnO0</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Silent Cal</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2009/10/16/joe-sestak-gets-a-big-endorsement/comment-page-1/#comment-563806</link>
		<dc:creator>Silent Cal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:42:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=17101#comment-563806</guid>
		<description>I think Pennsylvania has a &quot;sore loser&quot; law that prevents running as an independent after you fail to win a party&#039;s nomination.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think Pennsylvania has a &#8220;sore loser&#8221; law that prevents running as an independent after you fail to win a party&#8217;s nomination.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

