Ok, here’s some more political grist for discussion:
It seems that the latest polls showed Toricelli falling behind and fading fast. In a bit of a panic, his party’s leaders have apparently talked him into quitting the race so they can put someone else in whom they feel might have a better chance of winning. Nothing is official yet, but there are already leaks of who the party may put in his slot.
So here’s the question on the table - first, let’s see if we can put the Democrat/Republican/Libertarian/Wiccan party stuff on the side and discuss this from a non-partisan POV. If a candidate has won the primary, been elected by the people as the party candidate, should that party be able to yank him out if it looks like he’s going to lose and appoint someone they like better as the candidate?
Yes, if the replacement wasn’t an option in the primary.
The primary is for the party members to chose their representative for the party in the upcoming election. Often, the person who wins the primary is the one the party’s general population things both A) represents their beliefes/goals best and B) stands the best chance of winning the general election.
If the party is forced to run a list of goombahs for the primary, and later thinks they might have the best chance to win the election with someone else, I think it’s probably okay to switch. The idea being the most <insert party here> members have some base set of values.
Granted, this can easily be abused. If a republican primary winner is fairly moderate and is pulled in favor of a very right wing candidate, for example.
Is this a terrible thing? Nah. Odds are that the replacement will get stomped as bad or worse, for a bundle of reasons. If the replacement were that likely to win, they’d have been in the primary to begin with.
Actually, in this case, some of the substitute candidates have a good chance of winning. New Jersey is a very Democratic state, and the opponent is pretty much an unknown. The party wasn’t real happy with Toricelli to begin with, with his ethics issues, but figured he’d probably win anyway.
I just think it seems like an abuse of the system to yank an elected candidate out because it looks like he’s going to lose.
It’s not like they’re holding a gun to his head to get him to quit; what are the democrats supposed to do when their candidate bails?
What will probably happen, according to the legal stuff I’ve seen online, is that the governor will appoint a replacement and they’ll be some sort of special election held.
What I’ve read, from a number of newpapers and web sites, is that the Dems did pretty much sit down with him and bend his arm. Toricelli insiders said that he absolutely didn’t want to give in and quit, but the party leadership pressured him big time.
The current scenario appears to be the party hand-picking a replacement candidate that they think will win; they’d love Bradley, but first word out of his camp is that he wouldn’t accept. There’s another ex-senator whose name I can’t recall, who they think would have a good shot. There’s a problem in that the state law says you can’t drop out and have the party pick a replacement if you’re within 48 days of the election, with the only exceptions in the past being due to an untimely death, but the Dems are pretty confident that since the Attorney General is a Dem, they’ll be granted an exception.
Look, I’d being saying the same thing if this was a Libertarian or Republican. This is, IMO, just shameful manipulation of the system. If either party had a 10 seat lead, I’m sure we’d never see this. It will be interesting to see how this is spun in the media. Just heard a few seconds ago on the radio that they REALLY had to twist Toricelli’s arm, which isn’t surprising when you look at how he handled this whole bribery/graft issue.
‘Look, I’d being saying the same thing if this was a Libertarian or Republican. This is, IMO, just shameful manipulation of the system. If either party had a 10 seat lead, I’m sure we’d never see this. It will be interesting to see how this is spun in the media. Just heard a few seconds ago on the radio that they REALLY had to twist Toricelli’s arm, which isn’t surprising when you look at how he handled this whole bribery/graft issue.’
You may not believe this, but I wouldn’t care if the GOP forced, or the candidate volunteered, to resign from running. Big friggin’ deal; I fail to see how it’s cheating or manipulation.
On what should happen now: from an ethical standpoint, should the voters only be able to choose the GOP candidate? From a legal standpoint, there’s absolutely nothing objectionable about it.
You really don’t see a problem with the candidate elected in the primary being strongarmed into stepping down because he’s down in the polls, so they can try to insert someone they like better? You think there’s absolutely objectionable with a party yanking an elected candidate and putting someone in they like better because he might lose?
What should happen now? Frankly, the candidate that was selected in the primary should have to be the one on the polls unless there’s a reason he cannot run.
I can’t believe you can’t see how this is manipulation of the system. Surely you’re not THAT partisan.
I’ll do the edgy-online-equivalent of talking slowly:
It. is. not. illegal.
‘Frankly, the candidate that was selected in the primary should have to be the one on the polls unless there’s a reason he cannot run.’
…like, you know, he doesn’t want to run. If a candidate decides not to run after the primary, in general, what should happen? The election defaulting to the other candidate by removing all democrats from the ballot seems kind of stupid; so does forcing him to remain on the ballot, even though he doesn’t want the job. Either deferring to a special election or letting the party put someone else on the ballot seem to be the least dumb alternatives, by default.
Here’s what will probably happen if the attorney general doesn’t let them put another candidate on the ballot, though:
19:3-26. Vacancies in United States senate; election to fill; temporary appointment by governor
If a vacancy shall happen in the representation of this state in the United States senate, it shall be filled at the general election next succeeding the happening thereof, unless such vacancy shall happen within thirty days next preceding such election, in which case it shall be filled by election at the second succeeding general election, unless the governor of this state shall deem it advisable to call a special election therefor, which he is authorized hereby to do.
The governor of this state may make a temporary appointment of a senator of the United States from this state whenever a vacancy shall occur by reason of any cause other than the expiration of the term; and such appointee shall serve as such senator until a special election or general election shall have been held pursuant to law and the board of state canvassers can deliver to his successor a certificate of election.
Jason’s not an idiot. We can disagree on politics, but he usually makes a good argument. Which is why I find it hard to believe he can think there’s nothing wrong with a “We’re losing so we get to swap the elected candidate for someone else right before the election” rule.
The party isn’t yanking him. Torricelli is yanking himself.
It’d be one thing if Torricelli still wanted to run, but the Democrats tried to have him yanked off the ballot over his objections.
That’s not what happened; they convinced Torricelli to withdraw, and he made his own decision to do so. People should be able to change their minds, right? Probably the best general fix on after-primary changes is to defer to a special election in six months or something, but I’m no expert at this.
I said I though it was wrong. I know that the concept that something can be legal and yet still not be ethically correct is something that’s not in vogue today. It is manipulating the system - it will be even more if they get an Attorney General to waive the law for them because he’s a good party guy.
Everything I’m reading - including a Democratic email newsletter that I get sent for some reason (I was a registered Democrat not all that long ago) even says that the party leadership “convinced” Toricelli to drop out. His own campaign folks are being quoted as saying that “he’s a stubborn S.O.B.; it took a lot of convincing to get him to pull out.”
OK - I’m done, so if we simulpost again, you get the last word. <G>
Well, he still made the decision, not the party. If the AG says he can’t be replaced, fine; I’m sure the democrats will use the above law to rejigger the election.
I just don’t see what’s wrong with it, ethically, compared to the alternative of leaving the ballot blank.
The Jersey democrats should have figured this crap out back before the primary, but the Torch is so damn combative it took the political equivalent of a smoking gun to get him to pull out.
Oh, and the concept of “right and wrong” in tactical politics is kind of a misnomer to start with.
It’s official. Toricelli is out. This is starting to look increasingly like a brilliant tactical move by the NJ dems. Here’s how it works:
Toricelli announces he will serve out his term, but kill his reelection effort.
The Democratic Party names a succesor, then requests a ballot change. Even though the law required such a change by September 16, the Democratic State Attorney General grants a waiver.
The state GOP can’t win on Forrester’s strength alone. His entire election strategy was based on “I’m not Toricelli”. So, the state GOP files suit to prevent the ballot change.
If the GOP loses, then the election proceeds with the Democrats’ chances greatly improved.
If the GOP wins, then Toricelli resigns his Senate seat, now within the 30-day window, and by law, there’s no election. Toricelli’s replacement (a Democrat!) serves two years before a special election in 2004.
At this point, the state GOP may have to suck it up and allow the ballot change, lest they maneouver the Dems into cancelling the elections outright.
Are the people governed by the candidate or the elected official (if he wasn’t an incumbent)?
The people still get to pick the senator, they still get to vote. They can write in whoever they want. They decide to dislike this move and vote for the other party. They still have their choice, so how is this so bad?
