sdoighawoigweaogiwheagowhgwoghewoigahwegoiew

The New York Times reports former Maine Gov. Angus King (I) has a warning for the national political parties that may flood his state with negative ads to derail his independent candidacy for the Senate: "I will take note of how I am treated in this campaign." "That is not an idle threat from some quixotic candidate for the seat being vacated by Maine's famously moderate Republican, Olympia J. Snowe. It is a warning from the front-runner, a two-term independent governor who, because he refuses to say whom he would support for majority leader next year, may well decide which party controls an evenly divided Senate." http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/05/07/king_warns_two_major_parties.html That's why I chose Dunlap.

For whom would you vote? If Summers looks like he has a chance of winning then whichever other candidate is polling best. Otherwise, Dunlap.

Same as Randy, though I kind of think Dill pulls off the nomination rather than Dunlap.

I must say, I'm very partial to King. Democrats are treating him like a Lieberman-style not-a-team-player Democrat. He's not. He's a left-leaning independent. And as a Democrat, I'd rather have a Democrat than a left-leaning independent. This isn't Nebraska or Louisiana-it's a left-leaning state where we theoretically should be able to get a party-line vote. Maybe King will end up being a strong voice for the caucus, but with comments like the ones he made recently, I doubt it.

I had no problem with King until the above-quoted comments. He's issuing veiled threats to possibly tip the balance of power based on which side hurts his feelings more during a political campaign? That is just unbridled arrogance, and to me it forshadows a proposensity to hold control of the Senate (or a committee or whatever) hostage whenever his ego gets bruised in some way. No thank you. And even if this were Louisiana or Nebraska, Landrieu and Nelson - while they might come down on the conservative side in a policy debate sometimes - have never been so petulant and childish that they've demanded exemption from the same rules of the political process that every other senator or Senate candidate has to play by, at the threatened cost of shifting their loyalty to the other side. It's one thing to switch parties and vote to give a different side the majority because of genuine idealogical or policy differences; it's quite another to base such a decision on whichever side ran meaner ads against you. King can go stuff himself.

The RNC and DNC should get together and attack him and his family just for shits and giggles.

In what way is the Democratic party going "swiftly to the left"? The Democratic president we have enacted a Heritage Foundation-written healthcare plan and agreed to temporarily extend the Bush tax cuts (for very little in return). Bullshit, pure and simple. Look at Democratic (and Republican too) caucus in Congress now, and, say, 35 years ago. Show me present-day John Eastland in Democratic caucus (and he was only one of many and not he most conservative one,) or Jacob Javits or Clifford Case (even Charles Mathias) in Republican. Both political parties now are dominated by wild-eyed radical "activists-idiots", absolutely intolerant to any views, but their own. If you are Democrat, but "anti gay marriage" or pro-life - you are constantly "pressed and ridiculed" as DINO, if you are Republican, but pro-choice and "pro gay marriage" - you are "RINO" with the same result. I can predict basic aspects of politiccal behavoir of candidate simply by letter after his name in 98-99% of all cases, so the politics here became utterly boring - soon it will be 435 Joe Boehner "clones" against 435 Nancy Pelosi "clones" Look at last Maine's governor election - 2 absolute idiots from both "main" political parties. Is is norm NOW????

So presumably you would be content with the current crop of politicians if only Jim DeMint would randomly change his affiliation to Democrat and Barbara Lee similarly became a Republican but no one changed any of their actual views?

No. But i want to see "REAL" big tent in both parties: i want to see, for example, 15-20% of Democratic House candidates (especially in corresponding districts of the South and some other) to be at least somewhat conservatively inclined, AND i want to see moderate (or even moderate-liberal) Republican candidates, say, in New England, or Pacific West, where they would reflect views of many their voters. I have nothing against liberal Democrats, say, in Bay area or LA, where they exactly reflect views of most their voters (or, for that matter, conservative Republican candidates in many Southern and some Plains district), but i am against present-day boring uniformity..

Democrats in the south and Republicans in New England already are more moderate on average. Yeah, they aren't "moderate" like John Eastland because John Eastland wasn't actually moderate, he was a generic conservative. If you want more "moderates" like that, you're just calling for half of conservatives to start calling themselves Democrats and half of liberals to start calling themselves Republicans. There's no civil way to say it, that's just stupid.

For you, not for me. As i said i consider Democratic party "generally more liberal" of 2, and that's natural. But, IMHO, there must be a place for Bobby Bright's and their like in Democratic party, where they reflect views of their voters - a LOT of nominal Democrats and even some Democratic legislators in Southern states are still modrerate-conservative at least. And they are correct when they say "it's not me, who left the party (they were always conservative and remain so), it's party that left me.." while switching. Politicians must reflect their voter's views, and, say, in Northern Louisiana, the views of majority of even registred Democrats are fairly conservative. So, candidates must reflect that. When i see the "idea" - "run progressives everywhere" - i have nothing, but bitter laugh. The same when i speak with Republican conservatives, who insist on running Bill Hudak-like people in MA-06 and similar districs. So, let's agree to disagree. Stupid for YOU - fine. But makes a lot of sense for ME.

a LOT of nominal Democrats Yes, NOMINAL Democrats, as in Democrats in Name Only. You oppose the term but you basically just used it yourself. If they're only Democrats because their great grandfather fought in the Civil War and they actually agree with Republicans on everything, they should just be Republicans. And they are correct when they say "it's not me, who left the party (they were always conservative and remain so), it's party that left me.." while switching. They are not correct to say because the party was never with them in the first place. Unless they are 200 years old. Just like they haven't changed by being conservative, the Democrats haven't changed by being liberal. Those people were always in the wrong party, they were just too dumb to realize it. Politicians must reflect their voter's views, and, say, in Northern Louisiana, the views of majority of even registred Democrats are fairly conservative. I agree that politicians should represent their voter's views. If their voter's views are conservative, they should be Republican politicians. It's the job of Democrats to represent liberals. If that's only 15% of the population in some places, so be it. Those 15% deserve some representation too. I'm actually for running moderates though. Not moderate like you mean it though. Moderate means they disagree with their party on some issues, not all like your hero Jim Eastland.

Eastland is NOT my hero. He is an example, showing that 30-35 years ago both parties were much more tolerant of differing views WITHIN party, then now, and there wasn't everyday's campaing of relentless attacks on those in the party, who think and act differently. FDR was great liberal and my favorite politician of all times, but he needed Southern Democrats to get country out of depression and enact economic reforms - and he didn't "pressed" even civil right isuues much. What would happen THEN if he would insist on party being uniformly pro-choice and for "gay marriage"? You want to represent 15%? Fine, do it. Or 20%, who call themselves liberals, and ONLY them? Again fine. But forget about majority then, for that you need really broad coalition, which would include moderates like me (there are more conservatives, then liberals, so, while they need moderates too, it's to the lesser degree). And for NOW i don't want to have anything in common with any of 2 main political parties....

he needed Southern Democrats to get country out of depression and enact economic reforms - and he didn't "pressed" even civil right isuues much. He didn't press them on civil rights because they agreed with him on economics. Again, they agreed with the party on some things but not all. If a Democrat is pro-life, anti-gay marriage AND pro-Bush tax cuts and thinks health care is socialism, what is the point of their being a Democrat? Other than nostalgia.

You want to represent 15%? Fine, do it. Or 20%, who call themselves liberals, and ONLY them? Not only them but you don't want to represent them at all. You think if most people in a district are conservative, the Democrats should just wholesale adopt conservatism as their ideology. What we should be doing is trying to find common ground between that 15% and the majority. You seem to think parties exist solely to win elections. If that was the case, yes, it would make perfect sense for every politician in the south, regardless of party, to have the same conservative platform. But what would be the point of that? No. Parties don't exist just to win elections. They exist to win elections AND THEN get their views turned into policy. If they don't do the second part, the first part is pointless.

There are such Democrats too (look at Ben Nevers in Louisiana state Senate or Jodi Steverson in Misssissippi's House) but i don't speak about them NOW. I speak about Democrats like Mike McIntyre or Republicans like .. well, almost no one now, say - Olympia Snowe.. Charles Mathias, whom i mentioned wasn't an "enemy of business" (though he wasn't anti-union too), but he was great liberal on social issues and civil rights. Can such Republican be elected from Maryland now, or even win a primary? Can Richard Shelby-type Democrat (who voted with party at least on some economic issues) be nominated now even in conservative Alabama? No, Maryland Republicans will better nominate ultraconservative, and Alabama's Democrats - some liberal black. Both will have zero chances of winning, but that's of no consern to "activists". Ideological "purity" is...

Can Richard Shelby-type Democrat (who voted with party at least on some economic issues) be nominated now even in conservative Alabama? Yes and he is. By Republicans. Like he should have been nominated by in the first place. People with views similar to Senators from the 70s could all still get nominated. Only now they would get nominated by the correct party. No one is being discouraged from serving. They are being discouraged from choosing inappropriate affiliations.

and again, Richard Shelby and Charles Mathias were NOT moderates. They were people in the wrong party.

You contradict himself - Mathias had some (and not so few) "pro-business" votes, so he legitimately could call himsrlf a Republican - after all it's some economic conservatism that was a "trade mark" of Republican party. So, he was in "correct" party. The same about Shelby, who voted with his party on many economic issues. You confirm what i said - you are very partisan and see Democratic party as "liberal nest" and Republican - as a "conservative haven". I try to explain that in such case both parties are absolutely unacceptable to me (and, probably, Angus King and many other too))), and i need something else. Let's finish this "discussion" on that - no one will, obviously, not convince anyone, and we both will remain on our present positions...

so he legitimately could call himsrlf a Republican He endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain.

It was in 2008, a couple of years before his death. But he was called "a liberal swine" by some Maryland Republicans even when he was a delegate for Republican Presidential convention in 1980 or 1984. There were many idiots even then. Even more - now.

I really hope this race doesnt turn out like the 2010 gubernatorial election where the Republican eeks out a narrow victory in a three-way race.

Only an exceptionally strong performance by Dill (or Summers) would lead to that. King is much, much stronger than the independent who ran in 2010.

Well Governor LePage and the Republican legislature is also rather unpopular, thatll probably work in King's favor too.