HI 2014 Congressional Elections

[Zioneer]

Endorsed.

Lets hope Inouye's wish is finally realized.

But... Why? Yeah, Inouye was a legend in Hawaiian politics, but he had his own interests, and Hanabusa served those interests.

There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with Schatz.

[Zioneer]

EMILY's List is endorsing her, and apparently she's ahead in internals.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/colleen-hanabusa-endorsed-by-womens-group-90496.html?hp=l5

Good. I was worried about her weak fundraising quarter, but now that she's actually in, things should pick up and this will help.

But why support her over Schatz?

[Zioneer]

I still honestly do not understand why Hanabusa is running beyond "Inouye said so".

[Zioneer]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

[Zioneer]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

That's a reason for you not to vote for her, not a reason for her not to run.

I think the personal-vendetta part of this is ridiculous. Hanabusa certainly wasn't "entitled" to the seat, and every time her supporters whine about that, she loses legitimacy. But there's nothing wrong with running in a primary against a decent incumbent. Doesn't mean I'll vote for you if I prefer the incumbent on the issues (or competence), but the fact that Hanabusa isn't the incumbent should not, by itself, stop anyone from supporting her. Schatz is no more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is.

Well, sure, that's fine for her to run, I'm not disputing that. And Schatz isn't entitled to the seat either. It's just that I think there needs to be a reason for running, however flimsy it may be. You can go "blah blah blah we need leadership in Washington, the incumbent hasn't provided leadership" or "My opponent voted no on giving orphans a hug" or whatever, I just think that if you're running for a seat, you need to provide a legitimate reason for why you're better than the current holder. And that applies to both parties. I'm not in favor of needless incumbency, but if Schatz has proved to be a decent incumbent, then what specific reason does she have for challenging him?

There has to be something she can run against Schatz if she's going to primary him. I just don't like the idea of running for barely-disguised ambition. If Hanabusa can give one reason why Schatz must go, then fine, my objections will vanish. If she's running against him from the right, fine. If she's running against him from the left, fine. If she's running on a single issue, fine. If she doesn't think Schatz has pushed hard enough on something, okay. If she thinks he's been embarrassing to Hawaii, alright.

But to challenge him for no reason other than advancement is silly.

[Zioneer]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

Because she wants to be Senator! It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Okay, I completely understand, but usually when a candidate for any office runs for that office, they provide a justification for why the current person sucks at their job, or isn't right for the job. Most candidates don't simply run on "I wanted to". Hanbusa may clarify why she's running, but as it is, I don't see anything she could target Schatz on.

[Zioneer]

My question is, if Schatz hasn't had any problematic votes, if he hasn't had any questionable personal behavior, if he hasn't embarrassed the party, if he's on the right track to seniority and a chairmanship (probably) if he hasn't said anything bad, if he hasn't been a part of any controversy (besides his appointment), then why primary him? I just don't see any real justification for Hanabusa to primary Schatz. Yes, she can do it if she wants, but why?

EDIT: Yeah, there's the "we need more women/people of minority descent in the Senate" argument, but beyond that, nothing.

That's a reason for you not to vote for her, not a reason for her not to run.

I think the personal-vendetta part of this is ridiculous. Hanabusa certainly wasn't "entitled" to the seat, and every time her supporters whine about that, she loses legitimacy. But there's nothing wrong with running in a primary against a decent incumbent. Doesn't mean I'll vote for you if I prefer the incumbent on the issues (or competence), but the fact that Hanabusa isn't the incumbent should not, by itself, stop anyone from supporting her. Schatz is no more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is.

Well, sure, that's fine for her to run, I'm not disputing that. And Schatz isn't entitled to the seat either. It's just that I think there needs to be a reason for running, however flimsy it may be. You can go "blah blah blah we need leadership in Washington, the incumbent hasn't provided leadership" or "My opponent voted no on giving orphans a hug" or whatever, I just think that if you're running for a seat, you need to provide a legitimate reason for why you're better than the current holder. And that applies to both parties. I'm not in favor of needless incumbency, but if Schatz has proved to be a decent incumbent, then what specific reason does she have for challenging him?

There has to be something she can run against Schatz if she's going to primary him. I just don't like the idea of running for barely-disguised ambition. If Hanabusa can give one reason why Schatz must go, then fine, my objections will vanish. If she's running against him from the right, fine. If she's running against him from the left, fine. If she's running on a single issue, fine. If she doesn't think Schatz has pushed hard enough on something, okay. If she thinks he's been embarrassing to Hawaii, alright.

But to challenge him for no reason other than advancement is silly.

You're saying that the default should be that incumbents are reelected. That's faintly ridiculous. Why does Schatz not have to justify why he should be running? Being an incumbent doesn't entitle you to run for reelection.

No, what I'm saying is that if an incumbent is doing a good job (as Schatz seems to be doing), and there isn't a valid justification to run against him, I don't understand why someone would do that.

[Zioneer]

No, what I'm saying is that if an incumbent is doing a good job (as Schatz seems to be doing), and there isn't a valid justification to run against him, I don't understand why someone would do that.

Because she thinks she has a better record and would thus make a superior Senator...'

All the competition in one-party states like HI is in the primaries. I think some competition will be good here.

Okay, that's an actual reason. That's good. I'm fine with Hanabusa challenging Schatz now, because she has a valid reason to run against Schatz (if still kind of silly). I believe that if you're going to challenge some (of either party) you need to provide a legitimate reason for why you would be better, or at least why the incumbent is terrible. Yes, incumbents shouldn't go unchallenged, but then again, whichever party or ideology you follow, an incumbent usually has done something you've not approved of.

[Zioneer]

It wasn't respectful for his person. It was his seat, and Hanabusa was clearly the best candidate to fill this seat: US representative, Inouye's last wish,... I don't understand why we support Schatz just because he has successfully schemed with Rod Blagojevich Neil Abercrombie to be appointed US senator. People shouldn't do a successfully career because of their shenanigans.

Schatz is younger, more liberal, and hasn't had a rivalry with the other half of the Congressional delegation.

[Zioneer]

The seat doesn't belong to Schatz either. God forbid he actually face ONE competitive election to prove himself before having the seat for life (the main election in a Hawaii Senate race is obviously the Democratic primary).

Schatz isn't any more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is. If he wins, then good. He earned it. But stop acting like Hanabusa shouldn't even run.

I just don't see a good reason why she should run; she isn't running on policy, personality, or scandal, so what reason does she have for running? I hate to rehash this argument again, but honestly, what is she running on? "Leadership"? That's no reason to run. At least if she specifically pointed out that having an governor's appointee go unchallenged is bad, that'd be a reason (and a great reason at that).

[Zioneer]

Wasn't Carol Moseley-Braun the last Dem who primaried an incumbent Senator and won the GE? I can't think of anyone more recent offhand.

Well, are we counting Lee vs. Bennett as a "primary?"

Yeah, but they're not Dems.

Well, according to some far-right lunatics in Utah....

[Zioneer]

The seat doesn't belong to Schatz either. God forbid he actually face ONE competitive election to prove himself before having the seat for life (the main election in a Hawaii Senate race is obviously the Democratic primary).

Schatz isn't any more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is. If he wins, then good. He earned it. But stop acting like Hanabusa shouldn't even run.

^^ This. Why should Abercrombie get to decide who is Senator for life from Hawaii? If Inouye doesn't have the right to decide his successor, neither does Abercrombie have the right to appoint someone for life. Schatz should be challenged and the people of Hawaii should get a choice.

Yes, but Hanabusa's fans are acting like "Inouye's wishes is the only consideration for me". That's a sh**t argument. At least some of Schatz's fans have been more coherent about their arguments.

Really? I find their arguments to be the most incoherent. Just because someone got appointed Senator they shouldn't receive a primary challenge? No Senator should be immune from a challenge and most certainly not some Lieutenant Governor who got appointed by his Governor.

Nobody thinks Schatz shouldn't be challenged, most of us just think that Hanabusa's challenge doesn't make sense.

[Zioneer]

The seat doesn't belong to Schatz either. God forbid he actually face ONE competitive election to prove himself before having the seat for life (the main election in a Hawaii Senate race is obviously the Democratic primary).

Schatz isn't any more entitled to the seat than Hanabusa is. If he wins, then good. He earned it. But stop acting like Hanabusa shouldn't even run.

^^ This. Why should Abercrombie get to decide who is Senator for life from Hawaii? If Inouye doesn't have the right to decide his successor, neither does Abercrombie have the right to appoint someone for life. Schatz should be challenged and the people of Hawaii should get a choice.

Yes, but Hanabusa's fans are acting like "Inouye's wishes is the only consideration for me". That's a sh**t argument. At least some of Schatz's fans have been more coherent about their arguments.

Really? I find their arguments to be the most incoherent. Just because someone got appointed Senator they shouldn't receive a primary challenge? No Senator should be immune from a challenge and most certainly not some Lieutenant Governor who got appointed by his Governor.

Nobody thinks Schatz shouldn't be challenged, most of us just think that Hanabusa's challenge doesn't make sense.

I think Hanabusa challenging him would make most sense considering her current position. Who else do you have in mind?

I honestly have no idea. I suppose Hanabusa would make sense, but the reasoning for her challenge (because you always have to have some variation of "the current guy/lady isn't doing good enough) doesn't. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard? Dunno.

Anyway, Daily Kos makes the case for why Hanabusa is not right for Hawaii (though they make the mistake of relying on a deceased politician's legacy that Hanabusa herself is doing), and I think they make a pretty good case.

[Zioneer]

I do like how Schatz is basically running as a cross between Al Gore and Bernie Sanders.

[Zioneer]

Hanabusa could be ensnared in campaign finance violations.

Ouch, Big Pharma? Glad that I'm supporting Schatz.

[Zioneer]

lol this race is great egg roll and gafilta fish will bruise each other so much that this race in a dem-leanin state will becoe an opportunity fora r epublican picup!

What? You are making no sense. You are on a forum, not a smartphone. And what the heck is up with your analogy?

[Zioneer]

Brilliant! I hope she wins

I'm not objecting to your support of Mercado Kim, but just curious; is it because of social issues?

[Zioneer]

We need more women in the us senate!

What we need is young progressive women like Tulsi Gabbard in the Senate who can stay there for many years and possibly run for a higher office, we don't need people like Feinstein and Hanabusa who intend to die in the Senate and rarely support progressive causes.

Wow, Feinstein voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 when progressives like Mikulski, Leahy, Harkin voted in favor. So she's far from being a DINO.

Who cares about DOMA when Feinstein is practically the spokesperson for the NSA voted for the Iraq War, Patriot Act, NDAA, supported SOPA/PIPA, war in Syria/Libya the list goes on and on she is clearly a DINO and is the furthest thing from a progressive as you can get. The sooner she is out of the Senate the better!

Lol no, she's just not a LOLibertarian 2/3 of atlasians and she understands the fact that the Patriot Act is a lesser evil than terrorist attacks

The Patriot Act isn't the reason we haven't had a legitimate terrorist attack in years.

[Zioneer]

We need more women in the us senate!

Allen West for Senate!  We need more African-American Senators.

Or Mia Love for Congress, along the same lines.

[Zioneer]

We need more women in the us senate!

Allen West for Senate!  We need more African-American Senators.

Or Mia Love for Congress, along the same lines.

Unfair comparison! Hanabusa's no Allen West or Mia Love.

Our point was that a diverse candidate has to be a good candidate, diversity for the sake of diversity does not help. Having a diverse candidate just because you want to, regardless of their stances (or the district's demographics), is a bit of tokenism.

Hanabusa, at least in my own opinion, is not a good candidate, but in any case should be elected or not elected based on her merits, not her diversity.