Buffalo, NY - The Comeback Kid

[Intell]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

[Intell]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

sore loser laws ensure that primary elections have consequences.

If Brown runs as a write-in and wins, it's telegraphing to everyone that primaries are irrelevant, and that entrenched incumbents can win even if they sleep in the run up to an election

People should be allowed to run in any general election race they choose to, and anything against that is a restriction of people's democratic right to run in said general election races or for people to vote for the candidate.

In CT 2006, more people wanted Liberman to be senator than Lamont and thus voted for him, should that not have occurred because of sore-loser laws? Any restriction of Lieberman's ability to run again and people's ability to vote for him if they choose to, is undemocratic.

[Intell]

This sucks. I generally oppose DSA-backed challengers (except when the incumbent is really out of touch / aloof, like Bowman v. Engel) but "vote blue no matter who" ought to go both ways. More states should have sore loser laws.

Edit: Looks like only 4 states lack sore loser laws (or its equivalent, in the form of having filing deadline for primary and general on the same day) - NY, CT, IA, VT. I guess sore loser laws don't apply to write-in candidates, given Murkowski was able to run in Alaska in 2010?

Sore loser laws are anti-democratic.

Why do you say that?

sore loser laws ensure that primary elections have consequences.

If Brown runs as a write-in and wins, it's telegraphing to everyone that primaries are irrelevant, and that entrenched incumbents can win even if they sleep in the run up to an election

People should be allowed to run in any general election race they choose to, and anything against that is a restriction of people's democratic right to run in said general election races or for people to vote for the candidate.

In CT 2006, more people wanted Liberman to be senator than Lamont and thus voted for him, should that not have occurred because of sore-loser laws? Any restriction of Lieberman's ability to run again and people's ability to vote for him if they choose to, is undemocratic.

I mean at a certain point that line of thinking means primaries should be irrelevant. That's not necessarily a bad idea, but we have a party system of representative democracy.

Also for purely partisan reasons I think that Lieberman should not have ran after his primary loss in 2006--the country would have definitely been better off with a Senator Lamont from Connecticut from 2007 to 2013.

Primaries help you get the D or R badge which is pretty important in American politics, if someone can win outside that, then good for them!

Lieberman winning was bad, but Lieberman being allowed to win was good.