HI 2014 Congressional Elections

[Antonio the Sixth]

The point is why should we believe she would make a better Senator? I haven't read a single thing in this entire thread that would lead me to believe she would (whereas there are a few ones about Schatz).

Eh. They both have records (that I'm not familiar with). Seems perfectly reasonable for someone to prefer one over the other on the basis of that. Primaries happen. If not, why do we even bother with nonpartisan elections? (in fairness, a lot of people don't)

But again, no one even seems to have made a case for Hanabusa, except for the usual "that's what Inouye wanted!" crap. Since Schatz is the one who has the seat now, the onus of the proof is on the Hanabusa side to establish that she is better than him. And there seems to be no single valid reason to think she is.

[Sbane]

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.

And we should give a sh*t about what Hanabusa wants, because... ?

It seems to me that it is up to the people of Hawaii to decide that. If you were a voter in Hawaii, you could express your displeasure with Hanabusa at the ballot box. I still don't get why you think Schatz should get a free ride. The guy got appointed to the Senate by his buddy. What has he done to earn that position?

[Sbane]

The point is why should we believe she would make a better Senator? I haven't read a single thing in this entire thread that would lead me to believe she would (whereas there are a few ones about Schatz).

Eh. They both have records (that I'm not familiar with). Seems perfectly reasonable for someone to prefer one over the other on the basis of that. Primaries happen. If not, why do we even bother with nonpartisan elections? (in fairness, a lot of people don't)

But again, no one even seems to have made a case for Hanabusa, except for the usual "that's what Inouye wanted!" crap. Since Schatz is the one who has the seat now, the onus of the proof is on the Hanabusa side to establish that she is better than him. And there seems to be no single valid reason to think she is.

Hanabusa will have to do so in the coming campaign. Chill out a bit.

BTW, it may seem like I am a Hanabusa supporter, but that is not really true. I haven't seen anything said against either candidate that would make me either support or oppose them. They both seem to be generic Democrats. I just think primary voters should have a choice, especially when the guy was appointed to the seat by his buddy and the primary is the real election. I also find this outburst of anger towards Hanabusa to be very odd and perplexing.

[Miles]

It was obvious, but Emily's List is officially endorsing Hanabusa:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Benj]

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.

[Beet]

They both have a reason for running.

Hanabusa is going to say that her 12 years and leadership positions in the State Senate, term in the U.S. House, and the trust of the late Inouye will outweigh Schatz's shorter duration in the State House, his relative youth and the seniority he already has as a result of being appointed. Schatz will argue the opposite.

[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.

[Miles]

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.

[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.

[Miles]

The Hawaii Government Employees Association, the state's largest union, is getting behind Schatz.

[Miles]

The Honolulu Civil Beat is showing the primary race within the margin of error, with Schatz up 36-33.

[Miles]

Hanabusa is pushing back with a poll done for EMILY's List:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[windjammer]

I want you in the US senate! We have to ditch Schatz!

[CatoMinor]

I still see no logic in picking Hanabusa over Schatz. Schatz has much more potential considering they will vote the same and he is younger. His only crime seems to be that the governor decided he wasn't going to be told who to appoint.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I want you in the US senate! We have to ditch Schatz!

Why? Hanabusa is old and she's pretty awful. Schatz is definitely more liberal.

[publicunofficial]

Schatz is a progressive, Hanabusa is more of a business type. To say they will vote the same is uneducated.


As seen in an earlier battle between the AARP and Big Pharma. Schatz sided with the AARP, Hanabusa sided with drug companies.

http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/05/23/19144-hanabusa-and-schatz-differ-over-making-drug-companies-pay/

[badgate]

Would anybody here support, or be surprised if Hanabusa loses the primary and runs as an Independent?

[publicunofficial]

Would anybody here support, or be surprised if Hanabusa loses the primary and runs as an Independent?

I doubt it. Despite the constant fighting between their base, Hanabusa and Schatz have not said a single bad thing about each other this whole campaign. They are trying to keep it as a civil "May the best man/woman win" contest, which doesn't really foster Independent/Write-In campaigns.

Plus, Hanabusa doesn't seem like the type to go against what the DNC wants.

[windjammer]

I want you in the US senate! We have to ditch Schatz!

Why? Hanabusa is old and she's pretty awful. Schatz is definitely more liberal.

One word: Inouye.

Would anybody here support, or be surprised if Hanabusa loses the primary and runs as an Independent?

Despite I'm supporting Hanabusa, Ii wouldn't vote for her if she loses the primary.

[morgieb]

I want you in the US senate! We have to ditch Schatz!

Why? Hanabusa is old and she's pretty awful. Schatz is definitely more liberal.

One word: Inouye.

Would anybody here support, or be surprised if Hanabusa loses the primary and runs as an Independent?

Despite I'm supporting Hanabusa, Ii wouldn't vote for her if she loses the primary.

This isn't Inouye's seat.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I want you in the US senate! We have to ditch Schatz!

Why? Hanabusa is old and she's pretty awful. Schatz is definitely more liberal.

One word: Inouye.

Would anybody here support, or be surprised if Hanabusa loses the primary and runs as an Independent?

Despite I'm supporting Hanabusa, Ii wouldn't vote for her if she loses the primary.

This isn't Inouye's seat.

The guy's dead. He doesn't get to pick a successor.

[Supersonic]

It seems a bit demeaning to Hanabusa that many are backing her for the sole sake of Inouye's endorsement and not on her own merits.

[Napoleon]

It seems a bit demeaning to Hanabusa that many are backing her for the sole sake of Inouye's endorsement and not on her own merits.

That's as far as substance goes where her campaign is concerned.

[windjammer]

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.

[Napoleon]

No real Governor lets a corpse force his hand.