On November 2, Joe Visconti, independent candidate for Governor of Connecticut, said he is dropping out of the race. He also endorsed the Republican nominee. Of course, Visconti’s name will still be on the ballot, and the votes for him will be counted. See this story.
Any candidate that stops contesting just before polls owes the voters better; an detailed explanation of the precise nature of the inferiority of the electoral injustice that makes the decision necessary or some other narrative of their miscalculation(s) of the political environment, without one of these, he’s only a ringer for the one he endorses.
According to the story, Visconti said he was dropping out because he doesn’t want to see Democratic incumbent Dan Malloy re-elected.
My question is, why did Visconti enter the race in the first place, if he didn’t want to see Dan Malloy re-elected?
If a candidate commits to run, he or she ought to run – win, lose, or draw.
Agree. Now the backers who worked for him will be less likely to take part in another campaign and that weakens the process. He has an obligation to them.
OR… he is just a jerk.
Larry Allred, Alabama Independent and Michael have all made excellent points on the withdrawal of this (or any) independent candidate. One wonders how many so-call “independent” candidates are really independent. The one running in Kansas for Senate (Ormond)acts like a Democrat and is endorsed by the Democratic Party. The “independent” Senators from Maine and Vermont walk the line with the Democrats and do nothing to encourage other independents. Sometime back Buckley was in Senate as an independent from New York but he was a toe-the-line with Republicans. “Independent” sounds pleasing but the label doesn’t really seem to mean anything at state and national level.
Announcing a United Coalition 2016 – It’s a Consciousness Free Parliamentary United Coalition!
Our team is already working on a unifying plan at the 9th USA Parliament and we have the perfect tool for working together. We’re already planning to gear up for 2016.
We have 46 US Presidential candidates who are interested in unity and the perfect voting system for electing a number one and a number two.
* * *
Kristy Knight [Consciousness] for President and James Ogle [Free Parliamentary] for Vice President in 2016.
Kristy Knight wrote; “[…] how can we ‘bomb our way to peace’ if by hurting others, we are just hurting ourselves?”
Me, James Ogle writes; “That’s exactly what voting is for; a peaceful decision-making alternative to force and violence.”
(She’s actually a Democratic and me a Republican.)
Viscounti was a petitioning candidate who failed in the Republican Party primary runup and convention. He is still a registered Republican
Gene:
While you make good points regarding those pseudo-independents currently holding office, one does have to admit running for and being elected as a Independent helps dispel the myth that one is automatically a loser if they run under this label.
Running for office – whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent – requires money and a good organization, not withstanding the label they run under.
I think the late Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia was as close to being a genuine Independent to hold office in recent decades. While true he caucused with the Democrats, he did not always vote the Democratic line in Congress. There are others, but Senator Byrd comes to mind.
Nonpartisan App.V. for elective executive offices and all judges.
Obviously a substantial payoff was involved.
It’s not a payoff in money. It’s even better, a place at the table.
It will be the Independent Party who will have a place at the table – not Viscounti – if the Independent party produces the margin of victory for Foley over Malloy.
In dropping out, Viscounti has no way to prove how many of his votes went to Foley – especially with his name remaining on the ballot and likely to still receive some votes.
The Independent Party will have a way to prove the strength of their support for Foley – something I hopes happens, as this will help to convince major party legislators to allow 3rd parties to co-nominate their nominees.