Somebody 'splaine This to Me

Although I'm an avid political wonk, I'm not generally that interested in the background of particular state races. But, via cruising the lefty blogosphere, I've become entranced by the saga of Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Basically, it goes like this:

Lieberman, the incumbent Democratic senator and failed VP candidate, is Dubya's favorite Democrat. He's faithfully backed Dubya up on the war and related issues and broke from the Dems who tried to block the nominations of CJ Roberts and J Alito. This, understandably, has pissed off a fair portion of the Dems in Connecticut, to the point that a legitimate challenger, Ned Lamont, has emerged. Sensing that he might go down in flames in the primary, Lieberman has announced that he will take appropriate action to be able to be on the general election ballot as a write-in candidate should he lose. In short, he refuses to go gently into that political good night.

The problem is that Lieberman, for all his trouble with the Dem base in his home state (and elsewhere, for what it's worth), is fairly popular with the state's Republicans and numerous independents and could quite feasibly win a three-way race in November. This has pissed off quite a few on the left, who view Lieberman's position as shitting on the democratic process by refusing to abide by the results of the primary. They're right, of course - he wants to have two bites at the apple. But what if the majority of the overall electorate wants Lieberman to be their man in DC? Doesn't the Dem primary system deprive them of a choice if Lieberman loses the primary and quietly goes away?

I can see a similar situation working out here in WV, where the electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic (in registration, at least). Suppose that a moderate Republican candidate for governor wins his primary simply be showing up (there not being a whole lot of Republicans, anyway) then goes on to defeat the Democratic candidate in the general election by putting together a broad coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans. Four years on, he runs for re-election and faces a primary challenge from a fundamentalist right-winger who is not happy with the Gov for cozying up with the state's Democratic legislature. The small Republican contingent in the state is overwhelmingly hard right and jump at the chance to vote for someone who really espouses their values. The Gov loses the primary, even tho' in a three-way race with the Democratic challenger and the new Republican victor, he would win easily. Is he a traitor to the GOP if he runs as an independent in the general election?

I guess the question is this: while primaries are all very good, it's hard to talk about their results as being "democratic," as they limit the pool of potential voters to members of a certain political party. They are not, on the whole, a broad referendum on the candidates. They are particularized elections to determine party representatives in a general election. As such, the sway a candidate might have with voters registered with the other party (or no party at all) is relevant only to the primary party voter's decisions on for whom to vote. Is that the best way to select a representative for the entire state? I dunno. But it's what we've got.