If Blumenthal were exposed after winning the nomination, it wouldn’t matter. Under the “Torricelli precedent,” the Democrats are “entitled” to a replacement candidate.
So, you are saying that Blumenthal was exposed now, and after the primary they can use the old Clinton tactic of “that’s old news”?
Or is the idea to get rid of Blumenthal, elect Alpert so an “untainted” dim can win?
I guess “either/or” would work too.
Exactly. They knew this would come out in say Sept.after the pub primary. They did the dems dirty work for them.
You are probably right. NYT knew that McMahon (sp) was going with this info so they got ahead of the story before the dem candidate was chosen.
Wonder if dem voters care if their candidate is a liar but in the general election that could be a problem.