The W
Views: 97625349
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.7.14 0135
The W - Current Events & Politics - Lieberman Loses Primary, Running as Independent
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.03
Pages: 1
(543 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (16 total)
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
Lieberman Files to Run as Independent (news.yahoo.com)

I understand he has the right to run and all that, but when your own party has rejected you, perhaps the time has come to accept it.

I don't know why he doesn't just cross the aisle. I can't imagine the CT GOP wouldn't be able to force out the guy currently running, and he could take their ballot line. He would still probably beat Lamott in a general election, and at this point he might find the reception warmer with the GOP, as I suspect all those high-profile folks who supported him in the primary will not be quite as interested in making it look like they're flipping off the Dem voters in CT.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
Promote this thread!
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc








Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 34 min.
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.05
So this means there's still time for him to appear on the Colbert Report!



You believe me, don't you?
Please believe what I just said...
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
Man, now I kinda want one of those "Sore Loserman" signs the Repubs were waving around after the 2000 election...



"That's my problem - I'm too frank. That's why my mother shoved me down the stairs. But then she is fat."
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Man, now I kinda want one of those "Sore Loserman" signs the Repubs were waving around after the 2000 election...


I think Lieberman owes it to his constituants to keep his name out there. Ned Lamont's political experience is limited to serving on a community tax board - now he wants to join the Senate? I'm not saying you can't be effective despite being new to the scene...but I have my doubts.

Also, there's no telling how long Lamont can keep up steam on a campaign that pretty much has one and only one issue - get out of this war. Lieberman isn't questioning the validity of his campaign or whining at all, he's just saying he owes it to his supporters (and his beliefs) to not give up yet. Now he's just not running as the Democratic nominee.



I would not be a bit surprised if the individuals on the team from your area were sexually attracted to members of their own gender. That is how ineffective they are on the field of battle.
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.32
I see a lot of theories being thrown about regarding how this reflects voter revolt against the war in Iraq, but I just see this as Democrat voters wanting something different from their party. I don't see it so much as voting against the war, but voting in some change, which why Lieberman and Cynthia McKinney in Georgia both find themselves on the outs now.

I agree that Lieberman should run to satisfy his loyal constituents, but his running ultimately sabotages the Democrats who will now find their voters splitting between Liberman and Lamont while conservatives will unite behind their guy. The GOP come out the big winners here.




EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc








Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 34 min.
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.05
    Originally posted by It's False
    I agree that Lieberman should run to satisfy his loyal constituents, but his running ultimately sabotages the Democrats who will now find their voters splitting between Liberman and Lamont while conservatives will unite behind their guy. The GOP come out the big winners here.


Admittedly, I don't follow CT politics much (even when I lived there), but isn't Lieberman's strength in that he's a moderate, and thus more likely to draw votes from the Republican candidate? I want to say that that means that Lieberman and the GOP will split votes, and leave Lamont with a majority, but I think what's more likely is that this gets split into even thirds, with the winner decided by a narrow margin.



You believe me, don't you?
Please believe what I just said...
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.57
If CT had a credible GOP candidate, then the chances of the GOP gaining in a 3-way race would be more realistic. But they're running some nobody whose only claim to fame is running up a bunch of bad gambling debts under an assumed name in Atlantic City. Basically Lamott will get the far left to the middle left, Lieberman the center-left to the moderate right (and pragmatic GOP voters who would rather him than Lamott) and the GOP candidate will pick up the far right. He'll be lucky to crack 20%. If I had to guess I would say you see something like:
Lieberman: 42%
Lamott: 39%
GOP: 19%

And yes, it was about the war. McKinney lost for totally unique reasons, mainly that she is utterly insane. This race was framed from the beginning as a referendum on Lieberman's unwavering support of Bush and the Iraq War. Everything revolved around that nexus basically.



Now I'll never be able to lead SPF's spfers! (The W)
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 388 days
Last activity: 388 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.42
It is tough to take seriously criticism by Democrats about Lieberman running as a 'sore loser' when he did a similar thing in 2000 by covering his ass by continuing his Senate campaign while simultaneously running for Vice President. If the Democrats had no problem with Joe being on the same ballot twice, they shouldn't have a problem with him running in two elections. If they don't want people to have the opportunity, close the loophole. Until then, Lieberman is playing by the established rules.
And, it really is shocking news that Democratic Primary voters are anti-Bush. Almost as shocking as the Cubs losing and the sun rising in the East. This is more a repudiation of Bill and Hillary, as they supported Joe, than Bush, who the voters despise anyway. Now, if anti-war candidates win Republican primaries, then it is all over for Bush. All this does is cause Democrats in '08 to lunge further to the left, thus negating any gains they could potentially make in the center. See Buchanan,Pat to see how a similar lunge to the right hurt the GOP.
Lieberman votes over 90% liberal, so I can't see him joining the GOP, especially since he has stated previously that he would still caucus with the Democrats if elected as an independent. Will be interesting to see how Chuck Schumer plays this in terms of his role leading the Senate Democratic Election Committee(or whatever it is called officially). Will they run soft money anti-Lieberman ads, as he is the only serious opponent to the Democratic nominee?
As for an early electoral guess:
Lieberman 47%
Lamott 35%
GOP 18%

I don't see Lamott being strong outside the party, and if the primary was a week later he probably would have lost. Tough to knock off an incumbent twice in 4 months, especially when the enlarged pool of voters is outside of your base and you have probably already peaked. If the Republicans had a pulse, this could actually be a stolen seat by the GOP, but this candidate will get a lower percentage than Alan Keyes in '04 in Illinois. Where is Mr. Bob Backlund now when the GOP needs him. He could have Ventura'd the general.



(edited by redsoxnation on 9.8.06 2009)
canis582
Mettwurst








Since: 5.1.04
From: Reading, Pa

Since last post: 2441 days
Last activity: 2116 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
Anyone notice how the media wants to turn this into a referendum on the war? The truth is that this election was a major blow to the K-street lobbyists. People in CT didn't want to elect someone who represents corporate interests over their interests.



I just remembered that im absent minded
wait i mean i lost my mind, i cant find it.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.21
I could take some of your opinions more seriously if you could spell "Lamont" correctly. (Maybe.)

I hope Lieberman takes it. Afterwards, we can decide whether this means that the primary system only fringe candidates while most of us would prefer moderates...or something else.



CRZ
AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.70
I think there were a couple of interesting issues here. The more national media (the New York Times, for example, although I realize that it is dreadfully close to CT) seemed to endorse Lamont, while many CT papers endorsed Lieberman.

Clearly, it is, at the least, a referendum among very active Democratic voters in CT regarding the war. That was the ONE issue Lamont ran on.

The real question is what, if anything, does this mean in, say, Indiana or Kansas (picked you and me, Doc). Does it mean that the Representatives running in those states (and others) go more antiwar because that is what wins elections.

In my Indiana district, Mike Sodrel (a conservative businessman one term incumbent) is running against Baron Hill (the former incumbent and a Dem who is fairly moderate). I intend to watch Hill's ads closely as well as the PACs that will advertise for them and see in which direction them go.

The biggest problem in our area is we have a pro-life, very conservative, evengelical Christian Libertarian who is going to get all of his SOLID 1 or 1.5% directly from Sodrel.



Signature
We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.03
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    The real question is what, if anything, does this mean in, say, Indiana or Kansas (picked you and me, Doc). Does it mean that the Representatives running in those states (and others) go more antiwar because that is what wins elections


Means nothing. Believe it or not, GOP Kansas is not very happy re the conduct of the war but it means nothing for two reasons.

1. All the incumbents, including the One Dem are safe without any strong opposition. And there are no anti-war serious candidates out there here.

2. People here are 99.99% behind the troops and to them that means not making waves.

Oh and a third. On a national level, even the KS Dems consider the Dem leadership a joke.



Perception is reality
EddieBurkett
Boudin blanc








Since: 3.1.02
From: GA in person, NJ in heart

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 34 min.
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.05
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    Clearly, it is, at the least, a referendum among very active Democratic voters in CT regarding the war. That was the ONE issue Lamont ran on.


According to Salon's interpretation of the exit results (salon.com) (watching a brief ad or registration required), the main issue with Lieberman was that he was too close to President Bush. Apparently, 40% of those opposed to the Iraq war voted for Lieberman anyway, while the group that "voted overwhelmingly" for Lamont was the 59% of voters who didn't like the Lieberman-Bush connection.



You believe me, don't you?
Please believe what I just said...
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.63
Who's to say Lamont can't win the general? The fact that he came from literally out of nowhere four months ago to knock off a three-term incumbent and former VP candidate in a primary is a pretty eye-popping feat. Clearly, all of the Joe-mentum is on his side right now.

I think the Dems are looking at picking up 4-5 Senate seats in the fall.



Scene: Mark DeRosa's brain. The year is 2005.
Part of Mark DeRosa's brain: Come on, another position change? One day it's second base, the next day right field, now it's third? Why, I oughta go into Buck's office and throw his talking fish on the floor!
Other part of Mark DeRosa's brain: Hold on, other part of the brain. We're making $500,000 this year. Last year we made $725,000. All for playing a damn kids' game. This is, as they say in Brainland, a no-"us"-er. We're not going to complain.
Part of Mark DeRosa's brain: You're right, dude. Let's go back to looking at this crazy porn Teixeira gave us!

--- firejoemorgan.blogspot.com
too-old-now
Bockwurst








Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1207 days
Last activity: 132 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48
As a nutmegger whose only vote for Lieberman ever was for VP - I left the Senate vote blank when he ran on two lines - I am pleased Joe lost the primary, and with it all of the Democratic party money - which is sizeable. Lots of independents in CT are also opposed to the war and Bush, and I think a huge number of them will also go to Lamont in November.

What will be interesting to me is how much the upcoming ads will ignore the GOP non-factor here. Lots of Nutmeggers view Joe's running as an independent reinforces the fact that he is just NOT LISTENING to the concerns of CT citizens. We don't like the war, but admittedly many of us really wouldn't care that much about it if it weren't for the high cost of it. Voters don't care as much about healthcare as Lamont thought, but they do care about education and jobs. Lamont's other big issue is the emphasis on lobbyists - this will help him with independents and Republicans alike. Will he actually do anything about any of it? Well, as the other commercial we hear way too much in CT says - "I doubt it."

I think Lamont can and just may win in November, and it will be Joe's own fault.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.69
There's a very, very fine line between "staunchly independent man of principles, not party," and "waffling sell-out who wants it both ways," and somewhere along the way Dem voters thought Lieberman crossed that fine line. It's all perception - it doesn't even really have anything to do with votes or what not. Why does McCain get the first image, while Lincoln Chafee gets the second image? Why did Jim Jeffords (pre-independent) have the first image, even though he actually ended up switching? Who knows?

That was the issue, not the war. The war was bad, the Bush kiss was bad, the constant moralizing and holier-than-thou image was bad (would have maybe worked if he represented Alabama, not Coinnecticut), and I think the vice-presidential run was bad. Once you start acting like a National figure instead of a neighborhood guy, sometimes the voters will turn on you. That was the secret of Tom Dashele's survival for so long - you go to his website there wasn't a thing on there about being Dem leader - it was all about South Dakota and farm stuff.

But I think the big one was the hedging his bets with the independent run. He could have saved it by either a) saying he wasn't going to run as an independent or b) dropping out of the Primary and declaring himself an independent doing a run as one. But the hedging the bets thing I think was what really pushed him from "principled independent" to "wishy-washy moderate"

EDIT: By the way, I don't he'll be able to shed that label and doesn't have a chance in the general election. He'll either be pressured to drop out (perhaps with a promise of some national position if the dems wim in 2008 or something), or come in third in the general election. I'm guessing it'll bne something like Lamont 45%, GOP guy 35%, Lieberman 20%

(edited by MoeGates on 10.8.06 1749)


Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


Thread rated: 6.03
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: UK Threat High
Next thread: Mike Wallace interviews President Ahmadinejad
Previous thread: Fidel Castro ill, relinquishes power "temporarily"
(543 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7878025 By Emma Ross-Thomas MADRID (Reuters)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Lieberman Loses Primary, Running as IndependentRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.126 seconds.