Home› A Moving Train
Options

Lieberman OUT!

binauralsoundsbinauralsounds Posts: 1,357
edited August 2006 in A Moving Train
Connecticut // U.S. Senate - - Dem Primary
608 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 81.28%
Lamont, Ned 116,387 51.71% **Winner
Lieberman, Joe (i) 108,683 48.29%
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Options
    luckytwnluckytwn Posts: 36
    He's hardly out. With a margin that small in the Democratic primary, if he runs as an independent in the general election, he'll easily make that up with votes from independents and Republicans.
  • Options
    binauralsoundsbinauralsounds Posts: 1,357
    luckytwn wrote:
    He's hardly out. With a margin that small in the Democratic primary, if he runs as an independent in the general election, he'll easily make that up with votes from independents and Republicans.

    You really think he'll pull it off as an independent? Yes, this race was EXTREMELY close, but somthing just tells me he won't win. Who knows..
  • Options
    luckytwnluckytwn Posts: 36
    There was a recent poll where in a 3 man race Lieberman had a 24 point lead on Lamont.
  • Options
    binauralsoundsbinauralsounds Posts: 1,357
    luckytwn wrote:
    There was a recent poll where in a 3 man race Lieberman had a 24 point lead on Lamont.

    Dam... I didn't see that one. 24 freakin points??? WOW!!!!!!!!
  • Options
    luckytwnluckytwn Posts: 36
    "* Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger."

    Though that poll is now a couple of weeks old.
  • Options
    zcyruszcyrus Posts: 22
    There could be 100 Ned Lamont's in the Senate and it wouldn't make a difference on Iraq. That's why I thought all this Lieberman bashing was outrageous. Ned Lamont will be the definition of an empty suit if he eventually wins in the general. At least Lieberman has the right ideas as far as the environment, free trade, abortion, etc. Nobody knows how Lamont will treat any of these issues.
  • Options
    OneLoveOneLove Posts: 563
    The Nader effect is reason enough to think he could run as an independant and make a huge difference in the outcome of an election.

    I do think it is kind of cool that folks are holding a politican accountable for the things they support.

    I am sure there are a few more dems out there who will choose their words more carefully from now on. We can only hope that they will act according to their constituents wishes. For once, folks held someone accountable.
  • Options
    binauralsoundsbinauralsounds Posts: 1,357
    luckytwn wrote:
    "* Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger."

    Though that poll is now a couple of weeks old.

    Yeah, just heard on local news that if he runs as indy, then as you reported, he will win almost hands down.

    And I agree with the poster above where the stated lamont will be just another empty suit. Lieberman on the other hand does stand for alot of what the democratic party stood for. I disagree with about 90 percent of his views, however, he's an old school democrat and I can respect his views while not agreeing with them. He sided with bush on one issue and was thrown under the bus tonight. However, as stated, in a 3 way race, he should destroy lamont and moveon.org.

    Now what will be more interesting to see is the situation with hillary. :D She'll be tap dancing better than gregory hines come debate time:) Hell, even susan sarandon has endorsed her opponent. This should be fun!
  • Options
    gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,179
    lieberman just conceded, heard it on cnn.

    so what does this mean for the dems? i would think that if he runs as an independant alot of people who voted for him would do so again and split the vote. he lost the primary. the majority of voters want him out so he should do the honorable thing and not run as an independant.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Options
    HoonHoon Posts: 175
    Even though I think he is a dirty hissing snake. It will be nice to see someone run as "Independent".
    If you keep yourself as the final arbiter you will be less susceptible to infection from cultural illusion.
  • Options
    rucchinrucchin Posts: 25
    Lieberman should sit out the election. The people didn't vote for him and he should respect their wishes.






    ______________________
    Do not go to this website AngryCitizen.org ......please
  • Options
    SVRDhand13SVRDhand13 NYC Posts: 25,891
    what a pleasant surprise. too bad leiberman still has a good shot of winning.
    severed hand thirteen

    2006: Gorge 7/23 2008: Hartford 6/27 Beacon 7/1 2009: Spectrum 10/30-31
    2010: Newark 5/18 MSG 5/20-21 2011: PJ20 9/3-4 2012: Made In America 9/2
    2013: Brooklyn 10/18-19 Philly 10/21-22 Hartford 10/25 2014: ACL10/12
    2015: NYC 9/23 2016: Tampa 4/11 Philly 4/28-29 MSG 5/1-2 Fenway 8/5+8/7
    2017: RRHoF 4/7   2018: Fenway 9/2+9/4   2021: Sea Hear Now 9/18 
    2022: MSG 9/11  2024: MSG 9/3-4 Philly 9/7+9/9 Fenway 9/15+9/17
  • Options
    NakedClownNakedClown Posts: 545
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    the majority of voters want him out so he should do the honorable thing and not run as an independant.

    This is incorrect - the majority of people in a Democratic primary voted him out, but in a statewide general election he will win.

    Therefore, the majority of the people in the entire state - not just democrats - will prefer him in the Senate and representing them...

    This comment of yours is wrong... it promotes the idea that you only have business running if you belong to 1 of 2 parties...
  • Options
    NakedClownNakedClown Posts: 545
    rucchin wrote:
    Lieberman should sit out the election. The people didn't vote for him and he should respect their wishes.






    ______________________
    Do not go to this website AngryCitizen.org ......please


    Again - flawed thinking - he can (and probably will) win a general election... he has every business to run as an independent if he chooses to....

    EDIT - clarification - put simply, being defeated in 1 party's primary should not exlude you from running as an independent/third party challenger... as much as I disagree with the war in Iraq, I can respect a guy like Lieberman who believes strongly in what he's doing - and I agree with him far more than I disagree with him....
  • Options
    kenny olavkenny olav Posts: 3,323
    well, my feeling is Lieberman is going to come back and win this as an independent.

    not that Ned Lamont exactly rocks the world, but it still sucks.
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    luckytwn wrote:
    "* Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger."

    Though that poll is now a couple of weeks old.
    Where did you get those poll results? I found the Rasmussen one from July 23, and it had Lieberman at 40%, Lamont at 40%, and Schlesinger at 13%.

    Considering Lamont's win in the pimary, as narrow as it was, I say he still has a shot. This poll was taken before the vote, and now that Lamont has a win under his belt, people who were a little skeptical (Democrats and Independents, at least - Lieberman probably has a good shot with CT Republicans) might be less so currently.

    I don't think Lieberman's going to clean up this November. If he wins, and there's still a good chance he will, it will be a tough fight - and much of the damage is already done. The anti-war constituency have just proved themselves to be an actual force capable of affecting Washington directly - even if Lamont loses.
  • Options
    floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    The anti-war constituency have just proved themselves to be an actual force capable of affecting Washington directly - even if Lamont loses.

    Or they have just proved themselves to be able to drag their party further to the left in primaries.
  • Options
    polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    zstillings wrote:
    Or they have just proved themselves to be able to drag their party further to the left in primaries.

    ha! ... further to the left?? ... america has no idea what left is ... it is so far right now that they think this stooge lamont is left?
  • Options
    floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    polaris wrote:
    ha! ... further to the left?? ... america has no idea what left is ... it is so far right now that they think this stooge lamont is left?

    He is further left than many in this country. There is another thread on here about Michael Moore saying it's all about who you sleep with. Lamont can count Al Sharpton in his bed with him. The country as a whole does not look at him with much esteem either.
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    zstillings wrote:
    Or they have just proved themselves to be able to drag their party further to the left in primaries.
    Other than being against the war, I'm not too clear on Lamont's politics; is he a left winger otherwise? I put my faith in the voters of CT on whether or not Lamont or Lieberman will represent them after the general.

    Besides - do all elections have to be between the right wing party and the moderate party?
  • Options
    floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    Other than being against the war, I'm not too clear on Lamont's politics; is he a left winger otherwise? I put my faith in the voters of CT on whether or not Lamont or Lieberman will represent them after the general.

    Besides - do all elections have to be between the right wing party and the moderate party?

    Running as an anti-war candidate, he was also listing himself as a "progressive activist" which was to run to the left of Lieberman. Looking through his issues, I don't know whether he copied and pasted his stances from "Progressive Politics for Dummies" or whether he believes them but he seems to be a left winger.

    Not all elections have to be between the right wing party and the moderate party but it will be a bigger hindrance to the Democrats nationally if they continue to move further to the left.

    I wonder if this race would have been closer if someone didn't shut down an important aspect of Lieberman's GOTV plan.
  • Options
    RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,831
    zstillings wrote:
    Running as an anti-war candidate, he was also listing himself as a "progressive activist" which was to run to the left of Lieberman. Looking through his issues, I don't know whether he copied and pasted his stances from "Progressive Politics for Dummies" or whether he believes them but he seems to be a left winger.

    Not all elections have to be between the right wing party and the moderate party but it will be a bigger hindrance to the Democrats nationally if they continue to move further to the left.

    I wonder if this race would have been closer if someone didn't shut down an important aspect of Lieberman's GOTV plan.
    So he is a lefty? Cool. Now I guess I can root for him.

    I'm not denying the possibility that this may hinder the Democrats in the short term. However, in the long term it may actually help the party. People keep complaining that the Democratic Party has no goals, plans, direction, whatever. In my opinion, that's because America consists of two parties - Republic and Democrat - and two kinds of voters - Republicans and People Who Hate Republicans. That second kind of voter is harder to corral - and majorities like we have with the first kind of voter are hard to keep together. I forsee us flipping from a right wing to a left wing country in the future.

    Remember when the Republicans were the minority (by quite a margin) and solidified the Christian Right under their banner? Well, it's 25-30 years later, and now they're running the show.
  • Options
    theboxerorthebagtheboxerorthebag Posts: 1,774
    he should but he is only interested in what is best for himself. I really hope he loses the GE.
    gimmesometruth27 wrote:
    lieberman just conceded, heard it on cnn.

    so what does this mean for the dems? i would think that if he runs as an independant alot of people who voted for him would do so again and split the vote. he lost the primary. the majority of voters want him out so he should do the honorable thing and not run as an independant.
  • Options
    my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    i have to be honest...this is fucking exciting news... an anti-war candidate beat a very powerful pro-war incumbant!

    GET OUT AND VOTE IN 2006!

    vote all incumbants, no matter the party (just dont vote fucking republican ;))
  • Options
    my2handsmy2hands Posts: 17,117
    zstillings wrote:

    Not all elections have to be between the right wing party and the moderate party but it will be a bigger hindrance to the Democrats nationally if they continue to move further to the left.

    i strongly disagree... just look at howard deans run out of no where in 2004... now a "progressive activist" beats a very powerful incumbant?

    the wave is building, so grab your surf board! :)
  • Options
    floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    So he is a lefty? Cool. Now I guess I can root for him.

    I'm not denying the possibility that this may hinder the Democrats in the short term. However, in the long term it may actually help the party. People keep complaining that the Democratic Party has no goals, plans, direction, whatever. In my opinion, that's because America consists of two parties - Republic and Democrat - and two kinds of voters - Republicans and People Who Hate Republicans. That second kind of voter is harder to corral - and majorities like we have with the first kind of voter are hard to keep together. I forsee us flipping from a right wing to a left wing country in the future.

    Remember when the Republicans were the minority (by quite a margin) and solidified the Christian Right under their banner? Well, it's 25-30 years later, and now they're running the show.

    I see this as a different strategy than uniting the Christian right (who were not what finally put the Republicans in the majority). The reason that it is different is because the bible belt had always been a strong force at the polls. The ongoing issues that the Christians were uniting behind were family values and abortion (I am not debating the validity of their stances here, just acknowledging that these issues exist). What the progressives seem to be uniting behind now is an anti-war stance. This anti-war stance does not keep voters in the fold for the long term like those other issues do since one war can be constantly changing or can end.
  • Options
    Milhouse VanHoutenMilhouse VanHouten Posts: 759
    zstillings wrote:
    Running as an anti-war candidate, he was also listing himself as a "progressive activist" which was to run to the left of Lieberman. Looking through his issues, I don't know whether he copied and pasted his stances from "Progressive Politics for Dummies" or whether he believes them but he seems to be a left winger.

    I'm guessing we'll have to disagree on the negative connotation you have for the term "progressive activist". If we'd had more "left wingers" in congress a few years ago, we might not be in Iraq right now, and 60% of the American public is against the war, according to the most recent polls.

    Being a "left winger" doesn't preclude him from winning. We've got plenty of far-left and far-right congressmen and congresswomen. Granted, the most "extreme" members tend to be in the House as opposed to the Senate, but there are a few.
    "Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
  • Options
    polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    zstillings wrote:
    He is further left than many in this country. There is another thread on here about Michael Moore saying it's all about who you sleep with. Lamont can count Al Sharpton in his bed with him. The country as a whole does not look at him with much esteem either.

    as far as i can tell - he is running anti-war ... which sadly has been attributed to the political left ... its too bad we ALL can't be anti-war ...

    anyways - not sure what his stances are on other issues that matter ...

    but to think people actually think kerry or any of those democratic hosers are far left is mind boggling ...
  • Options
    floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    my2hands wrote:
    i strongly disagree... just look at howard deans run out of no where in 2004... now a "progressive activist" beats a very powerful incumbant?

    the wave is building, so grab your surf board! :)

    What happened to Howard Dean though?

    He was thrown into the niche aspect of the part which just unites activists. The party needs independents and moderates to win.

    Bill Clinton won 30 states in 1996. This went down to 20 for Gore and 19 for Kerry.
  • Options
    floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Milhouse VanHouten wrote:
    I'm guessing we'll have to disagree on the negative connotation you have for the term "progressive activist". If we'd had more "left wingers" in congress a few years ago, we might not be in Iraq right now, and 60% of the American public is against the war, according to the most recent polls.

    Being a "left winger" doesn't preclude him from winning. We've got plenty of far-left and far-right congressmen and congresswomen. Granted, the most "extreme" members tend to be in the House as opposed to the Senate, but there are a few.

    I was, once again, not judging the validity here. Progressive activists do not play well on the national stage for the party. If this is going to be the national face of the Democrats in November then they are going to have a tough time picking up some of the seats that they think are in play.
Sign In or Register to comment.