UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 A Quinnipiac Poll just released this morning has primary challenger Ned Lamont leading Lieberman by 54 percent vs. 41 percent among likely Dem primary voters, with 85 percent of those polled responding that their selection is set. Even with a +- consideration.... it doesn't look so good for Joe. Important to note, tho, that there were rumblings from the Lieberman camp last month that he will run on an independent ticket. Past polls have reported that were Lieberman to do so, he'd win in a theoretical three-way race (due to Republican-Lite crossover appeal). All this despite him also saying that he has been and will be a 'lifelong Democrat.' There've been many calls for him to step aside if he loses in the primary. I am not advocating one or the other (tho, I'm not averse to some good-old-fashioned housecleaning and representatives actually representing the people of the state even if it's not my viewpoint b/c that's how democracy works), nor can I vote in the primary as I'm unaffiliated. Just wondering what you all think this means for the national situation, the Dem party, the nationalization of local races (a big issue here with lots of out-of-state 'meddling' -- bloggers, contributions, etc.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 A Quinnipiac Poll just released this morning has primary challenger Ned Lamont leading Lieberman by 54 percent vs. 41 percent among likely Dem primary voters, with 85 percent of those polled responding that their selection is set. Even with a +- consideration.... it doesn't look so good for Joe. Important to note, tho, that there were rumblings from the Lieberman camp last month that he will run on an independent ticket. Past polls have reported that were Lieberman to do so, he'd win in a theoretical three-way race (due to Republican-Lite crossover appeal). All this despite him also saying that he has been and will be a 'lifelong Democrat.' There've been many calls for him to step aside if he loses in the primary. I am not advocating one or the other (tho, I'm not averse to some good-old-fashioned housecleaning and representatives actually representing the people of the state even if it's not my viewpoint b/c that's how democracy works), nor can I vote in the primary as I'm unaffiliated. Just wondering what you all think this means for the national situation, the Dem party, the nationalization of local races (a big issue here with lots of out-of-state 'meddling' -- bloggers, contributions, etc.). 734277[/snapback] I heard that he already has the signatures to get on the ballot as an Independent and will file them immediately if he does not win the primary. If he is successful, I think that you will see more candidates trying this route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I commend the guy for sticking to his guns about the war. Even though I am against what he stands for on it. That's why it's so hard these days to be a politician, let alone a good one. The things people want a politician to show, honesty and integrity, are going to kill his career. But then again, his stance is so off base to me, that I likely wouldn't vote for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 I commend the guy for sticking to his guns about the war. Even though I am against what he stands for on it. That's why it's so hard these days to be a politician, let alone a good one. The things people want a politician to show, honesty and integrity, are going to kill his career. But then again, his stance is so off base to me, that I likely wouldn't vote for him. 734348[/snapback] People do respect honesty and integrity. But that doesn't mean they need to vote for it when they fundamentally don't agree with where said honesty and integrity was applied in their names. --- Ken, I heard the Lieberman camp was collecting signatures a few weeks ago. Let's hypothesize for a moment. The Dems pick up either 6 or 5 seats in the Senate, making it 51-49 or 50-50, with the caveat of Lieberman returning as an Independent. Senate control would then still reside with the Republicans. How can Joe be a 'Lifelong Democrat' when he puts his party in peril (just as he did in '00 by running the double bill, which would have left our crook of an ex-governor to appoint a replacement)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 People do respect honesty and integrity. But that doesn't mean they need to vote for it when they fundamentally don't agree with where said honesty and integrity was applied in their names. --- Ken, I heard the Lieberman camp was collecting signatures a few weeks ago. Let's hypothesize for a moment. The Dems pick up either 6 or 5 seats in the Senate, making it 51-49 or 50-50, with the caveat of Lieberman returning as an Independent. Senate control would then still reside with the Republicans. How can Joe be a 'Lifelong Democrat' when he puts his party in peril (just as he did in '00 by running the double bill, which would have left our crook of an ex-governor to appoint a replacement)? 734373[/snapback] So he should lie about his views? Or he should toe the company line on an issue as important as the war and national defense? Something he feels so strongly about he's willing to risk his entire career on it? This is the main problem with the two party system. Lieberman would be better as an independent. Actually, a lot of them would. He can vote for the Democrats when he actually believes in a stance, which would be the majority if not the vast majority of the time but not always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 So he should lie about his views? Or he should toe the company line on an issue as important as the war and national defense? Something he feels so strongly about he's willing to risk his entire career on it? This is the main problem with the two party system. Lieberman would be better as an independent. Actually, a lot of them would. He can vote for the Democrats when he actually believes in a stance, which would be the majority if not the vast majority of the time but not always. 734376[/snapback] I'm not saying he should lie. Just that he shouldn't expect/demand that he be elected as if it's his seat for life. B/c in the primary ads that run here, that's how he comes across. Along the margins, it's live with the party, die with the party. Joe is saying one thing and doing the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I'm not saying he should lie. Just that he shouldn't expect/demand that he be elected as if it's his seat for life. B/c in the primary ads that run here, that's how he comes across. Along the margins, it's live with the party, die with the party. Joe is saying one thing and doing the opposite. 734382[/snapback] Interesting discussion, I am not sure the veracity of the opposition to Joe in Democratic circles is so much his stances, while that is certainly an issue. There are others who defect on specific issues within Dem and GOP ranks but don't garner the same vitriol. Joe's problem is that he is not known as an active party supporter when he does agree with the party. Additionally he has commited cardinal sins by consistent in public standing with Bush in support of the war. His continued public support represents and affront to the party. It is one thing to differ, it is another thing to show up your supporters consitently. Kinda of like a baseball umpire. If you talk down to the plate and don't use foul language, you can say a lot, raise your head and publicly question his mental status and you will probably get thrown out. That is Joe's biggest offense. McCain gives the Republicans the same head aches, but at least he has tried to make amends. And he lately has emphasized his conservative credentials. Lieberman hasn't, or hasn't effectively tried until it was too late. Feingold is another maverickwho causes WI Dems head aches through his lack of support for his state party. However he votes correctly when he takes a public stand, i.e., campaign reform and lobbying disclure efforts and it works for him there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Interesting discussion, I am not sure the veracity of the opposition to Joe in Democratic circles is so much his stances, while that is certainly an issue. There are others who defect on specific issues within Dem and GOP ranks but don't garner the same vitriol. Joe's problem is that he is not known as an active party supporter when he does agree with the party. Additionally he has commited cardinal sins by consistent in public standing with Bush in support of the war. His continued public support represents and affront to the party. It is one thing to differ, it is another thing to show up your supporters consitently. Kinda of like a baseball umpire. If you talk down to the plate and don't use foul language, you can say a lot, raise your head and publicly question his mental status and you will probably get thrown out. That is Joe's biggest offense. McCain gives the Republicans the same head aches, but at least he has tried to make amends. And he lately has emphasized his conservative credentials. Lieberman hasn't, or hasn't effectively tried until it was too late. Feingold is another maverickwho causes WI Dems head aches through his lack of support for his state party. However he votes correctly when he takes a public stand, i.e., campaign reform and lobbying disclure efforts and it works for him there. 734396[/snapback] No. Lieberman's problem is the war and only the war. If it was any other topic or issue there would basically be no problem with it. Everyone could just say we're a party that allows differing points of view. But not on this one. The Dems are basing their entire platform on the war. McCain is one of the least mavericks around. He's out for McCain and McCain only. The maverick concept worked for him for awhile, that's why he did it. Now he is changing his tune because he can't win as the maverick. He's as big or a bigger scumbag than anyone. At least the party shills are consistently party shills and don't really pretend to be anything other than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Ken, I heard the Lieberman camp was collecting signatures a few weeks ago. Let's hypothesize for a moment. The Dems pick up either 6 or 5 seats in the Senate, making it 51-49 or 50-50, with the caveat of Lieberman returning as an Independent. Senate control would then still reside with the Republicans. How can Joe be a 'Lifelong Democrat' when he puts his party in peril (just as he did in '00 by running the double bill, which would have left our crook of an ex-governor to appoint a replacement)? 734373[/snapback] IIRC, the deadline is August 9th for the submission of the signatures and the primary is August 8th (I might be confusing this with another race). He has already collected the required number of signatures. He is just waiting to see if he needs them or not (wins the primary). On another note, the Green Party candidate for Senate in PA (going against Santorum) is making good progress. The Republicans have been donating money and helping him get the unconstitutional number of signatures required to put him on the ballot. This has really pissed off the Dems, since the Greenie will be stealing votes from them. Of course, the Libertarians were unable to see this and have been unable to captialize. They should have contacted the Dems to do the same thing with the Libertarians. A Libertarian candidate will steal votes from Santorum. It just amazes me how the Greenies are able to be better organized and make more progress than the Libertarians when the Libertarians have far more registered voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 IIRC, the deadline is August 9th for the submission of the signatures and the primary is August 8th (I might be confusing this with another race). He has already collected the required number of signatures. He is just waiting to see if he needs them or not (wins the primary). On another note, the Green Party candidate for Senate in PA (going against Santorum) is making good progress. The Republicans have been donating money and helping him get the unconstitutional number of signatures required to put him on the ballot. This has really pissed off the Dems, since the Greenie will be stealing votes from them. Of course, the Libertarians were unable to see this and have been unable to captialize. They should have contacted the Dems to do the same thing with the Libertarians. A Libertarian candidate will steal votes from Santorum. It just amazes me how the Greenies are able to be better organized and make more progress than the Libertarians when the Libertarians have far more registered voters. 734406[/snapback] Yeh Ken, but think about it for a second, the greens are pretty single issue, while Liberatarism is more a political philosophy. Advocating less government, which despite their actions, the GOP pays a lot of lip service to, Libertarians don't have a salient issue to hang their hat that hasn't totally been coopted. Not that the issue doesn't have legs, the GOP has just effectively coopted it, so it makes it hard to organize or fire up the troops as an effective alternative to the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Yeh Ken, but think about it for a second, the greens are pretty single issue, while Liberatarism is more a political philosophy. Advocating less government, which despite their actions, the GOP pays a lot of lip service to, Libertarians don't have a salient issue to hang their hat that hasn't totally been coopted. Not that the issue doesn't have legs, the GOP has just effectively coopted it, so it makes it hard to organize or fire up the troops as an effective alternative to the GOP. 734446[/snapback] In my post, I was addressing one specific election: 2006 Santorum vs. Casey. The Libertarian will take votes from Santorum on issues like abortion and spending, among others. This helps the Dems and counteracts the Greenie vote. The Libertarians have been unable to captialize on this and the Dems are losing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 McCain is one of the least mavericks around. He's out for McCain and McCain only. The maverick concept worked for him for awhile, that's why he did it. Now he is changing his tune because he can't win as the maverick. He's as big or a bigger scumbag than anyone. At least the party shills are consistently party shills and don't really pretend to be anything other than that. 734399[/snapback] Dead on. He's the Republican party's version of Bill Clinton. I wouldn't vote for McCain for dogcatcher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Dead on. He's the Republican party's version of Bill Clinton. I wouldn't vote for McCain for dogcatcher. 734567[/snapback] You might have to. I mean, if you had ONLY a choice of voting McCain v. H. Clinton? I think it's a hands-down choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 You might have to. I mean, if you had ONLY a choice of voting McCain v. H. Clinton? I think it's a hands-down choice. 734585[/snapback] I'll vote Libertarian for the first time. Hell I might vote for Lieberman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I think it's a hands-down choice. 734585[/snapback] Secession, maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 A Quinnipiac Poll just released this morning has primary challenger Ned Lamont leading Lieberman by 54 percent vs. 41 percent among likely Dem primary voters, with 85 percent of those polled responding that their selection is set. Even with a +- consideration.... it doesn't look so good for Joe. Important to note, tho, that there were rumblings from the Lieberman camp last month that he will run on an independent ticket. Past polls have reported that were Lieberman to do so, he'd win in a theoretical three-way race (due to Republican-Lite crossover appeal). All this despite him also saying that he has been and will be a 'lifelong Democrat.' There've been many calls for him to step aside if he loses in the primary. I am not advocating one or the other (tho, I'm not averse to some good-old-fashioned housecleaning and representatives actually representing the people of the state even if it's not my viewpoint b/c that's how democracy works), nor can I vote in the primary as I'm unaffiliated. Just wondering what you all think this means for the national situation, the Dem party, the nationalization of local races (a big issue here with lots of out-of-state 'meddling' -- bloggers, contributions, etc.). 734277[/snapback] We were talking about this in one of my classes the other day. There's no sore loser law in Connecticut, so he's free to try as an independent. He also has plenty of votes if he does run as an independent to win, its just that the primary is giving him trouble. Pretty much the same conclusions you came to. This isn't an isolated poll either, so the 95% confidence level shouldn't come into play: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State...PrimaryJuly.htm Shouldn't change anything tho, good ol' Joe will be in the senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 (edited) Shouldn't change anything tho, good ol' Joe will be in the senate. 734655[/snapback] One question that hasn't been brought up in the state's coverage.... If Lieberman loses the primary but wins in the general as an Independent, does he have to (or, would) he stay an independent for the duration of his term, or could he pull a Jeffords and then switch back to Democrat? Also, one wonders how all of this is putting pressure on him. As Kelly said upthread, Joe seems to be a more principaled pol than to do a 180 change, but I don't think some tweaking is out of the question. The silence of his fellow Dems previously in his corner, e.g. Harry Reid, et al. has been loud. He's had Bill Clinton (DLC) shilling for him in the latest ad pleading that Joe is "a good Democrat." He burns a big bridge on the unquestioning nature of his war stance. Edited August 3, 2006 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 One question that hasn't been brought up in the state's coverage.... If Lieberman loses the primary but wins in the general as an Independent, does he have to (or, would) he stay an independent for the duration of his term, or could he pull a Jeffords and then switch back to Democrat? 734677[/snapback] I imagine he could switch and there will be a lot of pressure from the Dems to make him switch to increase their numbers. The irony of that is not lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I imagine he could switch and there will be a lot of pressure from the Dems to make him switch to increase their numbers. The irony of that is not lost. 734684[/snapback] I don't think that there is anything that would make it necessary for him to leave the Democratic Caucus. I am not sure about Connecticut law, but he could win a third party nomination without leaving the Democratic Party. He would never have to leave the Senate Democratic Caucus and I doubt anybody in the Senate would dare try to force him out. In fact, I think that would be a huge part of his campaign, that having Senate seniority makes him a better representative for all Connecticut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Author Share Posted August 3, 2006 I don't think that there is anything that would make it necessary for him to leave the Democratic Caucus. I am not sure about Connecticut law, but he could win a third party nomination without leaving the Democratic Party. He would never have to leave the Senate Democratic Caucus and I doubt anybody in the Senate would dare try to force him out. In fact, I think that would be a huge part of his campaign, that having Senate seniority makes him a better representative for all Connecticut. 734718[/snapback] No, I'm pretty sure that if Lamont wins the Dem nomination, Lieberman cannot also run as a Dem. Some of the Letters to the Editor in the Hartford Courant have suggested the 'Connecticut Sour Grapes Party.' The seniority argument didn't work for Tom Daschle (granted... different circumstances) and I don't think it has much influence in this state, to be blunt. Of course, he'll certainly pull it out of his bag of tricks. The differences w/in the party and indeed the electorate come at some of the major, major levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts