Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Now that's Lieberman's ahead of Lamont in the polls by 17 percent, it's a good time to remind yourself that Lamont can't possibly lose. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA" might help, too   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
71
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

574 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Oct 2006 at 6:15 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



71 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-20 5:24:04 PM  
"Democratic chairman Howard Dean praised Ned Lamont on Friday as the challenger dealt with a dose of bad news - a double-digit deficit in the latest poll.

"No one was going to stand up over the Iraq policy until Ned stood up and then the people stood up because Ned was a great leader," Dean said at a rally for Lamont and other Democratic candidates. "We need Ned Lamont."

The campaign event at a downtown Hartford sport bar came as a new poll showed three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman leading Lamont 52 percent to 35 percent among likely voters. Lieberman is running as an independent after Lamont rode a wave of anti-war sentiment to an Aug. 8 Democratic primary victory."


Why do the majority of Vermonters polled "Hate America?"
 
Thenixon
2006-10-20 5:34:10 PM  
TGOT: vermont?

/zing!
 
CHAZZZ
2006-10-20 5:34:14 PM  
He's only winning because the Republicans are voting for him. Are we still winning in Iraq Joe? Douchebag.
 
Gecko Gingrich
2006-10-20 5:36:08 PM  
If I've learned anything in this post 9/11 America, it's that pre-election polls can't predict the winner.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-20 5:36:15 PM  
... Connecticut. Yeah. Sorry bout that.

So - if the majority of the people in Connecticut want to vote for the Pro-War Lieberman, over the "great leader" that is Lamont, then what is Dean's answer to that?

LA LA LA!!!
 
wanago bob
2006-10-20 5:36:19 PM  
[image from static.flickr.com too old to be available]
hmmm, lala
 
5000_gallons_of_toothpaste
2006-10-20 5:38:27 PM  
52 and 35%? Does that mean that there will only be a 13% voter turnout?
 
Jon Snow
2006-10-20 5:39:35 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: I will support this Administration and its War until the bitter end, gladly enduring whatever feces hit me in the face as they shiat all over the Constitution.

Whoah, that's quite a mouthful, tommy!
 
Hyaku-Shiki
2006-10-20 5:40:12 PM  
According to electoral-vote the difference is 8 percent.

Regardless of the the outcome of the election, Lieberman is still an ass.
 
CHAZZZ
2006-10-20 5:40:37 PM  
[image from img.photobucket.com too old to be available]
 
Nabb1
2006-10-20 5:41:23 PM  
CHAZZZ: He's only winning because the Republicans are voting for him.

In Connecticut, that must be something on the order of dozens of voters.
 
CHAZZZ
2006-10-20 5:42:33 PM  
Nabb1: In Connecticut, that must be something on the order of dozens of voters.

I live in a very blue state and there are tons of Republicans around here.
 
Nabb1
2006-10-20 5:45:02 PM  
CHAZZZ: I live in a very blue state and there are tons of Republicans around here.

It's a joke. Conversely, I live decidedly "blue" city in a rather "red" state, although, red, blue, all that really matters is green - preferably in a paper bag left behind a dumpster or in a freezer...
 
rocker5969
2006-10-20 5:46:09 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: hy do the majority of Vermonters polled "Hate America?"

heh!

Thomas it is extremely sad when the republicans only chance of winning this race is by adopting a democrat as one of theirs.

Joe may win, but we're leaving iraq whether he likes it or not.

this just goes to show you why the republicans are a bunch of sad pathetic losers with only one thing they can run on.

/they had 2 things until Foley took that sex with teenage boys thing out of the running.
 
CHAZZZ
2006-10-20 5:49:21 PM  
Nabb1: , all that really matters is green

So true.
 
jimmyhaha
2006-10-20 5:50:14 PM  
Let's all gather round and watch thomas cheer the Democrats.
 
FriarTuck
2006-10-20 5:52:42 PM  
I am not shocked that people in Connecticut are not quite as liberal as they make themselves appear.
 
Lardass-Lothario
2006-10-20 5:57:25 PM  
FriarTuck: I am not shocked that people in Connecticut are not quite as liberal as they make themselves appear.

Not when there's money on the line, son.
 
BladBoy [TotalFark]
2006-10-20 5:57:46 PM  
From the people that brought you...

[image from donspage.com too old to be available]
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-20 6:07:53 PM  
Lieberman is a Democrat that I am proud to support, jimmyhaha.


Whats more interesting to me is how democrats treat a man now, who they've supported so much in 2000. Lieberman hasn't changed that much, he's never been that far to the left in the past. But the democrats sure seemed to have moved further left in a few short years.


On a related note, does anyone have the population / political affiliation breakdown on Conn? I mean, is the "democrat to republican" pie chart 80 / 20? What's the percentage?
 
willywanka
2006-10-20 6:10:13 PM  
take a look at what Lieberman's numbers looked like back in May of this year.
 
willywanka
2006-10-20 6:14:22 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: On a related note, does anyone have the population / political affiliation breakdown on Conn? I mean, is the "democrat to republican" pie chart 80 / 20? What's the percentage?

not sure, but their leadership is a fairly mixed bag. Both senators are democrats, but the governor and 3 of the 5 congressmen are republicans.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-20 6:18:42 PM  
I found this;

Political Analysis; In the 2000 Presidential election, Al Gore won Connecticut with 56% of the vote over George W. Bush's 38%. Connecticut's overall Democratic partisanship is 57.8%. Though conservative voters make up 42% of Connecticut's voting population, all five of the current congressional districts have Democratic partisanships. Under the proposed super districting plan, voters would likely elect three Democrats and two Republicans, a much better representation of the actual political breakdown of Connecticut.

http://www.fairvote.org/pr/super/2004/connecticut.htm

so .... this does not make sense to say that Lieberman's being ahead in the polls is beacuse of Republicans voting for him.

That's not enough. These numbers ( if accurate ) don't support that.
 
CHAZZZ
2006-10-20 6:23:11 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: so .... this does not make sense to say that Lieberman's being ahead in the polls is beacuse of Republicans voting for him.


It's the only reason.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-20 6:30:57 PM  
... Crap.


Sen. Joe Lieberman; 52 percent.

Conservative voters make up 42% of Connecticut's voting population,

Lamont; 35 percent.

Connecticut's overall Democratic partisanship is 57.8%.

I need to clarify. "is only beacuse" of republicans. My bad. Again.

To say that Lieberman is being supported by Republicans is true - and that's not as imporntant as the fact that so many democrats aren't polling for lamont. This should be the main point of the story. Like; "Dean campaigns for Lamont in Conn., as only half of democrats actually support Lamont."


If Conn. is 58% democrat, and Lamont is polling 35, then WTF is wrong with all the democrats that don't support him? - IF - the Iraq war is such a huge issue, and As the good doctor dean says, Lamont is such a great leader.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-20 6:48:48 PM  
/and WHO are the "disloyal" democrats that are voting for Lieberman.
 
Gooch [BareFark]
2006-10-20 6:54:29 PM  
Like him or not, Lieberman has accomplished a lot of good things for the people and businesses of Conneticut, even Ned Lamont was a Leiberman supporter and look how his business prospered. Most Conn. people don't give a shiat about the war now, they just want to make sure their bread keeps getting butter. The only thing the dummycrats accomplished in their primary was to push Leiberman into the arms of the right. Don't be surprised when he wins and joins the GOP.
 
Soup4Bonnie
2006-10-20 6:55:31 PM  
Why is Lieberman a democrat you are "proud to support", the_gospel_of_thomas?
 
orrinbloquy
2006-10-20 6:56:24 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas: Whats more interesting to me is how democrats treat a man now, who they've supported so much in 2000. Lieberman hasn't changed that much, he's never been that far to the left in the past. But the democrats sure seemed to have moved further left in a few short years.

Exactly how much did Republican voters care about Bush, Quayle, Kemp, or Cheney? Were any of them decision-makers/breakers for your parents? It's a fair question. I started thinking Joe was a dick about halfway through the 2000 election. I was voting for Gore, not Lieberman. It wasn't until 2001 that his true colors became as apparent as they are now.

During the 2004 election, I was working the Dean campaign and later the Kerry campaign. We thought Lieberman was a dick to be running for both his Senate seat and the nomination, and there were NO serious signs of support out here for him. People avoided making eye contact with the volunteer (singular) at the Lieberman table.

Spin it any way you like, but most VOTERS were not galvanized by either his personality or his voting record. When Richard Gephardt finally got it in Iowa that he wasn't going to be President, ever, he also understood he was dividing the party and he stepped down from the party leadership. That's taking one for the team no matter how you slice it.

I'd be inclined to go with the "brave individual" theory on Lieberman if his voting record weren't consistently in the Red camp.

I'd be inclined to treat him as a man of his word -- except that he was elected after tarring Lowell Weicker for missing votes -- then as soon as March 2003 rolled around Lieberman has consistently avoided votes on war-related issues.

You want an honorable moderate to lionize, go for it. But Joe's not a moderate; he's a coward, the kind of man who thinks his mandate is to tell video game manufacturers to stop imaginary violence and to tell his electorate that dissent with the President is unpatriotic. He's the White House's pet Jew-boy, convinced like McCain that there's some kind of political kickback coming his way in two years.
 
freidog
2006-10-20 7:04:41 PM  
the_gospel_of_thomas [TotalFark]
To say that Lieberman is being supported by Republicans is true - and that's not as imporntant as the fact that so many democrats aren't polling for lamont. This should be the main point of the story. Like; "Dean campaigns for Lamont in Conn., as only half of democrats actually support Lamont."

If Conn. is 58% democrat, and Lamont is polling 35, then WTF is wrong with all the democrats that don't support him? - IF - the Iraq war is such a huge issue, and As the good doctor dean says, Lamont is such a great leader.

You mean Conn. Democrats are smart enough to vote for a candidate rather than a party? Lamont barely won a majority of Democratic votes in the primary. When running against the same candidate in the general election I would not have expected that to change much, did you? Or was the (I) behind Liebermann supposed to make him untouchable?
 
popain
2006-10-20 7:04:56 PM  
you know what I hate most about elections?

polls.

they mean nothing.
 
Arnold T Pants
2006-10-20 7:08:14 PM  
Hyaku-Shiki: According to electoral-vote the difference is 8 percent.

You know that site only keeps track of polls, rilght? Once the site is updated it will show a 17 percent difference. It only shows 8 because it hasn't been updated yet. Of course the 'votemaster' will include something like 'I don't trust this poll' to highlight his bias.
 
the_gospel_of_thomas
2006-10-20 7:11:45 PM  
"Why is Lieberman a democrat you are "proud to support", the_gospel_of_thomas?"


Well, first off, he's not a crazy loon like Dean. (pre election)A Gore / Lieberman win in 2000 wouldn't have been that bad, since Gore didn't choose another loon to run as his Veep. (and POST election - I am sure as hell glad that Gore didn't win. )

Lieberman is like an old school Democrat. ( now, Independant ) as like the WW2 era democrats. For the most part, it didn't matter who was in office back then, a republican or a democrat. If one of the fringe democrats of today were to be president, Kucinich, McKinney .... whew, that would be a hard thing to accept. Almost as bad as having someone like Buchanan or Robertson as president.

I haven't kept track of Lieberman all that much over the years, but when I've watched him in the debates ( with Cheney, and the other democrats for the 04 nomination ) he seemed very well grounded and someone I would trust as president. Carol Mosley Braun, not so much. Gephardt, not so much. Sharpton, not so much. The democrats of today - the most vocal ones like Dean ( as an example ) are too messed up in the head with BDS to be taken seriously.

I mean, it's no major issue, Soup4Bonnie. If there are liberal republicans, I can see you supporting them as well, right?
 
God-is-a-Taco
2006-10-20 7:14:36 PM  
How dare Loserman flip-flop sides in his gay agenda to destroy America and support terrorists while cutting and running to ban the bible in Poland and make abortions mandatory for Mexicans.

I'll never be able to think of Lieberman as anything other than the personification of despair; the man successfully denigrated by the voting public as "Loserman".

Seriously. Loserman? "Vote for Bush, not Loserman!"
Flip flopper!
 
LarsThorwald
2006-10-20 7:15:15 PM  
I know this will rock TGOT to his very core, but--and I urge everyone to sit down and brace yourself against something heavy and unmovable, like a desk or Tyne Daly--not everyone who registers under or identifies with a political party always votes that way.

I'll give TGOT and like-minded others a chance to recover a little from that staggering fact.

Okay. Now hold on, because there's more.

Ready?

Astonishingly, many Democrats are likely to vote for Joe Lieberman because he has been a Democratic Senator from Connecticut for 18 years and was the Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, and votes with the Democrats 90% of the time, and is running against a Democratic candidate who has never held office, and is doing so under the self-designated label of Independent-Democrat.

Take a breath. Okay, now, here's the last shocker. Hold on, TGOT and similarly perspectived people, because this may be the biggest one of all.

Here goes:

Some people will be voting for Lieberman even though they are opposed to the Iraq war in some way because they are not single-issue voters.

Here, sit down. I'll go get you a glass of water while you take all that in.
 
March_Hare
2006-10-20 7:17:48 PM  
Suck it, gentiles!
 
Loki009
2006-10-20 7:19:56 PM  
LarsThorwald: Astonishingly, many Democrats are likely to vote for Joe Lieberman because he has been a Democratic Senator from Connecticut for 18 years and was the Vice Presidential nominee for the Democratic Party, and votes with the Democrats 90% of the time, and is running against a Democratic candidate who has never held office, and is doing so under the self-designated label of Independent-Democrat.


Some people will be voting for Lieberman even though they are opposed to the Iraq war in some way because they are not single-issue voters.

Exactly I couldnt have said it better myself. This is why i will be voting for lieberman on november 7th.
 
Soup4Bonnie
2006-10-20 7:23:36 PM  
If there are liberal republicans, I can see you supporting them as well, right?

If by liberal republican you mean fiscally conservative and socially liberal, then I would indeed give them a hard look and might throw my support behind them.

I don't see that mix in any particular candidate right now, and overall, I feel as if the republicans are too entrenched with the Good Ol' Boy network of the corporations, as well as not reflecting my thoughts on several key social issues to get my vote anytime soon.

Democrats, for the most part, don't make me jump with any joy, either. I just think the republicans are much much much much much further from the representation I would like to see.
 
willywanka
2006-10-20 7:29:23 PM  
a democratic majority also voted in a Republican governor and 3 republican congressmen. Why is cross party lines so difficult to understand?
 
clifton
2006-10-20 7:33:43 PM  
If by liberal republican you mean fiscally conservative and socially liberal, then I would indeed give them a hard look and might throw my support behind them.

Don't see that happening right now. America loves their big government and socially fundie politicians.
 
Hobodeluxe
2006-10-20 7:37:05 PM  
Ha Ha!! the Republicans can only carry 6% in that state. ha ha!!
 
Loki009
2006-10-20 7:48:34 PM  
Hobodeluxe: Ha Ha!! the Republicans can only carry 6% in that state. ha ha!!

Yet we have a republician governor and 3 republican congressmen?
 
Lionel Mandrake
2006-10-20 7:49:04 PM  
In the survey, Republican Alan Schlesinger trailed with 6 percent

The way I figure it, Dems cannot possibly lose...so "yay," indeed.
 
ProdigalSigh [OhFark]
2006-10-20 7:56:02 PM  
Of course, this has nothing to do with a 95% incumbency recidivism rate.
 
CHAZZZ
2006-10-20 7:56:40 PM  
Loki009: This is why i will be voting for lieberman on november 7th.

It doesn't bother you that he voted for the war and the Patriot act?
 
moops
2006-10-20 8:04:10 PM  
It's good times when the only election conservatives have to brag about is that of someone who will ultimately caucus with the Democratic Party.
 
clifton
2006-10-20 8:11:45 PM  
The "Dean is crazy" myth lives on ever since the "scream".
 
Loki009
2006-10-20 8:18:17 PM  
CHAZZZ: It doesn't bother you that he voted for the war and the Patriot act?

I do not agree with the reasons that we went to war in Iraq. However now that we are there i do believe we are bound to clean up the mess that we created. I believe that we should have sent more troops to help stabilise the region so that we can get done with it quicker.
 
MrGMan
2006-10-20 8:25:31 PM  
CHAZZZ

If voting for the war in Iraq and voting for the Patriot Act are conditions where a candidate should not be re-elected, there are going to be a LOT of incumbants (Dem and Rep) becoming Joe (or Jane) Citizen come January of next year.

Almost every member of Congress voted for the Patriot Act the first time around, as did a super-majority in the case of the Iraq war.
 
TheOther
2006-10-20 8:49:44 PM  
Democrats will likely need the three-term senator's vote in a closely divided Senate.

Republicans will vote for anything. Even Joe.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Farking, less working

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.