१७ ऑगस्ट, २००६
75% of Connecticut Republicans back Lieberman.
And even Lamont has more Republican supporters than the Republican nominee, Schlesinger. Anyway, overall, Lieberman is polling at 53%, with Lamont at 41%. Wonder what they're saying over at DailyKos? Nothing since yesterday, when McJoan wrote Lieberman should be stripped of his seniority if he wins -- which she seems to be saying because his seniority is one argument for reelecting him.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३२ टिप्पण्या:
With Joe starting to poll over 50%, any "bounce" that Lamont enjoyed thanks to winning the democrat primary has died off.
(I love how they compare the results to the July polls in order to show Lamont as "gaining" on Sen. Lieberman. Compared to last week's polling data - post Democratic primary - Lamont held steady at 41%, while Lieberman picked up 7% of voters. If the facts don't line up the way you want them to....just re-frame the issue until they do.)
How exactly is Lamont going to win over new voters? Moving left isn't going to have any benefit, and moving to the right alienates him from his staunch support base. It's hard for me to imagine Lamont ever polling much higher than he is now.
I think it would be a politician's dream to be free from the party. The party can always threaten you. "If you go against us, we will campaign against you, blah blah. With Lieberman, that argument will no longer work. Lieberman will owe the Democratic party nothing if he wins.
Lieberman will be a force in the Senate because it will be closely divided once again and Lieberman will owe nothing to the party (and Lieberman's constituency will be a mix as well).
The Lieberman election is a nightmare for Democrats. This race will become the most followed race in the country. It's bad for Democrats to have the spotlight on a race that highlights the national security issue. It would be much better for democrats to have the big race between some other issue, such as Tom Delay. Unfortunately for Democrats, the 2006 elections are going to be about national security. They are going to be about the differences between Lieberman/Lamont. No big deal that Lieberman Lamont probably agree on 95% of issues, those were not the issues that got voters to vote for Lamont.
I'm kind of confused by the Republicans. I understand why many Republicans would support Lieberman. But how can only ten percent of Republicans support their own nominee? And how is it that Lamont, the opposing party's nominee and the candidate generally perceived as most liberal, would garner more support than the weak Republican nominee. It just seems like there's either something flawed in the poll methodology or there's something I'm not seeing that would help it all make sense to me.
Joe,
Maybe those REPs not playing partisan game theory, but rather who they'd rather have representing them.
I vote GOP most times in VA, but we have open primaries and I crossed over in June to vote for Webb, rather than the other DEM loser or George Allen, cause I'd rather have EITHER Webb or Allen over the no name guy I've already forgotten.
Frankly Lamont is toast. He's self defined far left. Lieberman is left of center. The GOP guy doesn't make the charts.
Lamont can't come right without bumping into lieberman. Joe has a whole spectrum other than far left from which to turn out votes.
Seems that the support of CT Republicans only goes to show that the Democrats were right to vote for Lamont in the primary. The key complaint against Lieberman was not merely the war in Iraq, but rather that Lieberman has consistently acted as DemocratInNameOnly (DINO). So why shouldn't the Democrats have selected someone other then Liberman? The support he enjoys from Republicans only shows that he is George Bush's favorite Democrat.
Re: Dave:
So, if the republican candidate, Schlesinger, is a character out of Ashcroft's wet dream, it stands to reason that a relatively centrist/right Democrat such as Lieberman would enthrall CT Republicans.
As to the question of Schlesinger's stance on issues: I don't know if he's a conservative but if he is that would explain CT Repub's embrace of Lieberman.
I think Schlesinger has had some gambling scandals come out recently. Sued by some casinos for gambling debts, and assuming a false name since he had a reputation for counting cards. Or something like that. Republicans, as far as I can see, generally seem to think he's a pretty weak candidate in any event, and has no chance of winning.
He may also be a conservative, but I too know nothing at all about his actual views.
Re: BARD
Seems that the support of CT Republicans only goes to show that the Democrats were right to vote for Lamont in the primary. The key complaint against Lieberman was not merely the war in Iraq, but rather that Lieberman has consistently acted as DemocratInNameOnly (DINO). So why shouldn't the Democrats have selected someone other then Liberman? The support he enjoys from Republicans only shows that he is George Bush's favorite Democrat.
Well, between the two candidates who actually have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, most Republicans surely prefer Lieberman over Lamont.
The support he enjoys from Republicans thus indicates no more than that Republicans are capable of strategic voting -- "their" candidate, Schlesinger, simply has no realistic chance of winning. But they don't want Lamont to win, and they support Lieberman on the war (if nothing else). So they vote for Lieberman.
If the Republican candidate can't win, then CT Republicans' choice is between Lamont and Lieberman, and CT Republicans have a pretty strong preference between those two. Voting isn't just about expressing yourself, it is also about choosing between real alternatives.
That said, I've heard Lieberman has been firing his campaign staff left and right -- I can only imagine that's going to hurt his "get out the vote" efforts when the actual election comes around. Even if he retains his lead, or increases it, superior Kossack organisation could still sink him.
If I were a liberal democrat, I probably would have been in favor of dumping Lieberman, though he is not quite a DINO. He was picked to be the VP in 2000.
I think Lieberman might have been talked out of running if their hadn't been so much hatred and meanspiritedness thrown his way, with much of it coming from these blogs like firedoglake and many of the comments on Kos's site were pretty dispicable. Then again, if these blogs didn't smear, dehumanize and ridicule Lieberman, maybe their followers wouldn't have been so enthused about Lamont.
If Lieberman is a DINO, then it is an admission that the Democratic party is not serious on national security. When they refer to their only hawk as a DINO (who votes with Dems 90% of the time), then they have a serious problem with mainstream America.
75% of Republicans support Lieberman, and conservative pundits claim to be mystified as to why the Democrats didn't re-nominate him? Is there a better indication of how Lieberman no longer represents the wishes of Democrats than the poll showing that 75% of Republicans support him?
75% of Republican don't support Lieberman. They support Lieberman over Lamont.
The GOP nominee is going to lose. They're smart to pick between the candidates who may actually win.
You can always count on the democrats to find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. With the chance to regain the Senate, they will lose a safe Democratic seat to an independent. Way to go guys!
Given a choice between Trotsky and Stalin, I'd probably hold my nose and vote for Trotsky. Lots of right-leaning mild libertarians with large record collections would make the same reluctant choice.
So, according to Terry, that proves that Trotsky was not merely a pro-RKBA, pro-gay marriage fiscal conservative, but also a fan of Keith Richards and Tom Waits.
What that in turn proves about Terry is left as an exercise for the student.
What kind of ratings do NOW and NARAL give Lieberman? 100% from NARAL. Only 75% from NOW, higher than virtually all Republicans and middlin' for a Democrat. 88% from some gay organization. The conservative American Family Association gives him a zero rating for presumably failing to "change the culture to reflect Biblical truth". Whatever the hell that means.
Joseph Hovsep wrote: And how is it that Lamont, the opposing party's nominee and the candidate generally perceived as most liberal, would garner more support than the weak Republican nominee[?] It just seems like there's either something flawed in the poll methodology or there's something I'm not seeing that would help it all make sense to me.
Since I don't believe anyone has addressed why Lamont would outpoll the Republican nominee amongst Republican's, I'll toss out this bit of speculation: Anti-(Iraq)War Republicans might vote for Lamont over both Lieberman and the Republican nominee if they feel that's the most important issue.
VW: Yelowo
I really loved "One Second" back in the day....
Joseph Hovsep said...
"I'm kind of confused by the Republicans. I understand why many Republicans would support Lieberman. But how can only ten percent of Republicans support their own nominee?"
Perhaps because when your sworn enemy is in the process of falling on their sword, it's a smart move to hold the sword steady for them while they fall forwards.
Terry said...
" 75% of Republicans support Lieberman, and conservative pundits claim to be mystified as to why the Democrats didn't re-nominate him?"
They support him because he can beat the Democratic nominee, you twit.
Rodish hit the nail on the head, BTW.
Has Lieberman stated who hewill caucus with if he were to win the election? It would seem to me that he would lose support among Republicans if he were to say he would caucus with Dems (and vice versa).
I believe he stated, before the primary, that even if he runs as an independent, he will caucus with the Democrats. That may change, though, if Democrats keep up with the blackface and the "Rape Gurney Joe" -- at some point basic human decency probably trumps policy agreement.
Ah, it appears Lieberman has indeed indicated he will continue to caucus with the Democrats if elected. Down towards the bottom it says he told Reid so. See also the articles here and here. I think Republicans are broadly aware of this.
Lieberman is blessed by good luck as well - if Schlesinger were even a halfway decent candidate Republicans might have been split by voting for their man and Lieberman, splitting the right-leaning votes between the two of them while letting the left-leaning votes unite behind Lamont.
In most circumstances Lieberman would have been toast. Instead, there's a good chance he'll be entering a strange new act in his political career.
verification: qboqgy - perhaps a mutant tapir ravaging a village someplace?
Balfegor said...
Ah, it appears Lieberman has indeed indicated he will continue to caucus with the Democrats if elected.
unless the Kossacks get their way and DEMs keep talking about stripping Joe of his assignments.
Having Joe win, then p_ssing him off, means you need to win an additional Senate seat to have the same DEM power base. I'd welcome back after the election
I think Lieberman's success could be a good thing, if it encouraged people in both parties to move to the center. However, his connection to the war may still be difficult. One is only "strong on defense" if the war policy you support is successful. If it fails, you are not "strong on defense". Many conservatives (Will, Buckley, Scarborough) are seeing that. Soon, republicans who don't trust the media but trust them, will see it, too.
For what it's worth, Markos didn't diary this today because he hasn't diaries anything all week -- he's on vacation, out of the country.
There were plenty of diaries down the side of the page on the poll.
Adam: There's ongoing material on the main page. That's what I'm looking at. I didn't specifically reference Markos. As for the diaries, you're right. I don't read them. Anyone who wants can discuss them.
Yes, Sen. Lieberman has indicated that he would continue to caucus with the Democrats if he wins as an independant. But what happens if the threat to strip him of seniority is carried out? Is he really so dedicated to the Democratic party that he would turn down a major committee chairmanship if he were to jump the isle? Esp. if that would give the Republicans the Senate? I think he might surprise everyone.
I think that he was a bit more towards the center before being forced to the left as Gore's running mate. Never a conservative, of course, but we may see a more centrist Lieberman, should he be reelected, this time as an independent.
One thing is likely though - an independent Sen. Lieberman is likely to be enough of a maverick that even Sen. McCain will look like a party loyalist - esp. if they strip him of seniority.
Adam said...
"For what it's worth, Markos didn't diary this today because he hasn't diaries anything all week -- he's on vacation, out of the country."
How convenient! His movement has succeeded in humiliating itself and depriving the Democratic party of a safe seat, and he's fled the country!
Joe is a liberal democrat on every issue but the war - which says a lot about the state of liberal democrats these days...
I think it says just as much about how important people consider the war as an issue relative to other issues. Its not just that Joe is not liberal enough (that's not really it at all) or that he's so deferential to Bush (its kind of that) or that he too frequently attacks his fellow Democrats (that's a big factor), it mostly that he been an unashamed and vocal supporter of a war that most Connecticut voters and Connecticut Democrats think turned out to have been a very bad idea with bad results and Lieberman has barely moderated his support for the Bush administration's handling of it. Whether you support the war or not, its hard to deny that it IS the most important issue facing the country and Lieberman's position is out of step with his constituents.
that most Connecticut voters and Connecticut Democrats think turned out to have been a very bad idea with bad results
Connecticut Democrats, yes, but Connecticut voters? I don't think we can conclude so from Lieberman, since he's polling at over 50%. He's winning with the public, just not with his party.
It may be that the public disagree with him on the war, but unlike Democratic primary voters, don't consider the war to be as important as non-war issues. Or, like the 75% of Republicans apparently supporting him, that they do consider the war to be so important that it trumps his other views (although, as I argued above, it's probably just that Republicans won't get someone who represents those other views anyway, so they may as well make do). So you may be right. But it doesn't play out directly in electoral terms.
Joseph Hovsep said...
"I think it says just as much about how important people consider the war as an issue relative to other issues."
I join Balfegor's reply, but would add that I think most of the people for whom the war is THE issue are on the left wing of the Democratic party. Even if you're correct that a majority really do oppose the war (something that isn't entirely clear) that does not mean that they agree with the Democratic party's solution -- that is, if the Democrats have a solution, and have simply very skillfully kept it concealed ready to be whipped out once campaign season gets into high gear -- or that they regard the war as being of paramount importance, sufficient to make them vote Democratic against their better judgement.
It perhaps bears noting that according to the exit polls, almost half of Lamont voters did so in opposition to the war, and almost a quarter actually cast a vote for their U.S. Senator nominee - I'm not making this up - because "He would oppose Bush." An absolutely humiliating three percent voted for Lamont qua Lamont.
"Lamont's weakness against terror will get American civilians killed by the thousands."
What nonsense. Lamont opposes one of the stupidest wars ever started by an American president, one which has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा