Lieberman Leaving Dems?

[jdobbin]

Looks like your guy's still losing, although the Zogby poll shows a closer race.

And I repeat:

"And so what if Lieberman wins? He will caucus with the Democrats anyway. Two years of him and others supporting the Iraq war could lose the Republicans the presidency."

[August1991]

And I repeat:

"And so what if Lieberman wins? He will caucus with the Democrats anyway. Two years of him and others supporting the Iraq war could lose the Republicans the presidency."

Let's wait and see:

With 18 years of Senate seniority on the line in his Nov. 7 run against the Democratic candidate Ned Lamont, the latest Quinnipiac University poll shows Lieberman ahead by 17 points.

Lieberman's success is due to the unprecedented support of GOP voters willing to cross over to keep a moderate in the Democratic Party.

Link

The radical fringe of the Democratic Party may interpret the Congressionals as a victory (and we're still weeks away) but they'd be wiser to look at Connecticut for what the future truly holds.

[jdobbin]

The radical fringe of the Democratic Party may interpret the Congressionals as a victory (and we're still weeks away) but they'd be wiser to look at Connecticut for what the future truly holds.

So you think that Lieberman will not be opposed to most other Bush policies?

[Black Dog]

The radical fringe of the Democratic Party may interpret the Congressionals as a victory (and we're still weeks away) but they'd be wiser to look at Connecticut for what the future truly holds.

Ah, so "moderate" Democrats are, in fact, Republicans. I repeat: if the GOP is supporting a Democratic candidate, then that candidate cannot be resonably considered a Democrat.

[Shady]

RealClearPolitics.com has Lieberman up by 12.5% on Lamont. Looks like Joementum is outta control, and it looks like the far-left wingers cost the Dems a senate seat.

Link

I repeat: if the GOP is supporting a Democratic candidate, then that candidate cannot be resonably considered a Democrat.

You might be right, however, that would mean that the majority of people in Connecticut prefer a more Conservative senator. So either way, democracy wins.

[jdobbin]

RealClearPolitics.com has Lieberman up by 12.5% on Lamont. Looks like Joementum is outta control, and it looks like the far-left wingers cost the Dems a senate seat.

Link

I repeat: if the GOP is supporting a Democratic candidate, then that candidate cannot be resonably considered a Democrat.

You might be right, however, that would mean that the majority of people in Connecticut prefer a more Conservative senator. So either way, democracy wins.

So this means Lieberman supports Bush's economic platform or won't vote as a block with Democrats on a majority of issues?

[ft.niagara]

So this means Lieberman supports Bush's economic platform or won't vote as a block with Democrats on a majority of issues?

I think that Lieberman being Jewish, is also a supporter of Israel. Iraq is in the Middle East. A stable Middle East is in the best interest of Israel, and probably the rest of the world. Lieberman was defeated in the primary because of the issue of Iraq, not Bush and economic policy.

[jdobbin]

I think that Lieberman being Jewish, is also a supporter of Israel. Iraq is in the Middle East. A stable Middle East is in the best interest of Israel, and probably the rest of the world. Lieberman was defeated in the primary because of the issue of Iraq, not Bush and economic policy.

I think that is true. I don't know how the Republicans supporting Lieberman is a total victory for the party. Asidd from a few issues, the man is a Democrat. Perhaps if Lieberman joined the Republicans after being elected but I think the chances of that happening are slim.

[August1991]

Lieberman victory included anti-war voters, poll shows

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's support of the Iraq war did not deter his most ardent supporters, including some who voted for the 18-year incumbent Tuesday despite their strong opposition to the war and the Bush administration.

Boston Globe

The spin starts.

The radical Dems are going to interpret the mid-terms as an anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-progressive vote. They'll loudly dominate the Democratic Party in the next two years.

So, just to be clear: the defeat of a pro-war candidate in an anti-war state in a country where the majority of people now oppose the war and where the war will be a key issue in the upcoming election is somehow bad for the victors. I think I'm going to lie down now, all that recycled conventional wisdom is making me sleepy.

Wake up and smell the coffee, BD.

[Riverwind]

The spin starts.

Anyone claiming that Lieberman's victory was a victory for pro-war advocates are the one's doing the spinning:

Some unaffiliated voters who cast their ballots Tuesday cited Lieberman's experience in their decision, while others said they respected his willingness to break ranks with the party line on issues about which he feels strongly.

"I like Joe. I disagree with some of the stuff he's done, but I agree with a lot of the rest of it," said West Hartford resident Tamara Kribs, an unaffiliated voter.

Lieberman won because of name recognition and the publicity surrounding his defeat at the democratic primaries.

The war was _the_ issue in this campaign. The economy is humming, the DOW is hitting record highs and the jobless rate is hitting record lows. In any normal circumstance the incumbents should have sailed back into office. That did not happen.

[August1991]

The war was _the_ issue in this campaign.

Spin.

[Riverwind]

The war was _the_ issue in this campaign.

Spin.

Denial

[Black Dog]

The radical Dems are going to interpret the mid-terms as an anti-Bush, anti-war, pro-progressive vote. They'll loudly dominate the Democratic Party in the next two years.

Y'know, August, I find your antics humourous at times: the broad, sweeping generalizations, the puffy verbiage that circles the outskirts of a point, but never quite has the nerve to approach it and ask it to dance, the speculatve opinions announced with the grim finality of fact...all vintage stuff. But you've been in rare form today. Tell, me, August: what was the cause of this Democrat tide?

[August1991]

Tell, me, August: what was the cause of this Democrat tide?

Mostly sixth year blues. Also, falling house prices, an economy on the edge of a recession, a couple of hypocrisy scandals. Alot of local issues. True, the MSM is reporting the war in a negative light as if it's another Vietnam quagmire. (It's not.)

But even with this, the Dems didn't get the Senate (it's a tie) and they didn't win a landslide in the House.

More important, this was not a referendum on the war. This is not a victory for the left wing fringe of the Democratic Party - although that's how they'll view it.

It's a little like a byelection in Canada. You know the government will stay in place.

If the Dems win in 2008, then I'll change my opinion.

... the puffy verbiage that circles the outskirts of a point, but never quite has the nerve to approach it and ask it to dance...

WTF? Are you accusing me of being awshucks shy?

[Riverwind]

Mostly sixth year blues. Also, falling house prices, an economy on the edge of a recession, a couple of hypocrisy scandals. Alot of local issues

The economy is booming, real estate is down but so are gas prices. Unemployment is low too. You can't use the economy to explain what happened. You also can't use 'local issues' either because not one democrat lost their seat. If local issues were important than you should have seen a few democrats lose because of something local. That did not happen which clearly suggests that this election was about the national issues.

But even with this, the Dems didn't get the Senate (it's a tie) and they didn't win a landslide in the House.

1) The US system makes it virtually impossible for a party to take over the Senate in one election since only 1/3 of the seats are even up for grabs.

2) Republican governors have been using their power to redraw congressional districts to ensure that Republicans get elected. The fact that Democrats made so many in roads in spite of this suggests that a political shift is taking place much like the shift that happened in 1994.

A lot could happen in the next 2 years and the Democrats could screw up this opportunity but I think it is rediculous to suggest that it is anything other than an repudiation of the direction Bush has taken the country in.

[jdobbin]

The war was _the_ issue in this campaign.

Spin.

This is what the exit polls said. You have evidence that there was something else behind the turn of events?

[jdobbin]

Lieberman victory included anti-war voters, poll shows

U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman's support of the Iraq war did not deter his most ardent supporters, including some who voted for the 18-year incumbent Tuesday despite their strong opposition to the war and the Bush administration.

Boston Globe

The spin starts.

What wacko Democrats are you referring to?

[jdobbin]

Mostly sixth year blues. Also, falling house prices, an economy on the edge of a recession, a couple of hypocrisy scandals. Alot of local issues. True, the MSM is reporting the war in a negative light as if it's another Vietnam quagmire. (It's not.)

But even with this, the Dems didn't get the Senate (it's a tie) and they didn't win a landslide in the House.

More important, this was not a referendum on the war. This is not a victory for the left wing fringe of the Democratic Party - although that's how they'll view it.

It's a little like a byelection in Canada. You know the government will stay in place.

If the Dems win in 2008, then I'll change my opinion.

The economy wasn't being played out as a bad news story by either party. No one mentioned housing as being an issue yet. Have you seen something to indicate it was? Local issues did have an effect but every exit poll and all the polls in advance of the election said that people had lost faith in the Republicans in winning it or ending it.

You obviously have faith in the war in Iraq and Bush as well as Rumsfeld but obviously Republicans didn't want Bush campaigning with them and they certainly didn't want Rumsfeld to say a peep about how they had sectarian violence on the run.

A landslide in the House was not expected. A win was. The Democrats have a win. The Senate is still a question.

And it isn't like a bye-election. Their system is so different from Canada's as to make that term meaningless.

[Black Dog]

But even with this, the Dems didn't get the Senate (it's a tie) and they didn't win a landslide in the House.

They held every seat in both and gained 27 in the House. Not 1994, granted, but still decisive.

More important, this was not a referendum on the war. This is not a victory for the left wing fringe of the Democratic Party - although that's how they'll view it.

It's a little like a byelection in Canada. You know the government will stay in place.

If the Dems win in 2008, then I'll change my opinion.

Gee, such a bold stance.

WTF? Are you accusing me of being awshucks shy?

No: vacuous.