Lieberman loses Conn. Primary - will run as Independent

[HelenaCat95]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/ ... TE=DEFAULT

This race isnt' over. I think he has a good shot as winning as an Independent.

[Ponycat]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/ ... TE=DEFAULT

This race isnt' over. I think he has a good shot as winning as an Independent.

They don't call him fightin Joe for nothing. I hope he wins.

[catamaran]

Maybe after old Joe wins handily this fall, many people will realize that the partisan politics we've been dealing with these last few years are, after all is said and done, ridiculous and the issues are what matters (not whether you sport a donkey or an elephant)

[SonomaCat]

Maybe after old Joe wins handily this fall, many people will realize that the partisan politics we've been dealing with these last few years are, after all is said and done, ridiculous and the issues are what matters (not whether you sport a donkey or an elephant)

I'm not following ... weren't issues at the heart of this primary election? It can't be partisanship ... they are in the same party.

[catamaran]

That's some sort of a joke right. The main issue from the Dem side was that Lieberman was "too chummy" with Republicans, thus grabbing a millionaire anti war candidate who's only political experience was town councilman

[SonomaCat]

That's some sort of a joke right. The main issue from the Dem side was that Lieberman was "too chummy" with Republicans, thus grabbing a millionaire anti war candidate who's only political experience was town councilman

When you say "too chummy," doesn't that suggest that he is supporting issues that his constituents don't want their guy supporting (like, for instance, the war?). He's not particularly chummy with "Republicans," he's supporting Bush's hugely unpopular decisions ... and a vast majority of the population is unhappy with him.

Considering that many Republicans up for reelection are distancing themselves from Bush, wouldn't it make sense that a Democrat in a primary election would be best served to do the same? But Lieberman didn't ... and it killed him. Those are issues-based decisions being made by the voters.

Aren't you just spinning an issues-based election into a partisan thing because you think he is right on the issues (and perhaps assuming that no rational voter could disagree with those positions, thus leaving only Dem on Dem partisanship as the explanation)?

And you act dismissively about his opponent ... what is wrong with a guy who is wealthy and has served as a town councilman? Does that make him unqualified to be a Senator? And if so ... can you think of any Senators or Governors that were less qualified prior to being elected?

[catamaran]

Sorry, I forgot if someone disagrees with your opinion, they are prone to "spin" Mr. O'Reilly lite. Lieberman is losing an ideological war. He's not on the far left fringe so he's automatically "too conservative" for his party

[SonomaCat]

Sorry, I forgot if someone disagrees with your opinion, they are prone to "spin" Mr. O'Reilly lite. Lieberman is losing an ideological war. He's not on the far left fringe so he's automatically "too conservative" for his party

Well ... using terms like "far left fringe" when describing candidates that aren't anywhere near that in reality is generally a good sign that somebody is inserting some partisan slant into the discussion.

From your perspective, what issues is Lamont weak on that Lieberman is better on? Do you know anything about him beyond the fact that he is against the war in Iraq (along with 60+% of the population)?

You are the one insulting the intelligence of the Democratic voters of CT (one of the wealthiest and most educated states in the country) by suggesting that they are voting out of some sort of spite as opposed to voting for the candidate who most closely represents their ideals. When you make statements like that, you open yourself up to questions and requests to justify your statements in a substantive manner.

And I agree that Lieberman lost an ideological war in this campaign ... but isn't that what every election is? But I think where we part ways in thinking is that I don't think the ideological divide is a simple liberal/conservative thing. It goes into much more granularity (and clarity) than that.

[SonomaCat]

And if this election was truly a statement by the Democratic Party that it is moving to the left, does the loss by Cynthia McKinney (a true radical lefty) by a much more conservative Democrat in Georgia signal that McKinney is just too liberal for the Democrats?

I don't think so, personally. I think it was a fair decision on the voters in that district based on the merits of the two candidates, similar to the Lamont/Lieberman election.

[Ponycat]

I agree on some of both your arguements. Lieberman to me is a guy who like McCain actually does get over the partasan bickering and reaches across the aisle which is what everybody says they want (and we will see once the General is over if Conn. really wants this). That being said if you want to attack him on his stance on Iraq that is legit but continually running ads, that from what I saw, don't talk issues but only focuses on Leiberman's relationship with Bush (a kiss on the cheek) that isn't issued based. I have a feeling, though, that MoveOn.org was probably responsible for most of those ads.

It's probably much like the Senate race here in MT. The candidates seem to be running good issue based ads, but then the Senatorial committees and parties get involved and run nothing but decieving ads.

[catamaran]

I would be just as likely to use "far right fringe" as well. Democrats (and Republicans) are different from state to state, as is witnessed in states like our very own making the ouster of McKinney and Lieberman probably different. (I happen to like Joe, hence my defense of him, while I know little about McKinney other than her incident earlier this year). The ideological shift is mostly apparent to me in national elections, not those at the state level.

[crazycat]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/ ... TE=DEFAULT

This race isnt' over. I think he has a good shot as winning as an Independent.

Anyone not distancing themselves from the war and President Bush is not likely to win. Be they Democrat or Republican. This election has little to do with party. If you're in office and are tightly aligned with President Bush and the war, you're probably in trouble. This is why so many in office have distanced themselves from President Bush. It's gone beyond the point of no return unless something drastic happens soon.