Lieberman - WTF?
- Thread starter deep
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Bluer White
New Yorker
Will the Lamont Left be supporting Hillary in '08?
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
It's now down to an 8% lead. (as of 9:14
Even though there are a LOT of precincts yet to report, I find it hard to believe that the rest will go for Lieberman to give him a victory.
Even though there are a LOT of precincts yet to report, I find it hard to believe that the rest will go for Lieberman to give him a victory.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U.S. Senate - - Dem Primary
376 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 50.27%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 70,444 52.13
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 64,700 47.87
376 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 50.27%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 70,444 52.13
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 64,700 47.87
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
It's close, but i'm pretty certain Lamont has it.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
I'm not so sure this is even close. Lamont has it and Lieberman's history.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Rumours of Liebermans death will be greatly exaggerated.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
Drudge...
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Lieberman concedes 
.
Wonder how he'll do as an independent.
.Wonder how he'll do as an independent.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
ntalwar said:Lieberman concedes
Wonder how he'll do as an independent.
Were Republicans and Independents allowed to vote in the Democratic primary? If they were not, then this Billionaire dude will probably be toast in a few weeks.
ntalwar
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I'm not sure about that - but it'll be a 3 way race with the Republican in the mix.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
we should just get rid of political parties and let everyone run on their own merit...
lieberman, who just 6 years ago was tabbed as the Dem's VP nominee, took a stand that is unpopular with the democratic hieryarchy, and got screwed for doing so.
wether you agree with the stance he took or not, it's still kinda sad.
lieberman, who just 6 years ago was tabbed as the Dem's VP nominee, took a stand that is unpopular with the democratic hieryarchy, and got screwed for doing so.
wether you agree with the stance he took or not, it's still kinda sad.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Again, political office is not an entitlement for incumbent politicians. Considering the mess our Congress has been for years, perhaps more people should have the courage to unseat their incumbents if they disagree with them. I'm tired of people voting on fear.
This is why I have advocated replacing primaries with runoff elections. Just as all of America votes on one day in November, we should all vote on one day earlier in the year. My main beef with primaries is that they do little but to maintain the power of the two party system, and in the case of presidential primaries, we essentially have only two or three states who decide on the candidate, while the rest just vote like sheep. I would strongly support a move to completely abolish primaries and setup a runoff election like how Louisiana currently does, where if no one candidate gets 50% of the vote, another final election will take place amongst the top two candidates. That way, no matter how many Republicans, Democrats, or third-party candidates there are, they are all on equal footing and everyone's vote will truly count. I don't give a flying fuck about Iowa or New Hampshire, and they certainly don't give one about me.
Melon
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Aren't primaries ingrained in the party structure? Forgive my ignorance on American electoral law but are there actual restrictions that would prevent say a fascist party just appointing candidates to contest at the election?
A_Wanderer said:
No. Anyone, assuming that they follow appropriate residency and citizenship laws, can run for any office. It is not illegal to hold fascist ideas, and, as such, there would be no restrictions on their candidacy. David Duke, the infamous white nationalist, took a serious run for the GOP presidential nomination in 1992...by lying through his teeth that he had reformed. He also had a couple U.S. Senate runs after that, where it was more than obvious that he was still as much of an extremist as ever.
Of course, all of this is predicated on the idea that Americans would not choose an extremist candidate, and that was the case with David Duke too. He lost resoundingly in every election.
Melon
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i don't think this has anything to do with the Democratic heirarchy -- hawkish Democrats, like HRC, who is certainly at the very top of the Democratic food chain, are going to win in a landslide in November. Lieberman is a special case; he is to the right of many Republicans on the war, he has not criticized the conduct of the war as opposed to a good part of even the Republican Party, such has the mismanagement of the war been. he's to the right of pundits like Wiliam F. Buckley and Bill Kirstol. his position on Iraq is as far out of the mainstream, and as divorced from reality, as the administration itself.
Headache in a Suitcase said:
I think you're totally wrong here.
The democratic "hierarchy" are people who would love to maintain the status quo because that's what they've done for years now. It's much more problematic for this "hierarchy" to have to deal with the fact that the people are ready to toss out their incumbents if they don't like them.
They are supporting Lamont now because he won the primary. Before that, they were openly split, with Chris Dodd campaigning for Lieberman as recently as yesterday. So no, I disagree he's being pushed out by the hierarchy at all.
Nevermind the DC crowd who either all openly endorsed Lieberman before the result or stayed mum.
Nevermind the DC crowd who either all openly endorsed Lieberman before the result or stayed mum.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
anitram said:
and Bill Clinton showed up in CT to stump for Leiberman, someone who trumps all other Dems in the state.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
The pundits are saying this will hurt the Democrats. Did they shoot themselves in the foot? Time will tell, I suppose.
anitram said:
I will agree the national leadership supported Lieberman.
I disagree that the state leadership did based on the fact that my family members are actively involved in CT politics as delegates to the CT state convention.
I think you are missing the fact that there is a can be a BIG difference between national party politics and state politics.
OP
OP
deep
Blue Crack Addict
So who won this race last night.
The Incumbent Republican Congressman , that George Bush and John McCain came in and stumped for?
or the fundamentalist Preacher, anti-gay, anti-stem cell, anti-choice?
Remember the GOP establishment lined up behind Rep. Schwartz.
Dreadsox said:
With due respect, I'm not.
Lamont garnered 33.465871438% of the votes of the CT democratic delegates. That's a better statistic than any anecdotes. So considering that 2/3 of the delegates still initially supported Lieberman, how can you argue that he was pushed out by them? Sorry, the math doesn't add up.
Similar threads
