Does the defeat of pro-Bush Democrat Joe Lieberman and the apparent coming primary defeat of the Republican governor of Alaska Frank Murkowski mean trouble overall for Republicans this November?
2006-08-15 07:17:36 · 13 answers · asked by Michael H 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Since when was Lieberman "pro-Bush", Hillary voted the same way he did, why isn't she pro-Bush? The ONLY thing he voted with Bush on was national security, he has a 80+% liberal voting record and had much more experience than Lamont. It all means defeat for the Dems again, the average American voter abhors liberals and what they stand for. Did you notice Jackson and Sharpton grinning from ear to ear just behind Lamont, that was the end of him politically.
2006-08-15 07:31:23 · answer #1 · answered by Mr.Wise 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ANOTHER VIEW -- probably wrong.
MOST democrats (especially "core" democrats, are strongly against the war).
While MANY republicans are against the war, I am not sure that MOST republicans (and certainly not the core republicans) are against the war.
What does this mean. Right now, George Bush has horrendous poll numbers. Only 30% of Americans approve of his job performance. But we can safely assume that most of those are republicans, which make up approximately 40% of the electorate (20% independent, 40% republican; 40% democrat).
So what? So ... democrat who supports the Iraq war is going to have virtually no support from core democrats, but a republican who supports the war will still have support from his core republicans.
Also, it appears that there is more of an "anti-Bush" feeling than "anti-republican" feeling. This is why many republicans are not asking Bush to travel with him. They still say: we have a plan, it is working, and while we are off track a little bit, we are going to be alot more careful to oversee foreign policy.
Finally, as Tip O'Neill (famous NY Democrat) once said: "all politics are local." It seems likely that many many people believe the republicans have them off track, but that "Their" republican is an exception.
As a result, I do not expect to see much turnover in the next election.
I hope I am wrong.
2006-08-15 07:35:10 · answer #2 · answered by robert_dod 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lieberman voted with the democrats 90 percent of the time, but somehow he wasn't democrat enough and he was pro-bush.
Look at it the other way. Does the defeat of anti-bush Cynthia McKinney mean trouble for the ultra-liberal Bush hater?
2006-08-15 07:24:38 · answer #3 · answered by JB 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unlikely. In order for any party to win, they must get the moderate independent vote. The cut off of Lieberman by the Democrats may have helped the Republican party get that moderate vote. We'll see....
2006-08-15 07:25:05 · answer #4 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it does. I think the only way a republican can stay in the white house is if Mccain is the president, and thats only because he is more in the middle than right
2006-08-15 07:28:34 · answer #5 · answered by PMW1718 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
to respond to the question, no i do no longer imagine Lieberman counseled McCain because he's white, he counseled him because he idea he grow to be going to choose him as his vice chairman operating mate, i imagine Powell had to imagine lengthy and hard formerly making his endorsement, yet Barack were given it so it really is the end of it. have you ever "googled" John McCain even as he ran for President adversarial to George Bush...did you recognize that George Bush campaigners referred to as John McCain unstabled...it really is something to imagine about. also the pre recorded message that the McCain Camp has going out throughout conflict floor states are coming from the same those who George Bush used to undesirable mouth McCain. i'd be so satisfied even as Barack Obama win this and we may be able to get American back at the same time back and get our sons out of Iraq, if the human beings there opt to augment their existence-type it really is fantastic, yet we merely opt to us the protection stress to guard our borders and we won't be able to might want to be overseas killing our sons. i'm for us of a first, yet i'm sick and uninterested in this conflict.
2016-11-25 19:28:03 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No they still have the voting machines. All this means is that if you support the continuing occupation of Iraq "The People" will not support you.
2006-08-15 07:25:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means trouble for the Zionist lobbyists in Washington....
2006-08-15 07:21:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
who knows... but many are clearly unhappy with Bush... and the war in Iraq isn't quite the "draw" it used to be...
2006-08-15 07:29:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a defeat for the Israeli lobby he voted for Israel war Iraq war is for Israel
2006-08-15 07:22:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋