Since Joe Lieberman decided to run as an independent, he's leading in the polls by double digits. What's that all about? Are Democrats confused?
2006-08-17 10:57:48 · 13 answers · asked by sacolunga 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
duh...
1. He has divided the democratic vote
2. He is now gaining independents
3. He is gaining more moderate republicans.
Btw, do you have a source for this?
2006-08-17 11:03:30 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Lieberman lost by 2% of the vote, so it's not like he had NO votes to count on going into the November election.
I think people, regardless of the political strong arming, are apt to vote for a guy that makes sense, rather than a one issue candidate with no political capital or experience to back up his Senatorial office.
Lamont may be a nice guy, but all he can say to CT's voters is "I'd unplug the U.S. from Iraq", and all the dyed in the wool Democrats follow him up that dangerous hill and say he's a good candidate because he's AGAINST one thing (and who knows what, if anything he's FOR ???).
Lieberman is a veteran of US politics. He knows we need to stabilize Iraq soon, or go back to the region in 5 or 10 years and smack Iran and Syria around (or worse, drag microwaved bodies out of Israel after a nuclear exchange with Iran). Iraq was not a mistaken concept, just a horribly executed occupation. The US can adjust that (maybe not Bush, but the next guy sure can). If we unplug the refrigerator that is Iraq, all we'll get is a lower short term electricity bill but a lot of rotting food. That's no way to handle foreign affairs, and Lamont knows that, and if he gets elected as a "Leave Iraq Now" candidate, he won't be able to do much at all about the situation alone, as a rookie, and he'll likely change his tune once he realizes the alternative (Shi'ite Islam dominating all of the Middle East and posing a military threat to Israel and Europe and an economic threat to everyone else).
You can't just say war sucks, let's leave and get a latte. You have to agree to war, which we did (or did the Democrats forget they signed on in huge numbers in the House and Senate?). And then once you say yes to war, you have to go out there and win, decisively, whatever it takes. Otherwise, why bother?
Lamont can't be a serious candidate for Senate on just one platform. He has to be a complete candidate with workable plans. He has none. Lieberman is a brave individual who doesn't tow party lines because he does have a patriotic streak in him. And I think Americans, at least they used to, love a guy who can take charge, smack some heads around, get things done and not look like a sniveling coward to his peers or enemies. That's more Lieberman than Lamont, and the state's moderate Democrats and on the fence Republicans know that Lieberman, in wartime, is a better alternative than a drop your gun and run Lamont. We all want out of Iraq, but there's a time and place, and it's not now and here.
2006-08-17 11:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I voted Democrat on the prompt, and that i love Lieberman. i have self assurance there is way too a lot partisanship available. I vote for those that placed the rustic above the get at the same time. Ned Lamont is merely as undesirable as Tom delay. i gained't continually accept as true with Lieberman, yet I actually have one hundred% self assurance that he looks heavily on the topic matters somewhat than merely doing what his Masters on the DNC tell him to do. He has a sense of proper and incorrect and a backbone. If we had more effective Liebermans and so on - something might want to get executed!
2016-11-25 23:03:52 · answer #3 · answered by viney 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of Republicans coming to his rescue, and some Democrats who like "The Old Joe."
2006-08-17 11:07:41 · answer #4 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The people of Connecticut will pick who they think will do the best job for them. I'm sure some Republicans think that's Lieberman as well as some Democrats.
2006-08-17 11:02:31 · answer #5 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Its fixed, don't fall for it.
Independents Never got anywhere far. Its merely a politically staged diversion to take attention off something more critical going on elsewhere.
Scour the news on the net. something else is going on.
wow, liebermans ahead..let me find out more..you turn to news channels focused on that and miss out on another bush administration blunder...like thier hand in forcing uk authorites to arrest those muslim guys before uk police had time to gather ANY concrete evidence forcing them to release them with no charges.
2006-08-17 11:08:44 · answer #6 · answered by mumin azraaq 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if he's already got 48% of the Democratic vote, he doesn't need much of the Republican vote the swing it in his favour. There's no confusion at all.
2006-08-17 11:05:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
... are Con. primaries party specific...
in other words... in some states, Republicans CAN'T, even if they wanted to choose the dem primary over the Republican, vote in the Dem primary...
only registered Dems can vote in the primary...
is Con. like this... or can you choose, like you can in some states?
this could go a LONG way in explaining the situation...
2006-08-17 11:10:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
sad state of affairs for Democrats. Hope they bring their act together for the nation.
2006-08-17 11:03:11 · answer #9 · answered by paribest 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Just goes to show you that the average Nutmeg stater is smarter than the Nutmeg D.
2006-08-17 11:10:51 · answer #10 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
because lamont was financed by george souatUS and bought the primary there, Liebermanns ahead by 11points the last I heard, those one plank platforms are killers
2006-08-17 11:03:27 · answer #11 · answered by sealss3006 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋