PDA

View Full Version : CNN: Lieberman Leads Polls vs Lamont, Republican By Double Digit Lead


Mother_Marjorie
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:34 AM
Lieberman's primary loss does not necessarily mean defeat
By Mark Preston
CNN Political Editor


Thursday, August 17, 2006; Posted: 10:25 a.m. EDT (14:25 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite losing the Democratic primary earlier this month, Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) holds double-digit leads over his two November opponents, a new Quinnipiac University poll released this morning shows.

Lieberman gets support from 53 percent of likely voters, while Democratic nominee Ned Lamont receives 41 percent and embattled GOP nominee Alan Schlesinger registers only 4 percent.

Lieberman has launched an independent bid for re-election after losing to Lamont in a race that was largely about the incumbent's support for the Iraq war. Lieberman has come under fire for his continued support of the Iraq war, an issue Lamont was able to seize on and ride to victory in the Democratic primary.

But the Quinnipiac poll shows that Lieberman's political appeal extends far beyond the Democratic base, support that he will need to win a fourth term.

"Sen. Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing," Quinnipiac Poll Director Douglas Schwartz said in a statement accompanying the release of the poll. "It more than offsets what he has lost among Democrats. As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans, while holding onto a significant number of Democratic voters, the veteran senator will be hard to beat."

Several of Lieberman's Democratic colleagues, though, are trying to do just that. Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) sent out an e-mail to his financial supporters Wednesday asking them to donate to Lamont's campaign. Today, former Sen. John Edwards (D-North Carolina) heads to New Haven, Connecticut to attend a campaign rally for Lamont. Other Democrats such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (New York) have cut checks to Lamont. As for Schlesinger, he has been unable to attract support from Republican Gov. Jodi Rell or the White House.

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:43 AM
Repuke slogans:

2004 - "Voting for Lieberman would be a win for the terrorists"
2006 - "Vote for Lieberman! He's strong on terror!" Fade to romantic kiss between Bush & Lieberman ...

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 18th, 2006, 02:50 AM
The Democrats need to step up their game. What they did in Connecticut is probably one of their biggest political miscalculations since Eagleberger in '72. However, its too late in Connecticut. They've abandoned their best hope of regaining the Senate by dumping Joe Lieberman.

Given the options, the electorate of Connecticut will vote for a moderate, which in this case is Lieberman. The Republican voters know their candidate cannot win, and Lieberman to them is lesser of two evils. The attempt by Democrats to force a left-wing candidate upon the voters of Connecticut will be the Democrats demise in Connecticut in '06.

To think the Democrats could displace a three-term incumbent senator, and recent Vice-Presidential nominee of their own party by dumping him from the party in a primary was a grave error. If they continue to follow the trail set by Howard Dean, they'll miss an excellent opportunity to regain the majority of either legislative branch, and most likely the executive if they keep this up.

I've always tended to vote for the person, and not the party. But if Democrats keeping placing their lunatic fringe on ballots, I'll definitely consider voting Republican.

SelesFan70
Aug 18th, 2006, 03:49 AM
The Democrats need to step up their game. What they did in Connecticut is probably one of their biggest political miscalculations since Eagleberger in '72. However, its too late in Connecticut. They've abandoned their best hope of regaining the Senate by dumping Joe Lieberman.

Given the options, the electorate of Connecticut will vote for a moderate, which in this case is Lieberman. The Republican voters know their candidate cannot win, and Lieberman to them is lesser of two evils. The attempt by Democrats to force a left-wing candidate upon the voters of Connecticut will be the Democrats demise in Connecticut in '06.

To think the Democrats could displace a three-term incumbent senator, and recent Vice-Presidential nominee of their own party by dumping him from the party in a primary was a grave error. If they continue to follow the trail set by Howard Dean, they'll miss an excellent opportunity to regain the majority of either legislative branch, and most likely the executive if they keep this up.

I've always tended to vote for the person, and not the party. But if Democrats keeping placing their lunatic fringe on ballots, I'll definitely consider voting Republican.

The democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. ;)

Scotso
Aug 18th, 2006, 03:51 AM
MarJen... Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, so I don't understand your logic. :shrug:

SelesFan70
Aug 18th, 2006, 03:57 AM
MarJen... Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, so I don't understand your logic. :shrug:

I dunno why the Republicans are fawning over Lieberman either. He's no economic conservative or social conservative. But he does understand we are in a war, so maybe that's it. I guess if the bloggers can campaign AGAINST him on one issue, the Republicans can campaign FOR him on that same one issue. :shrug:

RVD
Aug 18th, 2006, 04:52 AM
The Democrats need to step up their game. What they did in Connecticut is probably one of their biggest political miscalculations since Eagleberger in '72. However, its too late in Connecticut. They've abandoned their best hope of regaining the Senate by dumping Joe Lieberman.

Given the options, the electorate of Connecticut will vote for a moderate, which in this case is Lieberman. The Republican voters know their candidate cannot win, and Lieberman to them is lesser of two evils. The attempt by Democrats to force a left-wing candidate upon the voters of Connecticut will be the Democrats demise in Connecticut in '06.

To think the Democrats could displace a three-term incumbent senator, and recent Vice-Presidential nominee of their own party by dumping him from the party in a primary was a grave error. If they continue to follow the trail set by Howard Dean, they'll miss an excellent opportunity to regain the majority of either legislative branch, and most likely the executive if they keep this up.

I've always tended to vote for the person, and not the party. But if Democrats keeping placing their lunatic fringe on ballots, I'll definitely consider voting Republican.This should give you and your logic a nice little kick in the pants MarJenAll20. :devil: :p ..That's right - Lieberman is announcing he will move forward with plans to abuse loopholes in Connecticut's election laws, ignore Democratic Party voters who voted in our democratic process for change, and mount a Lieberman for Lieberman Independent bid. This, from the guy who went on television after the 2004 presidential race (which was the closer than the Connecticut primary) to declare that "there's no prizes for second place in American politics." Yes, you read that right - the Senator who says there's "no prizes for second place" and who has in the final days of Democratic primary campaigning been running around claiming that he gets the message and realizes he no longer should enable George W. Bush's right-wing agenda now is saying that he will try to rely on hard-core Republican voters and moneymen in a general election contest in a desperate attempt to hold onto power.

Understand how insulting this is - Connecticut taxpayers just spent a large sum of money to hold a democratic primary election in a country founded on small-d democratic principles. An 18-year incumbent who had 100 percent name ID and a $12 million warchest (thanks to, among others, Joe's good friends in the pharmaceutical and financial services industry) was unable to win that election. Now, instead of respecting small-d democracy or the party he has spent the last week pledging his devotion to, he's behaving like a Third World autocrat that ignores democracy, and running to hard-core GOP voters and fundraisers in Connecticut and begging them to help him hold onto his job in the Senate club. This undemocratic chicanery from a man who has long justified his support for the Iraq War by saying he has a supposedly heartfelt devotion to spreading democracy.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14429.htmThese two excerpts make the case far better than I ever could. :worship:

MarJenAll20, it's all well and good to post your opinions, but please do not portend to know what the majority of morals Democrats know well enough...
Which is Joe Lieberman has been walking contradiction, much like the vast majority of the Republicans have been [over the past 6 years].

Obviously, Joe was bad chaff that needed to be separated from the good crop, and now it's clear [to anyone with a serious desire for political integrity] why.

Whether this political charlatan wins or not, at the very... VERY least, he's no longer contaminating the water in a party that sorely needed an overhaul; which it apparently and finally is getting. :bounce: :wavey:

Lastly, a poll at this juncture is a far cry from one you'll be seeing..say around...early to mid-October. :devil: Joe has finally exposed himself for all to see. If the Republicans are so desperate to endorse such a man, it seems to me that the weakness isn't with the Democratic Party at all. ;) ;)

Mother_Marjorie
Aug 18th, 2006, 05:35 AM
This should give you and your logic a nice little kick in the pants MarJenAll20. :devil: :p ..These two excerpts make the case far better than I ever could. :worship:

MarJenAll20, it's all well and good to post your opinions, but please do not portend to know what the majority of morals Democrats know well enough...
Which is Joe Lieberman has been walking contradiction, much like the vast majority of the Republicans have been [over the past 6 years].

Obviously, Joe was bad chaff that needed to be separated from the good crop, and now it's clear [to anyone with a serious desire for political integrity] why.

Whether this political charlatan wins or not, at the very... VERY least, he's no longer contaminating the water in a party that sorely needed an overhaul; which it apparently and finally is getting. :bounce: :wavey:

Lastly, a poll at this juncture is a far cry from one you'll be seeing..say around...early to mid-October. :devil: Joe has finally exposed himself for all to see. If the Republicans are so desperate to endorse such a man, it seems to me that the weakness isn't with the Democratic Party at all. ;) ;)

It's amazing how Democrats can call Joe Lieberman a "political charlatan" not even two short years after nominating Kerry/Lieberman as their Presidential choices in the 2004 General Election. Its disgraceful and disrespectful.

Attacking Joe Lieberman in that way is not moral or loyal.

Something to ponder. Should Joe get re-elected as an independent senator, don't ever expect him to return to the Democratic Party a la Jim Jeffords. In fact, good 'ole Joe could be a very necessary vote in the US Senate for one party or another. ;)

*JR*
Aug 18th, 2006, 12:26 PM
It's amazing how Democrats can call Joe Lieberman a "political charlatan" not even two short years after nominating Kerry/Lieberman as their Presidential choices in the 2004 General Election. Its disgraceful and disrespectful.

Attacking Joe Lieberman in that way is not moral or loyal.

Something to ponder. Should Joe get re-elected as an independent senator, don't ever expect him to return to the Democratic Party a la Jim Jeffords. In fact, good 'ole Joe could be a very necessary vote in the US Senate for one party or another. ;)
True that Senators are essentially "independent contractors", whose votes are sought regardless of party affiliation. Corrections re. 2 of your posts ITT, BTW:

The ill fated '72 VP candidate was Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton. Hey, @ least he didn't wind up out of office with a felony guilty plea a year later, like Nixon's VP Rainer Hofmann Spiro Agnew. :tape: (Larry Eagleburger was Secretary of State under the first Bush @ the end of his term, after being Jim Baker's deputy for the first 3 plus years). And Lieberman was Gore's running mate in 2000. (John Edwards was Kerry's in '04). ;)

The democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. ;)
Like someone Pureracket is in deep de-nile about, John... F(ucking)... Kerry. :help:

Pureracket
Aug 18th, 2006, 12:28 PM
Like someone Pureracket is in deep de-nile about, John... F(ucking)... Kerry. :help:Bumps for *JR's* attention.

Infiniti2001
Aug 18th, 2006, 01:12 PM
This article is horseshit and it will be proven once every voter in Connecticut realize liEberman is welded to Bush. Follow some of the staunchly Republican districts around the country where Republican incumbents are untroubled because they're distancing themselves from Bush and Cheney :devil: . Oh , Cheney's fundraisers are going so poorly :lol: If anyone thinks that the people in Connecticut will tolerate Lieberman's support
coming from those same people who are causing their own party candidates to flee they're seriously in for a surprise.
I'll keep saying it--- once Cinnecticut voters realize that he is indeed in bed with Bush and Cheneythat so called lead will shrivel. :tape:

samsung101
Aug 18th, 2006, 03:15 PM
The Election is a long way off.

Anything can happen. I'm sure the DNC
will pour millions into beating Lieberman, and
the left wing blogs that helped Lamont will
go even more over the top, and Lamonts
millions (the son of a wealthy man w/little
political experience, but, he's a democrat,
so he's real special now), will pour in.

Lieberman has a lot of work to do.

But, I think a lot of people in Connecticut
who saw what a shameful campaign the
DNC and the democratic bloggers ran against
Lieberman (making fun of his religion, his wife,
his wifes name, everything,and often with a
seriously hateful tone), just had enough of
it.

The guy has a nearly 80% Democratic voting
record w/the party. He's by no means a Republican
or a conservative.

He is and has been from day one a hawk on national
defense, Israel, and in fighting terrorism all over the
world to protect American interests.

For that horrible stand, which is just a brave stand,
he is being blackballed.

I wonder if Clooney will make a movie about that?
I doubt it.

It will get closer by election day.

samsung101
Aug 18th, 2006, 03:46 PM
It is amusing to see the Democrats consider 'stripping' him of
his powers and assignments if he is elected, and they control
the Senate.

Nice.

When Jeffords left, and when the GOP controlled the
Senate, he wasn't booted to Siberia. They didn't give
him the best assignments by any means. But, the guy
was not silenced either.

The DNC and Democrats cannot tolerate any other voice,
any other view, and any other thought process.
That's not a good thing for the party.

Again, it's not too good for the DNC when the GOP has
more diversity in it these days.

griffin
Aug 18th, 2006, 05:00 PM
The Democrats need to step up their game. What they did in Connecticut is probably one of their biggest political miscalculations since Eagleberger in '72. However, its too late in Connecticut. They've abandoned their best hope of regaining the Senate by dumping Joe Lieberman.


What they did? Abandoned? Dumping?

The party had some of their biggest names campaigning for him before the primary. Bill Clinton - heard of him?

For what it's worth, if Mr. Joementum hadn't ignored or dodged the questions about his support for Bush and his Administration until the end of the campaign, he might not have lost. When he finally did decide to address why he supported a war many of his constituents opposed, he actually started to pick up more votes. IT was just too little, too late. Blaming the Democratic Party for his loss, and not his own campaign's complacency, is a little much.

Sure, the Party is backing Lamont now - what choice do they have now that he won their primary?

Can you imagine the spin from the Right if, instead of backing they guy the VOTERS picked, they said to hell with what our constituents think we're pushing Lieberman anyway?

samsung101
Aug 18th, 2006, 05:34 PM
It will be interesting to see if the Democratic Party brings in
the famous Hollywood stars to help out Lamont, or the likes
of Michael Moore and Kos and Sharpton and Jackson again.
Did that help Lamont in the end, or did it hurt him in the end?
He supposedly had a double digit lead over Lieberman until
the last few weeks, and won by 4 points or so.


The GOP candidate will likely bow out near the end to
help Lieberman, not like the GOP guy has any chance
at all anyway.

Lord Nelson
Aug 18th, 2006, 06:06 PM
It will be interesting to see if the Democratic Party brings in
the famous Hollywood stars to help out Lamont, or the likes
of Michael Moore and Kos and Sharpton and Jackson again.
Did that help Lamont in the end, or did it hurt him in the end?
He supposedly had a double digit lead over Lieberman until
the last few weeks, and won by 4 points or so.


The GOP candidate will likely bow out near the end to
help Lieberman, not like the GOP guy has any chance
at all anyway.
For that to happen Hollywood stars have to come from Connecticut. Imagine if they were from New York or wherever. The Connecticut people will resent what non connecticut people will tell them what to do....Seems a lot of independant and repuiblicans are rooting for Lieberman. Can't blame them. Lamont seems to only be talking about Iraq.