IMO, Lieberman will retain his seat.

With polls tightening, I think he may very well win tomorrow. If he runs as an independent, he has a very good chance.

Excuse me while I put on my flame suit.:hide: :popcorn:

But I'm in CT, and you're wrong. Very wrong. Let's talk tomorrow!

to be very interesting

"It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the vote"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was from Stalin? :shrug:

I have a friend who's been checking with friends in Connecticut who, he says, are plugged in, and the word is that Lieberman is expected to pull through. Dammit. As I said, I hope not. Because we NEED to send a really strong, unmistakable signal that getting into bed with bush is political death. And supporting this war is political death. And acting like a republi-CON when you're supposed to be a DEMOCRAT, GODDAMMIT, is political death. And I'm afraid it's just not gonna happen this time. Dear Lord, I hope I'm wrong.

truly has me worried.

And it's close enough to steal now.

:shrug:

No electronic voting in CT...

No punch card voting in CT...

They still use lever machines...

Sorry, if Lamont loses there will be no reason other than he came up short convincing folks he was the best candidate...

if the DUer I replied to, responded.

There's really no way they could steal it. Maybe by absentee but if it's not close, than those votes don't really matter (sadly).

if he wins tomorrow.

Me, I don't much care as long as there is a Dem butt in the seat when the smoke clears. Lamont might be better, but I'll take Lieberman over a Republican. If nothing else, folks forget that a Dem, any Dem, counts toward a majority. And I'd like a majority in the Senate.

1. LIEberman, as much as I dislike him, is better than any puke.

2. You're right on about people arguing that the election wsas stolen. If a puke won in an area where 99% of the population were fundie, american-taliban, pukes there would still be someone here screaming that the election was stolen.

3. I'd like to be in the majority in the Senate, too. It's been too damned long.

on note: Go Ned.

he went from down 13-14% to down 6% in what, a week?. Doesn't bode well for Lamont.

It's probably best to apply Occam's Razor to theories about situations before crying "fraud". When we win an election, we cry hip-hooray cause the voters can't be fooled; when we lose a close one, we call it "convenient" or "suspicious"; when we lose outright, it's coz the people are "ignorant" or the voters are misled by the RW press. These explanations are tailored to cover the results no matter what the true causes of winning or losing are... in other words, not real explanations of the events because they don't rely on evidence.

I believe voter fraud in this country happening in many races. I just don't think we can assume it's the case when there's no proof that it's going on.

Last week the undecided numbers stood at 15%, with almost 90% saying they weren't changing their minds. By those numbers, even if all 15% voted Lieberman, Lamont would still win by about 4%. I think what you're seeing is the undecideds playing out. I don't think there's enough out there for Lieberman to take it.

But...I could be wrong. Lord knows I've been wrong before.

No opportunistic elections official who stands to gain personally from abetting fraud (that I've heard of, anyway), and no BBV. And a US Senator simply doesn't have the reach in these matters that State officials do.

Unless I start hearing reports of low-income districts being badly shorted on voting apparatus, I don't see theft happening today.

The state Democratic establishment does have the power to do vote fraud in a number of ways that don't involve electronic fraud. Sadly, we live in a day when vigilence must be kept to ensure votes are counted correctly and equally.

I suspect that he'll pull it out in the primary. If not, I think his support as an (I) will quickly diminish.

CT has one of the highest independent voter registrations. I think he could win as an Indie.

in Ct....

point in time. That's part of why I think Lieberman won't win as an (I).

I have seen it happen again and again.

Ugh.

manage to pull it off, he's going to be worse than ever, even more trashing of Dems, even more kissy-face with Dim Son, even more of a smug, arrogant, warmonger. In short, he'll be unbearably insufferable.

It is gonna be a squeaker...

the far left will have no one but themselves to blame....

Meanwhile, we'll be treated to the spectacle of having the people who have spent months spitting all over the principle of party loyalty explaining earnestly why it is such a sacred precept.

Then when it occurs to them that 60% of the Democrats can't beat 60% of the independents and 95% of the Republicans, we'll have to hear a fearful hullaballoo about why it's everybody else's fault that what had been the Democratic Party's safest seat is gone down the spout.

If Connecticut voters choose Lamont tommorrow, Joe should step aside.

If Lamont said he was going Indy, LIEberman would make that the No. 1 issue by saying Ned has no party loyalty.

such is politics.

Ned and his followers have no party loyalty, and have spent months spitting all over anyone who exhibited any. All they're going to be doing calling for it now is exhibitng what hypocrites they are.

By the way, how do you suppose black voters in Connecticut enjoyed Lamont's racist caricature the other day?

Is that what you're saying??????

I can't speak for the black voters. You need to ask them yourself.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that's an unfortunate mistake.

Primaries are an important part of our party system. They exist for a reason. There is nothing disloyal about supporting a challenger -- particularly when the incumbent has ceased to listen to his constituents.

The Lamont campaign ran a scorched earth campaign, viciously attacking anyone who dared to suggest Lieberman wasn't Satan incarnate. I suspect it's about to reap what it sowed....just as I have no doubt the whoopsters responsible are going to spend the rest of the campaign blaming everyone else.

Because that's just not what's happening. It's not.

The Lieberman ads and campaigin have been far nastier. The phone calls (recorded) have been annoying. And the thinly veiled insinuations (restricted club) have been below them.

And that's just the stuff the general public sees. I've seen a bit more inside. The Lieberman folks are absolutely affronted that anyone should challenge their right to the seat. And they've responded with all guns blasting. If only Joe had been as nasty with Cheney a few years back during the debate!

Show me examples of what you're calling "scorched earth", because I haven't seen it, and I AM here.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's enough to make a republican change his registration.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But it's hilarious to see you try so desperately to spin it away.

It's pathetic to see you try to sell the lie that Lamont had anything to do with the blackface image. And let me rephrase my conclusion about you in a way that won't get deleted: you are dishonest.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We're gonna reap what we've sown
'Cause His light shines on our darkness
But what really troubles me
Is what the seed may be
When it is grown

Cover up your deeds
Leave the scene so fast
Hide beneath the weeds
Like a snake in the grass

Slither so quietly
No one will ever know
But the tracks that you will leave
Someday will surely show

Chorus

Cover up your seeds
Pray the sun and rain will last
Keep cutting back the weeds
Watch for snakes in the grass

Chorus

I am my own superintendent
And my star is on the ascendent
That's why I don't care
I don't care, I don't care
What you may think of me
I'm happy-go-lucky, they say that I'm plucky
Content and carefree

And that all your rants about how every DU progressive "hate Democrats" were total and utter bullshit?

What refreshing candor.

Pour yourself another one. Or two. Or three or twelve.

Ya big galoot ya.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think that rock getting a little cold - perhaps it's time you slither back under it.

Button, button, where IS that button...


Ah, here it is................

<fade to black>

I'd really rather not consider that. That's between you and God knows who else.

and they demonstrate it every day.

Meanwhile, what's to like about the far left? They're deluded, self-righteous prigs who thump their chests and grandly announce how noble, wise and swell they think they are, as they behave like the nasty little squints the world can see.

The far left put out a racist caricature to prop up Lamont. That speaks volumes about them and their "progressive values."

He crossed the line when he implied that anyone who critised Bush's foreign policy is committing treason.

I live in CT.

I just watched that arrogant mother fucker (Joe) on TV and can't wait to see him fall on his ass tommorrow.

If you like Joe so much, you should move here and vote for him.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's because the far right HATES Democrats (unless they're a pragmatic "centrist" like Lieberman or Evan Bayh).

Is criticism of Bush treasonous?

forgive my ignorance

...quod erat demonstrandum. It means "it has been demonstrated" or "which has been demonstrated." Used as the punctuation mark in lots of Calculus and physics problems, it literally means "just like I've been saying, look at this example as proof."

Latin for "that which was to be demonstrated"

spitting all over party unity? What is the problem is with campaigning for change? Looks like plain old democracy to me.

That said, I figure on supporting whichever Dem comes out of this. I want a majority in the Senate. And any Dem will do for that headcount.

I'm not sure if there is anyone to blame if Lieberman runs as an independant. I would just hope that he could deal with democracy in action, and realize if the vote is lopsided enough that perhaps Connecticut is trying to tell him something. However, if the vote is a squeaker, and he still loses, I guess I could see his point. Even so, it would be nice if he'd accept the results either way and do what's best for the party.

But then, I'm probably not one of the ones you're talking to. I ain't been spittin' on nuthin'.

"Looks like plain old democracy to me."
Looked more like swift-boating to me.

"I'm probably not one of the ones you're talking to."
No, you're not.

that YOU are obligated to campaign hard for Lamont against him.

If not, you cease to be a Democrat.

Time to answer the question you've been dodging, Benchman.

By the way, the republican party is pretty far rightwing.

That last poll with Lamont ahead by 13 was a laughable outlier.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on Lamont to take the primary tomorrow, though.

I think the undecided voters will determine this race at the last minute. I think it could go either way if they are still conflicted on election day. Some even don't make their decision until actually in the voting booth. If conventional wisdom holds steady, then it's not good news for LIEberman. But if some undecideds are on the fence, they may very well go with the one they knew, which is LIEberman unfortunately. At any rate, Lamont supporters ought not celebrate just yet.

Stay tuned...

eom

...because no matter WHO wins the Democratic primary tomorrow, Lieberman is going to win the general election in November. He'll caucus with the Democrats regardless, so I don't see any reason for indigestion on the part of any genuine liberal or progressive.

There are just too many people who don't pay attention or don't care about politics. They'll recognize Lieberman's name and choose him.

Or, is it something for which you are wishing?
Or, is this something from a gut feeling?

Just interested in knowing.

are generally more politically savvy than even your average undecided voter. This is a midterm election, but it's a critical election, nonetheless. For undecideds to get involved, even if they are still on the fence, doesn't look too good for the incumbent because turnout is usually low, anyway. Again, if the conventional wisdom holds, Lamont could pull out a win, as undecideds and unaffiliated generally break for the challenger at the last minute. I guess it all depends on how passionate people are about this race. If people are eager to vote and their passions and enthusiasm run high, then they will come out in droves. This can't be good for the incumbent. People who are satisfied with the status quo--particularly the unaffiliated--won't bother to vote unless they are displeased with what the incumbent has done.

to make a huge generalization, of course -- but I'd venture a guess that the people likely to vote in a primary are also more likely to be very well informed. CT is also a fairly sophisticated place, happily between NYC and Boston.

What that all means though is anyone's guess -- truly. I do not know what will happen. Anyone who says they do is kidding themselves.

The only thing I know for sure is that the results, and any action following on Lieberman's part, will be very interesting, indeed.

I've been disappointed so much in the past when I saw a potential for victory get pulled right out from under me. That and the tightening of the polls I mentioned.

edit:for spelling

I don't think it's necessarily a done deal that Lieberman wins. If his GOTV operation is better than Lamont's, there is a decent chance that he could win narrowly.

Nevertheless, the signs seem to point to a narrow Lamont victory tomorrow.

I have to agree........and I hope like hell I am wrong about thinking that "loserman" will win tomorrow!

Given that, your assertion doesn't make sense. Add to the polls the obvious drive that Lamont supporters have to actually get to the polls.....

Personally, I think Lamont is going to win this, and easily.

I was born there anyway and my family is all Conn. born and bred. I hope that whatever happens tomorrow does not result in an R win in November. Do we cut off our nose to spite our face? What good is winning the battle and losing the war? Insert next overused cliche here. Joe has been a great social democrat and is wrong on the war. Lamont probably agrees with Lieberman on most issues except the war. If I were I Conn, I would go with Lamont IF I KNEW HE WOULD WIN IN NOVEMBER. If Joe wins, he wins easily in November. If Lamont wins, he damn well better win in November, and if they split the votes and the R wins, we all lose. One final adage: Don't wish for something to happen, it might just come true. Moral: I hope the happiness for a Lamont win doesn't turn into mournful tears of sorrow in November.

and if Lieberman wins, he'll have my support, even if I do think he's run a crappy campaign. The ads alone have been lousy and just plain silly. Not to mention that some of his supporters seem to have civility issues.

I just wanna "D" in the seat. Is that so WRONG.

That's why I've stayed out of the whole Lamont vs. Lieberman debate. If Lieberman wins, at least there will still be a Democrat in the senate after November. And despite his nonsensical position on the war, he votes 90% with the Democrats.

Although, it would be great if the Connecticut voters send the establishment Dems a message by voting Lieberman out of office.

This will be good for the Democratic party. It will send a message that we are tired of trying to be Repuke lite and that we have a winning platform. My problem with Lieberman is more general than just the Iraq war.

For quite a while he has been selling out Democrats in order to get attention for himself, actually mouthing Republican talking points. This is quite popular with the pundits on the Sunday talk shows.

But I do strongly agree with what you say, Connie. The most important thing by far is winning control of at least one house of Congress this year. The pro-Lamont movement is a risky strategy, but I'm just saying that I believe that good will come of it.

It sure sounds like the GOP is sticking with their certified loser of a candidate. So it will be Joe or Ned.

And could Lamont win in November? Much better chance if Lieberman doesn't go for an independent run of course. My feelings for him will rise appreciably if he chooses the good of the country and his party over his own political ambitions. But I'm not counting on that happening, either.

In a 3-way, it's likely to be Lieberman. And if he wins that way, I imagine insufferable will be too mild a word for him.

an outsider win the seat. They have too much to lose if democracy actually happens. Does anyone believe that the string of Democratic notables campaigning for Lieberman are doing so solely out of friendship? They are propping up the status quo. I've heard allot of talk about changing the direction of the party from the inside, well this is it; the first (and maybe the last) big test case. Unless Lieberman gets his ass handed too him tomorrow, I expect the general election will be a vicious, relentless and extremely well financed campaign aimed squarely at Lamont. If that should happen, will a similar line-up of Dem bigwigs show up to support the Democratic candidate? Maybe the second stringers, but the power elite? Not likely.

He might be a Rumsfeld replacement candidate, though.

First he will lose in the primary, then he will lose as a Republican in November.

Its Connecticut's Seat.

first post here but I think Lieberman will lose today.

But I have a question for the more "politically astute" in the room... if Lieberman loses and runs as an Indie in November... and WINS, doesn't that mean that the Democratic party would lose an easy "lock" Senatorial seat in a year where we might have 49-50 seats?? Just a thought.

On the Iraq war issue, I am mostly against the war so
Lieberman is not going my way. However I can not abandon
him based on a single issue.

Go Lamont go, there's two of us in district 5-8.

how can anyone be "MOSTLY" against this travesty?

:wtf:

Saddam was openly paying suicide bombers in Israel.
Which conclusively proves he was pro-terror.

However I was against attacking Iraq at the time
Bushco started the war. There was no imminent threat
against USA. More time should have been given to the inspectors,
UN sanctions etc. There was no need to shed blood and treasure
in a haste.

However, in the end war with Saddam was inevitable.

on both sides, with the theft of all of the money that has gone to Iraq and dissappeared, with all of the lies that brought us to this war, with all of the lack of proper protection for our troops, with all of the ignorance on capturing Osama in leiu of this war...This goes to the very fabric of our beings, to turn your head on this whole Iraq problem is to turn your head on many many other issues and morals.

Many a party loyalty have been shattered by "single issues"--slavery, the Vietnam War, the Dixiecrat abandonment of the Democratic Party (thank God) over the Civil Rights "single issue."

If you are not willing to make a stand about his political leanings because of the "single issue" of the Iraq War--a "single issue" that has "MULTIPLE" implications, (and currently has a second front in a little country named Lebanon)--then maybe you're simply not that concerned about Iraq.

Let us know when you will be.

While you sit and not let it affect your overall political opinion, plenty of human beings will be getting killed in Iraq, which will be their little way of helpfully trying to get you (and millions just like you) to perhaps change your opinion.

The total dem turnout in todays election is 1/10th
of the dem voters who voted in November 2000. So,
I expect with more repubs voting for Lieberman (I)
in November he wins in a cakewalk.

I want Lieberman to lose for one reason; the national implications....with 98% of incumbents being re-elected--it's time to give the power back to the people of this nation!

I would love to see the whole damn congress squirm at the thought of having to really do something to earn their re-election.

We must find good candidates to run against bad democrats and win--or we will just get the same old.........

Personally, I like Lieberman's character and guts even though I don't agree with him, but there are much more far reaching implications of his defeat. That's why the whole country is watching this race.

I can't wait to write Diane Feinstein again and tell her, "get on the "J" or we will pull a "Lieberman" on you." LOL

"POWER TO THE PEOPLE"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the Lieberman/Lamont race will determine if politics will become infatuated with a single topic, instead of looking at all policies and views of a candidate...

More at: http://fuzzy.blog-city.com/

I think the Lieberman/Lamont race will determine if politics will become infatuated with a single topic, instead of looking at all policies and views of a candidate...

More at: http://fuzzy.blog-city.com/