In retrospect, how in the hell did Ned Lamont lose?

To an outright Iraq war hawk and in Connecticut too!

I watched a show about Lieberman/Lamont race on C-Span about a month ago and came away with nothing but a bunch of facts and figures.

Now that the emotional feelings have faded, maybe I am becoming cynical.

I don't think people really care about the Iraq war nor the loss of our soldiers in this failed war, unless it can be used as a political advantage.

Congress is doing NOTHING to end the war and save our soldiers lives.

65 of our soldiers have been killed since the 110th Congress has been sworn in.

Congress now seems to be happy to "stay the course" and this will be shown to be the case when Congress approves the 2008 Iraq supplemental in a few weeks.

What the hell is going on here?

Lieberman's plan to suck up to Republicans worked like a charm. The Repuke candidate in CT hardly got any votes.

a lot of our fellow Democrats, I saw something like 33% of his total votes were from Democrats.

Maybe the Iraqi war and our soldier lives really don't mean crap to people.

And Republicans...

2. Lieb said "no one wants to end the war more than I do."
3. Other issues with Lieb(sub base, seniority, power & influence in congress, vis a vis pork politics.

Lieberman would have been crushed.

Lieb would have finished third as he would have had no voting base.

It's disgusting what happened there.

90% of the Republic party, that's how. Had we gotten some real support from the national party, we could have consolidated the Democratic vote and brought the Indie vote down to no more than 50%, Lamont could have won by 3%. A plurality, just like Lieberman, but the other way around.

Instead of:
Lieberman: 48%
Lamont: 40%
Schlesinger: 11%

Would have been:

Lieberman: 43%
Lamont: 46%
Schlesinger: 11%

that 1/3 of Lieberman's votes were Democrats. That makes it:

Lamont: 56%
Lieberman: 32%

Maybe someone here can find what Lieberman said about this shortly after the election?

As it was ...

Lieberman: 50%
Lamont: 40%
ASS: 10%

Lieberman's total votes were made up of 33% Dem. votes making it w/o Dem. votes ...

Lamont: 57%
Lieberman: 33%
ASS: 10%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/CT/S/01/epolls.0.html

day- the november election wasn't a referendum on the war. if it was, ned lamont would have won.
they knew this would be their talking point, and they made it so.

and it was not Tom Swan. Someone advised it would be better not to attack Lieberman head on right away. And Lieberman hit the ground running and starting being just enough anti-war.

Lamont is still doing speeches. I just saw where he gave an anti-Iraq speech this week. We have not seen the last of him.

Lieberman will keep us from getting out of Iraq with the help of just enough New Dems to "reach across the aisle."

Too many Democrats supported Joe Lieberman in the general election.

They didn't punish those Democratic Senators who violated party loyalty and openly campaigned for Lieberman in the fall. They tole Lamont to wait for a few weeks before campaigning hard against Lieberman in the fall. Basically, Reid and co. decided to stick it to the netroots for daring to defy their will.

That, and the bullshit "it's antisemitic to vote against Joe" meme worked just well enough.

Why doesn't Congress give a damn?

BTW a ground war with Iran will NOT be a cake-walk. They are younger and an attack will fire up a nationalistic fervor for decades. Don't delude yourself that bombing suspected nuclear facilities will put the moderates on our side to crush the hard-liners ... quite the opposite.

Dammit, beyond all else, I wish those INSANE bastards in the Executive Branch could be made to realize that IRAN has a kick-ass Army and lots of our beloved children's blood will be spilled. And for what? For the damn military industrial complex's continued war profiteering. :(

I don't like the man, but he's a shrewd politician and he's well connected.