Are Democrats interested at all in the democratic process?
On Tuesday the Washington Post reported that "Critics of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot." Lieberman staffers have of course identified these moves as dirty politics.…
Article comments
26 - Scott
"Independents make up Connecticut's biggest voter bloc"
I just meant that as a way to say there are more registered independents in CT than Repubs or Dems. Of course they don't vote as one "bloc"
"And I'm glad you mentioned the fact that Lieberman likely hurt his chances of winning by saying early on that, if he lost the primary, he would run as an independent....Lieberman was honest about it. He spoke plainly on his desire to win back his seat"
Well, he didn't speak too plainly about it. He waivered on the issue for a while, never giving a definitive answer before finally realizing that he was most likely going to lose the primary so he started collecting signatures for his independent run and was finally forced to admit that if he lost he would continue as an independent. Even if he had been more forthcoming about running as an Indy, he still may have won the primary.
All of this boils down to this: yes, he can run as an independent if he wants, I'm not saying he has no right to do that. But just like you say about McKinney, I think it's a waste of his time. I think Lieberman has crippled himself for the general election.
27 - Nancy
Lieberman just happened to be the first in line. I think as the season goes on and other primaries take place, it's going to happen to others as well. It's more a general mood among those that bother to vote, that they seem to want to Just Kick The Bastards Out.
28 - Scott
Murkowski went down on Tuesday.
Chafee is pooping his pants right about now.
29 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Independents make up Connecticut's biggest voter bloc,
Then the breakdown has changed radically since 2004. Assuming the trend from prior years continued, most of the votes which became unaligned would have left the Democrats.
followed by Dems and then GOP. Lieberman would need about 75% of the Repub vote, 50% of the Independent vote and a third of the Dem vote to win.
If your switch in perentages is correct, then the 50% of the independent vote alone would put him close to victory, even if Schlesinger only got half the GOP vote.
Schlesinger is the Republican and he's tainted by scandal. He'll be lucky to get 10%.
I actually saw a poll where he had 9%, with almost all the GOP votes going to Lieberman, giving him a 20 point victory over Lamont.
Dave
30 - Dave Nalle
Murkowski went down on Tuesday.
No loss there. It was the only way for the GOP to hold onto the governor's seat. And don't forget the unlamented defeat of Cynthia McKinney.
Chafee is pooping his pants right about now.
Which is a whole different issue - and not a good thing - because Chafee is one of the good guys and his challenger is an unredeemable party weasel. Not like McKinney who is nuts or Murkowski who's blatantly corrupt.
31 - Scott
I'll just put this link on here. Connecticut voter registration stats as of October 2005.
32 - RJ Elliott
"The breakdown in Connecticut is around 40% Democrat, 30% Republican and 30% Independent. So all Lieberman needs to do to win is get half of the Independents and a third of the Republicans and a third of the Democrats for a resounding victory. That's giving Lamont more than the proportion of Democrats he won in the primary and underestimating Lieberman's pull among Independents and Republicans. I'll go out on a limb and predict 39% for Lieberman, 34% for Lamont and 27% for the Republican whose name escapes me at the moment. And that's a VERY conservative prediction. I think the more the voters see of Lamont the more Republicans and Independents will flock to Lieberman."
Actually, there are more Independents than Democrats in CT...so it's more like 45% Ind, 32% Dem, and 23% Rep...also, there is no way in hell the GOP candidate is going to get over 20%...
33 - RJ Elliott
Lieberman just happened to be the first in line. I think as the season goes on and other primaries take place, it's going to happen to others as well. It's more a general mood among those that bother to vote, that they seem to want to Just Kick The Bastards Out."
Other than McKinney, Lieberman, and that clown in Alaska...can you name a single Senatorial, Gubernatorial, or House of Representatives race where this is likely to be the case?
I'm not saying that there isn't another example or two...but it ain't exactly an anti-incumbent tidal wave yet...
34 - Dave Nalle
I'll just put this link on here. Connecticut voter registration stats as of October 2005.
Wow, those parties really pissed off some voters. This argues very strongly in favor of Lieberman come the general election.
Dave
35 - Bliffle
I'm sure that democrats are touched that so many good republicans are concerned democrat party internal affairs.
36 - Dave Nalle
Bliff, I don't think the Lieberman issue is restricted to one party in any sense. He's been effectively booted out of his party and his candidacy has become an issue for the entire public.
The GOP has the same problem and I don't see any Democrats hesistating to get excited at the problems Chafee is having in Rhode Island, despite the fact that if they're genuine progressives they ought to be supporting him wholeheartedly.
Dave
37 - Steve
If Lieberman didn't vote with the Dems. 90% of the time, I would have suggested he form a new third major party. You guys sure do need one down there. But given the above fact, I guess that would be redundant. It sure makes the Dems. foaming at the mouth that much more puzzling though. I can't help feeling their hatred of Bush is overcoming rational thought. Sounds like a tempest in a teacup to me.
38 - matt
democrats, republicans, right, left, conservative, liberal....they're are all the same. all the problems we had ten, twenty and fifty years ago are still around, and all these guys can do is point your finger.
this country needs a BIG change. representatives who actually represent the people, not tell the people how to feel about what; candidates that aren't going to be in government just because they're rich, or because their family is rich. this country needs a party that doesn't waste $150 million (republican) or $53 million (democratic) of tax payers' money on a national convention.
Hysteria surrounding drug use and the war on drugs has led to overfilled prisons which serve only as a breeding grounds for violence and sodomy to drug users that may have been recreational users, or may have been nonviolent addicts...not to mention the fact that we still have a serious drug problem and violence surrounding the illegal drug industry is still very much present - making it illegal makes drugs scarce, which drives up profit for dealers. also, we can't tax it or regulate it, because the only places it exists were driven underground. aaand the fact that when addicts get out of prison, they're not rehabilitated. because they need medical and psychological help, not punishment. drug addiction is a complex social problem that the drug war turns it's back on. oh yeah, and the cost. as of right now, october 24, 2006, the government has spent $41 billion dollars in the war on drugs this year.
a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil. and in america, we don't have to choose between two people. let's get rid of these big suits with their massive funding and the theatrics. america needs a change. it's obvious.
this is all how I feel, not how "my party" feels. i'm not speaking for a party. but i have found a party that gives me hope for the future of this country. if you don't even consider this party by looking at its official website (www.lp.org), then it's very likely that you're brainwashed. get some fresh air, take off your bumper stickers and the sign out of your yard for a minute, give yourself a rest from all the bickering, and consider what's really important. first figure out what's currently wrong with our government. something is definitely wrong, because the "majority" was only the "majority" by less than one percent in the last election. listen a lot - to every possible candidate, and think a lot, before you give your vote to some guy you think will be slightly better than the other one.
hitler's army generals and commanders deserved to die, because they contributed to the evil of his reign. they should have listened to their gut feelings that said that killing innocent people is wrong. in fact, hitler would have been powerless without those people who contributed. it's absolutely crucial that the people stand up for themselves, and for what's right. don't just go along because of what one says, versus what the other says. think for yourself, and speak for yourself, not for some party. just check it out, is all i'm saying. i'm not coming back to check this, because i'm not arguing.