Who would you vote for in this match-up?

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

Probably Lamont, though I don't think Lieberman is as conservative as others on this site have said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[© Tweed the Younger]

Lamont's going to end up embarassing himself, especially if he were to lose to an independent Joementum campaign.

Hardly.  He's running a Cinderella campaign.  If he wins, he's a wonderful story.  If he loses, hell, everyone expected him too and he got his voice heard.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Lamont's going to end up embarassing himself, especially if he were to lose to an independent Joementum campaign.

Hardly.  He's running a Cinderella campaign.  If he wins, he's a wonderful story.  If he loses, hell, everyone expected him too and he got his voice heard.

Yep. Pretty much win-win.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Ha I can't believe no Republican would vote for the Republican. Lieberman is pretty strongly pro choice etc. you know.

OK,  I'd vote for the Republican candidate.

As well, I do not like in the least this sense of entitlement that some Senators seem to acquire after serving in the Senate for a time.

"Wah, wah, wah, if I don't get the Democratic nomination, which is rightfully mine, I'll run as an independent, wah wah wah" 

A constitutional amendment should be passed allowing a maximum of 3 Senate terms for anyone, consecuitive or non consecutive.

[Vasall des Midas]

That's a reasonable term limit I could actually support. 18 years is quite long enough. People shouldn't serve until they're 100 (or even 89) and drooling saliva.

Then again, voters shouldn't send 94 (or even 89) year old guys back to the Senate.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

That's a reasonable term limit I could actually support. 18 years is quite long enough. People shouldn't serve until they're 100 (or even 89) and drooling saliva.

Then again, voters shouldn't send 94 (or even 89) year old guys back to the Senate.

Except Byrd.

[Republican Michigander]

Probably the Republican. Lieberman's no conservative. He just talks the game.

[Vasall des Midas]

author=eraserhead]

That's a reasonable term limit I could actually support. 18 years is quite long enough. People shouldn't serve until they're 100 (or even 89) and drooling saliva.

Then again, voters shouldn't send 94 (or even 89) year old guys back to the Senate.

Except Byrd.

No, not except Byrd. Well, except this time around because he's got no challenger a decent man could vote for.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Lamont
Ferrucci
Generic Libertarian Candidate
Write in for Blumenthal
Write in for Daffy Duck
Schlesinger
Lieberman

In that order.

[The Duke]

It depends.

I think of Joe as a pretty independent guy, so I like him, as Democrats go.  But whether I'd vote for an Independent Lieberman would depend on what I believed he'd do if re-elected.

If Joe either lost the primary or saw imminent defeat in the primary and ran as an independent, but he was only running as an independent to ease his re-election and once he got to Washington he'd switch back to the Democratic side, I'd lose an awful lot of respect for the man.  The Democratic Party is turning on him, and I could no longer respect Lieberman if he went back to the Democratic Party than I could respect a woman who stays with a husband that constantly cheats on her.  I could not vote for a Joe Lieberman who only wants to stay in power, nor could I respect him.

However, if Joe actually remains an independent and acts like an independent, working to broker compromises and trying to rise above partisan bickering, then I would not only vote for him I'd give money to his campaign.  If I thought he would be a legitimate liberal leaning independent and not just switch back to the Democrats, I'd would be thrilled with that.

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

Lamont
Ferrucci
Generic Libertarian Candidate
Write in for Blumenthal
Write in for Daffy Duck
Schlesinger
Lieberman

In that order.

That sounds about right to me.

[Cubby]

I am a liberal who agrees with Ned Lamont on almost all the issues.

But I am supporting (and will vote for) Joe Lieberman for the August 8 primary.

Lieberman is liberal on the issues that matter to me (civil rights, the environment and others). I don't believe we should reject a popular Senator just b/c we disagree with him on one issue. If Nutmeggers don't like the Iraq War, they had their chance on November 2, 2004 to end it, but they disgracefully increased Bush's showing from 2000. They shouldn't whine about the war now.

If Ned Lamont wins the primary and the November general race, then I will of course support him. But for now I'm staying with Joe.

[Rob]

Lamont.

If Nutmeggers don't like the Iraq War, they had their chance on November 2, 2004 to end it, but they disgracefully increased Bush's showing from 2000.

Uh, Kerry won Connecticut solidly and carried all but one county. Gore overperformed in 2000 due to Lieberman. 

They shouldn't whine about the war now.

If a state votes Democratic- by a somewhat smaller margin than the last election- than the state's residents can no longer "whine" about the war? Please elaborate, because that makes no sense.

[angus]

Some No Name Guy?!  very korean.  not sure he could pull of a victory in lilly-white connecticut.  Luckily for folks in the Constitution State, the ballot doesn't read the way you've worded it in your poll.  I think he has an italian-sounding name, by the way, and not a korean-sounding one, just fyi.  not sure who I'd vote for.  I'd consider voting for Lieberman for US senate.  More likely though I'd support either Lamont or Some No Name Guy.  Would consider all the others as well.  Lamont considers "fixing our health care system, upgrading our schools, and rebuilding our aging infrastructure" top priorities, which I admire.  But then Some No Name Guy says pretty much the same thing.  But he also says "I will fight to repeal the PATRIOT Act and protect the rights of our citizens from unlawful search and seizure."  This scores him high marks in my book.  I generally force myself not to make up my mind till I get into the ballot booth.  I think it would be especially easy to do in that particular race. 

[Cubby]

Lamont.

If Nutmeggers don't like the Iraq War, they had their chance on November 2, 2004 to end it, but they disgracefully increased Bush's showing from 2000.

Uh, Kerry won Connecticut solidly and carried all but one county. Gore overperformed in 2000 due to Lieberman. 

They shouldn't whine about the war now.

If a state votes Democratic- by a somewhat smaller margin than the last election- than the state's residents can no longer "whine" about the war? Please elaborate, because that makes no sense.

Do you think I didn't know that? Obviously Kerry won the state. What made me mad was that the Democratic margin decreased so much, that means there were a lot of voters in 2004 who liked the way the Iraq war was being run, so they shouldn't whine now that they finally realized it was a mistake from day one.

People in CT are using this primary race as a way of protesting Bush and the War. Lieberman shouldn't be punished for Bush's mistake, and thats also why I think there's whining going on.

[MaC]

BRTD if Lieberman was running against Bush in 2004 would you vote for him or for a third party?

[Speed of Sound]

Lamont.

If Nutmeggers don't like the Iraq War, they had their chance on November 2, 2004 to end it, but they disgracefully increased Bush's showing from 2000.

Uh, Kerry won Connecticut solidly and carried all but one county. Gore overperformed in 2000 due to Lieberman. 

They shouldn't whine about the war now.

If a state votes Democratic- by a somewhat smaller margin than the last election- than the state's residents can no longer "whine" about the war? Please elaborate, because that makes no sense.

Do you think I didn't know that? Obviously Kerry won the state. What made me mad was that the Democratic margin decreased so much, that means there were a lot of voters in 2004 who liked the way the Iraq war was being run, so they shouldn't whine now that they finally realized it was a mistake from day one.

People in CT are using this primary race as a way of protesting Bush and the War. Lieberman shouldn't be punished for Bush's mistake, and thats also why I think there's whining going on.

He shouldnt be punished for Bushs mistakes, he should be punished for Lieberman's mistakes, and thats exactly whats happening.

[Rob]

What made me mad was that the Democratic margin decreased so much

If you hadn't ignored my second sentence, you'd know that the percentage fell only because Lieberman was on the national ticket in 2000. Kerry's showing is more typical of what national Democrats can expect in Connecticut.

But let's say that we're living in a parallel universe where there's no Lieberman factor. 54 percent of the state still voted for Kerry, and the vast majority were presumably antiwar. Should they stop "whining"?

that means there were a lot of voters in 2004 who liked the way the Iraq war was being run, so they shouldn't whine now that they finally realized it was a mistake from day one.

Two very stupid points here. (1) As noted above, a majority did not like "the way the Iraq war was being run"; (2) you seem to think that people shouldn't be allowed to change their minds on current events.

Lieberman shouldn't be punished for Bush's mistake, and thats also why I think there's whining going on.

Well, Joe has consistently backed "Bush's mistake" to this day. Therefore, it's his mistake also.

Those are some bizarre arguments you've marshaled; you earn points for creativity, I guess.

[Harry]

Any "Democrat" who would vote Schlesinger over Lieberman should be shot.

[nini2287]

I'd easily vote for Lieberman.

[So the Heroes Fall]

BRTD if Lieberman was running against Bush in 2004 would you vote for him or for a third party?

I would've voted for him, but I would've voted for Pinochet over Bush in 2004.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Lieberman