Talk Elections

New Poll: Connecticut Senator by Rasmussen on 2006-04-27 (https://uselectionatlas.org/POLLS/SENATE/2006/polls.php?action=indpoll&id=9200604270)

Summary: D: 59%, R: 23%, U: 18%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/April%202006/Connecticut%20Senate%20April.htm)

Good :)

Dave

                 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY                                   
                 |      /            \    |
                 |      |           |     |
                 |            \/          |
                 |          ____       |
                 |         /        \     |
                 |____________|                 


Stupid alignment problems :P             

Good, very good.  I'll be happy if both Joe Lieberman and Bob Casey, Jr. (in particular) win their senate seats.  The Democratic Party needs to move more to the mainstream on cultural and national security issues, and the election of both these men will send a powerful signal that we as Democrats will not be held hostage by our left-wing activist base.   

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

Joe Lieberman is clearly out of the mainstream when it comes to the Iraq War. He is aligned with the far-right nutjobs on that one.

He simply has a more sensible position that all you left-wing nutjobs. It isn't his fault that people are too ficlke to take a long term view of Iraq.

The "left-wing nutjobs" (people who believe the Iraq War wasn't worth it) are now the majority in this country.

Very true :). If the Left thinks disaffection with Iraq is going to lead Democrats on the path to victory they are mistaken. I'm dissatisfied with Bush et al's ineptness (to be expected really) but it was the right thing to do

Dave

I agree with you on Casey, and I support Lieberman

However

Joe is not socially conservative. He is an economic and foreign policy conservative, while being socially centrist.

I'm well aware of that.  I suppose I should have made this clear from the start, but I picked Joe because of his stands on national security, and Bob because of his centrism/conservatism on social/cultural issues because that is what they are most widely known for, and how each is distinguished from the other. 

Look at the polls, most Americans do not agree with Bush and Lieberman on Iraq.

Apparently, most people dont live in Connecticut. ;) :(

I never stated that saying Iraq wasn't worth it makes you a left-wing nutjob. I stated that his is a more sensible position than that of left-wing nutjobs and that he can't be blamed that the majority of the American people don't get that.

Does 'generic Republican' have a name?

Any info on the Dem primary challenge to Joementum?

Good, the only Democrat I want to win is winning.  Now I can worry about the other races.

The general election obviously is not going to be interesting, nor part of any larger theme in American politics (other than that Gov and Lt Gov are the only statewide offices the people of Conn are comfortable electing Republicans to now and for the forseeable future).

It's the primary that has potential to tell us something about the role of ideology of the Democratic Party and anything else you want to make of it.


And to those people who say that Lieberman is important to the party, I would ask why the people of Conn should be burdened with him.  Politics is local.  Some swing state, maybe, would be well served to house Joe, but for the same reason Oklahoma shouldn't feel bad about not electing "moderate" Republicans over extremists -- it is a task better left to some place like N.H., or R.I, or Maine.  Pennsylvania, a moderate state on the balance, will likewise get a "centrist" Dem as its Senator.  But since a Senator represents the state to the nation, rather than acting as an agent of the nation working in the state, Conn should expect someone in line with the state's values, not the nation's.

The left wing "nuts" are the only true Democrats.  No finnicky wishy washy losers like Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, and John Edwards.  What this party needs is to stand up for its principles.  Rallying the liberal base, which has been disillusioned by the aforementioned people, is critical.  We need more people like Ned LaMont and Russell Feingold.  Men and women who stand up for the moral positions even if they are unpopular with so called "moderates."

I think you're ignoring the fact that regardless of his ideology (Which is rather center-left, really.  His only right leaning issue is that he is a defense hawk.), Joe Lieberman is of the upmost competency and maintains an honorably high level of integrity.  He is an asset to the Senate and to this nation.  We need someone like that who is willing to work with opposites sides and forge compromises.  To replace a great statesman like that with some hack nobody because he's purist on ideology would be an utter shame.

You may be right about Kerry and also Edwards (who in ideology aren't anywhere near the other two, so why the hell did you group them all into one category?) to a degree, but Lieberman and Nelson are anything but wishy washy and are especially not losers.  There pragmatism is of the uptmost values and is much more honorable than the endless, substanceless Bush-bashing of others.

I think the Democratic party needs to be a big tent that houses moderate and conservative Democrats.  People like Gene Taylor and Dennis Kucinich still have things in common.  Especially in this year I think the party needs to reach out to moderates and conservatives.  Lieberman may be an irritant to the grassroots, but he's respected and from my own limited perception has done enough to justify another term. 

Yes, but Connecticut shouldn't have to house these "conservatives".  Conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson are great - because they're the best Dems can hope for in places like Nebraska.  But Connecticut deserves a senator more in line with the state's voters.

I think too many people are focusing on the party, and not on the state.  If Lieberman were from some place like Nebraska, I'd support him.  But he's just not appropriate for Connecticut.  For the nation, he is probably a very good thing, however.  But that doesn't mean he deserves re-election in his home state.

Didn't you used be to coloured Red, i.e. Democratic? 

The people of the state of... any state... deserve whoever they are smart or stupid enough to elect.  Did it ever occure to you that people acctually chose to elect Lieberman?  I thing that you exibit a pretty elitist attitude by suggesting anything different.

Give me a break.  Suggesting that an elected official is out of touch with his constituents is hardly "elitist."  And Lieberman has had a shift especially since 2000, when the people of Conn re-elected Al Gore's running mate, not Bush's "favorite Democrat."

Lieberman votes for/against things when they matter then switches to the other when it no longer matter.  Same for Nelson.  Regardless, they stray too far from the party and too close to Bush for being Democrats.  They are disgraces, but are not quite as bad as Zell Miller who was an ultra conservative Republican.  Saying that the Iraq war was a good deicision after everything we've seen is not honorable, it is despicable, especially for a "Democrat".  Substanceless Bush bashing?  Is this a joke?  How does calling him on the deficit, the war, his social policies, and his foreign policies become "substanceless."  I strongly disagree.  The real Democrats are honorably defending the country by rallying against the anti-constitution Bush.

It's quite substanceless when they don't even have their own damn plan.  It's just a waste of everyone's time.

There is actually a fairly decent chance (I'd put it at 35%, for now) that Lamont wins the primary.  A candidate who is telegenic (as Lamont is) and who has tons of cash to spend will always be strong.

Don't leftist Democrats understand that even though Lieberman may me to the right, there are still competitive congressional races in CT where we need Lieberman at the top of the ticket to bring people out?  Chris Shays is beatable, but it'll be harder if Lieberman's off the top of the ticket.

Really?  Is Lamont that telegenic.  I always thought Lieberman was popular amongst Democratic officeholders in Connecticut anyway.

Yes, I've long been using D-RI, D-OK, or D-HI avatars, but I decided to be a RAT for a little while. ;)


I was skeptical at first of his candidacy; it was only after I saw him speak in person that I was convinced.  In that small group setting, he was quite charismatic.  I don't really watch TV, so I'm not sure if he comes across that way on his ads or not, but I'd bet that most people who see him in person will be impressed.