Lieberman-Lamont Showdown: The Results are coming in

[Nym90]

Joseph Robinson was elected twice more to the Senate after his death.

Wow, now that's quite an accomplishment!

[Nym90]

I can't fathom how Lamont could win come November after winning this so narrowly.

Well, a lot of Democrats who supported Lieberman in the primary will probably switch to supporting Lamont now, out of a sense of party loyalty. Plus, quite a few staunch conservatives probably find Lieberman unacceptably liberal and will still vote for Schlesinger.

But I do agree that Lieberman has a good chance.

[Nym90]

I think Lamont will narrowly win in November. Democrats will feel compelled by party loyalty to vote for Lamont if nothing else.

[Nym90]

I think Lamont will narrowly win in November. Democrats will feel compelled by party loyalty to vote for Lamont if nothing else.

Who are you supporting in the general, Eric?

I'm still undecided. It depends on which way Lieberman goes in the next few months. If he is willing to become more critical of Bush I'd gladly support his reelection. If he threatens to caucus with the GOP I'll definitely go for Lamont.

I supported Lieberman for the nomination as I do like him a lot overall (I disagree with him on the war, but I'm willing to look past that, as I opposed it more for pragmatic reasons than philosophically), and I think it's good for the party to reward our more moderate members as it will help strenghten us overall and improve our chances of victory. But I'm still unsure now on the general, I wish Lieberman would accept the primary results though he does have every right to run as an Indy.

[Nym90]

Let me just say that I am very disappointed with the voters of Connecticut's Democratic primary.  They had a perfectly good senator, one of the best in the country, who only happened to disagree with them on one main issue.  The liberals on this board consider themselves to be much more "tolerant" people than the conservatives, but they've just chucked someone based on the fact that he happens to not agree with them 100% on every issue.  I don't know where people like jfern get off saying that Lieberman was a rubber-stamp for Bush's policies, when he has criticized several of them (Lieberman mentioned this himself).  It's sad, really.

More importantly, I'm worried about the implications of this primary,  I hope this doesn't send a message to moderate and independents out there that the liberals who have taken over the Democratic Party won't tolerate anyone who so much as disagrees with them on one issue.  I'm not saying Lamont is an extremist, but many of the people who were behind his campaign are.  Hopefully, Lieberman will win the general election as an independent and then switch back to the Democratic Party once he takes office again.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you have said. Lieberman is still an excellent Senator overall, even if I do agree with Lamont more on some issues. (Is it true that Lamont is actually more moderate economically than Lieberman? If so, that'd be more reason for me to support Lieberman.)

As long as Lieberman remains a Democrat in the Senate and not an Independent caucusing with the Dems, I'd definitely be for him. The latter would still be ok, too, though, but if he starts talking about any kind of a switch to the GOP caucus I will lose ALL respect for him immediately.

[Nym90]

One problem is fundraising.  Do Democrats nationally send money on Lamont to fight off Joe the Indy?  Do they then divert money from other races?

Good point, J.J. I'd hate to see money wasted on this race that could go to Ohio, Missouri, Montana, etc.

[Nym90]

To argue these people are the face of the party is quite absurd. That makes about as much sense as chastising Bush for having received the support of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Just because person X supports candidate Y's campaign does not mean candidate Y is equivalent to X or even necessarily very close to X politically.

[Nym90]

To argue these people are the face of the party is quite absurd. That makes about as much sense as chastising Bush for having received the support of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Just because person X supports candidate Y's campaign does not mean candidate Y is equivalent to X or even necessarily very close to X politically.

Well you know, I like to say that they are....

Actually, though, I find support for a candidate from people like Sharpton, Jackson, Waters, etc. to be repellant.

You really can't argue that Nancy Pelosi is a big part of the party's public face.  She even appears in DNC commercials.

True, I was thinking more of Jackson/Shartpton/Waters. The first two have never even held elected office, and the third only wins in an overwhelmingly Democratic and majority-black district.

Pelosi doesn't seem to be a radical. The fact that she's from San Francisco probably makes people assume she is, but I don't see how she's any worse than someone like Newt Gingrich was for the GOP.

She's liberal, no doubt, and I'd prefer someone like Hoyer or Emmanuel as Speaker.

[Nym90]

But remember that O'Reilly is an independent.

Sure he is. And Fox News is fair and balanced.....

In fairness, O'Reilly has been critical of the President, but he almost always couches in terms that suggest the Democrats are even worse. I can't ever recall him praising a Democrat, and he seems to have an inflated opinion of his own importance (as does pretty much everyone in the media). I remember when he suggested Al Gore would've won the election in 2000 if he'd appeared on the Factor.

[Nym90]

Did you see O'Reilly trying to peg Lamont as anti-semitic because on two blogs that supported Lamont there were unknown posters who posted comments about Jews.  Then he said the media was biased for not covering it.  Of course no one covered it!  That carries as much weight as if they'd reported opebo's comments!

Well if Dave Leip ever runs for higher office, he can count on having opebo's comments held against him.