Lieberman-Lamont Showdown: The Results are coming in

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The people have spoken. They want change.

Be careful with that sort of logic in tight elections; unless you also think (for example) that Bush had a "mandate" in 2004, then you are at risk of being labeled a hypocrite.

[??????????]

The people have spoken. They want change.

Be careful with that sort of logic in tight elections; unless you also think (for example) that Bush had a "mandate" in 2004, then you are at risk of being labeled a hypocrite.

Bush did win a mandate in 2004.

[M]

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.

Good lord, man, you think it unreasonable of voters to want their representative to represent their views?!

Yes.

Because I belive in a Republic, and not a Democracy, as did the Founders of this nation. America is not a mob rule nation; our best politicians, rare as an Arab democracy, are those like Clay and Lieberman who would rather be right than president.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The people have spoken. They want change.

Be careful with that sort of logic in tight elections; unless you also think (for example) that Bush had a "mandate" in 2004, then you are at risk of being labeled a hypocrite.

Bush did win a mandate in 2004.

It matters not what you think over that, it's what he thinks. If that makes any sense.

[??????????]

The people have spoken. They want change.

Be careful with that sort of logic in tight elections; unless you also think (for example) that Bush had a "mandate" in 2004, then you are at risk of being labeled a hypocrite.

Bush did win a mandate in 2004.

It matters not what you think over that, it's what he thinks. If that makes any sense.

I see where you're going with this.

[??????????]

M,

How the hell ya been man?

[Soaring Eagle]

The people have spoken. They want change.

Be careful with that sort of logic in tight elections; unless you also think (for example) that Bush had a "mandate" in 2004, then you are at risk of being labeled a hypocrite.

In 2004, the people spoke that they wanted to know what they were getting. Bush was and is a horrible president, but voters like to know what they are getting. To this day, I still do not know what exactly Kerry's position on Iraq was. Bush's victory did send a message, just a slightly different message. Also, that was 2004. This is 2006.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

County results:

Fairfield: N 28,474   J 25,894
Hartford: N 35,066  J 33,415
Litchfield: N  5,847  J   4,671
Middlesex: N 7,020  J  5,076
New Haven: N 21,706 J 22,032
New London: N 7,913  J 7,364
Tolland: N 6,101  J 3,871
Windham: N 2,979  J 2,430

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The people have spoken. They want change.

Be careful with that sort of logic in tight elections; unless you also think (for example) that Bush had a "mandate" in 2004, then you are at risk of being labeled a hypocrite.

In 2004, the people spoke that they wanted to know what they were getting. Bush was and is a horrible president, but voters like to know what they are getting. To this day, I still do not know what exactly Kerry's position on Iraq was. Bush's victory did send a message, just a slightly different message. Also, that was 2004. This is 2006.

I'm sorry, I don't understand that.

My point was, that you made a sweeping statement about a very close election; saying that "The people have spoken. They want change." when the margin between the two candidates was about 3pts.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But look at how badly the odds were stacked against Lamont.

From what I read, Lieberman is now only the 4th sitting senator to lose a primary since 1980.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

But look at how badly the odds were stacked against Lamont.

Please don't pretend this was an upset... that's almost as bad as pretending it was a landslide...

Besides, the odds haven't been stacked against Lamont for quite a while now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's either fifth or fourth, can't recall which. Either way, that's still not enough to justify this:

"The people have spoken. They want change."

The implication here is that Change won overwhelmingly, when actually it was a very close race and wasn't all that far off from being 50/50.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the reactions from both sides to this have been way over the top.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

But look at how badly the odds were stacked against Lamont.

Please don't pretend this was an upset... that's almost as bad as pretending it was a landslide...

Actually what I saw on many news sources called it an upset.

Hell, even good Lewis made this prediction (To the thread "If Lamont loses the Senate primary"):

I have a problem with the thread title. A grammatical problem. It should say "when", not "if".

[Jake]

You have a very poor memory. Those statements about Lamont surely losing the primary were made after Lieberman announced he would run as an Independent if he lost the primary. That's when this race became competitive and when the odds were no longer stacked against Lamont.

Here's the thread of July 3rd.

[Soaring Eagle]

But look at how badly the odds were stacked against Lamont.

Please don't pretend this was an upset... that's almost as bad as pretending it was a landslide...

Besides, the odds haven't been stacked against Lamont for quite a while now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's either fifth or fourth, can't recall which. Either way, that's still not enough to justify this:

"The people have spoken. They want change."

The implication here is that Change won overwhelmingly, when actually it was a very close race and wasn't all that far off from being 50/50.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the reactions from both sides to this have been way over the top.

Well, let me put it this way; the majority wants change. And they want it enough to give the boot to a three-term incumbent. I think that's pretty significant.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually what I saw on many news sources called it an upset.

Despite the fact that it was closer than the polls indicated? That says a lot about the media.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

That was almost two months ago; a lot can (and did) change in two months.
By a few days ago, only a handful of people on the forum were predicting Lieberman winning; less than those predicting a big Lamont win I think. It's on the start of this thread IIRC.

(O/c by all means celebrate that your guy has won; just don't exaggerate it into anything it wasn't).

[minionofmidas]

But look at how badly the odds were stacked against Lamont.

Please don't pretend this was an upset... that's almost as bad as pretending it was a landslide...

Actually what I saw on many news sources called it an upset.

Hell, even good Lewis made this prediction (To the thread "If Lamont loses the Senate primary"):

I have a problem with the thread title. A grammatical problem. It should say "when", not "if".

Two months ago.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, let me put it this way; the majority wants change.

Yes, but only a very slender majority. Both facts (that it's a majority, that it's a small one) are important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When did I say that it wasn't significant? Of course it's significant. Hey, I stayed up till past 3am to watch this, it's not like I thought this were a routine primary or anything...

[Soaring Eagle]

Well, let me put it this way; the majority wants change.

Yes, but only a very slender majority. Both facts (that it's a majority, that it's a small one) are important.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When did I say that it wasn't significant? Of course it's significant. Hey, I stayed up till past 3am to watch this, it's not like I thought this were a routine primary or anything...

I know. I'm probably just stating the obvious there.

[TheresNoMoney]

Lieberman is pure trash.

I have to agree. Whatever respect I had for him, I lost last night.

This scumbag even continues to reference his website being hacked. Did you hear his "concession" speech?  How do people just blindly lie like that? God, he is a scumbag.  The Lamont campaign should sue for slander.

Lamont is a classy guy. Lieberman is trash.

[Lincoln Republican]

Standing right behind Lamont on stage were the Democrats' two greatest hangers on who like to get their faces into every liberal photo op imaginable, race baiter Al Sharpton and moral hypocrite Jesse Jackson.

Lamont, Sharpton, Jackson, Pelosi, the new face of the Democratic Party.

[Sam Spade]

Al, I want to thank you for adding a voice of sanity and reason to this thread. 

[nini2287]

Here's a link to some excerpts from Lamont's speech:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/nyregion/09transcriptlamont.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This sounds more like a campaign speech than a victory speech.  It also seems pretty obvious he doesn't know much about DC works.

[Rob]

Matt Taibbi on Lieberman's defeat:

The only kind of change most dissenting voters in this country can contemplate is the rejection of an openly drooling imperialist like Joe Lieberman, whose real crime was not his war stance but his refusal to participate in the kind of craven cover-your-ass posturing the Hillarys and Joe Bidens and John Kerrys have indulged in this election season. Had Lieberman merely pretended to be antiwar once things went wrong in Baghdad, he almost certainly could have counted on the pusillanimity of the American voter to carry him to yet another Connecticut landslide.

[The Dowager Mod]

Leiberman took his position for granted and got smacked around for it.
Either way the dems keep the seat so i couldn't care less what he does now.

[jman724]

Standing right behind Lamont on stage were the Democrats' two greatest hangers on who like to get their faces into every liberal photo op imaginable, race baiter Al Sharpton and moral hypocrite Jesse Jackson.

Lamont, Sharpton, Jackson, Pelosi, the new face of the Democratic Party.

Amen!  Sad day for America.