CT Senate Poll

[Rob]

I know we've had this poll before, but I'm interested in seeing how the primary has changed opinions (if at all). I've included the minor candidates as well.

[WalterMitty]

lieberman.

[Boris]

I lean Lieberman, although I'm still open to supporting Lamont. I'll have to see how both campaigns develop.

[nini2287]

lieberman.

^^^^^^^^^

Although, Connecticut for Lieberman is a very stupid name.

[ATFFL]

lieberman.

^^^^^^^^^

Although, Connecticut for Lieberman is a very stupid name.

He could have gone with a less egocentric name.  Like "The Jewish Savior Party" or L4L, Lieberman for Life.

[opebo]

Lamont of course, as I am a Democrat.  Leiberman is a disloyal scumbag.

[GOP = Terrorists]

I'm not a chickenhawk warmongering terrorist so Lamont.  I will actually cast that vote as well.

[André]

Lamont

[riceowl]

lieberman

[Democratic Hawk]

Lieberman. No doubt about it

Dave

[Colin]

Lieberman

Although I don't agree with him on alot of issues it's better than voting for a no-name Republican or a Democrat whose positions I know nothing about except for Iraq, and who has about the same political experience I do.

[Eraserhead]

Lamont of course, as I am a Democrat.  Leiberman is a disloyal scumbag.

Lamont and this sums up my feelings more or less.

[Eraserhead]

Also...there is a Green on the ballot? I can't imagine him getting any support with a Democrat as progressive as Lamont on it.

[jerusalemcar5]

Lieberman

Although I don't agree with him on alot of issues it's better than voting for a no-name Republican or a Democrat whose positions I know nothing about except for Iraq, and who has about the same political experience I do.

Founding fathers expected politicians to be lawyers, businessmen, dcotors, and others who stepped up to represent their fellows as a civic duty, not a away to gain power.  They frowned upon long times in political office.  As do I.

[Colin]

Lieberman

Although I don't agree with him on alot of issues it's better than voting for a no-name Republican or a Democrat whose positions I know nothing about except for Iraq, and who has about the same political experience I do.

Founding fathers expected politicians to be lawyers, businessmen, dcotors, and others who stepped up to represent their fellows as a civic duty, not a away to gain power.  They frowned upon long times in political office.  As do I.

I thought you hated the Founding Fathers?


And anyway experience isn't one of the main reasons for voting for Lieberman. Mostly because Lieberman seems to be the more moderate candidate in the race and, for all intents and purposes, he is the Republican candidate. Plus, as I said before, I am, along with most people in Connecticut, completely unaware of Lamont's positions on anything accept the Iraq War.

[jerusalemcar5]

Lieberman

Although I don't agree with him on alot of issues it's better than voting for a no-name Republican or a Democrat whose positions I know nothing about except for Iraq, and who has about the same political experience I do.

Founding fathers expected politicians to be lawyers, businessmen, dcotors, and others who stepped up to represent their fellows as a civic duty, not a away to gain power.  They frowned upon long times in political office.  As do I.

I thought you hated the Founding Fathers?

They are good for use behind the intent of the Constitution and America in ways except for race, gender, and general steretypes and biases.

[Rob]

Also...there is a Green on the ballot? I can't imagine him getting any support with a Democrat as progressive as Lamont on it.

Their platforms are nearly identical; the only major difference is on Israel, as far as I can tell.

I'm surprised by the utter lack of Schlesinger support. Yeah, he's a loser, but not a single person would vote for him?

I'm also surprised that Mertens hasn't gotten any votes. From his website, it would seem that he's a libertarian (he even describes himself as "a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal"). He's also the most obscure candidate, meaning that he should have New Federalist's vote.

[Eraserhead]

Lieberman

Although I don't agree with him on alot of issues it's better than voting for a no-name Republican or a Democrat whose positions I know nothing about except for Iraq, and who has about the same political experience I do.

Founding fathers expected politicians to be lawyers, businessmen, dcotors, and others who stepped up to represent their fellows as a civic duty, not a away to gain power.  They frowned upon long times in political office.  As do I.

I thought you hated the Founding Fathers?


And anyway experience isn't one of the main reasons for voting for Lieberman. Mostly because Lieberman seems to be the more moderate candidate in the race and, for all intents and purposes, he is the Republican candidate. Plus, as I said before, I am, along with most people in Connecticut, completely unaware of Lamont's positions on anything accept the Iraq War.

Check out his website.

[Eraserhead]

Also...there is a Green on the ballot? I can't imagine him getting any support with a Democrat as progressive as Lamont on it.

Their platforms are nearly identical; the only major difference is on Israel, as far as I can tell.

I'm surprised by the utter lack of Schlesinger support. Yeah, he's a loser, but not a single person would vote for him?

I'm also surprised that Mertens hasn't gotten any votes. From his website, it would seem that he's a libertarian (he even describes himself as "a fiscal conservative, and a social liberal"). He's also the most obscure candidate, meaning that he should have New Federalist's vote.

Cool. Thanks for the information.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Lieberman.  What the heck is CFL?

[Eraserhead]

Lieberman.  What the heck is CFL?

Connecticut for Lieberman...

Yeah. He actually named a political party after himself.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd probably vote for the Green

[MasterJedi]

Lieberman

[Nym90]

I lean Lieberman, although I'm still open to supporting Lamont. I'll have to see how both campaigns develop.

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

As long as Lieberman remains a Democrat in the Senate (not merely an independent caucusing with the Democrats) I will almost certainly support him. I have absolutely nothing against Lamont, but I think Lieberman is a great guy who stands up for his principles and is far less conservative than he is portrayed (admittedly this is partially his own fault for highlighting his agreement with Bush disproportionately to his disagreements). On the issue of the war in Iraq, I agree more with Lamont than Lieberman, but I think that it would be a shame to throw out an otherwise excellent Senator simply due to this factor.

I don't think this race really deserves half the attention it is getting, however, as it has no impact on the overall balance of power within the Senate.

[nclib]

I think Lieberman is a great guy who stands up for his principles and is far less conservative than he is portrayed

Agreed, though I'd still prefer Lamont.