home

Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2006
Posted on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:41:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

As Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman make their final push to CT voters today, let's take a look at the numbers. Newsday reports:

  • 2.1 million voters in CT
  • 942,000 or 45% are unaffiliated
  • 702,000 are Democrats
  • 456,000 aree Republicans

A new Quinnipiac poll released today still has Lamont winning, but not by as much:

A Quinnipiac University poll released Monday showed Lamont with a slight lead over Lieberman, 51 percent to 45 percent, among likely Democratic voters. The telephone poll, conducted from July 31 to Sunday, was of 784 likely Democratic primary voters and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Reuters reports Lieberman has lost the trust of many voters, particularly because of his relationship with Bush and his stand on the war. His announcement he would run as an Independent if he lost the primary also alienated many voters.

Josh Nichols of the Nation who is on the ground in CT takes a look at Lieberman's Desperate Measures. Katrina Vanderheuval notes that Lamont's great-great uncle helped keep The Nation alive years ago.

< Elian Gonzales Sends Good Wishes to Castro | Ney Drops Out >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers | 23 comments (23 topical)
    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:24:21 AM EST
    Let's not uncork the champaign bottles yet, but by all means keep them on ice with the glasses lined up.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 11:38:29 AM EST
    Connecticut is also known for having a relatively affluent and well-educated population. Other than that, this election is just regular Democrats voting in a Democratic primary. Connecticut is not a hotbed of radicalism. Got that? Because if the candidate the Republicans like--in this Democratic primary--losses tommorrow, that's what you're going to hear on Wednesday: That about a third of Connecticut voters--the registered Democrats--are unreconstructed lunatic fringe. For not being Republicans. I'm a Democrat. I have a small business, three college degrees (from real universities, not Bible schools), a family, a home. I work hard, I pay my bills, and so do most of the people I know. Almost all the beliefs I have are extremely mainstream and I can defend the ones that aren't (including the ones that, as an American, don't require it, like my religious beliefs). And I'm tired of having my rather ordinary Democratic (both upper- and lower-case D) beliefs marginalized. For 5 and a half years, half the country has had to put up with that taxation without representation thing we dumped the Brits for. It's getting really old.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:15:48 PM EST
    I cannot understand the hostility you people are showing against Lieberman. He is a Statesman not a cheap politican who changes his values depending on what the latest "poll" tells him to believe. Furthermore, 90 percent of the time he votes with the democrats. He just doesn't tell the lies that the very far left demands. When Republican John McCain goes against his party he is applauded as a "Maverick" but if Joe Lieberman disagrees with his party on anything, he is a traitor. Lieberman is a gentleman and a statesman and has been an asset to the senate and to his state. He brings civility to an uncivilized political scene.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    I cannot understand the hostility you people are showing against Lieberman. He is a Statesman not a cheap politican who changes his values depending on what the latest "poll" tells him to believe. Furthermore, 90 percent of the time he votes with the democrats. He just doesn't tell the lies that the very far left demands. When Republican John McCain goes against his party he is applauded as a "Maverick" but if Joe Lieberman disagrees with his party on anything, he is a traitor. Lieberman is a gentleman and a statesman and has been an asset to the senate and to his state. He brings civility to an uncivilized political scene.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:06:17 PM EST
    SoapBoxStu--Connecticut is "the very far left"? Thank you for proving my point.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    SoapBoxStu-
    I cannot understand the hostility you people are showing against Lieberman.
    And what is your political affiliation? Digby quotes Glenn Greenwald:
    The idea that Lieberman is some sort of "centrist Democrat" and that the effort to defeat him is driven by radical leftists who hate bipartisanship is nothing short of inane. Why would Sean Hannity and Bill Kristol be so eager to keep a "centrist Democrat" in the Senate? Lincoln Chafee is a "centrist Republican." Are there any Democrats or liberals who care if Lincoln Chafee wins his primary? Do leftist ideologues run around praising and defending and working for the re-election of Olympia Snowe or Chris Shays or other Republican "centrists"? Do Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity love other Democratic "centrists," such as, say, Mary Landrieu or Joe Biden? The answer to all of those questions is plainly "no". The love which right-wing extremists have for Joe Lieberman isn't based on the fact that he's a "centrist." If Lieberman were a "centrist," extremists would not care about him. They would not be vigorously urging his re-election, or praising his potential appointment as Bush Defense Secretary, or touting him as a Vice-Presidential running mate for George Allen. They do that because he is one of them -- a neoconservative extremist who is with them on virtually every major issue of the day.
    Does that answer your question SoapBoxStu ? If not read the rest of digby's post on Lieberman the neoconservative.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 11:52:10 PM EST
    He's a neocon sympathizer thats always sucking up to the wall street teat. If you wanna call that a moderate then to hell with moderation I say! Pleeeeze, good people of Connecticut, rid us of this disease.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 07:49:34 AM EST
    Oh, please, a state nestled between New York and Massachusetts doesn't even realize how far to the left they have moved over the past very few years. You would prefer to have a "Jerry Springer" show going on in the Senate every day, instead of a civil discussion. Howard Dean screaming insanities and John Kerry shouting inconsistencies as he changes his mind every other day would evidently be your idea of how the government should run. Amd saying that Lieberman votes with the Republicans on "virtually every major issue of the day" is ridiculous unless you have a serious problem with math. His record is that he votes with his democratic colleagues 90 percent of the time. Maybe Joe Biden is considered a "centrist" but his rhetoric and "spin" are caustic, so, no wonder that someone like Hanniity wouldn't find him a likeable character. No matter what you think of Lieberman, he is consistent and a man of good character-------oh, right, blue states don't think character counts.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 08:50:55 AM EST
    Stu...are you working for the Lamont campaign? If not, then thanks for the volunteer effort to get people out to vote against Lieberman by repeating every insult against democracy and Democrats in the Republican playbook and reminding us what a weasel Lieberman is for going along with them.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    Ha ha ha ha ha. Another republican for Lieberman gives us advice. SoapBoxStu thanks for the laugh.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:15:18 AM EST
    Well, Ernesto, I can see that being even slightly reasonable is totally impossible for the far left wing. My only point now, is that there are a few decent, capable human beings on both sides of the political landscape-------whereas, you obviously believe that Independents and Repbulicans should be eradicated. Someone does not have to agree with me on every single issue for me to recognize they have class and character. And, if someone agrees with me on everything, but has serious character issues, I would find them very difficult to support.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#13)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    And what's more Stu, how could you be so sanctimonius and a Republican at the same time, when that party is famous for steamrolling ALL opposition that doesn't go along with the radical fringe that has taken over the party? Recall that their leader in the House was nicknamed The Hammer (among other things). Lieberman still believes that Iraq is gonna be some enlightened paradise, despite all the mountains of evidence to the contrary. This isn't class and character, this is delusion. All his actions point to a man that has seriously lost hs way in life by "staying the course". Lieberman kisses Bush, and where does it get him? But more importantly...where does it get us?

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    Ernesto, you are sick with hatred. The reason that Lieberman felt it necessary to "bolt" the democratic party, if he loses, is that he is well aware that the filthy rich far left (from all over the country) are ganging up to unseat him.(George Soros, Michael Moore, MOVEON.ORG., etc.) You really should look more carefully at Lieberman's liberal voting record. He has rarely strayed from the dems except to support finishing the war in Iraq. He in NO way can legitimately be called a "Bush Kisser". You also know very little about history. The last big "steamroller" was Democrat Lyndon Johnson-------you should read those stories----anyone in his party that expressed a differing opinion went down the tubes quickly. Thankfully, those days are gone. As for my political affiliation, there are a vast number of people you have no tolerance for-----Independents, Republicans, Conservative and Moderate Democrats, and Libertarians. I do fit into one of these groups. Now that you are trashing Lieberman, I guess there is a new political group-----Not Liberal Enough Liberals.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    Stu...if Lieberman's voting record was so liberal then why are you, a Republican, making such an effort to defend him? Because he is a tool for the Republican Party, that's why. And this is the greatest reason for Democrats to vote against him. Again, thanks for your unsolicited support of the Lamont campaign.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    As for my political affiliation, there are a vast number of people you have no tolerance for-----Independents, Republicans, Conservative and Moderate Democrats, and Libertarians. I do fit into one of these groups
    Obviously SoapBoxStu is embarrassed by his affiliation, otherwise he would proudly announce it. There is a word for you Stu and that is troll.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#17)
    by Sailor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    Something I've noticed about the rethugs; they all claim how a victory for Lamont will kill the Dems ... and yet they campaign for Lieberman.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    Oh, good, more far left rhetoric continues without you even researching facts. No need, now, as the polls are nearly ready to close. If Lieberman is defeated, it will actually be a positive for the Republicans because he will not count in the democratic numbers to make them the majority and there is no way Lamont is electable in a general election, unless he was living in California, New York, or Massachusetts.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    Yup, he's definately a troll.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:21:55 PM EST
    WHATEVER YOU THINK!

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    Stu...have you ever been to Connecticut? Have you ever voted Democratic? I am thinking NOT.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 04:54:34 PM EST
    The answer to both is yes. In fact, I lived and worked there for a short while, but have not been back since 1990. It is one of the most beautiful states I have ever seen, but the cost of living there was high, even back then. They were continually running Public Services Announcements on TV back then, regarding this problem, stating that it was becoming impossible for their young people to live in the state they grew up in. I don't know why they ran the TV spots, or if things have improved, but it really is a beautiful state.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#23)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    Stu...I voted for Lieberman in 1988. It was the one vote I wish I had back. I would take Lowell Weicker ANY day over Joe. He's a pompous ass too, but at least he had the good sense to recognize what Nixon was and what the Bush family is. Do you support the war? The only people backing Lieberman that I know of are big war supporters. And they are 99 percent Republicans.

    Re: Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    To be honest, I do not even remember what I thought about the war when we first went in. Everyone was still so hyper about 911, and I just figured that by getting rid of a terrorist government that helped train and protect terrorists, (and who had been given ample opportunity to comply with the U.N. and live up to demands they promised to abide by after the Gulf War) that we were protecting ourselves and the rest of the unsuspecting target populations. Now, I just believe that we need to finish up and get out. But, unlike what you probably believe, I believe that the President had the same information going into the war, that John Kerry and a ton of other senators had. They all voted for the war. X-President Clinton and others made favorable comments, initially. But, now, that it is not in their best interest politically, they have tried to distance themselves from the President, even if they have to lie to do it. I get it, that's politics, but I do not have to fall for it. Furthermore, I hate violence, so to ever be pro-war-------I feel sick every time I hear about another soldier dying or being maimed. But, it is just wrong to stop short of victory and allow the terrorists to re-group and come back more vicious than before. Maybe this seems strange to you, but nearly everyone I know, from both major parties, feels, to some degree, the way that I do. And what do you mean by saying "what the Bush family is"?

    Lamont and Lieberman: By the Numbers | 23 comments (23 topical)