update #2: 93% reporting: Lieberman 48% Lamont 52%

[NewJersey]

pretty interesting race.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

I hope Joe wins.

 

[Teejay32]

bye Joe.

 

[NewJersey]

If I lived there, I would have probably sided with Lamont. I just don't like Lieberman for a number of reasons.

 

[TheDoctor]

Here is a great quote from Senators Reid and Schumer on this race.

“The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont’s candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.

“Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”

Joe was a weak candidate in 2000 and was out of step with the party. Joe tried scold the rest of the party for attacking bush on his lies about wmds and has now paid the price for his loyalty to bush.

 

[DisneyFan06]

hmmm... I just read that because Lieberman lost this election he is going to be now running as an independant. Does anyone think this is right?

Three-Term Senator Files to Run as Independent
By STEPHANIE REITZ, AP

HARTFORD, Conn. (Aug. 9) - Sen. Joe Lieberman filed petitions Wednesday morning to get on the November ballot as an independent, hours after he conceded the Democratic primary to an anti-war businessman.

"I'm definitely going forward," Lieberman told The Associated Press. "I feel that I closed strong in the primary. I feel we began to get out message across strongly and we're going to keep on going.

"This race is going to be all about who can get more done and who can be a better representative of Connecticut."

Lieberman said his campaign collected more than 18,000 signatures on its petitions, more than twice the number needed to get on the fall ballot under the new party created, called Connecticut for Lieberman. The new party allows him to secure a position higher on the ballot than he would have if he petitioned as an individual.

If the signatures are approved, as expected, it set up a three-way November race with Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont, who won the Democratic primary, and Republican Alan Schlesinger.

"For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand," Lieberman said.

He said Wednesday that he had to do continue his campaign push for the good of the country and no one could persuade him to drop out, even though several high profile Democrats said they would support the Democratic primary winner.

"I'll always take the calls of friends, but my mind is made up," Lieberman told NBC's "Today" show Wednesday. "I'm going forward. I'm going forward because I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting anything done."

Asked if there was anyone who could call and get him to change his mind, Lieberman replied:

"Respectfully no. I'm committed to this campaign."

Voters in Connecticut on Tuesday rejected Lieberman for the political newcomer Lamont in the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war. Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 146,061 votes, to 48 percent for Lieberman, or 136,042, with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

A jubilant Lamont told supporters: "Tonight we voted for big change." The millionaire owner of a cable television company has held local political offices in Greenwich, Conn., but never at the state level. His campaign focused on Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq and his perceived closeness to President Bush.

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and other officials are expected to endorse Lamont. New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg last week suggested that Lieberman drop plans to run as an independent if he loses by a wide margin. State leaders -- including fellow Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd and top officials who had campaigned for Lieberman -- planned to rally for Lamont on Wednesday morning.

"I think he really has to take a look at what reality is," Lautenberg said of Lieberman.

Lieberman's loss made him only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980, and came just six years after he was the Democrats' choice for vice president.

Two other congressional incumbents also lost their re-election bids Tuesday.

In Georgia, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the fiery congresswoman known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and a scuffle this year with a U.S. Capitol police officer, lost a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

In Michigan, moderate Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost to a conservative in a GOP primary.

Elsewhere, voters in Colorado and Missouri also chose candidates for the fall elections.

But Connecticut's results posed questions that went far beyond state lines.

Critics targeted Lieberman for his strong support for the Iraq war and for his close ties to President Bush. They played and replayed video of the kiss President Bush planted on Lieberman's cheek after the 2005 State of the Union address.

Vote totals showed roughly 16,000 more ballots cast for the Democratic Senate primary than the party primary for governor.





-OR-
Browse By State



Lieberman has had poll results on his side when it comes to a general election. A mid-July Quinnipiac University poll found that while Lieberman trailed Lamont among Democrats, he came out well ahead of both Lamont and Schlesinger among registered Connecticut voters of all affiliations.

Lieberman said Wednesday that he didn't believe there was any risk that he and Lamont would split the Democratic vote and allow a Republican victory if he ran as an independent.

"I think in the end this is going to come down to the second half, round two between Ned Lamont and me," he told CBS' "The Early Show."

The race has been watched closely by the liberal, Internet-savvy Democrats who lead the party's emerging "netroots" movement, groups such as Moveon.org that played a big role in pushing Lamont's candidacy.

In the run-up to the primary, 14,000 new Connecticut voters registered as Democrats, while another 14,000 state voters switched their registration from unaffiliated to Democrat to vote in the primary.

Wednesday morning, Lieberman campaign representative Dan Papermaster handed over two boxes of petitions to officially get Lieberman's name on the ballot, then left the Secretary of the State's office without commenting.

All the signatures turned in must be validated by the town clerks in the towns where they were submitted. Those that are not will go back to the town clerks, who will have two weeks to verify them.

On the final day of the race, Lieberman accused his opponent's supporters of hacking his campaign Web site and e-mail system. Lamont said he knew nothing about the accusations.

In Georgia, McKinney, her state's first black congresswoman, was forced into a runoff last month and lost on Tuesday to Hank Johnson, the black former commissioner of DeKalb County, 59 percent to 41 percent.

In the heavily Democratic district, the runoff winner is likely to win in the fall.

McKinney has long been controversial, once suggesting the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. In March, she struck a Capitol Police officer who did not recognize her and tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

In Michigan, Schwarz, a moderate who supports abortion rights, lost to conservative Tim Walberg, a former state lawmaker. The race drew more than $1 million from outside groups; Schwarz had received support from President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In Colorado, state Sen. Doug Lamborn won the GOP nomination to succeed 10-term Republican Rep. Joel Hefley, and attorney Ed Perlmutter won the Democratic nomination to replace Rep. Bob Beauprez, the Republican nominee for governor.

And in Missouri, Republican Sen. Jim Talent and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, the state auditor, won their party's primaries.


8/9/2006 09:51:18

 

[Teejay32]

hmmm... I just read that because Lieberman lost this election he is going to be now running as an independant. Does anyone think this is right?

Don't know if it's right or not, but it does make sense. He's been independent of them for a while now, and owes the Democratic party nothing as of last night.

 

[sodaseller]

In Michigan, Schwarz, a moderate who supports abortion rights, lost to conservative Tim Walberg, a former state lawmaker. The race drew more than $1 million from outside groups; Schwarz had received support from President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In Colorado, state Sen. Doug Lamborn won the GOP nomination to succeed 10-term Republican Rep.

What is interesting is that the Lieberman loss is played as a revolt against moderates but the other two are not. No doubt Lieberman's higher profile as former Veep nominee makes him more newsworthy, but that doesn't account for why his race is evidence of such a trend and the others are not

 

[Patch'sD]

Lieberman is a National Figure, who got the Democratic Nod for Vice President in 2000, who fell from grace from his party. I think Joe will do well as an independent Winning in November. I think that Lamont accepting the Democratic Nod, with Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton standing behind him will not do well in November

 

[crcormier]

Something that will affect Joe's chances are if he is stripped of all his committee chairs now that he has left the Democratic party. This has been mentioned already and if it occurs then he has no more weight in the Senate than Lamont would have going in.

 

[Teejay32]

Something that will affect Joe's chances are if he is stripped of all his committee chairs now that he has left the Democratic party. This has been mentioned already and if it occurs then he has no more weight in the Senate than Lamont would have going in.

Sounds good.

Do you guys know what you're doing?

 

[Olaf]

Wonder when the Dems are going to wake up and realize that this is bad news for their party?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Lieberman is a National Figure, who got the Democratic Nod for Vice President in 2000, who fell from grace from his party. I think Joe will do well as an independent Winning in November. I think that Lamont accepting the Democratic Nod, with Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton standing behind him will not do well in November

Agreed. I hope you're right.

 

[Thizz]

Thank god/allah/jehovah we have a democrat running as a democrat.

 

[Thizz]

Wonder when the Dems are going to wake up and realize that this is bad news for their party?

If this divides the party, then those who support Lieberman can just re-register as republicans. I'm sick of moderates and conservatives parading around as democrats.

 

[eclectics]

Wonder when the Dems are going to wake up and realize that this is bad news for their party?

How so?

 

[Obi-Wan Pinobi]

If this divides the party, then those who support Lieberman can just re-register as republicans. I'm sick of moderates and conservatives parading around as democrats.

If the Democratic Party follows that logic, then they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy were moderates of their time and were Democrats. Bill Clinton was elected twice as POTUS, and he's typically perceived as a moderate. Sam Nunn of Georgia served many years in the US Senate, Zell Miller served 4 terms as Georgia's Lt. Governor, 2 as its Governor, and 4 years in the US Senate -- both lifelong Democrats and both moderate to conservative in philosophy.

Were they "parading around" all those years? Or is it the party that has changed over time? Someone such as myself -- that leans to the left on domestic issues but leans to the right on fiscal issues and foreign policy -- is going to want to see someone that holds similar stands.

It's bad news for the Democrats in that it's not going to make the party look that hospitable to many voters who are in the middle and don't subscribe completely to the views of either major party.

Let's say the base of each of the two main parties comprises 30 to 35% of the electorate. That leaves 30 to 40% in the middle. If the Democrats adopt a small tent approach and marginalize those who may break with the party on one or two issues but support the party platform on everything else, then they are going to continue to find themselves out of power.

If the party nominee is going to be someone that has a narrow appeal, then so be it. Don't be surprised, though, if that turns off potential voters and they go with the other party's nominee or with an independent choice.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

If the Democratic Party follows that logic, then they would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy were moderates of their time and were Democrats. Bill Clinton was elected twice as POTUS, and he's typically perceived as a moderate. Sam Nunn of Georgia served many years in the US Senate, Zell Miller served 4 terms as Georgia's Lt. Governor, 2 as its Governor, and 4 years in the US Senate -- both lifelong Democrats and both moderate to conservative in philosophy.

Were they "parading around" all those years? Or is it the party that has changed over time? Someone such as myself -- that leans to the left on domestic issues but leans to the right on fiscal issues and foreign policy -- is going to want to see someone that holds similar stands.

It's bad news for the Democrats in that it's not going to make the party look that hospitable to many voters who are in the middle and don't subscribe completely to the views of either major party.

Let's say the base of each of the two main parties comprises 30 to 35% of the electorate. That leaves 30 to 40% in the middle. If the Democrats adopt a small tent approach and marginalize those who may break with the party on one or two issues but support the party platform on everything else, then they are going to continue to find themselves out of power.

If the party nominee is going to be someone that has a narrow appeal, then so be it. Don't be surprised, though, if that turns off potential voters and they go with the other party's nominee or with an independent choice.

Worked for W and the Rebublicans in the last couple elections, while the Dems foolishly tried to be all things to all people.

Besides, either we end up with Lamont, a true Dem, or end up with Lieberman,who will continue to vote as he does (90% Dem) which is where we are now. Alan Schlesinger, everyone's favorite Republican gamblin' buddy, doesn't stand a chance!!

 

[eclectics]

Worked for W and the Rebublicans in the last couple elections, while the Dems foolishly tried to be all things to all people.

Bingo! Dems who try to appeal to Republican voters alienate their own party base and the Republicans aren't going to cross party lines to elect someone virtually indistinguishable from their own candidate. Dems loose.

 

[TheDoctor]

Lieberman is clearly the republican favorite. Mehlman refused to endorse the GOP candidate for Senate in CT three times tonight. It also appears that bush and rove are supporting Lieberman. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/09/rove_offers_help_to_lieberman.html

A "close Lieberman adviser" told George Stephanopoulos that Karl Rove "reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: 'The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.'"

The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate. And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it's too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman's direction is another possibility."

The concept that rove would call Lieberman on bush's behalf says a great deal about Lieberman.