Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable

Rasmussen has completed a poll on the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Although the poll is currently in its subscription only-section, it shows Lieberman leading Ned Lamont 51-30. There are no direct trendlines, but that is certainly a lot better than the first poll on this campaign, conducted by Quinnipiac in February, which showed Lieberman leading Lamont 68-13. Lieberman at 51% is also consistent with the numbers we have seen from Survey USA, where Lieberman has dropped to 54% approval among Democrats in Connecticut, and actually into slightly negative approval among self-identified liberals.

A lead cut from 55 to just 21 in ten weeks. An incumbent hovering around 50%, even after going on the air, and dripping rapidly. An opponent with lots of money, more than one thousand volunteers, and an army of bloggers in support. Even the most cynical election analysis of Lamont's challenge would have to remove Lieberman from the "safe" category now. The race is still not what I would call "already competitive," but it is clearly on the board.

Twenty points is still a big gap, and one has to wonder if Lamont can make up the rest of the distance in just fifteen weeks. Fortunately, history suggests yes. On May 1st, 2003, Quinnipiac completed a poll on the Democratic presidential primary in Connecticut:
From April 22 - 28, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,239 Connecticut voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent. The survey includes 387 Democrats with a margin of error of +/- 5 percent.

Lieberman: 46%
Dean: 6%
Others:37%
DK/NA 11%
Thirteen weeks later, only July 31st, 2003, Quinnipiac released another poll on the Democratic Presidential primary in Connecticut:
From July 23 - 29, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,384 Connecticut voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percent. The survey includes 427 Democrats with a margin of error of 4.7 percent.

Lieberman 37%
Dean 17%
Others: 37%
Don't Know: 10%
In three months, less the amount of time between now and the Connecticut primary, Dean caught up 20 points on Lieberman--exactly the deficit Lamont currently faces. By November, Lieberman's advantage on Dean had dropped to just five points. By late January, in a poll conducted by UConn, John Kerry held a 25% lead on Lieberman, who held only 18% support among the Democratic primary electorate. We are clearly dealing with a primary electorate in Connecticut that is open to supporting Democrats other than Lieberman.

You can feel a rumble happening. If Lieberman drops just five more points, he becomes officially endangered. I am going to Connecticut next Sunday, and I will provide a full report here. I think we are going to shock the world on this one.

Volunteer for Ned Lamont
Donate to Ned Lamont



Display:


Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Chris,

Do you think Ned enjoys a structural advantage in that pro-Lamont progressive Democratic voters are more likely to participate in a primary election, as opposed to the rank-and-file regular D's?


by global yokel on Mon May 01, 2006 at 04:06:19 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

I have no idea.
by Chris Bowers on Mon May 01, 2006 at 05:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Structural advantage from activists (none / 0)

Yes.

Party activists and Party Die-hards are more liberal than the populace at large. And, since this is a mid-term election turnout and enthusiasm in the base are more significant factors than in a Presidential election year.


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Mon May 01, 2006 at 08:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

which districts are those? (3.00 / 1)

Can you elaborate on which districts there are in a Senate race?  I was away all weekend, but maybe Congress magically redrew the Connecticut and New York borders/districts.


by jonahinnyc on Mon May 01, 2006 at 04:15:39 PM EST

Re: which districts are those? (none / 0)

Rob Simmons is running in a tight race in CT-2, the most democratic republican-held seat in the country.

Chris Shays is running in CT-4, in a close race against his 2004 rival, Diane Farrell.  CT-4 has the affluent areas of lower Fairfield County, with towns such as Greenwich, New Caanan, and Darien giving many GOP votes.  This is balanced by Democratic votes in places like Stamford and Bridgeport.

Nancy Johnson is running for reelection in CT-5, a more rural part of Western CT.  She's likely to win, but the race could get competitive.

Those are the Republicans.  The two Democrats in CT (John Larson and Rosa DeLauro), are essentially locks to hold their seats in central CT.


Max Friedman
by Max Friedman on Mon May 01, 2006 at 06:04:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Lamont is an "extremist."  Yeah, right.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon May 01, 2006 at 04:25:53 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

i dont support the challenge, as it is a huge waste of money when we dont even have close to a majority, but lamont definately has a shot to win


by yomoma2424 on Mon May 01, 2006 at 04:27:01 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

What makes you think he has a "definite shot" to win? Would you say that about any other candidate who is 21 points down with 3 months to do and is staring at a 10:1 cash disadvantage?

Worse than the 21 point margin is the fact that Lieberman's numbers match almost exactly with his favorables. Meaning that there are no more CT Dems who dislike Lieberman who haven't already defected, at least to undecided if not all the way to Lamont.  If Lamont is going to win, he's going to have to a) Get all those 20 points of remaining undecideds, including at least 4-5 points worth who actually like Joe; and b) Get about five more points worth who not only like Joe but are planning today to vote for him. And he's got to do all this in the Summer when no one's paying attention, with enough money to maybe go on TV for a week in one market.

The problem is, Lieberman isn't vulnerable and never was. His favorables are too high and aren't going down any more. Lamont got the low hanging fruit, the folks who hate Lieberman. But now what? He's spent a lot of money, has very little left, and Lieberman just started spending.

This race is over.


by ColoDem on Mon May 01, 2006 at 05:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (3.00 / 1)

"His favorables are too high and aren't going down any more."

You can read the future on this one? His trendliens are pretty hard down among both Democras and liberals. Yes, his numbers here are very similar to his favorables and approval. However, the trendline on those numbers are down, down, down. I fail to see what insight you have to determine that will suddenly stop, especially since no one has gone on the air against Lieberman yet.
by Chris Bowers on Mon May 01, 2006 at 05:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (3.00 / 1)

as i said, id rather not have lamont running. but hes polling a lot better than i thought, when a relatively unknown buisnessman is holding lieberman, a national figure to only 50 % something is going on


by yomoma2424 on Mon May 01, 2006 at 06:05:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's all about the narrative... (none / 0)

Sands shift, the wolf spider lurks.

Twenty points is still a big gap, and one has to wonder if Lamont can make up the rest of the distance in just fifteen weeks.

Political positioning is about creating a narrative in the voters' minds. In this case, "time for a change" is a good narrative. Lieberman "looks" old and faded. He looks scared by the fact of a challenger. He comes off weak by his ineffectual responses to Lamont. Leiberman's speaking points don't correspond to the anti-bush sea-change. Bushism is failing, and we need someone to speak up clearly, to point out that the emperor has no clothes. If Lamont can project confidence and cheeriness (Lieberman looks sort of pinchy), then you'll start seeing more movement in the polls.

See, there are a lot of ways to create a story line for a Lamont insurgency, and the "man-in-the-street" starts to nod his head in agreement.

I have a lot of faith in the advertising agency "Northwoods". And Lamont is a clean slate because his name recognition is low.


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Mon May 01, 2006 at 09:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Jim Pederson is also polling like 30-50 against Jon Kyl, and people think that race is competitive.  Of course, Pederson has a lot more time, but the fact is that Lieberman has started attacking Lamont because he knows he is in trouble.  When candidates aren't threatened, they just ignore their opponents.  Do you see Maria Cantwell or Hillary Clinton attacking their primary challengers?  They don't need to.  Doing so would only increase their opponent's name recognition and give dissatisfied Democrats someone to vote for.


by Skaje on Tue May 02, 2006 at 05:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what if? Lieberman as (I) (none / 0)

So what do the poll watchers here think happens if Lieberman loses the nomination and runs as an Independent?

and, if he won as an (I), with which party would he caucus?


by benchcoat on Mon May 01, 2006 at 04:38:29 PM EST

Re: what if? Lieberman as (I) (none / 0)

He would have to file as an Independent the day after the primary, which means he would have to start collecting signatures for an Independent candidacy while soliciting votes in the Democratic primary, kind of a desperate move, don't you think.  

I think Lieberman should pledge to support Lamont if he wins the primary, as Lamont has done for Joe.


Max Friedman
by Max Friedman on Mon May 01, 2006 at 05:51:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what if? Lieberman as (I) (none / 0)

Collecting signatures before the primary wouldn't be just a desperate move - it would be the sort of move that would guarantee defeat against any smart candidate.

That's exactly the sort of thing that you put in your final-weekend media buy: "Joe Lieberman won't support the Democratic nominee, and here's the proof."


by Michael Sheridan on Mon May 01, 2006 at 06:09:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what if? Lieberman as (I) (none / 0)

I'd say the Democratic Party needs to make Joe Lieberman sign a contract not to run as an Independent before it gives him one more dime of Party money. We're not in the business of financing people to run against our own Party.


by William Domingo on Mon May 01, 2006 at 06:45:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what if? Lieberman as (I) (none / 0)

I agree.  If Lieberman does that, I think it would guarantee his defeat in the primary, and probably in the general as well.  Bush is at 24% in CT, and people want someone to fight his policies, a real Democrat who will not betray his party.


Max Friedman
by Max Friedman on Mon May 01, 2006 at 08:07:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what if? Lieberman as (I) (none / 0)

so have his statements about running as an Independent just been posturing?


by benchcoat on Mon May 01, 2006 at 07:26:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what if? Lieberman as (I) (none / 0)

He's been bluffing all along.  Lieberman tried to portray his re-election as inevitable to dry up Lamont's fundraising.  But everyone knows that Lieberman can't file as an independant unless he starts collecting signatures well before the primary...which would look incredibly embarassing and probably hurt him further in the primary.


by Skaje on Tue May 02, 2006 at 05:39:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Joseph Lieberman: I'd Support Iran Attack (none / 0)

Sen. Joseph Lieberman: I'd Support Iran Attack

Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Tuesday that he would back a U.S. airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities if diplomatic options fail, becoming the first Democrat to announce his support for such a move.

"I think the only justifiable use of military power would be an attempt to deter the development of their nuclear program if we felt there was no other way to do it," the former vice presidential candidate tells the Jerusalem Post.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l r=&q=joe+lieberman+i%27d+support+ira n+attack&btnG=Search

Why's he telling the Jerusalem Post and not the Washington Post?


by William Domingo on Mon May 01, 2006 at 06:04:56 PM EST

Lieberman: Bottom line I think Bush has it right (3.00 / 0)

Lieberman is a study in the dangers of steroidal muscularity, becoming an outlier in his own party. (He has edged to the right as his running mate in the 2000 election, Al Gore, has moved leftward.) His fate was sealed with a kiss, planted on his cheek by Bush, just after the President delivered his State of the Union address. "That may have been the last straw for some of the people in Connecticut, the blogger types," Lieberman told me. But he is unapologetic about his defense of Bush's Iraq policy, saying, "Bottom line, I think Bush has it right." When I asked if he was becoming a neoconservative, Lieberman smiled and said, "No, but some of my best friends are neocons."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/in dex.ssf?050321fa_fact

This guy thought Bush "had it right" too. Dems kicked his ass to the curb, as well they should have.


St. Paul voters punished Mayor Randy Kelly on Tuesday for standing with President Bush a year ago, denying the Democrat a second term in Minnesota's capital city.

Former City Council member Chris Coleman, also a Democrat, routed Kelly by a more than 2-to-1 margin in unofficial returns with most precincts reporting. Ahead of the election, independent polls showed voters were primed to fire Kelly, and most cited his 2004 endorsement of the Republican president as the reason.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/8/ 215911/619



by William Domingo on Mon May 01, 2006 at 07:24:58 PM EST

Focus on the big picture (1.00 / 0)

People in Connecticut have so many good Congressional races to get involved with why waste your time on this?  Lamot will lose to Lieberman.  But the work people can do on Connecticut Congressional races could help the Democrats retake Congress, and that could help us pass good legislation - like capping carbon emissions, raising the miniumum wage, reinstituting the ban on assault weapons, expanding funding for Pell Grants, support for stem cell research, etc.  Let's focus on the big picture for once, be the real big tent party, and win big in November.
 
by ditka on Mon May 01, 2006 at 09:58:26 PM EST

Re: Focus on the big picture (none / 0)

We can do both.


by ElitistJohn on Mon May 01, 2006 at 10:03:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Focus on the big picture (none / 0)

why waste your time on this?

Who are you to determine what is and what isn't "a waste of our time"? Besides, the Connecticut Congressional Republicans ride Lieberman's coat-tails right into office. The best way to defeat them is to get rid of him.


by William Domingo on Mon May 01, 2006 at 10:13:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Focus on the big picture (none / 0)

He says it's a waste of time.
You obviously disagree.
Both of you have a right to say what you feel, so focus on that.

So enough of this "what gives you the right" stuff.


by v2aggie2 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 02:09:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Focus on the big picture (none / 0)

He didn't just say "it's a waste of time". He said, "it's a waste of YOUR time". I don't like somebody deciding what is and and what isn't "a waste of MY time". If he were to say "it's a waste of HIS OWN time" I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.  


by William Domingo on Tue May 02, 2006 at 04:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Focus on the big picture (none / 0)

I see your point -- thanks for your explanation.
You are right.
by v2aggie2 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 01:37:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

One woman collecting Signatures for Ned Lamont Attended a Teachers Union meeting in her town and collected 150 signatures at the meeting.

Lamont will overtake Lieberman among Dems in early June after a VERY successful Convention.Liebermans Staffers are planting with reporters the notion that Lamont will get 30-35% of the delegates in order to Soften the true Numbers.

I am a Delegate,The owner of http://www.dumpjoe.com/ and admit my Lamont bias  but if you want to see how Liebermans Future approval numbers will look Just go look at his numbers during the last Presidential Primary.The more the people of CT see of Lieberman the Lower his Numbers go.Exposure is Liebermans enemy and It's hard to campaign when thats the case


by ctkeith on Mon May 01, 2006 at 11:00:56 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Lieberman will be challenged, he is vulerable, but he will still squeek by at the end of the day.  I just hope this will make him think more about workign for his constituents and less about seeming bipartisan when GOP senators don't really have bipartisanship or statesmanship in mind.


by DaveB on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:30:51 AM EST

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Are the Republicans running anyone who might have a chance should Lamont win the primary?  (I'm assuming disaffected Lieberman supporters might be inclined to go R, especially for a moderate R).  

Last I checked, the state of the Republican Party in my former state was pathetic.  It's Jodi Rell and...well, no one (maybe the Congresspeople, but hopefully most of them will be gone this year).  


by rayspace on Tue May 02, 2006 at 12:58:31 AM EST

Not true! (none / 0)

You forgot to count Joe.


by ElitistJohn on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:12:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They don't have a candidate (none / 0)

and if it does start to look like Lieberman may fall, some low-level Republican will probably jump in at the last minute as a place holder, and get crushed by Lamont in November.  The Connecticut GOP will be spread thin just trying to keep Shays, Simmons, and Johnson.


by Skaje on Tue May 02, 2006 at 05:43:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They don't have a candidate (none / 0)

They do have a candidate.Former Derby Mayor Alan Schlesinger has entered the race.He's not too bright and is no threat to win but He'll get the R line on the ballot.


by ctkeith on Tue May 02, 2006 at 08:54:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lieberman is going to win regardless of what (none / 0)

party affilitation he joins

Quinnipiac Poll shows
Lieberman has a 66% job approval rating among Republicans,60% approval rating among Democrats and 58% approval rating among Independents.
Lieberman's personal favorable ratings among Democrats is at 48% Independents is at 47% and Republicans is at 55%.
In a Democratic Primary matchup between Lieberman
and LaMont. Lieberman leads by a 65-15% vote margin.

If Lieberman becomes an Independent. He still gets 57% of the popular vote- While LaMont gets 13% and the Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger gets 10%.

The biggest question now is if Lieberman becomes an Independents - which party does he caucus with.

It would make sense if the LEFT WING COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS like ctkieth and Chris Bowers to stop wasting their energy on the Lieberman Race and lets focus on
Defeating Rick Santorum-PA,Conrad Burns-MT,Jim Talent-MO,Sherrod Brown-OH,Lincoln Chaffee-RI,George Allen-VA,John Kyl-AZ,John Ensign-NV and lets win Bill Frist-TN Open Seat. and lets help re-elect- Bob Menenedez(NJ), keep the Open Maryland(Paul Sarbanes)and Minnesota(Mark Dayton)in the Democratic column.

Lets help
1-Bob Menendez(NJ)
2-Amy Klobuchar(MN)
3-Ben Cardin(MD)or Kwiesi Mfume(MD)
4-Bob Casey jr(PA)1
5-Sheldon Whitehous(RI)2
6-Jon Tester(MT) or John Morrison(MT)3
7-Claire McCaskill(MO)4
8-Sherrod Brown(OH)5
9-Harold Ford jr(TN)6
10-plus for security purposes
11-James Webb(VA)or Harris Miller(VA)
12-Jim Pederson(AZ)
13-Jack Carter(NV)


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 09:49:45 AM EST

Re: Lieberman is going to win regardless of what (none / 0)

LEFT WING COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS?

LMAO,Isn't it time to pay your DLC dues.

Q poll director is a Lieberman Pimp.He said last time he released his poll that Lieberman  had nothing to worry about and now he has to help prove himself correct.The Q is now the outlier of the 3 most recent polls.

Stay tuned for the May 20th CT. Dem convention.


by ctkeith on Tue May 02, 2006 at 10:21:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is going to win regardless of what (none / 0)

"...lets focus on defeating Rick Santorum-PA,Conrad Burns-MT,Jim Talent-MO,Sherrod Brown-OH,Lincoln Chaffee-RI,George Allen-VA,John Kyl-AZ,John Ensign-NV and lets win Bill Frist-TN Open Seat."

Do you really want to defeat Sherrod Brown?

Is this a mistake, or a GOoper freudian slip?


by redstar67 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 02:17:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman is going to win regardless of what (none / 0)

A Mistake- I intended to say Mike DeWine


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 03:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

How would you know the Q poll director is a Lieberman Pimp.

Regarding the May 20th CT Dem Convention.

The conventions don't determine the winners of the primaries- It is really to determine which candidates are going to compete in Primary Elections. LaMont needs about 25% of the Delegate Support at the CT Democratic Convention to have his name on the ballot during the Sept Primary.

The Primaries which will take place in Mid September will determine who wins the 2006 CT Democratic Senate Nomination- Joe Lieberman is favored to win.

Regarding your attacks on the DLC.

When was the last time you left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS(Anti WAr-Pro Gay Marriage) ever won the election.

Bill Clinton was the last sucessful Democratic President - He campaigned and slightly governed as a Moderate- He was a founder of the DLC.

Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic President to get more that 50% of the popular vote- Carter was a Moderate.


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 11:32:24 AM EST

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

"When was the last time you left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS(Anti WAr-Pro Gay Marriage) ever won the election."

Penchant for red baiting and ad hominem duly noted.

I suspect it'd be easier to test your hypothesis that anti-war pro-gay marriage candidates can't win national elections if one were actually to get the Democratic nomination for a run for national office.

Given this has never happened (well, I think it's safe to say we weren't talking about gay marriage in 1972, the last, arguably only time the Democrats ran someone from the lefter side of the party) I guess we have no way to test this hypothesis you are eructing.

On the other hand, we have ample evidence which suggests that moderate to right-wing Democrats do not win, for as you well note, the last time a moderate Democrat won 50+% of the national vote, it was 1976. That's quite some time ago.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that moderate to right-wing Democrats cannot win national elections.

Is that what you're trying to say?


by redstar67 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 01:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Looking at the Presidential Elections Democrats won from 1912(Woodrow Wilson-D)to 1996(Bill Clinton-D)-Dave Leip's Atlas of US Presidential Elections
1912(Wilson-D)-won 42-27
1916(Wilson-D)-won 49-46
1932(FDR-D)won 57-40
1936(FDR-D)won 61-37
1940(FDR-D)won 55-45
1944(FDR-D)won 53-46
1948(Truman-D)won 50-45
1960(JFK-D)won 50-50
1964(LBJ-D)won 61-39
1976(Carter-D)won 50-48
1992(Clinton-D)won 43-38
1996(Clinton-D)won 49-41

FDR,LBJ and Carter are the three Democratic Presidents to win the Presidential election with more than 50% of the popular vote.

FDR got elected because of the great Depression
As President FDR was an economic populist- created New Deal Programs(Social Security)
on Foreign Policy Issues- FDR was an internationalist. and FDR opposed the NEO-CONs philosophy of Pre-emptive War. FDR presided over World War II

LBJ- became President in wake of the JFK assassinstion- LBJ was a populist on Economic Issues- Signed the Civil Rights Bill,created the Great Society Programs- Medicare and Medicaid.
LBJ was damaged because of Vietnam War.

Carter got elected in wake of the Watergate Scandals-

In order for a Democrat to win the WhiteHouse with more than 50% of the popular vote.
A Democrat must be a populist on economic issues.
Must support Livable Minimum Wages,Universal Health Care,and Universal College Education. Must support some form of Tax Credits- Education or Energy Tax Credits.- The Democrat must lead the fight against POVERTY. A Democrats must be advocating Energy Independence and Environmental Protection.
The Democrat must embrace religion and faith
On Foriegn Policy issue- The Democratic Nominee must have a multi-lateral foriegn policy.

examples of which 2008 Democratic Presidential contender that fits the description is

John Edwards-

FDR-ish and LBJ ish on Economic Issue -Supports New Deal and Great Society Type Programs to eliminate Poverty. Has a personality of JFK and Bill Clinton. and personal values similar to Jimmy Carter


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 03:56:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Democratic Presidential Candidates from 1984 to 2004 were

Walter Mondale-1984 advocated Raising Taxes.
Michael Dukakis-1988 campaigned on competence but was damaged by the Willie Horton Ads- Soft on Crime.
Bill Clinton-1992 and 1996 -won because of Ross Perot- Clinton failed to get more than 50% of the popular vote.
Al Gore-2000 lost because of Ralph Nader-
John Kerry-2004- was damaged because of the swift boat at

Lets not support a Democrat that supports Tax Increase or raised Taxes-(Mark Warner's) nor a candidate that is Soft on Crime(Russ Feingold). Nor a Candidate that is personally disliked by 50% of the population (Hillary Clinton) nor a candidate that is unwilling to respond when he is swift boated by the Republicans

Democrats like
John Edwards
Bill Richardson
Wesley Clark
Evan Bayh
Joe Biden

are type of Democratic Presidential Candidates that can win the WhiteHouse with more than 50% of the popular vote.


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 04:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.

At least we agree that Hillary shouldn't be on that list, though I imagine it's for different reasons.


by redstar67 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 05:02:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is unelectable (none / 0)

Hillary is hated by 50% of the population.

40% of the population strongly dispises Hillary Clinton.

Hillary is described as a left wing feminist or an opportunitist.


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 06:02:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Starting To Look Vulnerable (none / 0)

Clinton would have won in 1992 and 1996 with or without Perot.

http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot. htm

Perot took evenly from both sides.

Hence, this would make the popular vote:

Clinton 53%
Bush 47%

I will be charitable to Bush and make it

Clinton 52%
Bush 48%

As far as the best case electoral college results for Bush without Perot in the race, the results would have been

Clinton 281
Bush 257

And it probably would not have been this close.


by v2aggie2 on Wed May 03, 2006 at 01:46:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS (none / 0)

you left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS (Anti WAr-Pro Gay Marriage)

So I take it that means you're all for Lieberman's desire for an attack on Iran, huh?


by William Domingo on Tue May 02, 2006 at 05:09:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS (none / 0)

Hell Yeah

I say nuke the entire Middle East


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 06:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS (none / 0)

Sincere question here:

Are you really a Democrat?

If so, did you vote for Bush in '00? In '04?

Your rhetoric is somewhat indicative of that sort of thing...


by redstar67 on Tue May 02, 2006 at 06:05:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS (none / 0)

I am a Democrat- I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004.

I supported Al Gore in 2000 because Al Gore was part of the team (Clinton/Gore)that gave us peace and prosperity and a balanced budget.

Gore would have continued the lot of Bill Clinton's policies. Gore would not support huge tax cuts that will cause an increase in the budget deficit- Politicians in both side are less likely to cut spending. Gore also had a strong environmental record.

I supported Kerry in 2004 because Bush brought this country into a huge mess. Since Bush became President- Our Country went from a Budget Surplus to a Budget Deficit- Bush gave wealthy people huge tax cuts and Increased Government Spending.

I am Liberal on Domestic Issues- I support A Livable Minimum Wage,Univesal Health Care,Universal College Education. Energy Independence,Environmental Protection. On Social Issues- I am pro-choice on abortion rights, I support marriage for hetrosexual couples and civil unions for gay couples. I am for legalized mararjuana, Support some forms of gun Control such as Brady Bill. My position on the illegal immigration issue is between John McCain and Bill Frist.

I support Building the Fence(Increase Number of Border Patrol Agents and National Guards to Stop Illegal Immigrants from entering the US. I favor prosecuting Businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens. Regarding the Illegal Immigrants whove been in the US for more than 5 years- Have a family,a job in the US and has paid taxes and not been in any trouble - I support Earned Legalization(Citizen)through Benchmark- Paying Fines-Learning English.
On issues relating to War- I support the "ALL OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE" policy.


by CMBurns on Tue May 02, 2006 at 07:03:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS (none / 0)

I support A Livable Minimum Wage,Univesal Health Care,Universal College Education. Energy Independence,Environmental Protection.
Hell Yeah, I say nuke the entire Middle East

You support all that, and endless war too? How you gonna pay for it all, big boy?


by William Domingo on Tue May 02, 2006 at 08:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: left wing COMMIE DOUCHE BAGS (none / 0)

Higher Minimum Wages does not cost the Federal Government or Tax Payers any money-

On the Issue of Universal Health Care- We can expand Mediciad to people that don't recieve Employee Based or Private Health Insurance.

On the Issue of Universal College Education- I support College Tuition Tax Credit-Pell Grants and Scholarships to children from low income families who graduate with a C Average and is not involved in criminal activities.

Environmental Protection has more to do with Enforcement of existing laws.

I say we repeal the tax cuts on the top wealthy individuals in the country. Cut Wasteful Pork Spending- ie (Bridge to NoWhere).


by CMBurns on Wed May 03, 2006 at 09:18:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.