33.4% for Lamont

1509 votes count
Ned Lamont - 505 (33.4%)
Joe Lieberman - 1004 (66.5%)

http://actblue.com/page/netrootscandidates

Lamont WRECKED Lieberman. Oh yeah.

The Connecticut blogs, along with a lot of fine people and a skilled and disciplined campaign staff, really made this happen. Oh yeah, and a special thank you goes out to Joe Lieberman, who in those last final calls to delegates surely flipped a bunch of them Lamont's way.

Lamont Links
My Left Nutmeg
Lamontblog
CT Convention
Ned Lamont blog
La Resistance
Without a Purpose
CT Bob
Connecticutblog



Display:


Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 5)

Fucking AMAZING.

I want to say a special "thank you" to CTKeith and DeanFan84, who beat the "Dump Joe" drum online and really started this movement way back as early as the Democratic presidential primary in 2003.  Activists from DFA in New Haven, Norwalk, and around the state took the chance to dare to speak against Joe Lieberman and MADE THIS HAPPEN!

Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!


(The artist formerly known as "Maura in VA"!)
by Maura in CT on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:52:45 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 3)

Ain't won nothing yet.

Still, this is sweet. ;)

And yeah, huge props to Ed and Keith.


by tparty on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:56:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 3)

If more than 1 in 3 insiders want change, Lamont is has the potential to get 50%+1 of Democrats! This race is for real!


by Bob Brigham on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:53:42 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 2)

Exactly right. 33.4% of the party structure is huge.

But it is not enough yet. You folks in Ct have some work to do. Beat the bushes (pun fully intended), knock on the doors, make the phone calls, take nothing for granted. Ya'll can do the whole nation and the progressive movement a great service by making sure every concerned, activist Dem comes out and votes for Ned Lamont on primary day. Beat that drum!


The 10,000 Things
by Andrew C White on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Agreed.

I just said that Lamont will barely lose to Lieberman in August. Right after I said it I changed my mind.

Twice the number of party insiders needed and Ned Lamont did it!

We can do this!

I just sent another $25 to Ned yesterday.

I am going to try to give another $25 ASAP! Go Ned!


by DFLer22 on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:47:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Is it just me of does DeLauro look a lot like Jean Schmidt?


by js noble on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:55:46 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Freakin' sweet.

This summer should be extremely fun. I'm going to check my bank account balance and see if I can toss Ned some green right now.


by PsiFighter37 on Fri May 19, 2006 at 08:57:29 PM EST

Hell ya! (3.00 / 1)

The Blogosphere wins one! Hot damn. Made my night. Great coverage Matt and Tim!

Actually , this would be two. Chris was first.

Better get used to it Beltway people. This is our party too.


Witty comment goes here...
by michael in chicago on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:04:16 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 1)

If Ned can get 33% of the party insiders, he could easily get over 50% of the Dem. voters.  The insiders (especially in the biggest cities) are part of Joe's machine in many cases.  The smaller cities sent a message to Joe (and to the rest of the national Dem. party): we don't want Sean Hanity/George Bush loving Dems representing us.

This is a fight worth fighting.  I'll send some more $$.


"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:04:26 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 2)

According to Firedoglake, Holy Joe is threatening to use all the money for himself, to the detriment of the Dem congressional candidates, Joe Courtney (vs Rob Simmons in CT-02), Chris Murphy (vs Nancy Johnson in CT-05) and Daine Farrell (vs Chris Shays in CT-06).  

For those in a position to give not only to Lamont but in the congressional races as well, I suggest adding .33 to the donation (for Lamont's 33%) to indicate it came from a Lamont supporter.  They had to endorse Lieberman because he is so vindictive, but it doesn't appear it will do them any good, and these are three good shots at pickups.


by Mimikatz on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 0)

I've been chastised over at Kos.  They say Lamont won by '33.5%'.

0.33465871438038436050364479787939 -- you know.


Independent Illinois Grassroots: IllinoisDemNet.com
by patachon on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:18:55 PM EST

Bye Joe (none / 0)

It's been a real pressure knowing you.


by zappatero on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:36:38 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

This is promising.  If we could just get one real win, instead of an almost...  Maybe this could be it.


by steve expat on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:49:05 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 0)

Oh yeah, and a special thank you goes out to Joe Lieberman, who in those last final calls to delegates surely flipped a bunch of them Lamont's way.

Shades of the Presidential primary, when any campaigning Joe Lieberman did primarily hurt Joe Lieberman.

Maybe Ned Lamont should pay for Lieberman's travel expenses to barnstorm the state. Ol' Joe will be down in Rick Santorum approval land in no time ...


by BriVT on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:58:16 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 1)

What's stunning about this is that even the Lieberman attempts at making people overoptimistic about Lamont's chances had him at 30ish, iirc.  I don't know too much about CT politics, but that seems like an absolutely stunning, stunning victory for Lamont.  Lieberman must've had no idea what was going to hit him.


John McCain
by DanM on Fri May 19, 2006 at 09:59:26 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 0)

This was one of the most exciting nights I have had!     My throat still kills me from screaming.     Even Lieberman people were sneaking food from Lamont, it was the best.    

Tonight sent a message.    All Democratic Politicians should beware, that we are going to take our party back, and the days of doing whatever they want is over !     (Look out Hillary!)


by Bergs on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:28:29 PM EST

Thanks to all the volunteers (3.00 / 1)

I appreciate all the hard work done by the volunteers who made this happen. It's easy for us to blog here, but only those were on the ground were the ones needed to make this happen.

and another thing.......
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!


by Pravin on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:29:49 PM EST

Re: Thanks to all the volunteers (3.00 / 0)

Thanks a bunch, you should come on up, its a lot of fun.


by ATalbot on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So where is Liebermandies anyway? (none / 0)


by Scarce on Fri May 19, 2006 at 10:31:34 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Well, looks like this campaign has more legs than I thought. Congratulations.

I however, as a non-resident of Conneticut, am choosing to remain non-partisan in this debate. I will however make an appeal to everyone to go to the netroots campaign page and donate some coin, especially to Tester and Busby seeing as their elections are next up.

I also read Daschle's bid for the presidency depends on how his canidates do int heir primaries and one of them is Morrison, so go donate to Tester and help keep Daschle unemployed.  :-)

Also, Busby will need coin, this election will decide November for the insiders, activating or deactiving the base and funders for each party. Cook political report changed their ranking on it today to toss-up.

Congrats to those who worked tonight.


by Trowaman on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:10:06 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Good Gawd. Daschle for president? Do people actually exist who think it's a good idea for him to pursue that? ... My dentist and my accountant have more fire in their bellies than Tom Daschle.


by Oregonian on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:53:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 0)

Good on you Conn.

Lieberman today. Tomorrow Cantwell


by Rational on Fri May 19, 2006 at 11:10:42 PM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

As a strong environmentalist I feel I must ask . . .

What's wrong with Cantwell?  She has been one of the best environs in the senate from where I am sitting. She was the first to get an LCV endorsement.

Just wondering.


by Trowaman on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:41:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Cantwell has a terrible relations with progressives here in Washington.
She doesn't care what we think she just demands our votes, energy and money.
She supports the war. She voted for closure on alito. She has stated that she feels that shrub should get his appointments whether it is abu Ganzalez, oily Ashcroft, rumsfield etc.

Her usual modus operandi is to vote with the rethugs on the important procedural votes in committees etc. then after she has helped greased the skids she makes a big show of voting when she knows it won't make any difference.

She did this on Cafta, alito, bankruptcy bill etc.

Next to Lieberman she is one of the most insidious turncoats in the senate.


by Rational on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:56:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 1)

I just sent another $50, and will send more when I can, great job folks..


by sjs1959 on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:03:04 AM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (3.00 / 2)

Connecticut is the right place, Lamont is the right messenger and this is the right time to make a stand within the Democratic Party.  Nothing will strike more fear inside the Dem. establishment then the fight brewing in Connecticut.  They will be talking about this one in the cloakroom, the green rooms and in the most exclusive club in the world.

That Senate seat is not going to go to a Republican.  There are sure to be great things emerge from the Lamont Campaign, I can feel the spirit even here, deep inside the heart of darkness well inside the Washington beltway.  At a book event tonight in DC Markos "Kos" Moulitsas, wearing a Lamont button, took great pleasure in announcing some preliminary results from the CT convention.  Now that Lamont has crashed the insider gate it is time to talk to the voters who don't blog but who are bearing the brunt of the thousand points of failure of the Bush administration.  

Senator Lamont?  Why not?  A change in going to come.


by howardpark on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:05:27 AM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

A change IS going to come.


by howardpark on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:39:56 AM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Excellent, excellent job guys!


by redstar67 on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:51:12 AM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Ho'Joe must be squirming. I love the thought of Droopy Dawg crying into his cornflakes ... Maybe his man crush Sean Hannity can help him out.


by Oregonian on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:55:19 AM EST

I can't belive I signed up just to post this, but. (none / 0)

33.4 and 64.5 do not add up to 100.

505/1509 = 0.334658....

That rounds up to 33.5 percent, since 6 is more then 5, you round up.


by delmoi on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:06:58 AM EST

Explain me one thing... (none / 0)

In Colorado the party activists, i.e. those willing to attend a state convention are more liberal than the party establishment, and probably more liberal than the primary electorate.

Does this mean that in CT the delegates to the convention are more "in-the-pocket" of the establishment?

I wouldn't actually say that the rabble rousers have taken over in CO, but maybe the establishment has less of a hold on things...


There's more of us than there is of them.
by MetaData on Sat May 20, 2006 at 02:20:18 AM EST

Re: Explain me one thing... (none / 0)

In CT, the Democratic Town Committees (which pick the delegates to the convention and which are major sources of patronage in the larger towns) dictate the pace. CT has no counties--the state is divided into 169 towns, and the DTCs are equivalent to our county parties.

So, Enfield DTC = JeffCo Dem Party. Only, in this case, imagine that the JeffCo county party chair also determines who runs for state house, or state senate.

In CO, in order to get elected to the state assembly, all you need to do is attend a poorly-attended precinct caucus, and the county assembly. Since, customarily, most counties have trouble filling their delegate slots, it's easier for a highly-motivated insurgency to take those delegate slots.

Miles wasn't the only insurgent candidate in recent history to win a state convention. Jim Nichol did it in '96 against Tom Strickland. So to assume, like ColoDem and I did, that the CO state assembly and CT convention are the same is ludicrous. The CT convention is strictly an insider parlor game, with potential real consequences. And for Lamont to get 33% of the vote there is highly troubling to Lieberman. The reactions of staffers and volunteers inside the hall were telling--they were shocked and not at all happy.  


by Rafe Noboa on Sat May 20, 2006 at 12:23:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

Way to go Netroots!!!

Go NED LAMONT!!!


by starwheel on Sat May 20, 2006 at 07:51:17 AM EST

Re: 33.4% for Lamont (none / 0)

NBV1 NBV2 NBV3 NBV4 NBV5
 NBV6 NBV7 NBV8 NBV9 NBV10
 NBV11 NBV12 NBV13 NBV14 NBV15
 NBV16 NBV17 NBV18 NBV19 NBV20
 NBV21 NBV22 NBV23 NBV24 NBV25
NBV26 NBV27 NBV28 NBV29 NBV30
NBV31 NBV32 NBV33 NBV34 NBV35
NBV36 NBV37 NBV38 NBV39 NBV40
 NBV41 NBV42 NBV43 NBV44 NBV45 NBV46 NBV47 NBV48 NBV49 NBV50 NBV51 NBV52 NBV53 NBV54 NBV55 NBV56 NBV57 NBV58 NBV59 NBV60 NBV61 NBV62 NBV63 NBV64 NBV65 NBV66 NBV67 NBV68 NBV69 NBV70 NBV71 NBV72 NBV73 NBV74 NBV75 NBV76 NBV77 NBV78 NBV79 NBV80 NBV81 NBV82 NBV83 NBV84 NBV85 NBV86 NBV87 NBV88 NBV89 NBV90 NBV91 NBV92 NBV93

by riptid on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:57:16 AM EST


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.