What would make you happier...Lieberman losing or a Democratic Senate?

[SaveElmer]

I don't think both are gonna happen...

Personally I am predicting a 3 seat pick up

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. Have you seen the polls today?

Lamont beats Lieberman, AND Lamont beats the Republican challanger.

Lieberman staying in as an independent is the only thing that can possibly screw this up for the Democrats. (And even in that case we're unlikely to lose).

[JerseygirlCT]

46. That's it. CT's seat will remain in Dem hands -- either

Lieberman's or Lamont's.

Schlesinger hasn't got a prayer.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

47. What poll are you referring to?

The most recent ones I've seen are that Lamont may beat Lieberman in the Democratic primary, but that Lieberman will still be a mile ahead in the actual election.

The next senator for Conecticut will be either Lieberman (D) or Lieberman (I); the function of the Democratic primary is to decide which Democrats would prefer.

[dmkinsey]

2. I'll go with the Dem Senate

it's a long-shot though.

[BillZBubb]

3. Why are the two related?

I want a Democratic senate and Lieberman out on his DINO ass. I also expect to be disappointed.

[saracat]

4. Obviously a Dem Senate but I think that can be done without Lieberman.

I can't figure why he wants to continue with so many despising him.. I would , if I felt blameless, be inclined to quit because of the lack of appreciation.

[LynneSin]

19. Just because you and I dispise him...

doesn't mean Connecticut does. And since we can't vote for him we don't really matter that much

[saltpoint]

5. I think it will be a 4-pickup at this point. I'm worried about New Jersey

but I like our chances in Ohio, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Montana, and maybe --outside chance here -- Virginia.

Lieberman is in trouble. Likely his own pollsters are telling him the floor is falling out beneath him.

If Lamont defeats him on August 8th the headlines in Connecticut will all say: LAMONT UPENDS LIEBERMAN.

There may be signatures in place for Joe to fight on as an indy but the incentive for CT voters to support will have lessened considerably.

It's time Joe joined the Republicans or leave politics, one or the other.

[SaveElmer]

7. I don't think Connecticut figures in...

I think whoever wins the Dem primary will be the next Senator...


I'm predicting we take Montana, Pennsylvania and Tennessee (my upset special)

We don't lose any except Maryland if Mfume is the nominee!

[saltpoint]

14. I love that upset special. That would be just fine.

[karynnj]

16. There's an interesting Monmouth University poll

That while it had Menendez and Kean at 38 and 37 respectively, also asked if it was better for NJ to send a Republican or a Democrat. The results were 49D and the Republican number was near 30 (I can't find the survey online and have recycled the print paper.

The most recent poll is a Stragegic Visions one that has Menendez ahead.
http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/newjersey_poll_071206.htm

NJ is pretty sophisticated and socially liberal enough to really not want the Republicans having control of all 3 branches. Most of us were prepared to vote for Torechelli, even knowing he was not clean, because control of the Senate could depend on it. (I was so happy when Lautenberg ageed to run saving us from that.)

[saltpoint]

17. I'll take any encouragement there is on that NJ race.

Thank you for that insight and perspective.

And yes -- I'll keep my fingers crossed!

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Fallacy of the false dilemma n/t

[calico1]

8. A Democrat will win in CT.

The Republican candidate is a joke. Even the Gov. doesn't like him. Even in a 3 way vote he won't win.

[Warpy]

9. They are not mutually exclusive

I hate false choices.

[SaveElmer]

11. I didn't say they were...

Just wondering which outcome would cause more pleasure for people if both did not happen...

[longship]

10. Four seats are very likely.

PA, MT, MO, and OH are pretty sure for us Dems. But we have lots of work to do in Minnesota and New Jersey. We can't lose those seats.

We need two more. Most likely is RI, then TN and VA. Longshots are AZ and NV.

It's there for us, but we cannot afford any losses.

We need two out of RI, TN and VA. Right now, that isn't going to happen.

Let's keep working, people.

[Awsi Dooger]

26. Missouri and Ohio are anything but very likely

Tossups at best. In fact, we are the betting line underdogs in both races right now. That's not popular when I post it here but it's a fact. Posters need to understand not to overreact to early polls especially when an incumbent is slightly behind.

Nevada is not a longshot. It is an impossibility.

I agree with the OP. Our senate rooting interests are not likely to pan out. Lieberman, whether we like it or not, is a huge favorite to maintain the seat. The GOP is currently listed at 83% to retain the senate on the betting sites, and when I do the math it comes out much higher than that, closer to 95%.

[longship]

44. You are very correct and I agree with your numbers.

But that is only if the situation remains static.

Now here's the deal. Things are going to Hell in a handbasket in Iraq. The Middle East is getting ready to outright explode. ChimpCo has no solution to these problems except to stay the course.

The political strains are already significant. Further events are unlikely to be in ChimpCo's favor. What people are doing when they make these predictions is that they are merely projecting the current state to November. That can't be correct. If another major event happens, the whole political climate could literally change overnight. Then, there will be no stopping the Dems in November.

I'm not hoping for bad things to happen but with these clowns in office, it's more or less inevitable. They are complete fuck-ups.

[wyldwolf]

12. oh, I think Lamont would win a general election

But let me ask someone who knows Conn. politics better than I do for an unbiased perspective:

How "blue" is Conn. really, and are they trending GOP at all? Would a Lamont Senate seat be safer in 2012 than a Lieberman seat?

[TheVirginian]

13. Long-term Senators are always safer.

But it mostly depends on the issues of the day and the challenger. If its Lieberman, the Republicans aren't likely to put up a strong challenge, since Lieberman has very wide in-state support. If its Lamont, it will depend mostly on his performance in his first six years of office. If the Iraq War is largely an issue of the past, then Lamont's biggest issue and Democrat's biggest criticism of Lieberman will be diffused; if not, then we could see a similar campaign in 2012 that we are seeing this year.

At any rate, its difficult to say with any degree of certainty. CT is definately a "blue" state, but its important to remember that most voters are Independent. Though most CT Independents vote Democratic in a two-way election, they're not beholden to the Democratic Party in any way.

[CTyankee]

40. We still have moderate Republicans in our midst

and fewer fundies and crazy RWers. Our Republican House members are all pro-choice as is our Republican governor.

As for the safety of a Lamont seat in 2012, that would depend on how well he did in office. What I know of the man is that he is idealistic, sincere and basically a good guy. He and Annie are strongly prochoice. To know them is to like them.

But who knows what will happen once politics in Washington take over? In many ways, Ned is still finding his voice. I'm betting on him because I think he has basic integrity and I have seen Joe's eroded over time.

[alvarezadams]

15. Reality

Lieberman winning is tantamount to another GOP senator.

[LynneSin]

18. GET THE FUCK OVER IT!!

Ugh

If Lieberman is elected as the democratic senator and stays as a democratic senator (which I would suspect since most of the senate is out there supporting him for the primaries only) he would be like a DEMOCRAT since his seat would help add to our potential democratic majority and control of the committees. Those committees are what we need because the bulk of the deals and changes happen in committee.

I guess you're ok with republican controlling them - so be it

[alvarezadams]

20. What difference does it make?

Anything that tends to giving the DLC more power means that the committee leadership positions will tend to be given to "new democrats".

At the same time, in votes concerning globalization and foreign policy (regardless of which party holds the majority), DLCers like Lieberbush will vote in favour of the most rancid and reactionary neolib or neocon legislation... as has been their wont.

SOME dems that are unaware of the dangers of a 5th column within the party spew the rw talkingpoint retort of "ideological purity". This is horseshit. In a country that has been purposefully manipulated to turn to the right (with $1 billion/year, every year, election or no election, not counting campaign contributions, spent on indoctrination), we desperately need an opposition.

The DLC is NOT an opposition, it is a collaborator.

And yes, between a GOPer and a DLC Dem I'll choose a GOPer any day.

Why?

Because the GOP will fall on its face when its disasterous policies show their value. Anyone who supports neolib economics or neocon foreign policy can only do the DNC harm in the short-, medium- and long-term. Ditto to the nation.

So when you ask me to "GET THE FUCK OVER IT", I say - hell no. I won't appease the right and I won't help the right to keep the pendulum swing from turning back towards progressive ideas/ideals.

So I say... WAKE THE FUCK UP before it's too late.

[LynneSin]

23. Please, help enable more republican control - that's what you're doing

I mean, I dont want people like Leahy, Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Conyers, Waxman, Murtha and other like them actually in control of a committee. I mean what good would that do.

You are nothing but a Republican Enabler who sees life with blinders on. We'll never ever change congress with an attitude like that

[onenote]

27. LynneSin -- Don't waste your time on folks like this

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who believes that we'd be better off with the repubs not only controlling the Senate, but increasing that control to a veto proof, filibuster proof margin, is clearly out of touch with reality or just being an agitator.

Why do I characterize the poster's position thusly? Because if he really would prefer a repub over a "new" Democrat or DLCer, he's supporting the defeat of a significant number of Democrats...enough to shift the repub margin in the Senate from a handful of votes (small enough to beat back things like ANWR, various repug constitutional amendments, etc) to a margin where anything and everything the repubs want would go through the senate like a hot knife through butter. And I have no use (and, frankly, see no place on DU) for someone who advocates that result.

[alvarezadams]

36. Want a characterization?

You, by ignorance? By indoctrination? For SOME reason you're willing to support candidates based on the letter after their name.

There is a core problem. Supporting the DLC makes it worse.

Deal with it.

[LynneSin]

38. So what state are you registered to vote in the United States

Your profile says Spain.

And you're so full of crap it's beyond me - you're nothing more than drinking the grape Kool-aid that Karl Rove wants us to believe.

They're doing it in Pennsylvania - if we can get people to believe Bob Casey is a democrat and put a Green on the ticket (which Rick Santorum is pushing for) then we can splinter away enough votes for Rick Santorum to serve again.

You like Rick Santorum huh? I mean, he's the better choice with the way you describe it

[alvarezadams]

51. Mississippi

I am an American living abroad. My last place of residence was Mississippi and thus I vote as per said state.

Full of crap? I could say the same thing about you and others that have a particularly shallow and short-term POV on politics. If anyone is drinking Rove's Kool Aid it's those who will support the 5th column.

I am sick to bleeding death of the "expediency" argument. In the last elections I played that card and went against my convictions because of an overriding "ABB" sentiment. I have sworn not to do so again - and to DEMAND that I am represented. I will not vote for a "better than someone else" candidate because, in an environment where billions are spent on pushing the country to the right and where the spenders of said billions are covering their bases by supporting a 5th column (the DLC), the LAST thing we need is to give any support to the enemy.

The enemy is: corporations, radical "conservatives", the thinktanks and lobbies and PR firms that aid the institutionalized corruption, those who support neo-lib economics and those who support neocon foreign policy. To ME, these are more of a danger to our system than Al Qaeda - and the DLC is part and parcel of this group.

So you give me the false choice between a Santorum and a Santorum light, both members of the same plutocratic and cleptocratic group. Well - news for you - I'd rather see the real thing than to support someone who pretends to be someone else. With the real thing the danger is isolated, the results are visible... while with the "pretender" one merely pushes the pendulum farther to the right and makes the "opposition" both a lesser opposition and a party to the ills of the state.
Ipso dixit.

[alvarezadams]

34. No.

What I'm doing is to go for the root.

You dislike the GOP, for reasons which are unclear.

I, on the other hand, am very clear as to why I dislike the GOP. And it turns out that the same reasons apply to the DLC.

So as opposed to helping the GOP, I am opposing the surrender of the DNC to the same stringpullers that lead the GOP.

YOU, on the other hand, are empowering those who would move our country even further to the right.

We will never change Congress with an attitude like yours - supporting neolibs and neocons merely because of a "D" after their name.

[LynneSin]

37. Well if risking seats that allow more republicans to win

is some sort of grassroot strategy for democratic domination then I'm just not getting it.

I went to a booking for the book "Crashing the Gate" written by the people who own the blogs DailyKos & MyDD. The just of their book was pretty much with what you're saying - that we need to clean house of bad democrats if we're to make a difference.

But unlike you, they were smart enough to realize that this plan was a long-term goal and that to get to that long-term goal we would have to make some short-term goals of voting (in November) for some democratic candidates that we might not like.

Your plan has us dismantling the democratic party in such a way that it could do a lifetime of harm by enabling a filibuster-proofed Senate that could do some serious damage. Consider this- RoeVWade was overturned in 1972 and now 34 years later republicans ALMOST have the power to get that decision completely overturned. There are DUers who post here who have never lived in a world where choice was completely illegal. I don't want to be fighting another 34 years just to get it back our way.

I have never questioned the right for a democratic primary where we should be doing our fighting. But once the primary is overwith - vote for your democrat, even your crappy democrat who has pissed you off. Because we can't be giving away anymore of the senate or house if we hope to build a political party that we can be proud of.

[alvarezadams]

53. No, you're not getting it at all

"Well if risking seats that allow more republicans to win is some sort of grassroot strategy for democratic domination then I'm just not getting it."

For a democracy to exist one MUST have an opposition. If all parties cater to the very same special interests it is no longer a democracy. And with the DLC we have a case of two groups (the DLC and the GOP) with the same support, the same objectives (sans some sops to keep fogbound progressives content), the same shift to the right... and a very dangerous objective.

"I went to a booking for the book "Crashing the Gate" written by the people who own the blogs DailyKos & MyDD. The just of their book was pretty much with what you're saying - that we need to clean house of bad democrats if we're to make a difference."

I don't know the book, but I know history. If your interpretation of the book is correct, the book is correct --- we MUST oppose the special interests and misguided ideologies.

"But unlike you, they were smart enough to realize that this plan was a long-term goal and that to get to that long-term goal we would have to make some short-term goals of voting (in November) for some democratic candidates that we might not like."

Well, unlike you (obviously ignorant of history), I realize that if you are not aware of the bait-and-switch tactic you're bound to get screwed. The DNC, especially under the influence of the DLC, has time and time again appeased the right. Sometimes because of "political expediency", sometimes because they have themselves fallen for the $1 billion/year anti-progressive propaganda campaign. The "third way" (a DLC term borrowed from Blair) is Reaganism-lite - an opposition cannot hope to reverse a pendulum swing by diluting its OWN ideals. It's elementary physics if nothing else.

"Your plan has us dismantling the democratic party in such a way that it could do a lifetime of harm by enabling a filibuster-proofed Senate that could do some serious damage."

Oh - and what is my plan?

"Consider this- RoeVWade was overturned in 1972 and now 34 years later republicans ALMOST have the power to get that decision completely overturned. "

Give the DLC power and it WILL be overturned... if it is in the interests of its taskmasters. Those who finance the GOP and the DLC can give a flying fuck about Roe vs. Wade - it's merely a campaign talkingpoint to keep our minds off the issues that really matter.

The right pushed the Volstead Act on us. Volstead was repealed - and that was a damned Constitutional Amendment forchrissakes. One based on talkingpoint issues, garbage to appease the lesser lights of the electorate.

"I have never questioned the right for a democratic primary where we should be doing our fighting."

No, but you've evinced a clear propensity to seek out political expediency. Between a "good" candidate and one that "can win", you'll choose the latter. I, for one, refuse to surrender for a pyrrhic victory ever again.

"But once the primary is overwith - vote for your democrat, even your crappy democrat who has pissed you off. "

No, I'd rather vote for a GOPer or Bozo the Clown. The opposition party MUST be an opposition party or we do NOT have a democracy.

"Because we can't be giving away anymore of the senate or house if we hope to build a political party that we can be proud of."

This is only true if pride is based on winning. If it is based on values, ethics, or objectives... winning by emulating the enemy is worse than an enemy's victory.

[jonnyblitz]

31. LMFAO

:hug:
you are funny when you get mad..

Ugh...anyways..back to the thread.

[LynneSin]

39. You're coming to Virginia Beach

There is a train that can get you from NYC to Philly - I'll drive from there

[jonnyblitz]

41. i can never go back , i tell ya..

MEMORIES.....GHOSTS.....*sigh* :(

[LynneSin]

42. Then we need to make new memories and ghosts

:D

[SteppingRazor]

33. No, he's not...

As long as Lieberman has that "D" next to his name, he's one more senator toward a Democratic majority -- that alone makes him worth far more than a Republican

[AtomicKitten]

21. A DEMOCRATIC SENATE

and I don't give a rat's ass how it happens.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LincolnMcGrath]

24. Don't forget the Guckert-Gannon link to Joementum

[Nutmegger]

25. "You're not going to lose a Senator,

You're going to gain a Democrat" - Ned Lamont

[calico1]

29. Actually the question doesn't really make sense

because it seems to presume that its either Lieberman or a Republican, which of course, is not the case.

[ulysses]

28. both. n/t

[SteppingRazor]

30. I disagree that this is a one or the other proposition...

The Connecticut race means nothing to the overall makeup of the Senate. Whether Lieberman or Lamont wins, it's still another man in the "D" column.

I think we'll pick up more than 3, though. Probably as many as five, though I don't think we'll get the six we need for a majority.

To answer your question, though, naturally, I'd take a Democratic majority with Lieberman over a minority without him.

[jonnyblitz]

32. DEM Senate of course. nt

[lonestarnot]

35. Oh both.

[Spirochete]

43. Dem Senate, of course

But I think both are doable.

[NJ Democrats]

45. A DEM SENATE

And we won't get one if we spend all our time and $$$ on ousting another DEM (and yes Lieberman IS a Democrat not a DINO or a Puke, so don't even give me that crap.)

[CTLawGuy]

48. both ideally

if Lieberman rescinds his threat to run as an independent and then wins the primary, then a Dem senate for sure.

if Lieberman does not rescind his threat it is not so clear... I'll have to "mull" it over.

The prob is if on the one hand Lieberman prevails (especially in the primary) under this threat to run as an indy, other candidates will start doing it (under delusions that they can win a 3-way race, and knowing that the party will allow it) and then the entire primary process breaks down and the Dems become a near-permanent minority, unable to agree on one candidate and have that respected.

on the other hand we lose one seat for 6 years...

[Catchawave]

49. Democratic Senate.

Please be aware, that if the Dem bashing of certain candidates doesn't stop, you'll (generic) drive swing voters to republicans! Just saying......:spank:

[FujiZ1]

50. Lieberman Losing

I fear allowing right-leaning senators to remain in power causes the left to move to the right. When I see left leaning republicans that break party lines all the time and vote against their party on crucial issues I'll start to believe that democrats can have moderates and be successful.

[ElboRuum]

52. Democratic Senate...

With a truly Democratic Senate, he's made largely irrelevant. We can always remove him in a later election.

[depakid]

54. If Lieberman wins- I predict the Dems will lose in November

On the other hand- if Lamont gets the nomination- it sends a message that it's no longer going to be business as sell out and cowardly usual with the Democratic Party.

This is as close to nationalizing the election as we're going to get.