The Lieberman Test

[Nederland]

Make no mistake, the upcoming Connecticut primary is a test. If the anti-war left cannot win in a Democratic primary in the blue-blue state of Connecticut, what does it say about that issue for the 2006 general election? For the record, I have no idea who will win this primary, and primary polls are next to useless in an election with as much attention as this one. I would not at all be surprised if Lamont won--a statement I would have laughed at a month ago when I thought Lieberman was going to win in a walk. However, if Lamont loses, doesn't that speak volumes about the efficacy of an anti-war stance in the 2006 general?

If you can't win a Democratic primary with an anti-war candidate in Connecticut, where can you win?

[Poll_Blind]

1. That's a disturbing but highly arguable point you've got there. n/t

PB

[madfloridian]

2. No, it speaks volumes about money, power, and Clinton.

And lobbyists. It is about whether people are given a chance to see through what is happening.

It is not about an anti-war message at all, it is mostly about the Clintons.

[Nederland]

6. And that statement speaks volumes

...about what you think of Connecticut primary voters.

I mean, what are you saying, that Connecticut Democrats are incapable of voting for what they really believe in and merely vote whatever way they are "told" to vote? Are they brainless Clinton-bots or simple slaves to the wishes of lobbyists? If that is true, democracy is already dead.

[napi21]

3. I understand Joe has a lot of Pub supporters too though.

I don't live in Ct. so I don't know for sure, but Being a Senator for 18 years carries quite a bit of seight everywhere else, so I'll assume it does there as well.

From everything I read, the Pub who's running has no chance of winning in Nov. so maybe a Leiberman win only would mean some Dems and most Pubs from there voted for him.

[Greyhound]

4. *heavy sigh* you are absolutely right in this analysis,

and I'm afraid that, once again, we are giving far too much credit to the sheeple, and misjudging the motives behind the power.

[ChiciB1]

5. Beats Me... I KNOW NOTHING.... Anymore... What Did That Statement About

Big Dawg Clinton campaigning for him being equivalent to sprinkling "fairy dust" on Joe? What Am I missing in THAT???

Did it mean it was a HUGE boost???

[Amy6627]

7. Does CN have Diebold machines? If so, I'm guessing Joe will win.

[Nederland]

8. Really?

So now Democratic rig their own primaries too?

[Amy6627]

10. I don't think that the Dems would rig it, I think that the repukes would.

The prez likes Joe, and it would be very bad for the repukes if Lamont won. I have heard (on BradBlog) about moderate repukes running in the last primary in Iowa that the machines said they lost to neocons, and after a hand recount they had actually won. So anything can happen when you are dealing with these criminals.

[Nederland]

12. Is that possible?

I didn't think the opposition party was allowed to get near a party's primary voting operations.

[Amy6627]

13. With Diebold machines you don't have to be near the machines or

the polling place for that mattter. They can be hack remotely and without a trace. There is a lot of great voting fraud/hacking info at BradBlog.com:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3056

[Nederland]

17. No Diebold in Connecticut (nt)

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. Not exactly scientific in nature.

What if the incumbent was part of the anti-war left?

(As if, only those on the left are opposed to the war)

[peacebird]

11. Is Conn an open primary or closed primary?

Can the Repukes flood the poll to vote for holyJoe?

[Crunchy Frog]

14. Closed. n/t

[calico1]

16. Closed. And no Diebold. n/t

[wyldwolf]

15. an added dimension

Lamont isn't just an anti-war candidate, he's one with lots of money.

[fujiyama]

18. It shows the power of incumbency

and Clinton....

And the difficulty the party has in forming any coherent stance on the war. Lieberman hurts the party's credibility everytime he is interviewed on TV.