Whatever you do, please don't Lamont us in 2008.

[LoZoccolo]

People are tossing out some presidential candidates, and that's good. But whatever you do, when it comes down to the primaries, please go with someone who can win against the Republican in the general as indicated by the polls. Lamont was shown to not capture a majority in a two-way or three-way race in his Senate race in the Quinnipiac polls before the primaries, and it turned into a big waste of money. Don't Lamont us in 2008.

[Kolesar]

1. That is hardly a comprehensive view of the two Lamont campaigns

And it was my money. I don't regret having funded Ned.

[Pithy Cherub]

2. Ned made a sitting senator lose

and have to be a sanctimonious independent for the next six years. Holy Joe is bitter. It was time, money and energy very well spent. It also heralds the rise of the Blogosphere as a true political entity. Senators Tester and Webb agree. Bring on MORE Lamonts Thank you very much!

[LoZoccolo]

3. A primary win is a fake victory, just like grazing in the blogosphere is fake politics.

It's like a spectator sport to many people and does not translate into real action and real campaigning. The state of the nation, however, is reality.

[Pithy Cherub]

5. Your reality didn't get Webb or Tester in the senate.

the Blogosphere did - so you are already swimming in my reality pool!

[twilight_sailing]

27. "A primary win is a fake victory"?

No. It's not.

[LoZoccolo]

34. Is Ned Lamont in the Senate now?

Can he vote on legislation?

Oh.

[twilight_sailing]

37. That's silly.

[Clark2008]

4. But, polls change with the wind, so how are we to know who

"the one" is.

For example, I contend that there are a handful of Dems who could beat nearly any Republican in a head-to-head match-up, but they're either not doing so well in the primary polls OR they're hardly mentioned at all.

What we need to get through the heads of Dems voting in primaries is to stop voting for Mr. or Ms. Popularity (i.e - who the corporate press thinks is good for us).

[The Count]

6. Lamont made the war as a bona fide electoral issue = wins of November

Until that primary, candidates were afraid to touch the war.
BFEE made Lamont pay for his comeuppance, but the genie was out of the bottle. Anyone who wipes the spirk off Joementum's face (and BFEE in the process) is my hero.
I feel sorry for you that you fail to understand the greatness of that moment. It was the second best thing that happened this year.

[Nite Owl]

7. If the democratic party had truly

gotten behind Ned Lamont he would have had a good chance of being Senator-elect now. The party played to Leiberman, they promised him the world if he won as an independent instead of stripping him of his party rights. Who really gave him money and support, for the most part they just let Leiberman win by any means possible.

[The Count]

8. True. He had to run against both party machines.

Still did quite well for an unknown.

[The Magistrate]

20. Indeed, Count

There is something of the snake swallowing itself by the tail about the whole episode.

The Democratic leadership, aware there was a good chance Lieberman might win the three-way match-up whatever they did, was reluctant to court the consequences of his caucusing with the Republicans should he win despite their support of Mr. Lamont, and so gave him only a tithe of what they could have, thus greatly weakening his chances of success.

The Republican leadership, desperate to secure the defeat at the polls of an emblematic anti-war candidate, wrote off their own man, who had scant chance anyway, and directed signifigant resources to Lieberman, making him the de facto Republican candidate in the state, though their effort was not sufficient to gain him for their Senate caucus.

We will never know what the outcome would have been, of course, but it seems quite possible to me that had Mr. Lamont received the full backing of the Democratic leadrship, he could have won that election.

[dsc]

9. Lamont certainly would have won a true three way race

and would likely have won a two way race if Lieberman hadn't run. Lieberman probably saved Shay's seat which is fitting since the GOP saved his. Even with the GOP tanking the race Lieberman only won by running a campaign that was stunning in its dishonesty. The only thing left to admire about Lieberman (the steadfastness with which he held his beliefs) was sacrificed on the alter of winning.

[Sapphire Blue]

10. One could also say "Don't 'Gore' us in 2008."

And one would be wrong.

[TheFarseer]

11. As it turned out, yes

but I think most Lamont supporters thought Ned could flip those polls given a few more months to get his name out there and time for the media to trash Leiberman as a poor sport. As it turns out, none of that happened.

[CTyankee]

21. Nope, I was an early supporter of Ned but I knew it was almost

impossible to knock off Joe and I said so in many a post here at DU in the pre-primary months. What NEd did was amazing, no doubt about it.

Ned was a voice in the wilderness for reason and for change. He cleared the way for lots of other who made courageous stands against the war.

"We few, we happy few." Well, we can be proud. I am glad I was Ned's volunteer, albeit as a lowly foot soldier. It was a great experience.

[Zynx]

12. There is very little doubt Lamont would have beaten Schlesinger

In 2006, with how weak Schlesinger was, Lamont would have won. What the hell is wrong with you in this argument?

[LoZoccolo]

14. Ask me nicely and I'll explain my argument. n/t

[CTyankee]

18. Well, well LoZo, back again for another swipe at Ned? What is it

with you and Ned?

History is on our side, my friend, not yours and not Joe's. As W goes further and further down the tubes, it will be interesting to see what pretzel shape Joe will turn himself into to come out of this with a shred of credibility.

But of course, we don't see much of ole Joe here in CT, since he doesn't live here any more.

I suggest you move on with your life. The rest of us already have.

[LoZoccolo]

31. I endorsed Ned in his 2006 Senate race in the general election.

I generally don't operate via "grudges" and the like.

[last1standing]

13. Abandon all principles, ye who enter here!

I guess that should be the sign hanging over the archway leading into the world of politics, huh? Lamont lost, thanks for the friendly reminder. He also allowed millions of people to voice their disgust with the lack of principles so apparent in Holy Joe. It was well worth the effort, in my opinion. You obviously disagree. Great.

[LoZoccolo]

15. I do not advocate abandoning all principles. n/t

[last1standing]

16. Then why slam the millions of people who supported Lamont, on principle?

It was their voices, money and votes. They used them as they felt reflected their beliefs, now you come in and denigrate their efforts. Why not let people support their candidates without using phrases designed to insult them like "Whatever you do, please don't Lamont us in 2008"? You know that's hurtful to those who supported him, so why do it?

[LoZoccolo]

30. Try and figure it out.

First clue: you said "all".

[last1standing]

44. So you suggest abandoning our principles selectively?

At this point I can only attribute your posts to either facetiousness or a deliberate attempt to hurt other Dems. You won't provide anything that makes one think otherwise. So why do you want to do that to your fellow DUers?

[LoZoccolo]

45. That's not a very nice thing to assume, so I won't answer any of that. n/t

[last1standing]

46. You seem to enjoy leaving non-answers. LOL n/t

[LoZoccolo]

47. Not going to beg people not to predicate their questions with strawmen and false assumptions. n/t

[last1standing]

48. LOL! You post a rude thread then get angry when people are rude back....

You make vile assumptions about peoples principles and motives then act hurt when they question yours. You insult our beliefs but cry when yours are questioned.

In other words, you love to create these asinine posts to get people upset then you sit back and pretend to be above it all by answering with non-answers and pseudo-cryptic BS. I just thought it was time for someone to call you on it.

Have a nice day. :hi:



Edited to change "wile" to "vile". I makes a difference, I think. :)

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

17. Ok, I promise not to back a primary challenger against the incumbent Dem Prez

Oh, wait, there is no incumbent Democratic president! That solves that problem. Moving on...

[LoZoccolo]

36. That was not the principle I was promoting. n/t

[More Than A Feeling]

41. The netroots and liberals win, so sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

Winning against Republicans is all you care about, right? Or are winning liberal and netroots candidates exactly what you are afraid of?

[LoZoccolo]

42. There is only so much participating one can do on a message board.

People who are so into politics that they go to message boards generally have made up their mind. Look at the nature of arguments here and you'll catch a lot of that. I encourage people to go out and get involved; the links I keep in my signature line are two places to start.

[More Than A Feeling]

43. Why do you think we don't?

Quit stereotyping. Show a little more respect. Take your fellow online participants more seriously than "fake politics", and maybe you won't convey such an elitist, out-of-touch attitude, because that's exactly the vibe you give off.

Maybe then people will actually take you as seriously as you take yourself.

[JackORoses]

19. Are you saying that Schlesinger would have won in a two way race?

If is so, then your argument is seriously flawed.

[LoZoccolo]

33. The last Quinnipiac poll had a hole big enough for Schlesinger to walk through.

I also think that Schlesinger might have served as a spoiler for Lieberman if people weren't going around saying that Lieberman was a Republican (thus endearing him further to the Republicans).

[JNelson6563]

23. Ok, then just tell us what DLC candidate you want

so we can be sure to win.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

32. I can't do that now because I don't have the polls.

As stated in the original post.

[LoZoccolo]

38. Also, you will notice that the message of this post is free of ideology.

There are no centrists or progressives in what I'm trying to promote, only winners and losers.

[Lost-in-FL]

24. In other words my fellow Democrats...

don't vote for Obama or Hillary cause you know... he's... and she's... you know, not likable.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[LoZoccolo]

35. I haven't made a statement about any candidate. n/t

[FogerRox]

25. Bernie Sanders for President in 2008

Or how abour Franklin D. Roosevelt '08





Maybe you would settle for .......... JFK in '08

[vote 4 democracy]

26. Gore/ Obama '08 n/t

[Bullet1987]

28. Lamont...

...didn't lose because he couldn't win. Lamont loss because Lieberman split the vote and took the Republicans who didn't want to vote for Schlinger (or whatever his name is). Remember, Lieberman didn't get swept off his feet in the primary, so all he needed was a minority of Republicans to vote for him and he was safe. I personally think Lieberman is as fake as pleather, he's an opportunist who didn't bow out and accept defeat like most people do. And I'm sure he pulled a few strings with people in the Dem Party to make sure Lamont wasn't FULLY supported like he should have been.

[Codeblue]

29. People not in office right now

would be great candidates for one simple reason...

They don't have offices to give up when they make their run for president. Not that you have to give it up, but a lot of them do. And that's one less good Democratic office holder.

[left is right]

39. Lamont may not have won in 06, but

he did manange to beat Lieberman in '12, no matter who runs against him. he is gone after this term. He won't be running as a Dem and he will have used up all of his usefulness to the repukes. By '12 he will be seen as an ugly, very smelly corpse.

[Ian David]

40. I don't care. I'm voting for The Impaler.

http://eyeteeth.blogspot.com/2006/01/impaler-for-president.html

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

64. Fine, vote for someone who'll lose against the Republican then. n/t

[leesa]

50. As long as the DLC a**holes don't Lieberman US.

[ulysses]

51. I *love* this.

Don't Lamont us in 2008.

Read: Don't try to push a progressive in the primaries, even though that's what we've been telling you you should do instead of running an independent in the general.

:D God, but y'all are a riot!

[LoZoccolo]

61. I said nothing about progressive or centrists.

The guidance I give has nothing to do with my policy opinions.

[ulysses]

67. the idea that one can divorce policy from politics is bunk.

That's the great failing of the DLC.

[LoZoccolo]

68. I can give an example of that not being the case.

Primary candidate A supports the exact same platform as primary candidate B. However, someone dug up a picture of candidate A with a hooker from twenty years ago. Here, politics favors candidate B, though the policy is the same.

In any regard, I think you'll find I preach more about cause and effect than I do about centrism vs. progressivism.

[wisteria]

52. Quinpac polls are terrible.

But, lamont's loss can be contributed to a push from the right, a terrible republican candidate and a state that has a majority of independent voters.

[wyldwolf]

53. here's what will happen

Some unknown "progressive" firebrand, perhaps a House member, will catch on in the netroots. Despite being at the bottom of preference polls, we'll be told constantly that the polls are wrong and that we need to get used to saying "President_________."

We'll be told how other candidates are "smearing" candidate X even as candidate X lobs bombs of his/her own at the other candidates. (Of course, THAT won't be smearing because candidate X will be "speaking truth to power.")

When the primaries start and candidate X is on the losing end of them, we'll hear how the (media, DLC, other candidates, Diebold, Karl Rove) torpedoed candidate X out of fear of his/her candidacy.

Then when candidate Z gets the nomination, we'll hear how supporters of candidate X won't vote for (bush-lite, DINO) and that they're voting third party.

One of two will chime in, "Can't we draft candidate X to run third party like Joe Lieberman did? Surely if Democrats get the chance to vote for him/her again, they'll change their minds and make the right decision..."

[ulysses]

55. in my dreams.

Do you realize how much fun I'd have with you complaining about a progressive third-party run after Lieberman?

[wyldwolf]

70. LOL! See, I didn't say there would be a third party run. Did I?

No.

[inthebrain]

54. I'm voting my conscience!!! How bout that!!!!

That's right!!!!

I'm not playing into focus group politics. I'm voting for a candidate that makes a statement on the issues that I care about. It's that simple.

[Tiggeroshii]

56. Had Lieberman opted out after he lost, Lamont would have easily won...

[LoZoccolo]

62. I'm not addressing candidates.

I'm addressing voters and activists. The choice you give is one that is made by a candidate. You or I have scarce control of that.

[Tiggeroshii]

66. Except for making sore loser laws like they have in Ohio prohibiting a Lieberman like move

by a candidate who lost his nomination.

[LoZoccolo]

65. Also, if Lamont's campaign could have gotten more people to support him before the primary...

...then Lieberman would never have opted in.

[kentuck]

57. I would consider Joe Liberman an exception... not the rule...

We should not assume his "appeal" would be universal...

[Donna Zen]

58. What does this mean?

Are you demanding that we should quit having primaries?

Or are you suggesting that if we chose someone other than the incumbent in the primary that we should then get them off the ballot and run the incumbent that lost?

When our chosen canidate loses, it has always been the position of the party that we come together and support the winner of the party.

Have the rules about Dem unity changed?

If not for the republicans, Lieberman would not have won.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PassingFair]

60. Why not? We got LIEBERMANED in 06....

Hopefully, we'll LAMONT the *hit out of you in 08!

[lastliberalintexas]

71. Seriously. Talk about a Twilight Zone thread.

[k_jerome]

63. good points and good luck. nt.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Complete bullshit, Lamont would've won in a two-way race

No he didn't capture a majority in the poll but that was because his name hadn't gotten out. He was still 20 points ahead of Schlesinger in almost every poll and frankly 20 points seems like a safe lead to me majority or no majority.

I'll give Joe credit, his party split on him and he replaced the support he lost with a coalition which is not easy to do. Granted that coalition involved Karl Rove and Bush, but it certainly worked in defeating Lamont.

[The Magistrate]

72. Locking

This has become a flame-war.