Q: Why are ANY Democrats voting for Lieberman???

[Mugsy]

The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Joe "Don't criticze Bush" Lieberman with a healthy 12 point lead over Ned Lamont (49% to 37%), two-thirds of which comes from Republican voters.

I can't figure out why ANY Democrat would vote for Joe at this point. The Republican in this race, Schlesinger, registers barely a blip at 8%, so any "rationaliztion" that it is safer to vote for Joe than risk loosing the seat to a Republican, is complete nonsense (Lieberman and Schlesinger are splitting the R vote). Lamont would have a guaranteed win on November 7th with Lieberman eating dust in his rear window, if Connecticut Democrats supporting Joe were to come to their senses and stop supporting the candidate that 2/3rds of all Connecticut Republicans want to see elected (because he shares their views, not ours).

Someone please explain this one to me. I'm stumped. :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

1. I'm just as puzzled as you are. His warmth and winning personality, maybe?

[YOY]

3. He's been there a while?

Some folks have no idea he is no longer a Democrat?

Strong ties to the traditionally financially conservative socially liberal Jewish community? :hide:

Severe blunt force trauma to the head?

Haven't heard that he's an ass?

All of the above????

[femmedem]

31. That image is scarey! The biggest hurdle I face selling Lamont

is that people are so cynical about politicans, even when I tell them that Lamont has pledged never to accept corporate PAC or lobbyist money, they don't believe me. "They're all the same. They say anything before you elect them, then they change."

I have to work like you wouldn't believe to get them as excited about Lamont as I am, to see that he really is an agent for change.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[question everything]

8. Oh yeah? Does Israel control the voters in CT?

Can you prove any of this?

[k_jerome]

39. it is the vast jewish conspiracy...

therefore, proof is not needed.

[Lurking Dem]

40. Community, Industry, Deli

[k_jerome]

44. media, govt., voters minds. nt.

[Zhade]

50. Though others are ignorantly (and wrongly) intimating anti-Semitism...

...I see your point, in that most Americans are missing the whole picture on the Middle East situation, and assume blind support for Israel is good (it's not, as it limits debate as to Israel's own actions, many of which endanger it even more).

[Robbien]

4. One word. DLC

There are DLC voters out there. If there weren't, there wouldn't be a DLC.

[onenote]

5. More loyal to Lieberman than to party

Not all Democrats in Connecticut were Democrats first and Lieberman supporters second. There are undoubtedly many Democrats in Connecticut who registered as, or remained, Democrats because they liked Lieberman and he was a Democrat. They are more loyal to the man than to the party.

[Mugsy]

7. So they are really Republicans? DINO's?

Sorry, I don't buy that... the argument that Joe more shares their views.

CT is a very blue state. And at a time when even Republicans are fleeing the Republican Party, why any DINO's might continue to support a man that defends increasingly unpopular policies, is beyond me.

[onenote]

35. You clearly don't know what you're talking about

"CT is a very blue state" --
Really, then how is it that they have a repub governor and a majority (3 out of five)of the members of the House of Representatives from CT are repubs. In 2000, more CT voters supported Lieberman for Senate then supported Gore/Lieberman for president.

CT is a moderate, indepently minded state. You really ought not to spout "facts" when you clearly don't have them.

BTW - as I've indicated any number of times, I want Lamont to win this race.

[buff2]

16. A vote for LIEberman is a vote for bu$h and his thugs

LIEberman is a SORE LOSER. He lost the primary,but couldn't be man enough to accept his defeat and support Ned. Joe is a selfish uncaring bastard who puts himself before his party AND his country. Bu$h's policies have trashed this country,but yet Joe supports them. What a screwed up moron Joe is.I wish he would just GO AWAY.

[Zhade]

51. Yeah, most of them are loyal to Jihad Joe and REPUBLICANS second.

That's where most of his votes have come from, historically.

Yet some people delude themselves into thinking he's not conservative!

[question everything]

6. Because, thankfully, most Democrats do not trash someone as a used rag

just because they disagree with him on one issue.

He has been a loyal Democrat for years. Always a moderate one, never left enough for DU and for moveon.org and the other extreme left of the party.

He certainly can fit better with what most of us consider the Democratic core values than Harold Ford from TN who is being cheered on these pages. Lincoln Chafee can fit better than Ford, for that matter.

Thankfully, there are adult voters in CT who are capable at looking at the whole picture, rather than being swayed by the fringes.

I for one, will cheer if Lieberman elected.

[skipos]

12. I used to defend Lieberman around here

until Joe decided to actively try to defeat choice of CT Democrats. That isn't what "loyal" Democrats do. Would you like it if Kucinich runs as an independent if he loses the 08 nomination? Not me.

As for Chafee, a vote for him is a vote for as Republican majority, and most of America knows how bad that has been for us.

[buff2]

13. Oh,so you are a bu$h lover too????

Joe Blow is one of Bu$h's best YES men. When a politician votes for the other party's issues 98% of the time,they are NOT who they say they are. LIEberman is a traitor to our party and you support that? God,how phucking sickening.:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

I hate that two faced bastard. When the repukes all support him above their own candidate,he is definately ONE OF THEM. :thumbsdown:

[Dick Diver]

48. I didn't realize the Repubs were so liberal

Since, according to you, Lieberman votes with them "98% of the time" and since the National Journal gives Joe a 65.7 liberal rating, them damn Repubs must be more liberal than I thought!

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

[Kolesar]

14. I hate Joe Lie for the same reason Markos does. He trashes Democrats

That asshole gave cover to the gopukes when they were impeaching Clinton. That asshole has been beating up us antiwar Democrats. Fuck that asshole. I expect that most Connecticut Lieberman voters don't really know the whole picture about "their" candidate.

Markos -> www.dailykos.com

[buff2]

18. Real progressive Democrats couldn't vote for that asswipe.

It's the DINO'S and repukes who support him. When the FReeptards are rooting for Joe Blow you KNOW he isn't a real Democrat,because they HATE Democrats. It's a damn shame.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Mugsy]

20. ONE issue???

You're out of your freaking mind.

Joe was on the 2000 Gore ticket mainly because he voted to impeach Clinton, openly criticizing him on the floor of the Senate. He has attacked Democrats and praised Bush, sided with Republicans and spoken for them as a representative.

To suggest Joe has ever been "a loyal Democrat" is nonsense.

[Dick Diver]

45. You simply do not know what you're talking about.

"Joe was on the 2000 Gore ticket mainly because he voted to impeach Clinton"

Lieberman voted NOT GUILTY on both counts of impeachment - Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Jeez, why don't you get some facts straight before running off at the keyboard.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/

[onenote]

47. he's two for two on not having facts straight

It seems to be a growing problem here at DU.

[Dick Diver]

53. Actually, he's three for three...

The OP references the latest Quinnipiac Poll as showing Lieberman up by 12%, but if you follow the link he provides, it's the latest American Research Group Poll that shows him up by 12. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Lieberman up by 17. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of opinions?

[pinto]

21. I respect Joe for years of service, but he left the party. There's a Dem

candidate in the CT race, and I hope CT Democrats support Lamont with their votes.

[Richard Steele]

22. But he's not any sort of Dem now.

He LOST the nomination, and left the party, and he's
now the REPUBLICANS' favored candidate in that race.

Do the damn math.

[never_get_over_it]

24. Your post saddens me that you are so blind

I'll admit that I HATE JOE LIEberman and have for a long time....but in my mind his worse offense EVER was to completely disrespect the Democratic voters and the Democratic process by running in the primary losing and then running as an Independent. Under these circumstances for you to say he is a loyal Democrat is laughable

And although I don't agree with you that those of us who don't like him - don't for more than one issue - but the one issue you refer to is the Iraq Invasion - you can not deny that Joe LIEberman has carried the administration's water and given the repunks some cover...Joe LIEberman is a war monger and has the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and 3,000 American's on his hands

And BTW I for one will not be the least bit surprised if Sore Loserman caucuses with the repunks - also I'm not a fan of Harold Ford - but I have NO doubt he will caucus with the Dems - and I actually sort of like Chafee because he is the ONLY repunk to vote against the Iraq War Resolution the Military Commissions Act or whatever the hell it is called and apparently been very instrumental in keeping John Bolton from getting confirmed - but unfortunately since the balance of power depends on Dems getting voted in I hope Whitehouse is successful - Chaffee should have joined us long ago....and now it is just too late for him.

[tnlefty]

27. Harold Ford, Jr. won the democratic primary in TN.

I didn't support him during the primary and have been critical of him when he casts votes and/or taken positions that I really didn't like. However, he won the primary is over and yes, I'll be working hard to try to GOTV and help to get him elected.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

38. Wow, so you are actively working against a Democratic Nominee?

Joe lost the Democratic nomination. Its really that simple.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Lieberman is not a team player

If he were he wouldn't have run as an independent. He's a traitor to the democratic party even if you agree with him on the issues more than Ned Lamont. Challenging incumbents in primaries are a part of democracy that goes back to Franklin Roosevelt's attempt to purge southern democrats who wouldn't support the New Deal and possibly even further. Lieberman is being a spoiled baby and putting himself over the interests of his party and country.

[buff2]

9. RepukeliKKKans are keeping his lead up

If those idiots would vote for their own candidate,LIEberman would't stand a chance.It shows he is more aligned with the repukes than with us. Why doesn't he switch parties and get it over with? He's no more a Democrat than bu$h is.He helped bu$h steal the Presidency from Gore,I truly believe that. :puke:


For those Dems that are voting for Joe Blow.......GET A BRAIN MORANS!!!!!!!!

[Mugsy]

25. Which is what confounds me.

I'm not hearing from any CT Democrats voting for Joe explaining their rationale for voting for someone that has done them nothing but harm.

Of course, I recognize the fact that CT DINO's voting for Joe are *highly* unlikely to be lurking at DU. :)

[skipos]

10. DU Democrats are more progressive than your average Dem

Hence, Hillary Clinton leads the 08 primary polls, and Senators like Nelson of NE get 70% positive approval ratings from NE Democrats.

It is one of the reasons that our Dem Presidential candidates probably aren't going to be as progressive as a Kucinich anytime soon.

[texasleo]

11. understatement of the century

[Kolesar]

15. Hillary leads because of name recognition. As did Joe-Lie in 2003

Back when there were only a thousand nerds who had given to Howard Dean (including me). I think your broader point is generally correct.

[skipos]

17. I agree, name recognition is a big part of it. nt

[Zhade]

52. And we're also much more informed than the average citizen.

I think the better informed one is, the more they lean toward liberality.

There's a definite correlation here.

[CTyankee]

23. what some people perceive as "bipartisanship"

He's really sold that bill of goods to lots of people I talk to when I phonebank for Ned. They abandon the party for Joe. Even if they are against the war, some of them will persist in voting for Joe. They see him as someone with experience in Washington (some experience!)and Ned as a neophyte. Also, there is a prejudice against Ned because he is super rich and from Greenwich. He has an elegantly beautiful wife (who is smart, has made hundreds of millions of dollars as a venture capitalist but who was born into a poor family in the midwest), and 3 cute kids, one of whom is at Harvard, the other two at the posh Greenwich Country Day School. They travel in a private jet and, well you get the picture...

As I said on another post, the war is simply not the dealbreaker for these people when it comes to JOe. Many of them oppose the war but they trust Joe and they are used to Joe. They haven't noticed that he hasn't been around our state a lot in the past few years because they've gotten used to seeing him on "Meet the PRess" and "Face the Nation." He is some kind of elder statesman to them.

That's the best picture I can give you from here on the ground as I see it and hear it.

[femmedem]

30. Hi CTYankee. How'd the canvassing go today?

Mine went pretty well, except that so many people weren't home. No Joe signs, lots of Lamont signs. A couple of new voter registrations for Ned supporters (just moved to CT). A couple of people who said they liked Lieberman, but more for Ned. A few people I swayed. One who I haven't swayed yet, but who said I could write her a letter making my best case, she was just too busy when I knocked on her door to talk.

(I do a fair amount of follow-up with the people I canvass. I am one determined canvasser.)

[CTyankee]

36. I went to Dem hq in East Haven and nobody was there!

I'm guessing that it got cancelled (I prolly should have checked on Friday because it was Wednesday when I was asked to canvass and I know things can change).

I'll have to call tomorrow and find out what happened. I did run into one woman with a Lamont sticker and asked her. She was not coming to canvass but she did tell me that the East Haven Dems are supporting Joe! I don't know how they can do that in reality if they represent the party in town!

I'm glad you got to canvass. It sounds like you are working hard. What town(s)were you in?

[femmedem]

41. I was in New London.

Check out my post about one conversation I had, and my follow-up. I am a bear about winning this thing, one labor-intensive vote at a time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2898957&mesg_id=2898957

That is terrible about East Haven. Bastards. Are you following the Lieberman campaign petty cash story? New info on Lamontblog. not the official one. this one:http://lamontblog.blogspot.com/

BTW, my canvassing partner was a guy in his 70's. He said he was an Eisenhower Republican who changed his registration to Dem so he could vote for Lamont in the primary. He was great.

[CTyankee]

42. Some of the older callers at HQ in New Haven are real cards!

There was one lady there last week, probably in her early 80s who absolutely took no prisoners! I thought she was going to go through the phone and grab whoever she was calling! She was giving them hell for saying the weren't going to vote. I was cracking up. I try to kill people with kindness and in some cases it works, in others, no. I figure if I can get just one undecided to "lean Ned" I have accomplished something!

I'm a little behind the curve on the new Joe story. I'll check it out now so I can be up to speed.

[femmedem]

43. It's interesting but probably not all that useful for persuasion.

Or at least not unless it gets big press. Otherwise I think it just sounds low. But a LIeberman scandal would be nice about now, don't you think?

[CTyankee]

54. See, that's the thing. There isn't a big "scandal"

but of course the scandal is big and it is the war and Joe's relationship with the administration. It is the elephant that no one wants to acknowledge.

Some people aren't getting it. And I can't say they are bad folks. I talk to them and they are nice, they are articulate, they are caring, but they just won't NOT vote for Joe.

Well, it's beyond me but perhaps we don't understand their motivation. We can still try, can't we?

[femmedem]

56. What do they like about Joe?

Do you ask? I'm always curious as to why his positives are still so high.

[CTyankee]

57. Experience and bipartisanship

The Dems supporting Joe usually say "experience." By which they mean everything but the war, which they oppose. The unaffiliated and some Republicans say "bipartisanship." By which they mean "he agrees with me."

All I say, and I say it nicely, is "Well, then I guess we'll get more of the same if Joe gets back in. Nothing will change. How do you feel about that?" Some agree that nothing will change but that Ned won't be any better and may be worse on "getting anything done." Some (who are really REpublicans) get all mad and hang up.

This is why I feel I have more of a chance with the "leaning Ned" undecideds. I can usually give them a good pitch and they listen!

[femmedem]

59. Counter arguments:

Experience: He doesn't learn from his mistakes. Now he wants regime change in Iran. Also, experience=seniority. Lieberman will be influential. But he screws up everything he touches: Iraq Katrina, Enron, etc.

Bi-partisan: Lieberman joked with Imus about torturing Democrats. That's a far cry from all his talk about wanting a bi-partisan love fest. Also, a focus on bi-partisan bickering is a smokescreen for the bigger problem of corporate influence. Also, for the Dems to have influence, they need control of the house of reps--but Lieberman couldn't say if he thought a dem house takeover would be good for the country.

Those are my best rebuttals. Sorry about the crappy typing--I've got to rush out the door.

[B Calm]

26. Puzzles me too... Especially when a working man supports this suck up!

[tnlefty]

28. They want to help to tear a rift in the democratic party that it may not

recover from? :shrug:

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

33. 'Honestly, do you folks grasp the basics of politics?'

You're just full of joy here. Welcome to DU.

[nam78_two]

34. Incumbent advantage

Thats all I can come up with :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

37. Because they're stupid.

[burythehatchet]

49. money

If you're invested in a guy for 20 years and you've done well because of your investment in Joe over the years, it would be difficult to abandon him regardless of whether you liked him.

[Raine]

55. Joementum...

it just can't be stopped. :popcorn:

[NaturalHigh]

58. Lamont (right or wrong) is perceived as a liberal.

Most Democrats, at least where I'm from, are a lot more moderate than the majority of posters on DU. Add to that the fact that Lieberman is very popular in Connecticut and has a lot of experience and seniority in the Senate, and you can see why Lamont is behind.