PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Joe Lieberman Loses Democratic Primary


Sassafrass Raistimass
08-09-2006, 03:01 AM
Lieberman loses in Democratic primary

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer 23 minutes ago

Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Democratic primary Tuesday, the first major election-year test of sentiment over the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq.

"Tonight we voted for big change," a jubilant Lamont told supporters. Unbowed, Lieberman vowed to fight on, announcing plans to run as an independent this fall.

"Of course I am disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged," Lieberman said. "For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand."

Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 146,061, to 48 percent for Lieberman, with 136,042, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Turnout was projected at twice the norm for a primary.

Lieberman's loss made him only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980, and came just six years after he was the Democrats' choice for vice president.

Two other incumbents in Congress lost their seats Tuesday.

In Georgia, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the fiery congresswoman known for her conspiracy theories about the Sept. 11 attacks and a scuffle this year with a U.S. Capitol police officer, lost a runoff for the Democratic nomination.

In Michigan, moderate Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost to a conservative in a GOP primary.

Elsewhere, voters in Colorado and Missouri also chose candidates for the fall elections.

The Connecticut Senate race dominated the political landscape, and its outcome promises to echo through the fall. The race was watched closely by the liberal, Internet-savvy Democrats who lead the party's emerging "netroots" movement, groups such as Moveon.org that played a big role in pushing Lamont's candidacy.

Critics targeted Lieberman for his strong support for the Iraq war and for his close ties to President Bush. They played and replayed video of the kiss President Bush planted on Lieberman's cheek after the 2005 State of the Union address.

In the final weeks of the campaign, Lieberman appeared with former President Clinton, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and other national Democratic leaders.

Now attention turns to how party leaders will respond: Rally around Lamont? Pressure Lieberman to step down?

The party planned to formally present its ticket Wednesday at an event attended by Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and top state officials. Party chairwoman Nancy DiNardo had supported Lieberman but said she would back Lamont in the general election if he won the primary.

Lieberman supporters must submit 7,500 signatures by Wednesday to place his name on the November ballot as an independent.

Officials said turnout Tuesday was up to 50 percent, when primaries usually only draw 25 percent of voters. Vote totals showed roughly 16,000 more ballots cast for the Democratic Senate primary than the party primary for governor, reflecting the extra attention to the Lieberman-Lamont battle.

In the lead up to the primary, 14,000 new Connecticut voters registered as Democrats, while another 14,000 state voters switched their registration from unaffiliated to Democrat to vote in the primary.

Jubilant Lamont supporters predicted victory in November.

"People are going to look back and say the Bush years started to end in Connecticut," said Avi Green, a volunteer from Boston. "The Republicans are going to look at tonight and realize there's blood in the water."

A week ago, polls showed Lieberman trailing Lamont by 13 percentage points. The latest polls showed the race tightening, with Lamont holding a slight lead of 51 percent to 45 percent over Lieberman among likely Democratic voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday.

On the final day of the race, Lieberman accused his opponent's supporters of hacking his campaign Web site and e-mail system. Lamont said he knew nothing about the accusations.

Lamont, the millionaire owner of a cable television company and former Greenwich selectman, will face Republican Alan Schlesinger in the general election.

In Georgia, McKinney, her state's first black congresswoman, lost to Hank Johnson, the black former commissioner of DeKalb County, 58 percent to 41 percent.

In the heavily Democratic district, the runoff winner is likely to win in the fall.

McKinney has long been controversial, once suggesting the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Her comments helped galvanize opposition and she lost her seat in 2002, but won it again two years ago.

In her latest brouhaha in March, she struck a Capitol Police officer who did not recognize her and tried to stop her from entering a House office building.

A grand jury in Washington declined to indict her, but she was forced to apologize before the House. She drew less than 50 percent of the vote in last month's primary.

In other primaries Tuesday:

• In Michigan, Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz, a moderate who supports abortion rights, lost to conservative Tim Walberg, a former state lawmaker. The race drew more than $1 million from outside groups; Schwarz has received support from President Bush and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

• In Colorado, two open congressional seats have drawn crowds of candidates.

• Missouri Republican Sen. Jim Talent and Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, the state auditor, won their party's primaries.
-------------------------------

Thought the collective would like to know, since displeasure at his videum game policies has been expressed a number of times here.

The Deity
08-09-2006, 03:07 AM
Wow, I'm surprised to see Lieberman fall...I'm not sure how to react.

Rainbow Dash
08-09-2006, 11:42 AM
He was running for senate, correct?

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-09-2006, 03:07 PM
He was running for senate, correct?Yes. Still is, in fact, but as an independent.

Pinkie Pie
08-09-2006, 04:36 PM
Wow, I'm surprised to see Lieberman fall...I'm not sure how to react.
I'm not. I've been hearing about this for a while now. Lieberman knew he was probably going to lose the primaries because of his stance on the Iraq war, and so he announced that if he lost the primary that he'd re-run as an Independant a while back.

I'm not thrilled with his "I'll run twice" thing, though there's nothing legally wrong with it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with him running as an Independant if he decides he has a better chance of winning that way, but in the case that he wants to do that, he shouldn't have stayed on the primary ballot. But then that's just me.

The Deity
08-09-2006, 05:12 PM
I'm not thrilled with his "I'll run twice" thing, though there's nothing legally wrong with it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with him running as an Independant if he decides he has a better chance of winning that way, but in the case that he wants to do that, he shouldn't have stayed on the primary ballot. But then that's just me.

It will surely lead to another Woodrow Wilson situation.

Works nicely in my book.

Nickelback
08-09-2006, 05:20 PM
I'm not surprised. Somewhat amused that he's going to run as an Independant next time.

Pinkie Pie
08-09-2006, 05:32 PM
I'm not surprised. Somewhat amused that he's going to run as an Independant next time.

Not next time, this time. He lost the Democratic primary, not the actual election.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-10-2006, 12:27 AM
I'm not thrilled with his "I'll run twice" thing, though there's nothing legally wrong with it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with him running as an Independant if he decides he has a better chance of winning that way, but in the case that he wants to do that, he shouldn't have stayed on the primary ballot. But then that's just me.Abandoning the primary altogether would have given the impression that he's abandoned the Democratic party.

Pinkie Pie
08-10-2006, 06:11 PM
Abandoning the primary altogether would have given the impression that he's abandoned the Democratic party.

Point.

Though what's the point of having a primary to decide who runs if the candidate that loses runs anyways?

Lancet Jades
08-10-2006, 06:30 PM
Point.

Though what's the point of having a primary to decide who runs if the candidate that loses runs anyways?
Unless I misunderstood, the primary is to determine who runs under the party's banner. He's still running, but not as a democrat.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-10-2006, 06:31 PM
Though what's the point of having a primary to decide who runs if the candidate that loses runs anyways?The primary only decides who runs under the Democratic name, which means they get Democratic support, and more importantly Democratic money; without these, few candidates could really hope to have a shot. Lieberman, though, is an incumbent with national name recognition, so he doesn't have much reason not to try.

Seraph Zero
08-10-2006, 08:55 PM
The primary only decides who runs under the Democratic name, which means they get Democratic support, and more importantly Democratic money; without these, few candidates could really hope to have a shot. Lieberman, though, is an incumbent with national name recognition, so he doesn't have much reason not to try.
Tragically, he'll be bringing the Democrats down with him... This little move will effectively split the ticket, with half the Liberal vote going to Lamont, and the other half going to Lieberman. This'll pretty much give the Senate seat to the Republican challenger... In other words, we're fucked, and stuck with yet another neo-Con, who, with the rest of the herd, will continue to spiral this country into a fascist regime, devoid of the very freedoms we Americans boast to the world... Great fucking job, Lieberman. Not only did you have to lose, but you had to bring the party down with you.

Okay, this brings me to another irritation... Party cohesion. The Republicans pride themselves on their tendency to vote along party lines, while the Democrats... Kind of do their own thing. They lack a backbone, a central figure to unite them, which is why the damn conservatives will remain in power, in spite the war, in spite of the deficit, and in spite of common sense.

~Seraph

[PhiberOpticks]
08-11-2006, 01:24 AM
Boy, the republicans can agree on stuff (I could tell a joke about that, but I'm not looking to offend anyone >.<). Why not the democrats?

I just want to make sure that there is a democrat there, just so he can help sway votes against the repubs that support Bush.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-11-2006, 04:19 AM
Score one for partisan hackery.

The Deity
08-11-2006, 04:37 AM
Tragically, he'll be bringing the Democrats down with him... This little move will effectively split the ticket, with half the Liberal vote going to Lamont, and the other half going to Lieberman. This'll pretty much give the Senate seat to the Republican challenger... In other words, we're fucked, and stuck with yet another neo-Con, who, with the rest of the herd, will continue to spiral this country into a fascist regime, devoid of the very freedoms we Americans boast to the world... Great fucking job, Lieberman. Not only did you have to lose, but you had to bring the party down with you.

Yeah, bullshit. Conservatives are breaking down the morlas and liberties of our naton, that's what our problem is. I'm sure a Rebulican congress will certainly turn us into Italy under Mussolini. Just like a Democratic one would turn us into Russia under Stalin.

Lieberman was a Democrat I actually liked, but you're right, the seat will certainly be a Republican.

Okay, this brings me to another irritation... Party cohesion. The Republicans pride themselves on their tendency to vote along party lines, while the Democrats... Kind of do their own thing. They lack a backbone, a central figure to unite them, which is why the damn conservatives will remain in power, in spite the war, in spite of the deficit, and in spite of common sense.

In spite of common sense? Psh. Please, by all means just say republicans are fucktards or something. War isn't wrong and I don't see how that can be as fucking huge an issue as its made out to be. How much support did it originally have? Do you support a cut and run strategy?

Sure the Republicans are likely going to remain in power, but just because you're a liberal, don't act like conservatives ruin the nation.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-11-2006, 04:49 AM
the seat will certainly be a RepublicanPolls show Schlesinger (the Republican candidate) still way behind, even if it turns into a three-man race.

Oh, and I feel obliged to ask you not to feed the troll.

Jeff
08-11-2006, 02:16 PM
Lieberman losing is another step in the wrong direction for the Democratic party. The one thing that this party needs to do in order to beat the Republicans is to be more moderate! Lieberman is one of these people, which is why I've always liked him. He's not too far to the left with his social views and with his other views; he's a moderate. In 2008, when the Republicans nominate somebody like McCain, somebody normal, everyday moderate Americans can associate with, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, it will spell disaster.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-11-2006, 10:23 PM
Lieberman losing is another step in the wrong direction for the Democratic party. The one thing that this party needs to do in order to beat the Republicans is to be more moderate! Lieberman is one of these people, which is why I've always liked him. He's not too far to the left with his social views and with his other views; he's a moderate. In 2008, when the Republicans nominate somebody like McCain, somebody normal, everyday moderate Americans can associate with, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, it will spell disaster.You're assuming the same thing isn't happening to the Republican party too.

Night
08-11-2006, 11:39 PM
It will surely lead to another Woodrow Wilson situation.Lieberman's a racist?! (jk)

I'm dissapointed, I think Lieberman actually stood for things, which is what the Democratic party needs. They lack a stance, so people feel safer with the republican party.
Party of bad ideas vs. party of no ideas...

(That should really be warned)

Pinkie Pie
08-12-2006, 12:11 PM
Lieberman losing is another step in the wrong direction for the Democratic party. The one thing that this party needs to do in order to beat the Republicans is to be more moderate! Lieberman is one of these people, which is why I've always liked him. He's not too far to the left with his social views and with his other views; he's a moderate. In 2008, when the Republicans nominate somebody like McCain, somebody normal, everyday moderate Americans can associate with, and the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, it will spell disaster.
Why do Liberals need to become more conservative to win? Conservatives don't make much of a show of trying to be more liberal.
What the Democrats need is not to neccesarily change their politics, but to become better at effective campaigning and standing together as a party. There are a lot of "groups" within the Democratic party who are very passionate about certain issues, and aren't willing to give or take on anything, which is what really hurts the party right now.

The Republicans have a similar amount of groups, but they've learned to make compromises and to give in on some things for the unification of the party, and wind up standing in a unified front.

What the Democrats need is to be able to find a common ground to stand on and to become more effective at framing their views to the American people, not to necessarily give up their ideals. I'm not denying that there are some who are too radical, but those people exist in the other party too, and can still pull off a win not by trying to become more moderate, but by campaigning properly and receiving full support from their party.

Party of bad ideas vs. party of no ideas...
Lewis Black ftw. =P

The Deity
08-12-2006, 08:25 PM
Why do Liberals need to become more conservative to win? Conservatives don't make much of a show of trying to be more liberal.
What the Democrats need is not to neccesarily change their politics, but to become better at effective campaigning and standing together as a party. There are a lot of "groups" within the Democratic party who are very passionate about certain issues, and aren't willing to give or take on anything, which is what really hurts the party right now.

The Republicans have a similar amount of groups, but they've learned to make compromises and to give in on some things for the unification of the party, and wind up standing in a unified front.

What the Democrats need is to be able to find a common ground to stand on and to become more effective at framing their views to the American people, not to necessarily give up their ideals. I'm not denying that there are some who are too radical, but those people exist in the other party too, and can still pull off a win not by trying to become more moderate, but by campaigning properly and receiving full support from their party.


Lewis Black ftw. =P


What Jeff was really say is that the Republican candidate in the 08 election has a very good chance of being more liberal than his opponent will be conservative. Meaning that the Democrats will have an extreme candidate and the Republicans (especially if McCain does get the nod) will be Moderate/conservative.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-12-2006, 09:31 PM
What Jeff was really say is that the Republican candidate in the 08 election has a very good chance of being more liberal than his opponent will be conservative. Meaning that the Democrats will have an extreme candidate and the Republicans (especially if McCain does get the nod) will be Moderate/conservative.I'll have to ask why either of you think that's the case. McCain was passed over in favor of a more extreme candidate before, I see no reason why it wouldn't happen again.

The Deity
08-13-2006, 06:10 PM
I'll have to ask why either of you think that's the case. McCain was passed over in favor of a more extreme candidate before, I see no reason why it wouldn't happen again.

Quite honestly, I think he's the party's best chance to win the election. Now whether I think he's the best candidate is quite a different story.

When all is said and done, I think that Republicans will put up a more moderate candidate than in years previous.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-13-2006, 11:19 PM
Quite honestly, I think he's the party's best chance to win the election.Which is why I don't see him getting the nod. He's been painted more and more as the Democrat's Republican, and it'll only hurt him in the primaries.

When all is said and done, I think that Republicans will put up a more moderate candidate than in years previous.George Allen is looking like the most likely candidate, and he's pretty damn conservative.

Night
08-13-2006, 11:33 PM
Liberals don't need to be more conservative, but standing up and stating beliefs is seen as conservative, because it's so disassociated with the liberal party right now.

Sassafrass Raistimass
08-19-2006, 06:20 AM
Most recent poll I've seen shows Lieberman up by more than ten points. Schlesinger puts up a respectable third place with, um, 4%.

'Course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Republicans who are obviously polling Joey highly will actually go out and vote for him, but here's hoping.

I'll be interested to see if he'll actually reclass himself as a Democrat if he wins; I'd imagine he would, just to keep any presidential hopes he might still have going, but then the fact that he lost his own incumbent primary would suggest he wouldn't have a shot anyway. Then again, if he actually wins as an independent against his own party that'd be some of the best press a politician could ever hope for, so who knows.