Senator Joe LiebermanÂ’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).
A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.
Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.
I told you before the election then after the election that this would cost the moonbat liberals another senate seat and guarantee they would not gain control of the Senate (it will now be 53-46-1).
On August 9th I said this:
Moonbat Dem's are happy Lieberman lost, but really, they lost. In the general election, either Lieberman or whomever the Republican is will win. That means even less hope of the Dem's winning back the Senate.
I didn't know the Republican guy was that pathetic...but I will be right that Lieberman will win...
Posts
15 comments:
The ideal situation for the moonbats would have been if Lieberman won, but narrowly. Then Lieberman would have to pander to the moonbats to win, and moonbats everywhere would be juiced up to win in November.
Now they've created a situation where Lieberman has to move a good deal to the center-right to win. And nationally, Ned Lamont serves as a symbol of how the Democrats have completely renounced the idealistic tradition of supporting democracy abroad that goes back to FDR, Truman, and Kennedy.
This will also come back to bite them in the ass with Mrs. Clinton, who is to the right of Lieberman. The moonbats will have to attack her to retain any credibility, and Clinton will probably have to expose her Marxist roots to gain credence with them. That looks good for Republicans in 2008.
Lastly, Lieberman was just stabbed in the back by all of his friends in the Senate, so when he wins in November, it will be interesting to learn how Lieberman deals with it.
You base Mrs. Clinton's "Marxist roots" on what, exactly? Link please?
Lieberman lost 52-48 in the moonbat primary. I suspect he'll do better among saner people.
"hy would Republicans vote for a former Democrat when there is a REAL Republican in the race?"
We live in transformative times, where the future of Western civilization is at stake. War and Peace issues trump everything else. That's the same reason why we'll probably see President Giuliani in 2008.
Lieberman is up in the polls...so I don't think he lost big
So democrats 52-percent of them, 150 thousand in one state,are "moonbats" in a legitimate democratic primary..I thought they were citizens of Vermont?
Oh no. that is the fear around every corner, thinks the US will be destroyed if we don't killem all wingnuts. They are the true citizens and the ones that will "save" us. You guys are pathetic.
That said there is certainly a chance Lieberman will win. Which means while our situation failed to improve it was not harmed either.
But Lieberman has a very high liberal "rating" doesn't he? The reason Lieberman lost was not that he wasn't liberal enough, but that he enabled Bush in ways that were damaging to the Democratic party and America as a whole.
I think you all should go ahead and support Lieberman. He's actually more liberal than Lamont. Either way, we get a Democrat. Just a reminder, Lieberman is STILL a Democrat and he's RUNNING as a Democrat, just not the official candidate of the CT Democratic party. So go ahead.
game, didnt you call this one? Joe losing and running as an Indy?
Oh, dedanna, nice to see you back. To fill you in, there is no basis for the accusation. Its pointless name-calling and an attempt to sully someones reputation with untrue remarks.
rhyno--
Besides the fact Hillary wants to nationalize 14% of the economy, she helped pardoned FALN Marxist terrorists, supports the World Federalist Association (one-world UN government), wants to replace the family with teachers, pediatricians and social workers -- what's so neo-Marxist about her?
If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, I will make defeating her my second job.
ron--
The global Islamist movement is not a bogeyman. I've detailed at length here the history, philosophy, and goals of the movement, but the moonbats here seem to think if we get rid of Bush, Lieberman, and Blair, fanatic Mohammedans are going to stop their activists in India, Somalia, Thailand, Russia, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. After all, someone like Ahmadinejad only thinks the Apocalypse is near and wants to wipe Israel off the map because of Bush and Blair -- we really need to talk with him, and talk with him some more, and perhaps give him some Democrat therapy so the healing can begin.
Ron,
you can call us pathetic..but the less we let liberals do with our national security the better. If the guys in England would have been herre, they would have gotten away with it because liberal organizations like the ACLU would have defended them. We can't profile...we can't hurt anyone'e feelings. How long til some liberal group defends the guys who got caught with 1000 cell phones...just wait.
Game, they decided those guys had nothing to do with terrorism and the idea that you would think of that before any thing else is a perfect example of your scaredycat patheticness.
Jason, it certainly isnt a bogeyman but it isnt the piss your pants fright that you guys try to make it either. We dont have to destroy islam,more innocents that mean us no harm and the whole middle east to deal with this problem. there are other far more RATIONAL ways to do it.
Jason, please provide links to Hillary's position statements or any other source material to back up your assertions. I'd love to read them.
But Lieberman has a very high liberal "rating" doesn't he?
Lieberman's no more a true liberal than I am the Pillsbury Dough Boy.
Also, please provide links to Hillary's supposed Marxist roots. I'd love to dispute them.
Well, it's been several days, and there haven't been any links posted jim.
I guess Jason was full of shit.
As usual.
Post a Comment