Lieberman loses primary

[walterick]

3-term senator Joseph Lieberman lost the Connecticut primary today. Lieberman's opponent was Ned Lamont, an anti-war millionaire with little political experience. Lieberman was the Democratic nominee for vice-president only 6 years ago. Lieberman's loss is attributed to his support of the Iraq war and his ties to president Bush:

http://wjz.com/topstories/topstories...220202557.html

Changes, they are a comin'! Watch out Reps and pro-war Dems!

[mjs1973]

I've been wondering how this was going to turn out, and I have to say, I'm not surprised. I don't know anything about Ned, but I think it says a lot for the anti-war movement that someone with little political experience can beat someone like Leiberman. It will be interesting to see if Lieberman will run as an independent now like he said he would if he lost the primary.

I found it interesting yesterday when I read about Lieberman's campaign website going down and they blamed an "unnamed political opponent" for it. They are demanding an investigation to find out who was responsible. I'm glad this was just a primary or it could end up being another election being determined by a judge, instead of the voters.

[Asylum Steve]

Changes, they are a comin'! Watch out Reps and pro-war Dems!...

I'll admit, I haven't been following this story too closely, but from what I've read, it looks like a text book example of a voting public shifting dramatically on an issue, and an incumbent politician suffering the consequences...

I mean, seriously, for Lieberman's constituency to label him either pro-war or pro-Bush must mean they have very short memories. My advice would be they take a quick look back to the last presidential campaign, note who was running against whom and their stance on the issues.

Yes, I'm a Lieberman fan, and what aggravated me about this election is that his opponent, Ned Lamont, basically ran an anti-Bush campaign, but aimed at Lieberman, which to me made no sense. Of course, in hindsight, it made perfect sense for Lamont...

I also tend to believe stories that accuse Lamont supporters of hacking Lieberman's official web site on election day, stopping him from last minute messaging to voters. That in itself may have been enough to sway the outcome...

What I find ironic is that Lieberman (arguably) lost in 2004 because the mood of the country, or at least enough of it, was pro-war and pro-Bush. I mean, look at all the grief the Dixie Chicks took for speaking out against the two. Now the mood of the country has swung the other way, and here Lieberman is getting punished again... :mad2:

[another view]

someone with little political experience can beat someone like Leiberman

Can't say that I know much about this particular situation, but in some cases this could be seen as an advantage too.

[walterick]

Lieberman has vowed to run in the fall as as Independent. At first, I thought this might be bad news for the Democrats as Lieberman could have a "Nader Effect" on the Democratic vote, effectively splitting it and helping the Republican candidate win the seat (wouldn't that be a riot.) But Lamont is playing the psychological card already, predicting Lieberman's run will split the Republican vote, not the Democratic:

"Lamont, who defeated Lieberman 52 percent to 48 percent in Tuesday's primary, said Lieberman would end up splitting the Republican vote. "He gets a lot more support from Republicans than he does from Democrats," Lamont told CNN"

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/...ap2937664.html

Ballsy!

[mjs1973]

What I find ironic is that Lieberman (arguably) lost in 2004 because the mood of the country, or at least enough of it, was pro-war and pro-Bush. I mean, look at all the grief the Dixie Chicks took for speaking out against the two. Now the mood of the country has swung the other way, and here Lieberman is getting punished again... :mad2:

That's a good point Steve. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't...

One thing about this race that I find very interesting is that the Democratic party is throwing it's support behind Lamont. Russ Feingold, Democratic Senitor from WI, has donated $5,000 to Lamont. Maybe it's not surprising to people who follow politics, but I think it's interesting.

[walterick]

Can't say that I know much about this particular situation, but in some cases this could be seen as an advantage too.

That's an interesting point. I like to think it takes "nonpoliticians" to get anything done. We have a couple of prime examples in recent political history:

Jesse Ventura
Arnold Schwartzenegger

Both started their gubernatorial terms full of excitement and ideas. Both were "men of the people." I am not a biographer of either, but I understand they both ended up fighting with their state legislatures over the ideas they wished to see implemented. Shortly into their terms, they each hit a beaurocratic wall. I'm not sure what happened to Ventura, anybody know? I think he quite after one term? And maybe the resident Californians can update me as to the dealings with Ah-nold (I heard recently he had signed some sort of environmental treaty with Tony Blair?) I am not dashing the idea that non-politicians are capable of doing a good job in government. I'm actually saying that we now have evidence that we can look at and see. If anyone knows?