• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can Lieberman win in 08?

Would Lieberman get your vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 9.0%

  • No

    Votes: 52 66.7%

  • I'm an illegal alien so I can't tell you how I vote

    Votes: 8 10.3%

  • On planet X, we vote for none of the above.

    Votes: 11 14.1%
  • Total voters
    78
If Lib. losses tomorow, which is very likely, how could anyone depend on him to win anymore? Wouldn't it be like getting a veterial decease? I mean noone wants you after that!
 
Rob Lister wrote:
...the [continuing ad nasum] debate about 'bush lied!'/'did not!' is a bit too tangental, dontchathink?
Click to expand...
It is tangential, but I think the evidence is complete, comprehensive, and categorical that Bushco lied about the strength of evidence for WMD. Lots of other people believe that and while I can understand why a Republican elite might not be comfortable with expressing that idea and I can understand why a Democrat might not express the idea out of respect for the presidency I personally think that a Democrat that criticizes other Democrats for being critical of Bushco for misleading the country with respect to WMD just has his priorities in the wrong place.

Bushco scares the crap out of me. One of the principal reasons that I am going to vote for Democrats is that I want to excixse every possible vestige of neoconism that I can from the country. I believe in compromise, dimplomacy and occasionally not getting the best deal possible if it improves the chances for peace. Somehow our governement has been taken over by a weird Israel first bunch of militaristic yahoos that I am willing to vote for Democrats to get rid of. I would not be too happy with a Democrat that was pretty much like the yahoos I was voting to get rid of.

ETA: If there was any chance that invasion of Iraq was a good idea (and I do concede that) the moronic incompetence of Bushco with regard to the occupation is absolutely a legitimate area for criticism by Democrats. Any Democrat that has remained silent while Bushco has driven Iraq into civil war with its bumbling is useless. And Lieberman seems to fit that bill pretty well.
 
Last edited:
In his three terms in the Senate...other than being a "moderate" from a NE state, has Lieberman done/accomplished that would qualify him to be president? He's no leader. He is remarkably uncharismatic. He is remarkably lacking in any vision save "elect Joe Leiberman". He is remarkably lacking in real legislative accomplishments.

He might be a natural successor to Bush, of course, who prior to his own election to president was also lacking in vision, accomplishments, etc.
 
I don’t know how someone can suggest a Lib/Condi combination. The polls have Lib losing to Lamont and Condi winning over Bush. So whether you believe polls are valuable or not, there is a contradiction.
 
headscratcher4 said:
In his three terms in the Senate...other than being a "moderate" from a NE state, has Lieberman done/accomplished that would qualify him to be president? He's no leader. He is remarkably uncharismatic. He is remarkably lacking in any vision save "elect Joe Leiberman". He is remarkably lacking in real legislative accomplishments.
Click to expand...
Apart from the moderate part, how does the above description distinguish Lieberman from any other Democratic senator?

Charisma? Look who the Democrats have made their standard-bearers in the last two elections: Al ("I'm Not Made of Wood, Honest") Gore and John ("If I Shout in My Hectoring, Declamatory Voice a Little Louder, I'll Have Tubs of Charisma") Kerry.

Okay, they hit the jackpot with Clinton (even a blind pig sometimes finds the trough), but before that, they gave us Mike Dukakis and Walter Mondale.

That's why they didn't give Screamin' Howard Dean the nomination last time out. Too much personality.

I predict the Dems'll nominate Adlai Stevenson in '08. Yeah, he's been dead for forty years and when he was alive had all the charisma of a mushroom. Sounds like the perfect candidate.
 
Guys, Gals, I want strategy forecasts.

Don't make me talk in all caps or change font size or color.

I'll do it...I swear!

Seriously, assume Lieberman runs in 06 as an ind because he loses the Dem nom for the seat tomorrow. What will be his strategy and that of the dems and reps?

After we set that in stone, we can move on to the '08 pres ticket.

and after that we can continue the 15,000,000 post running thread series on how bush lied/did not.
 
Rob Lister said:
Guys, Gals, I want strategy forecasts.

Don't make me talk in all caps or change font size or color.

I'll do it...I swear!

Seriously, assume Lieberman runs in 06 as an ind because he loses the Dem nom for the seat tomorrow. What will be his strategy and that of the dems and reps?

After we set that in stone, we can move on to the '08 pres ticket.

and after that we can continue the 15,000,000 post running thread series on how bush lied/did not.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll play.

Lieberman will run as the middle way, all for one and one for all candidate, but will call himself an "Independent Democrat."

Lamont will run as the "real Democrat," and continue to hammer away at Lieberman on the war and on being out of touch with the folks.

The Republican will show up at a campaign event having coming straight from the casino, and will have fogotten to remove his gambling disguise.

54344d7eaea0deaa.jpg
 
hgc said:
OK, I'll play.

Lieberman will run as the middle way, all for one and one for all candidate, but will call himself an "Independent Democrat."

Lamont will run as the "real Democrat," and continue to hammer away at Lieberman on the war and on being out of touch with the folks.

The Republican will show up at a campaign event having coming straight from the casino, and will have fogotten to remove his gambling disguise.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/54344d7eaea0deaa.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

:)

I liked all three but see you couldn't resist the dig. No prob...but what, pray tell, do you think the outcome between registered Dems, Inds and Reps for Lieberman?

I'm going to suggest
Dems: 35 -- less than the polls currently suggest but if he loses the nod, he'll lose at least 10 points in the vote too. I may be underestimating.
Inds: 50 -- that's the only guess I can possibly have...they are Inds, afterall.
Reps: 35 -- again, perhaps another overestimate over the number of non-kneejerk party members. I think it's about right. I'll bet on this number more than the others.

Given the demographic makeup, I'm not sure that's enough. It will be close.
 
Rob Lister said:
:)

I liked all three but see you couldn't resist the dig. No prob...but what, pray tell, do you think the outcome between registered Dems, Inds and Reps for Lieberman?

I'm going to suggest
Dems: 35 -- less than the polls currently suggest but if he loses the nod, he'll lose at least 10 points in the vote too. I may be underestimating.
Inds: 50 -- that's the only guess I can possibly have...they are Inds, afterall.
Reps: 35 -- again, perhaps another overestimate over the number of non-kneejerk party members. I think it's about right. I'll bet on this number more than the others.

Given the demographic makeup, I'm not sure that's enough. It will be close.
Click to expand...
It'd be less of the Dems, probably. He'll get a lot fewer Dem votes than he'll get in the primary. But'll it'll be a lot bigger % of the Republicans. Their candidate is a non-starter, even for kneejerkers. My joke was no small exaggeration. The joke on the Republicans is that no one remotely primetime bothered, thinking that Lieberman was a lock. Who'd have thunk a Democrat would come up with bright idea of challenging Joe Lieberman, while serious Connecticut Republicans wouldn't have considered it.
 
hgc said:
It'd be less of the Dems, probably. He'll get a lot fewer Dem votes than he'll get in the primary. But'll it'll be a lot bigger % of the Republicans. Their candidate is a non-starter, even for kneejerkers. My joke was no small exaggeration. The joke on the Republicans is that no one remotely primetime bothered, thinking that Lieberman was a lock. Who'd have thunk a Democrat would come up with bright idea of challenging Joe Lieberman, while serious Connecticut Republicans wouldn't have considered it.
Click to expand...

Good and cool. Still, let me get you to commit to some numbers. Hey, we can both revamp our numbers as the primary concludes and the dirt and ads begin to fly in ernest. Just an initial guess, like mine, for now. If nobody else wants to play pure analysts, at least we two can.
 
Rob Lister said:
Good and cool. Still, let me get you to commit to some numbers. Hey, we can both revamp our numbers as the primary concludes and the dirt and ads begin to fly in ernest. Just an initial guess, like mine, for now. If nobody else wants to play pure analysts, at least we two can.
Click to expand...
OK then. In general election the Lieberman Party candidate gets 50% of independents, 30% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans.
 
hgc said:
OK then. In general election the Lieberman Party candidate gets 50% of independents, 30% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans.
Click to expand...

70% of reps? Wow. I bow to your courage in that estimate. I think that dems are a little more loyal to the party than reps, but given their circumstance I still opted for only 35. Let's see how it goes.
 
davefoc said:
Here's a breakdown of voter registration in Connecticutt

Republican 438,554
Democrat 670,356
Minor Party 4,465
Unaffiliated 876,538
http://www.sots.ct.gov/RegisterManual/SectionVIII/SOV04Enroll.htm

The number of unaffiliated strikes me as strange. Any thoughts on why that is and what Lieberman's strategy should be with regard to it.
Click to expand...

Many thinks. I shall get out my calc later and run up ther %'s. You're right, those numbers are completely askew with the polling data to date (you didn't suggest that but that's my take and I think the obvious conclusion). It could explain some oddities in the poll numbers though. I'm not suggesting either set of numbers is wrong and I am, in fact, going to go under the assumption that both sets of numbers are correct...and work backward from there to refine my "guesses".

ETA: as to Lieberman's strategy regarding these numbers...he's right-smack-dab-on target. Run as an Ind if he doesn't get the Dem nod. It will...will...be close but he can take it.

His main difficulty is that he will not have the support, and in fact have the refutation, of the Democrat party machine, public and private. To his benefit, he will likely garner the support of at least the private side of the republican party machine. The public side may also aid him...if not overtly then covertly for sure. I'm sure...positive...that if a dem-type is to win (and there is NO way around that) then they would rather it be Lieberman. Even if the voters don't get game theory (and enough if not most probably will) then I'm sure the party elites will.
 
Last edited:
hgc said:
The Republican will show up at a campaign event having coming straight from the casino, and will have fogotten to remove his gambling disguise.
Click to expand...
hgc said:
My joke was no small exaggeration.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine. So you mean your joke was a large exaggeration?
 
Rob Lister said:
Guys, Gals, I want strategy forecasts.

Don't make me talk in all caps or change font size or color.

I'll do it...I swear!

Seriously, assume Lieberman runs in 06 as an ind because he loses the Dem nom for the seat tomorrow. What will be his strategy and that of the dems and reps?

After we set that in stone, we can move on to the '08 pres ticket.

and after that we can continue the 15,000,000 post running thread series on how bush lied/did not.
Click to expand...

Well, I skipped to '08 because that is the subject of the thread.

In '06 I think he will lose the primary. If he does, and then runs as an independent, he will probably lose to the Republican. I doubt he would stand ANY chance in getting the '08 nomination as a Democrat since the party would feel that he screwed them by splitting the ticket in the '06 senate race. Lieberman would have shown that he has no party loyalty so you can bet the Democratic Party would turn on him.

If he doesn't run as an independent, he will lose the '08 nomination for all the reasons stated in earlier posts.

If he does manage to win his senate seat in '06, he possibly could win the nomination but I doubt it. Too old, too uncharismatic.

Anyway, history tells us senators don't win Presidential elections anymore. You need to be a governor or VP (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson). We have to go back to Kennedy to find someone elected PResident that was not either a VP or a governor.
 
Lurker said:
Well, I skipped to '08 because that is the subject of the thread.

In '06 I think he will lose the primary. If he does, and then runs as an independent, he will probably lose to the Republican. I doubt he would stand ANY chance in getting the '08 nomination as a Democrat since the party would feel that he screwed them by splitting the ticket in the '06 senate race. Lieberman would have shown that he has no party loyalty so you can bet the Democratic Party would turn on him.

If he doesn't run as an independent, he will lose the '08 nomination for all the reasons stated in earlier posts.

If he does manage to win his senate seat in '06, he possibly could win the nomination but I doubt it. Too old, too uncharismatic.

Anyway, history tells us senators don't win Presidential elections anymore. You need to be a governor or VP (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Johnson). We have to go back to Kennedy to find someone elected PResident that was not either a VP or a governor.
Click to expand...


Lurker, polling data very strongly suggests that the Rep can't win, regardless. A dem is going to win...period. Splitting the Dem ticket in this case is not an issue because either lieberman or the Dem wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom