Can Lieberman win in 08?

[Jorghnassen]

Lieberman has no joementum.

 

[Dave1001]

No link to go with this.

He's going to run, hell or high water.

If he does, it will not be as a dem, not as a rep, only as a ind.

It would mean a sure-fire win for either him (10%) or whoever runs as rep.

I gotta tell you that the rep candidate would have to be pretty damn strong to keep me from voting for Lieberman. I like the guy. Way, way too liberal for my taste but he has more character than most. Condi could kick his ass in terms of character but she doesn't want the job.

Knowing what you know now, all of you, would you vote for him if the ticket were identical to that of 2000/2004?

Lieberman lacks the charisma to be president. I hope to God I don't have to suffer through 4 years of someone that dull spending that much time in the national spotlight.

I think Michael Bloomberg would make a fantastic president. And I think he could win if he switched his party identification back to Democrat, started laying the groundwork in Iowa and New Hampshire soon, and gave it his all.

 

[DJW]

*snip*

I think Michael Bloomberg would make a fantastic president. And I think he could win if he switched his party identification back to Democrat, started laying the groundwork in Iowa and New Hampshire soon, and gave it his all.

Maybe if N.Y. ceceded from the Union and decided to elect a president. Michael Bloomberg would be evicerated by the National Rifle Association. He would lose in every red state. Al Gore has a better chance than Bloomberg. Heck, Joe Lieberman has a better chance than Michael Bloomberg.

 

[hgc]

I think you're being overly cynical. Although he is a politician, Lieberman has crossed his party's line on several occassions. I admire that.

Yesterday, Lieberman said this:

I supported our war in Iraq but I have always questioned the way it was being executed. This administration took far too many shortcuts. We continue to suffer the consequences, as do the Iraqi people.

Sounds pretty good (if that's what you believe, anyway), right? But then he hasn't once that I know of questioned the way the war was being executed until yesterday.

Try for comparison, this quote from last December

It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

That was the last straw for me. Lieberman's tack back to criticizing Bush now is the height of cynicism.

 

[shecky]

Why can't us illegal aliens tell you how we vote?

 

[DJW]

Yesterday, Lieberman said this:Sounds pretty good (if that's what you believe, anyway), right? But then he hasn't once that I know of questioned the way the war was being executed until yesterday.

Try for comparison, this quote from last DecemberThat was the last straw for me. Lieberman's tack back to criticizing Bush now is the height of cynicism.

Arguing that the war isn’t being fought well is far from undermining the President’s credibility. I want our politicians to constantly question whether we are doing the best we possibly can to win this war, and when they don’t think so, I want to hear evidence in support of their position. What I dislike is the “we shouldn’t be there…Bush lied…” blather. Lieberman is doing what I think is the right thing to do, which is why I think he deserves some credit for not acting like a typical cynical politician.

 

[shecky]

What cracks me up about Lieberman is he seems to take the worst stances of the Dems and Repubs, and chamipons them. What really made me laugh was this recent story where Michael Schiavo campaigned against the man.

Mr. Lamont, meanwhile, made a campaign stop in Hartford, where he appeared with Michael Schiavo whose brain-damaged wife, Terri Schiavo, was the subject of a divisive end-of-life fight. Both men attacked Mr. Lieberman for supporting controversial legislation last year to allow a federal court to intervene in her case as Mr. Schiavo was seeking to have her taken off life support.
“I don’t think that Joe Lieberman should have gone on every single talk show saying that it’s the responsibility of the federal government to make life-and-death decisions like that,” Mr. Lamont said. “He not only voted for it, but he championed it.”
The legislation passed overwhelmingly in the House in March 2005, was approved in the Senate by a voice vote and was signed into law by Mr. Bush. Mr. Lieberman appeared on television to voice his approval, telling NBC’s Tim Russert that it was “justified to give this woman, more than her parents or husband, the opportunity for one more chance before her life was terminated.”

Asked to comment on Mr. Schiavo’s appearance with Mr. Lamont, Mr. Lieberman said it was time “for politicians to let Terri Schiavo rest in peace.”

 

[Dave1001]

Maybe if N.Y. ceceded from the Union and decided to elect a president. Michael Bloomberg would be evicerated by the National Rifle Association. He would lose in every red state. Al Gore has a better chance than Bloomberg. Heck, Joe Lieberman has a better chance than Michael Bloomberg.

Does Bloomberg have functionally different views on gun control than Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Al Gor, or Joe Lieberman? I agree he couldn't take the Republican nomination, but I think he could win both the Democrat nomination and the presidency. I'd like to see folks put higher weight on executive skills, what the president actually does as CHIEF EXECUTIVE, than on various individual litmus issues. Evaluating Bloomberg on his executive skills, I think he is clearly one of the very best in the country.

 

[Crossbow]

An Independent winning the upcoming Presidential race has about much chance of winning as does my cat.

Liberman will be lucky if he can re-elected as Senator running as a Democrat.

 

[hgc]

An Independent winning the upcoming Presidential race has about much chance of winning as does my cat.

Liberman will be lucky if he can re-elected as Senator running as a Democrat.

New poll (Quinnipiac University) shows Lamont 54, Lieberman 41. That's a big widening of Lamont's lead from the poll a few weeks ago. Also, previously, the hypothetical 3-way, with Lieberman as independent, had Lamont and Lieberman tied at 40.

He's toast.

 

[Cleon]

An Independent winning the upcoming Presidential race has about much chance of winning as does my cat.

Nader got 1% in the last election. How did your cat do?

 

[Rob Lister]

New poll (Quinnipiac University) shows Lamont 54, Lieberman 41. That's a big widening of Lamont's lead from the poll a few weeks ago. Also, previously, the hypothetical 3-way, with Lieberman as independent, had Lamont and Lieberman tied at 40.

He's toast.

And with his latest campaign, he's moving to the right capturing more reps and inds on the fense. If the reps run a really crappy campaign, that gives him a big edge. I wouldn't count him as toast just yet.

 

[Crossbow]

Nader got 1% in the last election. How did your cat do?

Ugh!

She did not even get 1% of Nader's 1% yet both equally lost the election by a vast margin.

 

[kittynh]

the guy is intelligent, he's articulate, he's brilliant and has some real ideas and plans and he's....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Rob Lister]

Ugh!

She did not even get 1% of Nader's 1% yet both equally lost the election by a vast margin.

Which (as a segway) is why Lieberman will win if he runs as an independent.

Most voters, Dem and rep alike, understand political election game theory. Normally, a third party candidate is a no-go solution. But in this case, the third party candidate is the incumbent. More to the point, the demographics are clear, a republican cannot win no matter what (the rep becomes, for all practical purposes, the third party). When the rubber meets the road on election day, Lieberman will pick up a significant portion of the rep votes. The reps know they will either get him or the other guy...but not their guy. A vote for their preferred guy is a wasted vote. Better the lesser evil.

certainly not toast.

 

[Almo]

Third party candidates suck. Nader cost Gore the presidency (though other weirdnesses may have as well). Which is better: Nader proving a point about not being bullied into being a Dem, or Shrub running things? This question is aimed at anyone who didn't vote republican. Republicans got what they wanted, so this is a non issue for them currently.

Reps will win again. America will go further down the "Collapsing Empire" road.

 

[hgc]

Which (as a segway) is why Lieberman will win if he runs as an independent.

Most voters, Dem and rep alike, understand political election game theory. Normally, a third party candidate is a no-go solution. But in this case, the third party candidate is the incumbent. More to the point, the demographics are clear, a republican cannot win no matter what (the rep becomes, for all practical purposes, the third party). When the rubber meets the road on election day, Lieberman will pick up a significant portion of the rep votes. The reps know they will either get him or the other guy...but not their guy. A vote for their preferred guy is a wasted vote. Better the lesser evil.

certainly not toast.

Interesting point. Lieberman, even as an independent, will be the de facto Republican nominee. Connecticut Republicans, seeing their actual nominee is a casino card counter who loses money anyway, visits casinos under assumed names, etc, will flock to Lieberman the same way national Republicans have. This includes the 3 moderate Republican House incumbents running in tight races already (Shays and Johnson have already endorsed him). So ultimately, this is a race between the Democrat Lamont and the Republican Lieberman (though he claims he is and will always be a Democrat). Add to that the fact that Lieberman is in the process of being humiliated, culminating in next Tuesday's defeat -- which adds the foul odor of loser to his air.

Anyway, we'll have another 3 months to hash it out in this forum. Looking forward to it.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Dull's not all bad

Lieberman lacks the charisma to be president. I hope to God I don't have to suffer through 4 years of someone that dull spending that much time in the national spotlight.

After the last two jerks, somebody dull sounds like ...um... Heaven.

A friend of mine who's Jewish pointed out what a kick it would be to watch Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al., if an orthodox Jew were elected president of the U.S. It might be worth it to vote for Lieberman on that basis alone.

 

[Rob Lister]

After the last two jerks, somebody dull sounds like ...um... Heaven.

A friend of mine who's Jewish pointed out what a kick it would be to watch Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al., if an orthodox Jew were elected president of the U.S. It might be worth it to vote for Lieberman on that basis alone.

Lieberman/Rice 08

The perfect combo. I'd put Condi first but she doesn't want to run for pres. I bet she'd take the VP ticket.

Like I said, Lieberman is way, way too liberal for me but at least he has character. Condi drips with it. They'd have my vote.

 

[SezMe]

Rob, I thought your analysis of the Conn. November race was spot on. But your assessment of Rice stumps me. Ms. Mushroom Cloud has character?