Lamont wins Connecticut primary

[D_Raay]

So, where does this leave the Democratic party?

What message does this send to Washington?

They have been trumpeting support for Lieberman from the very mountaintops of mediadom and he still lost.

So what happens now? I'd be very interested to hear all of your thoughts on this, so please post away.

[yeahwho]

I'll have to admit I don't know alot about east coast politics, but I'm not surprised with this outcome. The folks who supported this Iraq war have to realize it will no longer be their problem when the US votes them out. It now becomes the problem of the people who oppose the Iraq war to fix it.

Thanks for making the mideast FUBAR. It has really helped educate the next generation of peace loving Muslims to democracy and the USA political agendas.

From the LATimes;

A year ago, Lieberman was considered so popular and well-financed that no established Democrat could be induced to run against him. But Lamont jumped into the race just seven months before the election. When he kicked off his campaign in January, his statewide name recognition was 4%, campaign manager Tom Swan said.

Lamont, 52, poured $2.5 million of his own money into launching the campaign, and paid dozens of visits to small-town Democrats whose frustration with Lieberman was building. The challenger's vigorous, plain-spoken broadsides against the war attracted the attention of progressive activists and bloggers.

From the beginning, most prospective Lamont voters have said they were supporting him out of dislike for Lieberman. In a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday, 54% of Lamont voters said that was the main reason they support him.

We no longer vote for people, just against them.

[D_Raay]

We no longer vote for people, just against them.

Excellent point.

[catatonic]

Lameont wins Connspiertacyt primary?

[Bob]

From the beginning, most prospective Lamont voters have said they were supporting him out of dislike for Lieberman. In a Quinnipiac University poll released Monday, 54% of Lamont voters said that was the main reason they support him.

We no longer vote for people, just against them.

i live in connecticut, and that's pretty much true. the war was pretty much the only issue being advertised. that's pretty much what lamont ran on and hey, it worked. i don't think anyone knows too much else about him. i don't know anything about him, my congressman, john larson, he knows nothing about him, nobody knows, all we know is that we don't like lieberman (which is true).

come to think of it, i don't even know what lamont plans to do about the war. he's against it, ok, that's good, but what? is he going to go back in time and vote against it? i dunno. nobodynos

[catatonic]

Give it up for Leiberman...

he promised to only be in office for 18 years 18 years ago.

[QueenAdrock]

I'm glad. If Lieberman wanted to win this thing, he should have ran as an independent from the get-go. It's ridiculous that he's trying to come off as a huge Democrat because he was "the only one to oppose W twice" in national elections. He tried reaching out to his Democratic base that was already estranged, and by him coming back and tooting his liberal horn before primaries, he comes off as a hypocrite.

I've heard good things of Lamont, though.

[Bob]

running as an independent....to win an election?

[QueenAdrock]

I'm just saying he had a better chance if he started OFF as an independent. By pretending to be a Democrat and then switching to independent, he ostracizes those who would have voted for him if he had already been an independent; those who believe him to be a moderate voice. By him trying to be on the Democratic ticket and trying to appeal to the liberals and not winning, it seems more of a "last resort" thing and he has shown those who thought him to be moderate that he's not trying to be.

I still think he would have lost either way. :p

[yeahwho]

Lieberman has always impressed me as a brilliant man, but his ideology was not reflecting the will of this countries people nor the international community. The Iraq war was planned horribly and people are dying now, today, because of this. The solution to go to war is usually a last resort. If it comes to that, then at the very least a true leader needs to listen to intelligence.

I could go on and on, most people on this board realize GWB took the wrong approach, advice and tactics with the invasion. The real work begins now, for each of us to repair the damage done and come to the international table with reason. Lieberman's personal reasoning does not reflect the direction the US currently wants to move into.

Lamont offered nothing more than another perception. If he's smart enough to see the forest in the trees than he's smart enough to do the job.

In private polls, fewer than 10 percent of Democrats surveyed said they thought the country was headed in the right direction, an extraordinary level of dissatisfaction.

Lieberman, taunted as Bush's best Democratic friend in Congress, bore the brunt of it.

Chalk one up! :D (y)

[yeahwho]

I just read excerpts from both candidates victory/consession speeches and being over here on the left coast, I have to tell you, Lamont sounds much more concise and prepared that Lieberman.

Lamont has game and strategy while Lieberman just sounds bogged down in his own fucked up agenda.

Lieberman's post speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/nyregion/09transcriptliebermn.html)

Lamont's post speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/nyregion/09transcriptlamont.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

I hope you don't have to log-in to read those.