Democrat loses Connecticut primary

#1
This is an interesting indicator of the way the US public view The War Against Terror. Is support for the shaved chimp's visionary strategy about to be discarded rapidly by anyone seeking US political office?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5255452.stm

Leading Democrat loses nomination

Senator Lieberman has represented Connecticut for 18 years
A prominent US Democrat senator says he is planning to run as an independent candidate after losing a mid-term primary in Connecticut.
Joe Lieberman, who stood for vice-president in 2000, lost to anti-war newcomer Ned Lamont.

He spoke against "partisan bickering" and vowed to campaign for "a new politics of unity and purpose".

Mr Lieberman, a senator for 18 years, has been harshly criticised in his home state for his support for the Iraq war.

With most of the votes counted, results showed Mr Lamont to have won with 52% compared to Mr Lieberman's 48%.

To run as an independent candidate, Mr Lieberman must gather 7,500 signatures by the end of Wednesday.

"The old politics of partisanship won today," he said, "I cannot and will not let that result stand".

Mr Lamont, founder of a cable television company and a political novice, capitalised on the war's unpopularity in Connecticut to leap over Mr Lieberman.

Mr Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and who also ran for president in 2004, has been labelled by some Democrats as being too close to Republicans and President George W Bush.

But his defeat sends a message to politicians of all colours that Iraq is becoming a political liability - an impression backed up by a recent opinion poll, reports the BBC's Nick Miles in Washington.

The poll, conducted for the Washington Post and ABC Television, suggests only 53% of people are happy with their representatives in Congress - almost identical to the situation in 1994, the year Democrats lost control of both houses of congress.

Then, the economy was the deciding factor - but the poll suggests the issue today is the Iraq war, our correspondent says.

Many more Democrats than Republicans are unhappy about the war, suggesting that support for the war could prove particularly costly to some Democrat congressmen.

Primaries were also held in four other states.

Colorado, Missouri, Michigan and Georgia have also been voting to choose candidates who will contest this November's elections to Congress.

In Georgia, Representative Cynthia McKinney - known for the conspiracy theories about the September 11 terror attacks - lost in her bid to win the Democratic nomination.

Attorney Hank Johnson beat her with 59% of the vote
 
#2
The title is misleading. It could be The democrat loses... but a democracy wins.
 
#3
Yes, the title is misleading -- as is Sergey's other suggestion. I think you will find that the Democratic primary for Connecticut was, of course, indeed won by a Democrat. It would be pretty stupid for it to be won by a Republican!
 
#4
Lieberman has been described by his former friends at The Daily Show as "a candidate for people who like Bush, but don't think he's Jewish enough".

I'll give some credit to the guy for standing up for his principles, although it would be hard to see how he could pull a u-turn even if he wanted to, so vocal has his support been for the war. He nailed his colours to the mast years ago and now he's suffered the consequences.

Of course, the Democrats now have a big problem if he does as he has promised and runs as an independent. In doing so, it gives the Republicans a chance to sneak in and take the seat as the vote gets split.

Of course, he already demonstrated his willingness to turn over his seat to the GOP once before. In 2000, the same time that he was running as Gore's 2i/c, he kept his name on the ballot for the Senate re-election. In the event of Gore-Lieberman being declared the winners of the election, he would have had to give up his senate seat and the Republican Governor of Connecticut would have, in all probability appointed a Republican to take his place. This would have also resulted in the Republican Party taking control of the Senate in 2000. Understandably, this is another reason why many in his own party hate him.
 
#5
stoatman said:
Yes, the title is misleading -- as is Sergey's other suggestion. I think you will find that the Democratic primary for Connecticut was, of course, indeed won by a Democrat. It would be pretty stupid for it to be won by a Republican!
Sergey's the guy at Lords cheering on the team in white. :wink:
 
#6
crabtastic said:
In doing so, it gives the Republicans a chance to sneak in and take the seat as the vote gets split.
The GOP doesn't stand a prayer of taking this seat. Republicans will vote overwhelming for Lieberman as an Independent. Dems have shot themselves in the foot, again.
 
#7
Republicans will vote overwhelming for Lieberman as an Independent.
In another victory for the American electoral system, wherein you don't vote for who you want to get in, you vote for the person most likely to beat the person you don't want to get in.

That'll work both ways, though. A bunch of people who would vote for an independent Lieberman may see that as giving an Evil Republican a chance of sneaking in, and will vote Lamont to make sure that at least if it won't be Lieberman, it won't be a Republican.

NTM
 
#8
California_Tanker said:
Republicans will vote overwhelming for Lieberman as an Independent.
In another victory for the American electoral system, wherein you don't vote for who you want to get in, you vote for the person most likely to beat the person you don't want to get in.
No, Republicans will vote for Lieberman because they want him to win.

NRO
 
#9
It's a mixed deck of cards for me. Lieberman was one of the very few who had the decency to actually visit troops in the field, and has a very real belief in them, which I have to respect. However, some of his policy ideas over here (ie, his ban GTA3 campaign) seem a bit daft. I guess since I don't live in Connecticut it doesn't matter much.
 

Latest Threads

Top