If you could replace one of these Senators with a Democrat, which one?

[cestpaspossible]

Poll question: If you could replace one of these Senators with a Democrat, which one?

[kaitykaity]

1. Oh, I get it now.

Funny, ha ha ha. Lol.

:banghead:

[Reverend_Smitty]

2. Is it wrong that I trust a Republican...

more than Leiberman?

[ClassWarrior]

27. Considering that the most moderate Republicon is TEN TIMES...

...more regressive than Lieberman, based on voting records, YES.

NGU.

[iconoclastNYC]

3. Chafee is an embaressment to Republicans, he is useful.

Lieberman is an embaressment to our party, a traitor, and a Lukid-ophile and closet Neocon and he needs to go away.

My first ever polical contribution will be for his primary challenger.

[AntiCoup2K4]

18. Closet neocon?

I think Holy Joe came out of that one a long time ago.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. "I'm not a neocon but some of my best friends are"

Come on Joe, everybody knows you are a neocon.

Queue "I am what I am" from La Cage...

[rabid_nerd]

4. I voted for replacing Chafee because if it wasn't for

those who caucus with the R's, they wouldn't be able to set the agenda.

You cannot say the shift of majority leader wouldn't dramatically change the agenda. Having that R and enabling their agenda is worse than being Zell Miller.

[freestyle]

5. Majorities do matter, a lot

so picking up republican held seats while holding ours is the name of the game. It would be nice for someone who could win in the general election to knock off Lieberman, but republicans must be the main targets.

[demnan]

6. I get the joke but . . .

Whoever has a majority in the Senator or House sets the agenda, heads the committees, decides the Hearings, the Rules, etc. A lot more can be accomplished by removing a liberal Republican than removing a conservative Democrat, as long as there are enough Democrats available to keep the agenda reasonably liberal.

[concord]

8. You're right ... can I change my vote?

Damned knee-jerk reaction. Better go for a walk and get some oxygen to my brain.

[KansDem]

12. Change your vote? Sure!

Do you have access to the tabulator? With an computer and access to the Internet(s) and the right codes, you can not only change your vote but everyone else's as well!

Is American great??!!! :party:

[cestpaspossible]

9. I don't think you do.

I wasn't making a joke. As someone who is 100% behind the effort to replace Leiberman in the primaries, I'm amazed that so many DUers have exhibited such a poor understanding of political reality as to vote that it is more important to replace him than Chaffee.

[iconoclastNYC]

10. Which party has more 'moderates'?

How much of Clintons agenda did he get thru? How far to the right did he move to the right to satsify the moderates from our party?

When we get back the house and the Senate, I want there to be more unity and less moderates obstructing the progressive agenda owing to thier fealty to the corporate-DLC types.

[ClassWarrior]

28. Especially since that "liberal" Republicon is TEN TIMES more regressive...

...than that "conservative" Dem, based on their voting records.

It amazes me how many DUers fall for this Radical RW bullshit that we need to trash our own people.

NGU.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

7. Chafee, of course

We need to move back into a position where we could get the majority regardless if it means keeping a conservative democrat. Plus, Lieberman's record is still better than Chafee's, I believe.

[MollyStark]

29. You are very correct on both counts

I agree obviously.

[housewolf]

11. On the votes that really count

Lieberman votes with the Dems already and Chaffee votes with the Repubs. Adding one more Dem vote by replacing Chaffee with a Dem would benefit the Dem party and the nation much more than simply replacing a Dem with another Dem.

[Selteri]

13. I'd vote for both if I could, but I still would rather see Leiberman leave

[DaveinMD]

14. unbelieveable

Chaffee enables the Republican majority. He supports them with the leadership vote. That is the most important vote because those in power determine the calendar. Chaffee must be defeated.

[cestpaspossible]

15. I just hope those who voted for keeping Chaffee

will take some time and think about it. That was the purpose of the poll, to make people realize just how important it is to get Chaffee out of the Senate.

[Dave Sund]

16. Sure...

But so does Lieberman. He enables them through his rhetoric, attacking his own party and weakening them.

We're in a ten-seat minority. Chafee must be defeated, yes. But this isn't an either-or proposition, and framing the poll as such isn't fairly looking at the question.

If we had a choice, right now, of replacing one of these Senators with a real Democrat, I choose Lieberman, because replacing Chafee does nothing. He must be defeated. But in 2006, as part of a larger strategy.

[cestpaspossible]

17. You are wrong in saying that replacing Chaffee does nothing.

I mean, that statement is as valid as saying 'up is down'.


Check out the Senate Foreign Relations Committe vote on Thursday on John Bolton's confirmation.

[Dave Sund]

22. False premise

If we only replace Chafee, it's 54-46. If you're giving me a choice, based on the current Senate, of which one I'd rather replace with a Democrat, I'm going to choose Lieberman. I'd rather have a 55-45 minority without Lieberman than a 54-46 minority with him.

Your entire premise is false, because it's based on the supposition that we can't do both. For one thing, replacing Lieberman in a primary wouldn't detract energy from any battles in the fall.

Chafee's high on the target list. But so is Santorum. So is the Tennessee Senate seat. So is Burns. Focusing on single races seems to miss the point, in that we want all of them out. Including Lieberman.

[cestpaspossible]

23. Sorry you misinterpreted

Your entire premise is false, because it's based on the supposition that we can't do both.

Actually, if I'd wanted to say that, I would have said that.

Obviously we can do both, and I hope we will do both.


Let's ask the same question about a different subject:
If you could replace the front wheel of your bicycle, or the rear wheel of your bicycle, which would you replace?

Does that question imply that both wheels can't be replaced? Obviously not, it simply asks which wheel replacement is higher on your list of priorities.

[Dave Sund]

30. In that case, I choose "c"

Rick Santorum ;)

[DaveinMD]

24. if we replace all the moderate republicans

Chaffee, Snowe, Collins and Spector--that would get us within one seat of a majority. Then we just need to knock off Santorum and one other and we'd be there. So its not a false premise.

[Lone Pawn]

20. I'd rather think about replacing a Republican with a Democrat.

Even Lieberman does more for our party than the most liberal Republican.

[cestpaspossible]

21. You are so right.

Apparently over 70% of the respondents lack a basic understanding of how the Senate works.

[PeaceProgProsp]

25. Miller (GA), Nelson (NE) and Baucus (MT) are worse Dems than Joe

Respectively (according to the DMI study of 7 important 2004 votes) they voted to protect the middle class 17%, 71% and and 67% of the time.

Byrd Reid and Lieberman are the same (83%), which means they missed one vote, and voted for the middle class ever y time except once.

Every other Dem was either INC (because they missed 3 or more votes) or scored 86% (eg, Daschle and both LA senators) or 100% (which is what CT's other Senator, Chris Dodd scored).

Johnson of SD was INC because he only voted three ti mes on the important issues (and one was against the middle class) and he didn't have the excuse that he was running for President. That's not very impressive.

Chaffee is at 57%, a number he shares with both ME Senators as the highest for a Republican. S pecter is the only other Republican who scored 50% or better.

So, it seems like the Democrats to dump are Miller, Nelson (NE) and Baucus. Tim Johnson doesn't impress either. And an argument could be made that if CT can elect a 100%'er like Dodd, then why can't they find someone better than Lieberman who is in the bottom 10% of Democrats who care about the middle class. However, it's important to realize that 83% is still a pretty good number and if you gambled and lost and a Republican won that seat, you'd probably slip down to a 50% or lower Republican.

http://www.drummajorinstitute.org/plugin/template/dmi/14/3105
ı[

[cestpaspossible]

26. Umm, with all due respect

Miller is not in the Senate anymore.

I think Baucus may be vulnerable to a primary challenge... not so sure about Nelson. The Nebraskans I've discussed it with seem to think he's a lock.

My real point is that it is more important to defeat Republicans than it is to defeat Democrats, although I certainly am in favor of a vibrant primary process.

[Dave Sund]

31. I'm getting sick of this.

Ben Nelson is a far better Democrat than Lieberman could ever hope to be. And anyone who says otherwise doesn't know anything about my state, or Senator Nelson. There is no other Democrat in the entire state who could possibly get elected to the Senate. You want to attack Nelson for doing what he has to do to be a Democratic Senator from Nebraska? This state is deep red. Those numbers don't take into account the fact that Nelson doesn't attack the party. Lieberman does.