BTW, since this can't be said often enough: Thank you, Connecticut "Democrat" voters!

[bunkerbuster1]

For those of you willing to set silly "party loyalty" aside--thank you for blindly continuing to vote for Joementum the Asshole, out of some weird loyalty to the man, when he'd made it clear that the only thing he's ever cared about is Joe.

Thank you so very much for binding with Republican voters who had, in a historically unprecedented act, chosen to abandon their own nominee and thrown all but a tiny percentage of their support to an "independent."

While I'm sure none of you respectable types read dirty-fucking-hippy sites like this, perhaps your friends, spouses and children will pass along my personal greeting and eternal good wishes for sticking this country with Joe, and tying Harry Reid's hands.

Peace on Earth, good will to all men, and fuck, er, Thank You!

[Ian David]

1. It was mostly Repukes who voted for Lieberschmuck. n/t

[bunkerbuster1]

4. Indeed it was. But were it not for the idiots still loyal to Joe, we'd have a real progressive

instead of slimy, warmongering, turncoat Joe.

[Ian David]

8. Like Ed Fucking Schultz. "It's all about Weee-ning!" Fuck Ed Schultz. n/t

[cali]

2. how silly.

the majority of CT dems voted for Lamont. It was Ct repukes and indies who are to blame for LIEberman.

[bunkerbuster1]

3. They needed enough "Democrats" to gain a plurality.

Plenty of "Democrats" voted for this wad of jerk and abandoned their party's nominee. Don't make excuses for them.

[CT_Progressive]

5. Untrue.

CT has a large independent (which is really republican) population.
It was the Repukes and Independents that elected LIEberman. Only a very tiny percent of Dems voted for him.

[bunkerbuster1]

6. Not to go Freeperish, but--cite, please.

I'd like to see what a "tiny percentage" really looks like.

By my reckoning, I imagine at least a quarter of those who self-identify as Democrats, voted for Joe. I'd love to be proven wrong, and will say so here if you've got exit polling to back that up.

on edit--here's what CNN's exit polls said--33%:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/CT/S/01/index.html

[CT_Progressive]

16. I think that proves my point.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bucky]

9. I enjoy your scorn, but please recall that we live in a majoritarian democracy

They chose wrong, of course, but Lieberman beat us fair and square.

[bunkerbuster1]

10. I did note that the Republican abandonment of their candidate was unprecedented

I have never seen anything like it in an American senate campaign, at least not in my lifetime.

But still--a third of "Democrats" remained loyal to Joe, and he couldn't have won without their support.

[mdmc]

11. Please don't hate on the voters

Lamont wasn't what they wanted. I loved him, but...

[bunkerbuster1]

15. What did they want?

Are you seriously suggesting that they wanted a guy who was committed to warmongering and kissing Republican ass?

Lamont was, from what I could tell based on hearing him speak and visiting his site, and listening to others speak on his behalf, a solid candidate who would've represented his state with pride.

Let's face facts--33% of "Democrat" voters just plain blew it, and yes, we can lay blame for the Senate being a fiasco at their doorstep.

[CTyankee]

12. I think you need to give us CT Lamont supporters a little credit.

We tried hard, against very bad odds. I was just a low level "grunt" worker/volunteer, but I have some of my own insights to offer. When I called registered Dems on on Ned's behalf, I heard a definite pattern of responses. 1) most people were not very well informed about Joe. They only knew he was the Democrat and didn't pay much attention to Ned. 2) they gave credit to Joe's role in saving the Groton sub base, just because he said so and 3)some voters were turned off because of Ned's wealth. Joe to them was more of a real person and they remembered the day when he had more presence in the state. I truly think that they thought that Ned was this rich, Greenwich guy who will go home to his mansion if he loses, unlike ordinary working stiffs. While that is true in a sense, it is unfair to characterize Ned that way.

True reform doesn't always win, but that shouldn't keep us CT progressives from trying. So please, folks, stop the blanket condemnation of us progressives here in CT. You weren't here. It's easy and gratifying for some folks on this board to point fingers and boo. NEd's campaign came from nowhere to knocking Joe out of the Dem primary. You should be proud of our work...

[bunkerbuster1]

19. Hey, I love the CT progressives.

I love what you did in working against Joe and the corporate machine, who were determined to maintain the status quo. And I'm still pissed off that it didn't work.

[CTyankee]

21. I wasn't really pissed off. I chalked it up to Joe's "fame" in the state.

Some people in my neighborhood actually know him from his (now former)synagogue. They were decent people, very nice and polite when I canvassed for Ned. They just didn't have the message and they had a personal connection. Others I felt weren't really Democrats and prolly voted for Bush, so they wouldn't be much on our side anyhow. But the rest were clueless about the political situation. Ned really "came from nowhere" in their consciousness. They weren't as "tuned in" as the progressives were.

On a lighter note, I am amused that all the "I'm stickin' with Joe" posters and bumperstickers (there weren't a lot) have disappeared! However, I saw another Lamont bumper sticker just this afternoon and I see them not infrequently.

Not only has Joe just up and left his neighborhood here in New Haven, he isn't seen much around the state any more (he now lives in Stamford which I consider to be a NYC extension). I'll bet there are some Dem voters who are sorry now!

[bunkerbuster1]

23. FWIW, I once thought a great deal of Joe.

Back when I thought the New Republic was a reputable source of news analysis, and even well before Gore tapped him as his running mate, he seemed a decent, reliable, trustworthy sort, one of the good guys, someone who tended to be right about most of the issues. I can see how people were taken in.

But still--once he'd lost the damn primary fair and square, he should've stepped aside and he didn't. And that should've tipped people off that he wasn't to be trusted.

I don't particularly enjoy blasting him (as some seem to). I think power corrupts, and he was corrupted, and it's kind of sad, really, to see his political career wind up in this rather sordid netherworld he's in. Yeah, he holds a lot of cards, but I'd like to think he's not really enjoying it. I mean--how sad is it that he actually lamented reporters that none of the Democratic Presidential candidates contacted him? WTF would make someone say that while stumping for McCain?

Oy, oy, oy...

[CTyankee]

25. Yeah, Joe is just arrogant. Funny, I just talked to another CT Dem who has felt connected to Joe

in the past, partly because of the religious affiliation and she knows folks in his old synagogue. She says they're pretty upset with Joe, which I would expect because as I've said they struck me a decent people.

Yep, Joe has gone right around that bend...

[bread_and_roses]

13. And didn't the Dem leadership throw themselves whole-heartedly behind Lamont? Not.

Or is my memmory incorrect?

[bunkerbuster1]

14. Some did, but the lack of national support for this unprecedented act was shameful

The GOPee made sure their troops were mobilized and gave everyone the "safe sign" to vote for that "Democrap" Lieberman.

Yes, there were some high-profile endorsements of Lamont, but it wasn't in the national story. There NEVER should have been cover for ANY self-respecting, self-identifying Democrat to vote for Lieberman. NEVER NEVER NEVER, dammit!

[Bucky]

17. this "unprecedented" act has happened before

Jacob Javits did this in 1980--lost his renomination run, then continued to run as a 3rd party candidate. I seriously doubt this is the only other incident.

[bunkerbuster1]

18. Hey, you're right.

I'd forgotten about D'Amato's primary challenge, and his subsequent loss to Javits. I stand corrected.

It is rather unusual, though.

[Bucky]

20. Is your complaint that Lieberman left the party or that he won?

Hey, what do you call someone who complains about winners?

Losers.

[rolleitreks]

22. I don't like your tone, kid. Come back when you finish grade school. n/t

[cascadiance]

24. At least they also gave us Chris Dodd...

So there's something that we can be thankful to them for!

Though Traitor Joe should have been shown the door, hopefully he'll be made irrelevant soon!