re: Lieberman: ‘Moderately Liberal’?

not.Brit — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:41:57 GMT

"In 2006 Lieberman won re-election to the Senate after losing his party’s primary in part because lunch pail Democrats in Connecticut’s cities stuck with him, even after the state’s Democratic party did not."

Maybe a little off-topic, but this statement is not at all supported by the numbers. Lamont won Democrats by a huge margin, 65/33. While this is more lopsided that previous elections (Dodd won Democrats 90/10 in 2004), it still represents a landslide. More importantly (much more importantly), even if Lamont had generated 80% of the Democratic vote (a huge 15% increase), he would have only increased his actual tally by about 57,000 people. That would still have left him behind Lieberman (who won by more than 115,000 votes). To have even had a chance, Lamont would have had to generate the level of support enjoyed by Senator Dodd (a popular 25-year incumbent and Senior Senator).

In dramatic contrast, Republicans broke for Lieberman a staggering 70% of the time. Only 21% of Republicans voted for the actual Republican. It was the Republican voters, not "lunch pail Democrats," who handed the Senate seat to Lieberman. The numbers are clear and there is no wiggle room here.

[All of my numbers are from CNN's results and exit polls pages]

re: Lieberman: ‘Moderately Liberal’?

monkey39 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:29:31 GMT

Lieberman: 'Moderately Oafish'? Dems, cut this guys loose...he's been sucking on the Republican teats a bit too long.

re: Lieberman: ‘Moderately Liberal’?

tc125231 — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 23:31:57 GMT

Gosh, not.Brit --didn't you know that "Stumper" has joined the "post reality based reporting" faction?

In other words, they make stuff up.

re: Lieberman: ‘Moderately Liberal’?

dotc13stars — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:34:37 GMT

Senator Lieberman is of diminished credibility, authenticity, stature, and value.

The Republican Party knows this...does he?