Skip to main content

View Diary: It's official: Lieberman and Co. lied about "hacking" (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But we had an accountability moment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sara seattle, txlosthorn, Stay Classy

    called the 2006 elections. And St. Droopy evaded accountability. So it's settled.  

    "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

    by Septic Tank on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:43:58 AM PST

    •  And he LIED again (6+ / 0-)

      in that one. "Oh no one wants to end the war more than me, urrrrr...."

      Now it's more more more! The 11% strategy.

      Good job Connecticut; falling for this scummy, opportunistic pure politician and subjecting the whole country to his moralistic bullshit.

      "America has always been a progressive country" George Lakoff

      by Stay Classy on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 11:52:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, really... (0+ / 0-)

        we (non-southerners) like to make the little hillbilly jokes about the South, how they're all backwoods folk, etc. but let's face it, the voters of Connecticut have got to be the dumbest, stupidest, mind-boggling ignorant, vapid-smiling ******s to ever enter a voting booth!

        •  you're assuming (0+ / 0-)

          that anyone who voted for lieberman was actually fooled.

          i have friends who were doing voter ID for democratic campaigns in CT.  their data said that the lieberman voters were almost entirely voting the republican ticket.  

          so those voters knew what they were doing.  they were motivated by pure spite, it's true, but they knew what they were doing.

          l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

          by zeke L on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 01:25:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you seem to be saying... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            that the Lieberman voters were voting "republican", as if he were the R candidate. But that would mean a Republican could win in Connecticut (not true) because 30% of Democrats would vote for a Republican candidate.

            I wasn't there but I don't doubt that it was a combination of some being fooled and some being "blissfully" unaware that Lieberman lost the primary.

            You know, it's like NPR. Lots of people don't even notice that it's been drifting rightwards for a long time now. People will listen to it believing it's still a warm, fuzzy place for liberals to snuggle up to with a hot cup of tea. Doesn't matter what's actually coming out of the radio. It's not too loud and it's the same location on the dial.

            So too with Lieberman. Half of the stuff that comes out of his mouth is crazy right-wing weirdness, but it's low-key and induces sleep in some. When 30% of Democrats vote for the guy it has to mean they're not paying attention. The alternative, that they prefer a guy who lost the primary, who stayed in the race, who consistently backs Bush on key issues, is too depressing.

            •  it might be depressing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              zeke L

              but its true. They weren't only voting Lieberman because of the half bullshit that comes out of his mouth. Some held their noses and voted for the pro-choice, pro-fair labor practices, pro fiscal responsibility that is the other half.
              CT is a conservative state with many one-issue voters, they vote pocketbook or military or name recognition and not much else. It is a state of commuting wallstreeters and defense department workers: United Illuminated, Sikorsky, nuclear subs. Most CTers have a comfortable life and are not too upset with anything no matter whose in the white house.
              Admirable as he was, Lamont lost the state because it lacks, and will always lack, a sense of urgency.

            •  30% (0+ / 0-)

              IIRC this 30% number comes only from one exit poll.  maybe it's true, maybe not. even if the poll was perfectly accurate it still relies on people self-identifying their party affiliation.  and one thing i found out from personal experience is that a very large fraction of the electorate is ignorant or mistaken about their party registration.

              what i'm saying is that my friends who actually worked CT campaigns had voter ID info, and had people's actual party registration info right there too.  they said (and i saw the numbers, they weren't making it up) that they had almost nobody voting for lieberman and also for democratic candidates.  i think of actual registered democrats it was something like 10% for lieberman, and almost all of these folks were otherwise voting the republican line.  they had to know this, because they had to know whether or not to call people for GOTV if they were splitting the ticket.  it turned out not to be an issue as there were only a handful.

              of course, this was in CT-4, where a republican did win, so it's possible this wasn't representative of the state as a whole.

              also, the number of voters not affiliated with either party is very large in CT, larger than either party IIRC.  so that factor is very big.  and i think a large number of those folks got snowed by the media's relentless pounding of the "lieberman is the independent" meme, and since many are tired of the two parties we have, probably thought having a senator not from either party was a good thing, without looking critically at whether an 18-year incumbent whose wife is a pharmaceutical lobbyist could credibly be called an "independent."  so yes, that was a factor.

              but of the voters who consider themselves republicans or support republicans, i think a large amount of the motivation was spite.  and the RNC & NRCC did big GOTV in CT this time to benefit lieberman.  and if lieberman did GOTV, without a voter ID effort or poll checkers, he would have had to get out republicans as his best shot, and this appears to have happened.  this is what wiped out diane farrell's chances of taking that house seat, for instance.

              l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

              by zeke L on Wed Dec 20, 2006 at 06:21:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (58)
  • 2016 (50)
  • Environment (38)
  • Elections (36)
  • Media (34)
  • Republicans (32)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Law (29)
  • Jeb Bush (28)
  • Culture (27)
  • Barack Obama (26)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Iraq (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Economy (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • LGBT (16)
  • Congress (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site