Monday, April 10, 2006

Lieberman Poll

Time for a quick poll while we wait fruitlessly for fundraising numbers. Tomorrow, probably...

People are discussing the possibility of Lieberman leaving the party. Some think it might be a wise course for Joe, who is more popular among independents and Republicans than Democrats. Others are posting their usual rants about betrayal and party discipline.

The bottom line is how voters in Connecticut react, though, and not what Democrats in other states think. So here's a poll on the subject:


If Joe Lieberman were to run as an independent, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?
More likely - I like independent candidates
More likely - I can't stand voting for Democrats
More likely - other reason
Less likely - I won't vote for an independent candidate
Less likely - He betrayed his party
Less likely - other reason
No change - I would vote for him anyway
No change - I'd never vote for him

Select an answer, and post about it here.

13 comments:

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

CFIS: Worst. Episode. Ever.

Genghis Conn said...

Ugh, CFIS. I guess it's better than banging rocks against my head, but I fail to see how.

FrankS said...

It still comes down to Lieberman's support for invading Iraq.

"I feel very strongly the world is safer without Saddam Hussein in power. We have to complete the job in Iraq," Lieberman recently said.

In November, 2005 upon returning from a trip to Iraq, Sen. Lieberman said, “the cost of successfully completing our mission here will be large in terms of American lives lost and money spent, but the cost of failure here would be catastrophic for us in the U.S. and for the Iraqis, of course -- and I believe for the entire Middle East.”

Is the world safer with a full-scale sectarian civil war in Iraq, which sucks in the rest of the region. It would seem a civil war has already started, but it is contained to a simmering conflict—car bombs and assassinations. We have now sacrificed 2,354 Americans and untold numbers of Iraqis. While we can disagree with what got us into Iraq, are we that willing to condemn millions in the Middle East to chaos and barbarism by withdrawing?

Mired in Iraq, this hardly seems the vision of a safer world.

disgruntled_republican said...

I posted this under Sunday's posting from GC too but wanted everyone to see

Some food for thought that say this isn't only about Iraq and because I have nothing better to do with my time at work (hope by boss doesn't read this blog)...

Lieberman voted with Dodd 94% of the time in this, the 109th Congress.

At the same time Lieberman voted with the opinion of the democrat leadership of the Senate at a rate of 92.7% and Dodd at a rate of 89.4%.
(Keep in mind Dodd missed a few weeks worth of votes after surgery)

And it's worth noting that while Lieberman voted for Gonzales he in fact voted against John Ashcroft.

Just thought I would share this info with everyone. I was just curious to see how it panned out...must say I was surprised.

FrankS said...

DR,

It isn't only the differences with Dodd and other democrats that exposes Lieberman to Lamont's challenge?

It's Lieberman's own hawkish views that have left him unable to shift his political response to circumstances in Iraq. Public rage throughout a violent spring/summer could rapidly erode his popular support and force similar shifts by Shays, Johnson and Simmons.

DeanFan84 said...

I love the Lieberman staffers' argument about Joe usually voting with Democratic leadership.

It reminds me of the husband who only cheats on his wife twice a month. Because 28 out of 30 days he stays faithful, he pretends to himslef that he is a good husband.

Running as an Independent might be in Joe's interest. No doubt, he is more popular with the right than the left. BUT, for everyone else in the Party he claims to belong to, it would flat out suck.

But that's what kind of "Democrat" Joe is. Selfish, and far from loyal.

truth squad said...

DeanFan, if you truly have what is best for the party in mind, why dont you listen to the Democratic candidates that say having Joe on the dem line is in their best interest bc of the variety of voters he will bring to the line and bc of the 3mil he can put in the coordinated campaign?

A Different Anonymous (No! Really!) said...

I love the way DeanFan constantly whines about "Lieberman staffers" whenever anyone posts anything about Connecticut's junior senator that doesn't condemn him as the greatest political evil of our time.

I think whatever and whoever "disgruntled_republican" may be, a Lieberman staffer ain't it.

Sip the Kool-Aid, DeanFan, don't slop it all over your shirt, OK?

Patricia Rice said...

Joe is a smart Democrat. He won't stay where he's not wanted. Chase him away and say bye bye to to your chances of beating Simmons or Shays. Go with Joe!

DeanFan84 said...

Joe is a lousy Democrat. If he was a good Democrat he wouldn't have threatened an Independent run, one that would be so destructive to other Dems' races.

No one is "chasing" Joe out. If Joe doesn't want to listen to CT voters about Iraq and Iran, it's not our fault. He deserves a primary.

Heck, let him go independent. And even after he did, the Fuddy-Duddy would still drone on about what a "good Democrat" he is.

Hey Joe, good Democrats don't go on hatemonger radio and call the host a "wonderful American"! I mean you shun Michael Moore, but embrace Sean Hannity???

DeanFan84 said...

Um Disgruntled, fact is I spoke with three differnet Lieberman staffers in person yesterday in Windsor. They all made the same argument.

I accept your apology, however.

And all the Kool-Aid went to those who bought into the Neo-Cons utopian Iraq dream. The oil will pay for the war! They'll great us with flowers! We'll build a great nation! Gimme a break.

disgruntled_republican said...

Deanfan-

First, I didn't apologize nor will I. Second, I find the fact that you think I am a Lieberamn staffer laughable...couldn't be farther from that. If you recall, I told you the other day I am no Lieberman fan, the point of my post was merely yo point out that he is more in step with the leadership of the national party than you and fellow "Lamonters" lead on. I constantly heard you and your friends going on about how it is about more than the war, so I decided to take a look at the record. When I did, I was surprised (tongue in cheeck) to find you and your fellow "lamonters" had no leg to stand on in your claims there was more than Iraq. Take a look yourself, its available by doing a google search. But I am betting you won't because you "already know the truth", dont you?

DeanFan84 said...

Disgruntled--

I don't think you are a Lieberman staffer. They're here, but you're not one of them.

Look, the war gets me going. But so did the Torture issue, the Bankruptcy bill, Hadassah working for Hill & Knowlton, the Alito confirmation, the support for Neo-Con John Bolten, Joe's sitting at the same table with Limbaugh & Buckley at the NRO dinner, having to fight to keep Lieberman from selling us out on Social Security, Joe's support of the Terri Schiavo fiasco, Joe's support of the Faith-based Initiative, Joe taking maxed out donations from hard core Republicans, Joe's extraordinary vote for Bush's energy Bill, and that's just 2005!

So yeah, it's about more than the war. But you are correct. The righteous anger stems mostly from Iraq. All the needless death. And for what?