• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Sen Joe Lieberman Sees the Handwriting on the Wall.

Cutlass

The Man Who Wasn't There.
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
47,913
Location
US of A
So old Joe has burned all his bridges in CT politics and has figured out that he's retiring involuntarily if he doesn't do so voluntarily. That adds 1 real Dem to the Senate after 2012.

WASHINGTON -- Joe Lieberman will not run for reelection in 2012, Connecticut Democratic sources tell HuffPost, ending his four-term Senate career. Two prominent House Democrats, Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney, are eyeing a bid, with Susan Bysiewicz, a thrice-elected former secretary of state, also jumping into the race.

Lieberman, who lost a 2006 primary to netroots insurgent Ned Lamont, will announce his retirement on Wednesday. "Senator Lieberman made a decision about his future over the holidays which he plans to announce on Wednesday," a Lieberman spokesman said. In 2006, Lieberman ran under a party he created called Connecticut for Lieberman. Anti-Lieberman activists, however, have since taken it over.

As Lieberman deliberated, the new chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), told HuffPost that the party would consider supporting Lieberman if he returned to the fold.

"This is first a Connecticut decision. It's a Joe Lieberman decision and we'll work our way through all of that," Murray said. "He and I have chatted a number of times."

Lieberman serves as a repository for the anger progressive Democrats have for centrists in -- and out of -- the party, and some would like little more than to unseat him at the polls. The feeling of ill will is mutual: Lieberman said during the health care debate that one reason he opposed a Medicare buy-in compromise was that progressives were embracing it.

Lieberman's participation in the race would have drawn national attention -- and money -- to the Connecticut race, leaving his political adversaries hoping that he would run.

A Connecticut Democratic insider said that Courtney, Murphy and Bysiewicz all benefit from a Lieberman campaign. "They would raise so much money, they'd get a ton of enthusiasm and a ton of earned media," he said. "I don't think he has a path to victory at all, period. That said, a Democrat has a better chance of winning against, say, Linda McMahon alone than Linda McMahon, Joe Lieberman and a Democrat."

Both Courtney and Murphy have reached out to the Connecticut labor community to gauge support for a run and, say two different Washington-based Democrats, each is all but certain to make a bid.

"My interest in running for Senate in 2012 is well known in the state, and I expect to announce my decision very soon," Murphy said. "All I can say now is that this is going to be a pretty busy few weeks."

A well-sourced Connecticut blogger first reported that Lieberman will announce his departure. Lieberman's staff has been notably silent about the Senator's plans, and D.C.-based Democrats say -- as of Tuesday afternoon -- they have no clue what his thought process is going into tomorrow's announcement. Local press, however, has also reported that the Senator will announce that he won't run for re-election. "You can bet the farm" that Lieberman won't seek a fifth term in 2012, a Democratic insider close to the Senator told the Hartford Courant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/joe-lieberman-may-resign_n_810538.html
 
This is a man who makes major political decisions based on spite. It's a shame he's allowed to fade away.
 
This is a man who makes major political decisions based on spite.

Yes, uh, On the other hand my better response might be...

His skeleton will lie in the Chamber of Secrets forever :D
 
Good, we don't want Joe Turncoat Lieberman.
 
Yeah, because having an independent mind (albeit a little crazy) is such a bad thing, that the only response should be to label and smear a guy. Guess we learned nothing from Tuscon
 
Joe could have been president in 2004 (well, 2005) if the whacko extreme fringe of the party (Dean and Co) hadn't gone on a tear. Had the Dems been smart enough to back him, he would have beaten Bush, I am absolutely sure of it. Dems could have had the Presidency 4 years earlier. All they had to do was embrace a moderate instead of going far left.
 
Yeah, because having an independent mind (albeit a little crazy) is such a bad thing, that the only response should be to label and smear a guy. Guess we learned nothing from Tuscon

Please, nobody here has said anything violent at all about Joe! :rolleyes: A few posters have simply said they're glad he's retiring. I am too.

It's one thing to have an independent mind, and to sometimes vote against your party. It's another to actively campaign against your party's presidential candidate, and work against several of your *major* platforms.

Joe sold out in the early 2000s, and only really looked out for himself. Republicans were the ones who elected him in 2006, not Democrats, so Dems have quite a reason to be upset with him.
 
Joe could have been president in 2004 (well, 2005) if the whacko extreme fringe of the party (Dean and Co) hadn't gone on a tear. Had the Dems been smart enough to back him, he would have beaten Bush, I am absolutely sure of it. Dems could have had the Presidency 4 years earlier. All they had to do was embrace a moderate instead of going far left.

He's not that moderate though. As the voters were staying more or less the same. Joe moved constantly to the right. What's often overlooked is how much politics has moved to the right. What has caught up to Lieberman is that he has moved far to the right, and the state voters have stayed in the same place. And that's why we have now no Republicans at all in Congress: The state voters have stayed in the same place. And the politicians have not. The Republican party has simply moved to far for the states voters. And Lieberman moved with the Republicans.
 
Independents were the ones who elected him in 2006, not Democrats, so Dems have quite a reason to be upset with him.

Fixed that for you.

But what did you expect? The DNC ran backed somone else in the Dem primary and basically kicked him out of the party. Just because he didnt sit there and take it is cause for them to be upset with him? Apparently so.
 
Fixed that for you.

But what did you expect? The DNC ran backed somone else in the Dem primary and basically kicked him out of the party. Just because he didnt sit there and take it is cause for them to be upset with him? Apparently so.

You didn't fix anything. You broke it. :p REPUBLICANS ignored the Republican candidate to elect Lieberman.
 
Fixed that for you.

2006 election results

Joe for Joe: 49.6%
Ned Lamont: 39.6%
Alan Schlesinger 9.6%

Around 38% of CT voters are likely republicans (compared to around 50% for Democrats...the rest are true "independents"), so while Joe did pull in a good chunk of actual indie voters, he was greatly buoyed by Republican support. His core constituency for most of his political career...you know, Democrats, abandoned him.

He is retiring now because that coalition won't hold. CT Republicans would run a real republican candidate against him, instead of a dummy placeholder, and CT Democrats don't like him well enough to give him the nomination. People in CT are sick of the guy.
 
He's not that moderate though. As the voters were staying more or less the same. Joe moved constantly to the right. What's often overlooked is how much politics has moved to the right. What has caught up to Lieberman is that he has moved far to the right, and the state voters have stayed in the same place. And that's why we have now no Republicans at all in Congress: The state voters have stayed in the same place. And the politicians have not. The Republican party has simply moved to far for the states voters. And Lieberman moved with the Republicans.
Politics have moved to the right? HAHAA! Man, I want what you're smoking :)
 
2006 election results

Joe for Joe: 49.6%
Ned Lamont: 39.6%
Alan Schlesinger 9.6%

Around 38% of CT voters are likely republicans (compared to around 50% for Democrats...the rest are true "independents"), so while Joe did pull in a good chunk of actual indie voters, he was greatly buoyed by Republican support. His core constituency for most of his political career...you know, Democrats, abandoned him.

He is retiring now because that coalition won't hold. CT Republicans would run a real republican candidate against him, instead of a dummy placeholder, and CT Democrats don't like him well enough to give him the nomination. People in CT are sick of the guy.

I maintain my point and this link helps support it: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/CT/S/01/

Breakdown by party affiliation:

Democrats:
Lamont: 65%
Lieberman: 33%
Schlesinger: 2%

Independents:
Lamont: 35%
Lieberman: 54%
Schlesinger: 10%

Republicans:
Lamont: 8%
Lieberman: 70%
Schlesinger: 21%

Total percentage of Vote by party ID:
Democrats: 38%
Independents: 36%
Republicans: 26%

The most important stat is the final one where independents, who voted 54% for Lieberman, comprised 36% of the vote. You err in saying that 38% of the vote was republican...your off by more than 10%. That plus the fact that Lieberman still pulled in a full third of the democrat vote is why he won. Every republican there could have voted for Joe and it wouldnt have mattered if the independent vote split....but it didnt. The independent vote swung in his favor, and thats why he won.
 
After I worked for the DCCC, I've started to look at how the media reports "independents" with a lot more skepticism.

Voters like to register to vote as "independents", because it lets them think that they are above partisanship, or are smarter than the average voter. CNN and other crappy media outlets report this as if an independent voter could go 'either way', but that usually isn't the case. I could look up a voter on my database computer, pull up a guy that says he's an "independent", but notice he voted for a Republican in the last 4 elections, and donated to the NRA.

It is possible that he's really an independent? It's POSSIBLE, but judging from the rest of the data, he's prob a Republican who just doesn't want to admit it. We found that typically, around 2/3 (varies a little by state) of independents have a pretty defined voting preference.

Undoubtedly, Joe was buoyed by actual, real life, independent voters. In his first Senate campaign, he captured the vast majority of Democratic votes. This time, he got less than half, while capturing over 70% of the REPUBLICAN vote. My 38% takes into account that an awful lot of those indies are actually pretty conservative voters. His election in 2006 owes a lot to the GOP.
 
After I worked for the DCCC, I've started to look at how the media reports "independents" with a lot more skepticism.

Voters like to register to vote as "independents", because it lets them think that they are above partisanship, or are smarter than the average voter. CNN and other crappy media outlets report this as if an independent voter could go 'either way', but that usually isn't the case. I could look up a voter on my database computer, pull up a guy that says he's an "independent", but notice he voted for a Republican in the last 4 elections, and donated to the NRA.

It is possible that he's really an independent? It's POSSIBLE, but judging from the rest of the data, he's prob a Republican who just doesn't want to admit it. We found that typically, around 2/3 (varies a little by state) of independents have a pretty defined voting preference.

Undoubtedly, Joe was buoyed by actual, real life, independent voters. In his first Senate campaign, he captured the vast majority of Democratic votes. This time, he got less than half, while capturing over 70% of the REPUBLICAN vote. My 38% takes into account that an awful lot of those indies are actually pretty conservative voters. His election in 2006 owes a lot to the GOP.

So, instead of simply saying 'your're right Mobboss' your going to try and spin what 'independent' means. Okey dokey, not to mention 'CNN and other crappy media outlets' while you didnt offer a single link in support of your own data.

It almost sounds like you are trying to sell us the idea that there are more conservative indie voters in that state than liberal indie voters. But remember that the republican candidate still did pull in a full 10% of the indie vote. If you have anything to back up that allegation, please provide it.

I am sure there are indies that lean either right or left accordingly but they are still independent voters. Thats fine. But you still have to remember the independent vote was also combined with a full third of democrats still voting for him as well.
 
Jesus, you guys are BOTH right. It's weird watching you both flail away trying not to give the other argument any credit.

He won because he got the Indy vote and 70% of Repub vote. Now, in CT do Repubs have such low overall numbers because they trail in overall registration or was their turn out depressed?

TBH, the more I think about it, I think the "Repubs did it" has more creedence. If Repubs vote for Lamont at a rate of, say 56%, as they Dems did for their guy, does Joe win? If the Indy vote shifts 10 points to the Dem does he win?

I didn't see a breakdown of what % of voters are for each party. That matters a lot in a calculation like this.

Either way, the fact that 70% of Repubs backed him is pretty interesting.

Also, the Dems are mad at him because he thwarted the mainstream candidate and then, in office, largely votes w/ Republicans, which is the reason he lost the 2006 primary in the first place.

But guess what.... in the end, it. doesn't. matter.

The Dems will probably renominate the guy who lost in 2006 and the Repubs will.... who knows. But, in 2010 they couldn't get elect a Tea Party fave who was a fairly mainstream Repub (albeit that means somewhat to the right in CT) in a year where the Repubs dominated. Unless they can find a New England Repub in the mold of Scott Brown or Snowe or Collins, they will loose again.
 
Top Bottom