Sen Joe Lieberman Sees the Handwriting on the Wall.

[MobBoss]

In all honesty, Shane, that Tea Party fav was a greatly flawed choice.

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

You mean what I posted already?

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

 

[.Shane.]

In all honesty, Shane, that Tea Party fav was a greatly flawed choice.

McMahon, right? IIRC, there were 3 Repubs in the primary. Of the 3 she was the middle (not meaning most moderate). There was 1 crazy TP type and then a RINO type.... I could be wrong?

But my point about 2012 still stands. If they go don't go w/ a NE-style (aka RINO) Republican, they can't win. And while a RINO could've won this past election if things improve at all for the Dems/Obama, a RINO would lose as well.

Edit: sorry, I missed that breakdown for some reason. In the end its a combination of the Repubs pragmatically abandoning (but I thought they were about "no compromise" and a hard line of unwavering values?) their candidate and Lieberman pulling the Indy vote. Its not 1 specific thing.

 

[JollyRoger]

Politics have moved to the right? HAHAA! Man, I want what you're smoking

When politics moves to the left, you legally can.

 

[MobBoss]

Edit: sorry, I missed that breakdown for some reason. In the end its a combination of the Repubs pragmatically abandoning (but I thought they were about "no compromise" and a hard line of unwavering values?) their candidate and Lieberman pulling the Indy vote. Its not 1 specific thing.

To give you a bit more data to support what I was saying consider these numbers:

Total number of votes (est): 1,131,692

430k dem voters
294 gop voters
407 ind voters

70% of the gop vote equals about 206k votes for Joe.

65% of the dem vote for Lamont equals about 280k votes.

Thats still a 74k advantage for Lamont amongst majority party voters.

So when you get down to it, among non-indie voters Lamont still carries the majority numbers even with so many republicans voting for Joe. It was the independents that really sealed the deal and won it for Joe in this election with what amounted to the actual gop candidate acting as a 10% or so spoiler for Joe.

 

[JollyRoger]

To give you a bit more data to support what I was saying consider these numbers:

Total number of votes (est): 1,131,692

430k dem voters
294 gop voters
407 ind voters

70% of the gop vote equals about 206k votes for Joe.

65% of the dem vote for Lamont equals about 280k votes.

Thats still a 74k advantage for Lamont amongst majority party voters.

So when you get down to it, among non-indie voters Lamont still carries the majority numbers even with so many republicans voting for Joe. It was the independents that really sealed the deal and won it for Joe in this election with what amounted to the actual gop candidate acting as a 10% or so spoiler for Joe.

You are right about that, but you could do the same thing with the Democrat and Independent numbers. Without the Republican votes, Lamont wins. When you add in the GOP votes, Lieberman wins. If the GOP had turned out for the GOP candidate in the same percentages that the Dems turned out for the Dem or the Independents turned out for the Independent, Lamont would have won.

 

[Cutlass]

Politics have moved to the right? HAHAA! Man, I want what you're smoking

How can you make the claim that the political center has not moved to the right in the US? In the 70s, Jimmy Carter was on the right of the Democratic party and Reagan was to the Right of the Republicans. Now Carter is the far left of the Democrats and Reagan would be called a RINO.

Those men haven't changed. The center has moved.

 

[MobBoss]

Rofl, I guess its a matter of whether you see the lady spinning left or right as in that optical illusion. Or that I was giving gop voters a bit more credit for realizing that their lame duck candidate wasnt going to win anything no matter how many republicans voted for him in that state. I viewed that simply as a given, not as an option. Thats why I still say it was the independents that swung things, especially since there were a far greater number of them than registered gop voters.

Btw, for those saying Joe sees the handwriting on the wall....is 42 years of public service not enough? I congratulate him for getting out while he can enjoy his life a bit before really getting old. I dont see politicians trying to be another Byrd as very enviable.

 

[Cutlass]

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.

Republicans are a dying breed in New England because, unlike Snowe and Collins, most Republicans have moved far to the right, and the voters have not. So for a Republican to have national party support, they have to be well out of the mainstream for the region. The Republicans like Chris Shays, who were mainstream 20 years ago, were marginalized by the Republicans to the point where they were no longer competitive locally.

 

[MobBoss]

How can you make the claim that the political center has not moved to the right in the US? In the 70s, Jimmy Carter was on the right of the Democratic party and Reagan was to the Right of the Republicans. Now Carter is the far left of the Democrats and Reagan would be called a RINO.

Those men haven't changed. The center has moved.

Please. No one legitimate calls Reagan a RINO.

 

[JollyRoger]

Rofl, I guess its a matter of whether you see the lady spinning left or right as in that optical illusion. Or that I was giving gop voters a bit more credit for realizing that their lame duck candidate wasnt going to win anything no matter how many republicans voted for him in that state. I viewed that simply as a given, not as an option. Thats why I still say it was the independents that swung things, especially since there were a far greater number of them than registered gop voters.

Btw, for those saying Joe sees the handwriting on the wall....is 42 years of public service not enough? I congratulate him for getting out while he can enjoy his life a bit before really getting old. I dont see politicians trying to be another Byrd as very enviable.

Would you have voted for Lieberman? After all, he is an atheist so far as godly nature of Jesus is concerned. Not very trustworthy.

Please. No one legitimate calls Reagan a RINO.

If you laid out some of his policies and actions without mentioning his name on freerepublic or any other righty site (cutting and running from a terrorist attack, letting Iran off the hook, providing amnesty, running up spending, cutting tax deductions for the rich, the marginal tax rates he supported), they would peg him as a RINO.

 

[MobBoss]

Would you have voted for Lieberman? After all, he is an atheist so far as godly nature of Jesus is concerned. Not very trustworthy.

Uhm. Jesus was a jew. Just saying, I aint no Mel Gibson.

Also, as I consider myself a smart voter, and would see voting for the gop candidate in that race as tossing my vote away, would have to decide which serves my interest better....an ind Lieberman or the dem Lamont. Not much of a choice if I am a smart gop voter, as Lieberman is the obvious more conservative selection there.

If you laid out some of his policies and actions without mentioning his name on freerepublic or any other righty site (cutting and running from a terrorist attack, letting Iran off the hook, providing amnesty, running up spending, cutting tax deductions for the rich, the marginal tax rates he supported), they would peg him as a RINO.

So now you consider freerepublic legitimate? I'd of never guessed.

 

[.Shane.]

Mobby,

As JR said, there's several reasonable scenarios that can show a swing in Ind voters or Repub voters cost Lamont the election.

That said, what is the point, other than disagreeing w/ Downtown?

Bottom line, if Lieberman doesn't run, Lamont wins. Bottom line #2, it was a because Lieb, as a whole, drew votes across all lines in enough quantity to cost Lamont the win.

 

[MobBoss]

Heh, but he was running....he was the incumbent for goodness sakes, and was snubbed by the DNC in the primary.

I most certainly agree with your 'across all lines' comment.

And isnt disagreeing with Downtown a good enough reason to post? Or should no one ever disagree with him, since he is of course DT? Heh.

 

[Cutlass]

Please. No one legitimate calls Reagan a RINO.

That's because no "legitimate" Republican is honest about who and what Reagan was. He worked with and compromised with Democrats on his most successful legislative achievements. He was a serial tax raiser, raising taxes in 7 of the 8 years he was in office. He sat down and formed a relationship with the leader of the Evil Empire. Which helped him accomplish his only real foreign policy success. In short, all of the things Republicans cannot do now are the things that were the high points of Reagan's years in office. Republicans simply refuse to acknowledge the real Reagan any longer, and use a fictional version in his place.

 

[.Shane.]

Heh, but he was running....he was the incumbent for goodness sakes, and was snubbed by the DNC in the primary.

He lost the primary. I think you get what I'm saying here.

I most certainly agree with your 'across all lines' comment.

Yeah, I monkeyed w/ various models and I find that there are reasonable ways to get there from both the "Independent's cost him" or the "Repub's did". The least likely is the Democrats.

But, its a pretty good assumption that if Lieb doesn't run, Lamont wins.

That said, and I realize a lot will change between now and Nov. 12, do you see a way for the Repubs to win other than running a RINO? You're a bit more pragmatic on these things at times, so would you consider that good? In essence, do you approve of Scott Brown in MA or the ladies in Maine vs. a Democrat?

And isnt disagreeing with Downtown a good enough reason to post? Or should no one ever disagree with him, since he is of course DT? Heh.

lol, it just seemed like a small point to nitpick, but hey, here we all are.

In all honesty, Shane, that Tea Party fav was a greatly flawed choice.

This would be true for any competitive election, fwiw
----
----
Lastly, Mobby, what did you think of Murkowski? She largely did the same thing. If the Dems had, in turn, won Alaska because of her splitting the vote, would that change your opinion?

 

[MobBoss]

That said, and I realize a lot will change between now and Nov. 12, do you see a way for the Repubs to win other than running a RINO? You're a bit more pragmatic on these things at times, so would you consider that good? In essence, do you approve of Scott Brown in MA or the ladies in Maine vs. a Democrat?

Nah, I am a realist in this sort of thing, and would prefer a rino that votes with us on most things than a dem that votes with us on nothing.

My view of the RNC is that it needs to offer more than just ultra-right wing conservatism viewpoint. Sure those can be some of the core values, but the dont need to be the only values. And I also believe someone can still be a conservative, and not necessarily subscribe to all the core values.

Lastly, Mobby, what did you think of Murkowski? She largely did the same thing. If the Dems had, in turn, won Alaska because of her splitting the vote, would that change your opinion?

Well, I think it was wrong for the Tea Party guy to run against her in the primary to be honest. I am not really into divisive party politics. More power to her in pulling it off, but I do admit if the split had allowed a dem to win, I would have questioned the wisdom of that. 9 out of 10 times in most places, it does split and allow the opposing party to win....but this one had small enough numbers for that to not occur.