The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 102

scaeagles · 08-08-2006, 08:08 PM

Well, it is official - Leiberman lost somewhere around 52-48%.

He is now expected to announce an independent bid for the general election as earl as tomorrow.

McKinney got her but kicked, 58-42%

innerSpaceman · 08-08-2006, 08:29 PM

I hope nobody in Conn. falls for Liebowitz's selfish gambit. Last time a Dem lost the primary and ran independent in Connecticut, the Dem and the "Independent" split the Dem vote, and the Republican won.

Bah.

CoasterMatt · 08-08-2006, 09:20 PM

Hail Xenu!

scaeagles · 08-08-2006, 09:56 PM

I suppose Leiberman is being selfish. You could say that about any third party candidate, though. Ralph Nadar arguably gave Bush his victory over Gore (no, I'm not really interested in debating again if the election was stolen - I'm just pointing out that without Nadar in it Gore wins). Ross Perot gave Clinton the White House the first time.

Does this mean you are against third party candidates? Honestly, how many have a chance to win? Leiberman, however, has a clear chance to win. In 2000, even while running simulataneously for President, he won 63-37, about 2/3 of the vote. If he takes all that he got in this primary and adds in half the independent voters, he probably wins.

Personally, I think he's nuts to do it. If he loses, he's done politically and won't even get a cushy ambassadorship anywhere. If he wins, he's a man without a party in the Senate, meaning he has no power. I could see him winning and the dems urging him back into the fold, though.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-08-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I suppose Leiberman is being selfish. You could say that about any third party candidate, though. Ralph Nadar arguably gave Bush his victory over Gore (no, I'm not really interested in debating again if the election was stolen - I'm just pointing out that without Nadar in it Gore wins).

Bah, I don't buy that, especially when it was that close. Addition or subtraction of a 3rd party is NEVER a simple math equation. Changes the whole dynamic. I mean, I know it's just a hypothetical, but you can't just move Nadar voters to their respective sides.

BarTopDancer · 08-08-2006, 10:09 PM

One of these days enough people are going to be annoyed enough with the Dems and the Pubs and vote for the 3rd party "just because" and he'll win.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-08-2006, 10:10 PM

Is it just me, or does it sound like Lieberman's lost it and thinks he's Ariel Sharon?

scaeagles · 08-08-2006, 10:11 PM

Are you suggesting that any more than a handful of Nadar voters, without Nadar in the race, would have voted for Bush?

It is true that many would probably opt not to vote, but many would have voted Gore simply because they would vote.

Ghoulish Delight · 08-08-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Are you suggesting that any more than a handful of Nadar voters, without Nadar in the race, would have voted for Bush?

It is true that many would probably opt not to vote, but many would have voted Gore simply because they would vote.

Too many variables. What about the, "I better get out and vote for Gore since Nader's running" vote that Gore got? They wouldn't have shown. And the whole flavor of the campaigns change if Nader's not part of the equation. You never know which side of the fence the Gore-Bush fence sitters would have fallen on without Nader there. It just ain't that simple.

scaeagles · 08-09-2006, 08:33 AM

Dick Morris, and regardless of what might think of him personally he is a brilliant political mind, believes that Leiberman can win the three way.

Polls in Connecticut show that in a 3 way race, it is currently a 40-40-13 split (the 13 going to the Republican who is plagued by a gambling scandal).

Morris looked at how Lieberman's loss shapes the Dem Presidential outlook.

Because Hillary is playing both sides of the war, it will be easy in the Democrat primaries for fervently antiwar candidates to paint her in a negative light among the most active and furthest left wing of the Dem party, making it difficult for her to win the nomination. Morris sees Gore, of all people, as the candidate that may have the best chance now.

This does not bode well for the Presidential general, because there is no way for Gore to move to the center in the general.

I thought it was interesting analysis, but I don't know if Gore is a candidate with a legitimate shot.

08-08-2006, 08:08 PM	#1
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Well, it is official - Leiberman lost somewhere around 52-48%. He is now expected to announce an independent bid for the general election as earl as tomorrow. McKinney got her but kicked, 58-42%
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 08:29 PM	#2
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I hope nobody in Conn. falls for Liebowitz's selfish gambit. Last time a Dem lost the primary and ran independent in Connecticut, the Dem and the "Independent" split the Dem vote, and the Republican won. Bah.
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 09:20 PM	#3
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	Hail Xenu! __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 09:56 PM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I suppose Leiberman is being selfish. You could say that about any third party candidate, though. Ralph Nadar arguably gave Bush his victory over Gore (no, I'm not really interested in debating again if the election was stolen - I'm just pointing out that without Nadar in it Gore wins). Ross Perot gave Clinton the White House the first time. Does this mean you are against third party candidates? Honestly, how many have a chance to win? Leiberman, however, has a clear chance to win. In 2000, even while running simulataneously for President, he won 63-37, about 2/3 of the vote. If he takes all that he got in this primary and adds in half the independent voters, he probably wins. Personally, I think he's nuts to do it. If he loses, he's done politically and won't even get a cushy ambassadorship anywhere. If he wins, he's a man without a party in the Senate, meaning he has no power. I could see him winning and the dems urging him back into the fold, though.
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 10:09 PM	#6
BarTopDancer Prepping... Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Here, there, everywhere Posts: 11,405	One of these days enough people are going to be annoyed enough with the Dems and the Pubs and vote for the 3rd party "just because" and he'll win. __________________ Spork is the new MacGyver Postcards From My Edge
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 10:10 PM	#7
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Is it just me, or does it sound like Lieberman's lost it and thinks he's Ariel Sharon? __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

08-08-2006, 10:11 PM	#8
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Are you suggesting that any more than a handful of Nadar voters, without Nadar in the race, would have voted for Bush? It is true that many would probably opt not to vote, but many would have voted Gore simply because they would vote.
	Submit to Quotes

08-09-2006, 08:33 AM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Dick Morris, and regardless of what might think of him personally he is a brilliant political mind, believes that Leiberman can win the three way. Polls in Connecticut show that in a 3 way race, it is currently a 40-40-13 split (the 13 going to the Republican who is plagued by a gambling scandal). Morris looked at how Lieberman's loss shapes the Dem Presidential outlook. Because Hillary is playing both sides of the war, it will be easy in the Democrat primaries for fervently antiwar candidates to paint her in a negative light among the most active and furthest left wing of the Dem party, making it difficult for her to win the nomination. Morris sees Gore, of all people, as the candidate that may have the best chance now. This does not bode well for the Presidential general, because there is no way for Gore to move to the center in the general. I thought it was interesting analysis, but I don't know if Gore is a candidate with a legitimate shot.
	Submit to Quotes