Lieberman won every CT county except New Haven

[mhatrw]

http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/USSenCountyView.aspx?Parameter=08/08/2006-Primary

And he lost New Haven just 21,113 to 20,033.

Anybody here from Oxford, CT?

The CT SOS's site shows Oxford going for Lieberman 250 votes to 0 votes for Lamont:

http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/USSenTownView.aspx?Parameter=08/08/2006-Primary

[Crabby Appleton]

1. don't you have that backwards?

Lieberman LOST every CT county except New Haven

[mhatrw]

19. Yep. It was 100% backwards. Lamont won every county but New Haven.

Sorry.

[OneTwentyoNine]

20. So....edit your original post header....n/t

[mhatrw]

22. I wish. It's expired. n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

27. You must have been getting your news from the MSM

You should know better



Image from Kill Your Television

[MrBenchley]

2. Lamont's support was mainly well to do white guys

The poor and the working class went for Lieberman.

[depakid]

3. Now that is funny

Not that you have an ounce of credibility- or what you said has any basis in fact- but still...

Rationalize away.

[MrBenchley]

4. Yeah, it is very funny...guess working people can see through the far left

as usual....

"Affluent = Lamont, blue collar = Lieberman."

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/turnout-may-be-favoring-lamont-vs.html

[depakid]

8. He's been a real good friend to ordinary working people

Hasn't he-

And hey! His voting record proves it!

errr.... OK maybe not.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[depakid]

11. OK, whatever

I go with a vote by vote- and use the one's that counted- but it's not worth it.

Nothing anyone says to you registers.

[MrBenchley]

12. It registers as the foolishness it is

Now don't let facts get in the way....

[Hawkeye-X]

33. Why not focus on your own goddamn state

instead of barging into other people's business or choice. Menendez needs your help anyway.

[CTLawGuy]

41. cause he can't attack liberals that way

oh I'm sorry "the far left" which is anyone who will actually stand up to republicans.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

36. register this! he voted for EVERY tax break top 3% of wealthholders got!

Yep, that Lieberman is a real working class hero, isn't he? The union leadership is nearly as corrupt as the republican party.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

62. Do you really care that he has money? Just curious.

Kerry has money too, well, the missus anyway, but that doesn't affect what I think of him. Most of these folks have money. I would reckon Lieberman too, but I'd have to go and check on that.

[MrBenchley]

67. Kerry also has a long career in public service

But then he's one of those members of the DLC that the far left hates.

Lamont has a career in selling security system to gated communities for the ultra-rich.

[LittleClarkie]

69. He's also one of those "withdraw" people that is like Lamont

and not like Lieberman. So I guess he's for weakening our fight against terror too, the looney.

And he's sort of the red-headed step child of the DLC. Too liberal for them I guess. I haven't even see a current list, and every time I ask what happen to the directory, I'm pretty much ignored.

I'd like to see if he's still a member. All I know is that when From mentions those who are running in 2008 from the DLC, he leaves out both Kerry and Edwards. And we know both of them are at least as likely to run as Bayh and Vilsack and Clinton.

I could give a flying fuck on a stick what Lamont's been doing with his time. It's his votes if and when he gets into office that will count.

[MrBenchley]

70. Funny, I don't see him running a character assasination campaign

"every time I ask what happen to the directory, I'm pretty much ignored"
Imagine that.

"I could give a flying fuck on a stick what Lamont's been doing with his time."
Ypu, he's a pig in a poke...and he turned out to be sort of an ugly runt,. too.

[LittleClarkie]

72. Imagine that... what? The DLC generally ignores people?

I'm quite polite and cordial when asking. I don't understand not getting a reply.

Which him are you referring to regarding running a character assassination campaign? From, Lamont, or Kerry? Gotta love unattached pronouns.

How about Lieberman? That was one interesting campaign he ran against Lamont. Actually it was little on the dopey side (bear cubs and such). He must be out of practice in having an opponent.

And your last line is incomprehensible. Care to translate what the fuck that's about? Now you don't like Lamont's looks either? Or maybe I just don't understand "pig in a poke"?

Like I said, it will be Lamont's votes that will count, not how he's earned money.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TankLV]

81. Umm - FDR was a millionaire.

You on the other hand aparently wish to see everything he created done away with, as witnessed by all of your spew for ever since we had the misfortune to read your spew...

[HuskerDU]

18. Lieberman needs to have a seat in the corner. He lost.

And this comes from someone who would've been glad to support either candidate.

Ripping on Lamont does nothing to help the Democratic party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. as loyal Democrats - I trust we will all unite behind the Party's nominee

in November, right?

[MrBenchley]

38. Speaking for myself

I plan to give Lamont all the rousing support DUers are accustomed to giving loyal and accomplished Democrats...like Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Leadership Council.

Of course I can't speak for the Democrats in the real world who have been vilified as traitors, scumbags and the like for supporting a sitting Democratic Senator....

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

49. oh i think he stepped out of the closet a while ago

[Name removed]

51. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

63. You base real world decisions on an internet messageboard?

And how you feel about the people therein?

O-B-K-B.

[MrBenchley]

87. I base real world decisions on the real world

Where nobody but the lunatic fringe is spouting crap about corporowhores and the like. Or pretending the DLC is an evil conspiracy.

[Crunchy Frog]

80. Attention Moderators. Are these rules still being enforced here?

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

[TankLV]

82. That means YOU benchley!

Moderators - please pay attention!

[MrBenchley]

86. Nope. But it's hilarious to see you pretend so.

[MrBenchley]

85. The answer is yes, they are....

And perhaps some of the anti-DLC dimwits should keep them in mind.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

26. OooooOOOOOOooooo!!! The evil FAR LEFT! OOGA BOOGA! -nt

[LittleClarkie]

65. Unga, binga, bunga, bun...ga.

(gratuituous bugs bunny moment)

[Crunchy Frog]

30. Sour grapes a little?

[Crunchy Frog]

32. The battle is over, Lieberman lost.

Instead of continuously pointing the finger at others and accusing them of "hating Democrats", why don't you display a little bit of that party loyalty, not to mention a modicum of dignity, suck it up, and get behind the party's nominee.

Guess what? I've had to support Democrats that I didn't care for, and whom I didn't support in the primaries. I certainly never spammed DU with whining about how my guy didn't win, and about how perfidious other people were for supporting the other guy.

I don't know what you hope to accomplish by persisting in attacks against the legitimately decided Democratic Senate nominee of CT.

[Guaranteed]

57. LOL ouch nt

[Don1]

24. WOW. A blog!

Someone asks you for proof of why you are attacking Lamont like a right-wing attack dog and you post from a blog about some guys making secret phone calls or whatever. Are you going to stop attacking Democrats here as "far left" or what?

[CTLawGuy]

28. so are 43% of CT dems "far left"?

thats a record turnout and many of those are independents who switched.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

50. Which is sad because Lieberman is no friend of the working class.

Financial industry deregulation has not helped the working class one bit.

[LittleClarkie]

58. From his website, he doesn't look so very far left

Not much farther than most Dems in Congress really. His Iraq stance is much like Kerry's and Feingold's and Murtha's. Murtha certainly isn't a wingnut.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. Seems the so-called "far left" (ooga booga!) is more than willing to

settle for a truly centrist person in place of a right-wing apologist.

My, how radical they are.

[citizen snips]

61. anti war is such a radical position.

:sarcasm:

[LittleClarkie]

66. Then 60% of the country are a bunch of liberal loonies

Who knew.

[Divernan]

10. Wow! Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton are "well to do white guys"?

Live and learn!

[leftchick]

13. lol!

touche!

And Maxine baby! Don't forget that well to do white guy Maxine Waters!



:rofl:

And check out this well to do white guy, CT Blogger....



:rofl:

you can find more well to do white guys here...

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/08/waters_pays_tri.php

[MoonRiver]

16. I also saw the former president of NOW (can't remember her name)

standing next to him at the post-election celebration. Just another "well to do white guy" Lamont supporter I guess. :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

15. Wow, two guys are all the support Lamont had?

I've learned already how clueless some people are....

By the way, Sharpton's endorsement was a real plus--there's a reason why a Republican operative managed Al's 2004 presidential bid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/politics/campaign/25SHAR.html?ex=1390366800&en=5e42d51e72c91329&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

[Cassandra]

17. Wait until you see the Republicans lining up...

to support Lieberman's independent bid. Will they campaign for him, send him money, bash Democrats on his behalf? Will you still support him as he insults the rest of the Democrats he hasn't yet dissed? Joe is a neo-con, through and through. You should be careful of endorsing the concept of tribal politics (Jews for Jews, blacks for blacks, Christians for Christians, etc.) that also has Joe smeared as caring too much for Israel. Support for the Democratic Party, as well as for America, can come in any type of package. Was FDR too much of a rich white boy for you?

[IChing]

54. Republicans have lined up since you made this post (you are psychic)lol

and only one Democratic politician,
fact is:
even the white house and almost all the right wing pundits have lined up for lieberman as of today.

[MrBenchley]

56. You sound surprised....

What the fuck did you think was going to happen?

"Will they campaign for him, send him money, bash Democrats on his behalf? "
Probably. If Karl Rove is shaking, he's shaking with laughter.

"Will you still support him"
It's not supporting Lieberman to point out that a four-point victiory by a rich bobo that was built entirely on character assassination isn't necessarily a triumph for anything but gutter politics. And that having got their tiny "triumph" the result is that what was six months ago the Democrats' safest Seante seat is now in grave danger of slipping away altogether, and that money that could have gone towar ddefeating actual Republicans is going to have to go toward hanging on to something we didn't have to lose.

Did it ever occur to any of those mewling for "purity" that there are fewer Democrats in Connecticut than there are Republicans, and fewer Republicans than Independents? Of course not.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. Nope. 52% of CT primary voters.

Time to move on MrBenchley.

[Don1]

25. Note that his source is highly unreliable. n/t

[wisteria]

29. I heard that too on Fox news.

And, in regards to we, the bloggers, according to the MSM, we are either a immature, pj wearing, basement lurking on the fringe community of people or we are well educated, political suave, upper income, liberal elitists. They really are clueless.

[Hawkeye-X]

31. Zero Credibility, Benchley, ZERO credibility

You declared Lieberman the winner last night, FACE IT you lost.

[LincolnMcGrath]

37. He called it for Joe last night?

:rofl:

CONsider the source I guess.

[MrBenchley]

52. Ah, the honesty of the far left (snicker)

Be sure and link to that post. I'll wait right here, so we can judge YOUR credibility.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

78. Do you have a keyboard macro to auto-type "far left" or something?

far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga far left ooga booga

[MrBenchley]

79. So the answer turned out to be, "no, that was a lie"

The honesty of the far left is matched only by it's, er, eloquence....(snicker)

[No Exit]

84. Let me tell you about "the lie"

I LIVED the f**king LIE for years and years: I believed in "conservatism" and actually voted, time and again, for REPUBLICANS.

THAT is the f**king LIE. If it takes the "far left" to ELIMINATE FOREVER any power that republicans have in this country, then count me IN to the "far left".

And let Lieberman go to Crawford and shine the shoes of the man he really serves. I'm sure Junior will tip him big.

[MrBenchley]

89. So the answer was "No, that was a lie"

Stick around...the far left is just as repulisive and dishonest as the far right.

[w4rma]

40. New Haven (that rich white guy place according to YOU) was won by Loserman

The OP's post was totally off the wall inaccurate and so is your's. In fact by your own logic LIEberman was the guy who got his support from the "rich white guys".

Don't you have some guns to ban somewhere else, MrBenchley?

If your credibility wasn't all ready toast, it is after this, MrBenchley.

[CTLawGuy]

43. Lieberman

won certain suburbs of New Haven. (he actually won 44 towns, and Lamont won 125 towns)

In the more working class eastern part of the state, Lamont won. He won Hartford proper and New Haven proper.

Joe did win East Hartford, a working class town, barely. However, that is where a major defense industry employer resides (Pratt & Whitney).

Ned won the town of Groton, where the sub base Joe takes all the credit for saving is located.

[w4rma]

45. Thanks! Btw, I only count 33 towns of 169 won by LIEberman.

http://www.statementofvote-sots.ct.gov/StatementOfVote/WebModules/ReportsLink/USSenTownView.aspx?Parameter=08/08/2006-Primary

Where are you finding the other 11 towns that you say Sore Loserman won? Is your data outdated?

[CTLawGuy]

46. I got my results from the Hartford Courant on August 9th

I dunno what your link is.

also, it appears if no one in East Haven decided to vote.

Use this site instead: www.courant.com

[LittleClarkie]

59. Would you have a link for that stat? Exit polls? I'd be much obliged.

Thanks.

[LittleClarkie]

74. Still waiting for documentation of some sort

Thanks. Surely you didn't just pull that fact out of thin air

[No Exit]

83. Really? Even the Bushes of Kennebunkport voted for Ned??

Wow. Those well-to-do white guys might be smarter than they appear... (except for the Bushes...)

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. 0 (zero) as in none?

Not one single solitary vote for Lamont in Oxford?:eyes:

[ihelpu2see]

14. Yet rural Granby was won by Lamont by over a 2 to 1 margin

489 to 242 in dist. 1 also 2 to 1 in dist. 2 but I don't have the numbers. Granby is mostly unaffiliated and republican and overall not a huge liberal bastion....

[CTLawGuy]

44. Lieberman's biggest strength was in

the New Haven suburbs (not the city itself), (he won most of those towns with 55% - 60%)
Waterbury and suburbs (again 55%-60%)
a sparse smattering of hartford suburbs, (less than 55%)
Norwich and suburbs, and (split between close victories and more decisive)
extreme eastern CT (border towns) (all won with less than 55%)

Lieberman won 0 towns with more than 2/3s of the vote.

Lamont won 19 towns with more than 2/3s of the vote. (Greenwich, the NW corner of the state, Mansfied (where Storrs and of course UCONN is) Lyme, Chester and Essex (central shoreline towns)

of Lieberman's 44 towns, he got less than 55% of the vote in 23 of them.

[calico1]

6. You've got that backwards.

Read it again. Lieberman won ONLY in New Haven County. Every other county was won by Lamont.

[demdiva]

7. This can't be true

or Lieberman would have won.

[WePurrsevere]

21. Excuse me but Lamont won every one EXCEPT New Haven..... RESULTS:

From OP's link:

Joseph Lieberman_____ Ned Lamont
Fairfield____24,219________27,026
Hartford___ 32,945________ 34,810
Litchfield___ 3,855_________ 4,776
Middlesex___ 4,202_________ 5,699
New Haven_ 21,113________ 20,033
New London_ 7,212_________ 7,682
Tolland _____ 3,397_________ 5,379
Windham ___ 2,430_________ 2,979
Total______ 99,373______ 108,384


(edited to make easier to read)

[Jeffersons Ghost]

35. this headline got me VERY upset! I'm glad to see it was wrong...

I felt the only way NEOCON lieberman could win is with the help of DIEBOLD.

[w4rma]

39. Huh? Lamont won Oxford 262 to 250. Sore Loserman won only 33 out of 169

towns from my count. And of the counties, it appears that out of 8 counties the only one LIEberman squeaked out a win in was New Haven.

New Haven: the county consisting of "well to do white guys", according to MrBenchley the confused Sore Loser supporter above with foot in mouth disease.

[niallmac]

47. Diebold levers? n/t

[senseandsensibility]

55. The mods should lock or delete this

The subject line is false.

[LittleClarkie]

64. The OP realized it too late, and now can't edit.

And people are making false assumptions on it.

[senseandsensibility]

71. yes, that's why the mods should lock it.

It's very misleading to leave it up, and some people won't bother to read all the posts.

[bigwillq]

68. There's a corrected thread started

here in GD: Politics.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2772478

[Guaranteed]

60. Yup. Ol' Joe "Dead Weight" Lieberman. nt

[AX10]

73. kick

www.nedlamont.com

[senseandsensibility]

76. Please stop kicking this false thread!

I guess I had to kick it one more time to say that.x(

[snowbear]

88. Maybe one of the Moderators can correct the title since the OP sez...

...that they made a mistake and weren't able to correct it by the time it was pointed out to them.

:shrug:

I agree with the others --- it is irritating to see it kicked up constantly despite the pleas to stop it.

[saltpoint]

90. Lieberman thinks quite a bit of himself. But many self-described

moderate Democrats in Connecticut voted to nominate Ned Lamont instead of their 3-term senator.

Lieberman got his ass kicked. A few months ago he dominated polls over Lamont, 65-13 percent. Only the 4th incumbent Senator in U.S. history to lose a primary election, he went from untouchable incumbent to national stooge.

Some liberal blogsites, including this one, were relentlessly harsh with Joe, but it was Joe who lost the primary. He became less his constituents' senator and more his own future-president ambition, and on Tuesday, Connecticut Democrats chose Lamont over Joe's ambition and ego.

Party folk are lining up handsomely behind Ned's campaign and I expect Lieberman will withdraw rather than face the possibility of further humiliation. Respect must be paid, as the phrase goes, for the votes he made in favor of progressive legislation, and I think no one on DU has been stingy about Joe's early work in the American South regarding civil rights. It was ballsy and noble and we don't subtract from him those contributions.

But of late he has been an obstacle to the party's essential tenets, and CT Democrats sealed the deal.