The real story about last night in CT

[Sam Odom]

The American people did not speak nor did the people of Connecticut!

150,000 registered Dems from a Blue State spoke, they said they hated Bush and his policies. Not so shocking is it?

The real story is 140,000 registered Dems from a Blue State were ambivalent toward Bush and his policies.

[Atman]

1. Nope. That is not the real story.

But nice try.

[Sam Odom]

3. Too many good folks are intoxicated with the WIN

to see the truth right now.

[Atman]

7. Why should CT be any different than any other state?

ALL states should have 99% voting. But none do. Connecticut was the FIRST state to fire a shot across the GOP's bow, and the FIRST to unseat an incumbent in decades.

Savor winning the battle, even if the war rages on.

[Sam Odom]

8. You are making my point!

"Connecticut was the FIRST state to fire a shot across the GOP's bow"

No! CT fired no shot! It was a DEM Party Primary shot with 52% support.

[Atman]

10. Then I don't see what your point is.

Sorry.

[danalytical]

13. OH I get it

You're trying to remove CT from the equation and claim it was all Democrats that did this. In some ways you're right, because there was some outside help but in other ways you're totally off base. We had to win in the face of no money from the National Democratic party, Bill Clinton stumping for Lieberman, no name recognition, and no corporate dollars. That could have happened somewhere else I guess, but it didn't. It happened here.

[danalytical]

4. LOL yeah I was thinking the same thing

I live in CT and voted, and no that is not the real story. The real story is we created a mini revolution and it's going to roll through the country and topple the oligarchy. THAT's the story.

[Sam Odom]

6. mini revolution

52% - 48% is mini alright.

I was hoping for a double digit win.

[mcscajun]

9. Lamont won by precisely the same margin that Lieberman did

when he unseated Weicker. That was an upset too, and for mirror reasons.

from Wikipedia:
Lieberman was first elected to the United States Senate as a Democrat in 1988, by a margin of 10,000 votes. He scored the nation's biggest political upset that year, after being backed by a coalition of Democrats and unaffiliated voters with support from conservative Republicans, who were disappointed in three-term Republican incumbent Lowell Weicker's liberal voting record and personal style.

[Sam Odom]

12. What we saw last night was DEM PARTY Politics

If Ned beats Joe in Nov by only one vote then I will be happy. Ned ain't in the Senate yet.

[mcscajun]

15. No, he isn't, but he will be.

And whether you recognize it or not, acknowledge it or not, a message was sent nationally with this Primary election.

And it's the Democratic Party, TYVM.

[danalytical]

11. It's not even about the amount of votes he won by

It's the fact that he WON at all. ANd he did from NOWHERE! THAT is a revolution albeit on a mini scale. You know what they say about ripple effect.

[Contrary1]

16. "I was hoping for a double digit win."

By whom?

[calico1]

18. Good God!

Just a few short months ago few people in CT knew who the hell Ned Lamont was! By contrast, Lieberman has had an over 30 year political history in this State. When Lamont went up against Lieberman it wasn't just Lieberman he went up against. It was also most of the MSM, the Democratic Party machine, the pundits, etc. And out of all the newspaper endorsements, Ned got ONE. And this was a Democratic primary in a mid term year in the summer when a lot of people don't normally participate because they are vacationing or just can't be bothered. But this primary was a record turnout. Biggest in CT HISTORY. But you still aren't satisfied? :wtf:

[MissWaverly]

2. the real story, 140,000 voted for Lieberman as a nice guy

amd probably regret it after his performance this morning.

[wordpix2]

5. if CT Dems choose not to vote or are so apathetic they don't vote, then

those who DO vote make the choice. That's democracy, which is not dead yet in CT.

Ned won fair and square and he will win the senatorial race, too.

[Warpy]

14. You mean 140,000 voters lost their nerve when they got into

the voting booth and went with the devil they knew, or 140,000 voters liked Lieberman's attacks on labor, or 140,000 voters love corporate subsidies, or 140,000 voters thought Lieberman was their guy to protect Israel.

My guess is that most of them are the first category.

Remember, the incumbent ALWAYS has the edge, if only for name recognition. Add to that the dirty campaign he ran and he tripled his advantage.

It still wasn't enough.

[Impashund Ubique]

17. Not entirely true.

The exit polls (from Tuesday's election) show that only 16% of the democratic primary voters supported Bush. So, they are not ambivalent toward Bush or his policies.

Instead, they were repaying Joe Lieberman for the domestic goodwill he has accumulated over the years. They voted for Lieberman, not Bush, but in doing so, they did not realize that they were also voting for the continuation of the war in Iraq.

You are totally discounting the personal history Joe Lieberman has in CT. If this race was between two new faces, and one of them was supporting Bush's policies, then your logic might apply. Not so much in this race, where Lieberman has the advantage of an unshakable impression on the minds of most CT residents.

The point about ambivalence is this: The democrats who voted for Lieberman are ambivalent about the power of their vote and the symbolic (plus practical) weight this race carries. They are also ambivalent about how Lieberman's re-election fuels the pro-war, pro-Bush agenda.