Lieberman: Does Anti-Incumbency have anything to do.....

[sendero]

.... with Lieberman's spectacular slide? I think it might. I think Americans are feeling sick in the pit of their stomach and I think they blame everyone involved.

Lucky for Dems, most of those involved are Republicans. But Joe was a highly visible involvee, and the first volley goes to him.

Maybe?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. No. Ted Kennedy is there since the Triassic

and isn't going away anytime soon.

[sendero]

5. I agree with that..

... but then Kennedy is one of a handful who can truthfully say he was NOT a part of this mess.

[ixion]

2. Here are the reasons I don't like LIEberman

1) He supported (and continues to support) the illegal invasion of Iraq

2) He has been an ardent proponent of the so-called 'War on Terror'

3) He helped pass the unPATRIOTic Act.


It has nothing to do with his previous terms as Senator.

[calico1]

3. No, I don't believe it's the fact

that he is an incumbent. Dodd has been serving for much longer and there is no move to throw him out. The push to throw Joe out comes because of his stands which are often contrary to most of his constituents, his coziness with Bush and his administration, etc. If he were really representing us he would not be in trouble.

[Pale Blue Dot]

4. You know what has the most to do with Lieberman's slide?

Lamont.

Voter's feelings about the war haven't changed in CT. Voter's feelings about Bush haven't changed. What has changed is their feelings toward Lamont.

He has run a spectacularly good campaign. he's been positive, charismatic, and he's been focused on the issues. When he's been negative about Lieberman, it's been about Lieberman's stand. There have been no personal attacks.

Lamont has looked confident, strong, and professional. Everything anyone would want a Senator to be.

[DODI]

6. I don't think so. Dodd is in no trouble at all.

My rep will most likely get 80% of the vote and he has been in for at least 10 years. Here in CT we are simply looking for someone who will represent us -- Joey ain't the one.

[WinkyDink]

7. No. it's the same argument offered here about Santorum's predicted

ouster.

It is TOTALLY because we are SICK OF REPUBLICAN EVIL.

And that would perforce include Lieberman.

[TheCowsCameHome]

8. If CT wanted a Repub they would've voted for one. But they didn't

Joe has sided up with Bush, and now he must pay the price.

CT voters will handle the matter as they see fit.

[Lerkfish]

9. nah, the only worse than an evil despot is a sycophant to that despot.

[aquaman]

10. No, I don't think so. But I do do think....

that him being a jackass probably does have some impact.

[Mr_Spock]

11. Yes, but only in the sense that he supported the Bushco machine

It's not so much anti-incumbancy as anti-establishment. When the government goes to SHIT and you are a supporter of that - then you are part of the problem.

[KitSileya]

12. Anti-incumbency?

More like anti-incompetence. As in, incompetent to stand by Democrats and not fall into the lap of Shrub.

[Lerkfish]

13. Joe must blame anything but Joe for Joe's unpopularity