Originally posted by no1marauderThat's fine. He won't pull out because when the crap really hits the fan he will revert to the typical political hack. Just like when he lambasted Clinton for the Monica debacle. If he had voted yeah then Clinton would have been impeached. He will stay in no matter what the Dems say. He likes his job in the Senate.
Specifically:
If Lieberman doesn't get re-elected, you lose; if he does get re-elected, you win. If he pulls out (as he is being pressured to), the bet is not cancelled. OK?
1 edit
Originally posted by slimjimYou're probably right that he won't pull out though there will be a lot of Democratic pressure for him to do so. It looks like the Republican candidate is so weak (he's polling at 3-5% so far and has some sort of public gambling problem), that it remains a squabble for the future of the Democratic party.
That's fine. He won't pull out because when the crap really hits the fan he will revert to the typical political hack. Just like when he lambasted Clinton for the Monica debacle. If he had voted yeah then Clinton would have been impeached. He will stay in no matter what the Dems say. He likes his job in the Senate.
If my memory serves me, conviction of Clinton in the Senate didn't even get a majority, never mind the 2/3 required. Lieberman's vote hardly mattered except if he had voted for impeachment, I doubt you would be taking this bet.
EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton
45 Guilty, 55 Not Guilty on the perjury charge
50 Guilty, 50 Not Guilty on the obstruction charge
67 Votes for Guilty needed
Originally posted by no1marauderHe will keep his job in the Senate. Once they get in there it's hard to get them out.
You're probably right that he won't pull out though there will be a lot of Democratic pressure for him to do so. It looks like the Republican candidate is so weak (he's polling at 3-5% so far and has some sort of public gambling problem), that it remains a squabble for the future of the Democratic party.
If my memory serves me, conviction of ...[text shortened]... 50 Guilty, 50 Not Guilty on the obstruction charge
67 Votes for Guilty needed
Originally posted by slimjimSenate re-election rates are high, about 80%, though not as high as the House (over 90😵.
He will keep his job in the Senate. Once they get in there it's hard to get them out.
In New York, we had a similar situation in 1978, when a long term Senator who happened to be a liberal Republican (they had such things back then) Jacob Javits lost to a very conservative (for New York esp.) Al D'Amato in the Republican primary. Javits ran in the general election and finished a poor third. The difference is that the Democratic candidate there was a viable one who narrowly lost whereas the Republican in Connecticut is a very weak candidate. Nonetheless, I don't expect Lieberman to hold onto all that many Democratic voters and I doubt conservatives will vote for him given his domestic positions which are mostly "liberal" (at least as "liberal" as most in the Democratic party). So I think he'll lose and it won't be that close, perhaps a 5% margin for LaMont.
Originally posted by snarecaptain05So god, who is also Jesus, who once said "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." is behind this war yeah? You know what, you are a visionary, it's all become so clear to me now.
well i think u are wrong on many accounts there pal. If u go through and read the Bible then u will slowly come to see that this war has no end until God Himself declares the time upon us. those of us support the war are also the ones not suffering from "liberalism" so tell me what other falsettos u hear so i may present a valid argument against them
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHere's a paragraph from today's Forbes.com:
Senate re-election rates are high, about 80%, though not as high as the House (over 90😵.
In New York, we had a similar situation in 1978, when a long term Senator who happened to be a liberal Republican (they had such things back then) Jacob Javits lost to a very conservative (for New York esp.) Al D'Amato in the Republican primary. Javits ran arty). So I think he'll lose and it won't be that close, perhaps a 5% margin for LaMont.
"An American Research Group poll released Tuesday showed Lieberman and Lamont about even among likely voters, with Lieberman receiving 44 percent of the vote, Lamont 42 percent and Schlesinger 3 percent. Last week, a Quinnipiac University poll showed Lieberman leading Lamont by 12 percentage points among likely voters."
Originally posted by DelmerI saw that article. I think that as LaMont gets more name recognition, he will grow in strength. That is, unless he makes a serious campaign blunder (though Lieberman could also do the same; if he is hoping for Republican votes calling for Rumsfeld's resignation probably isn't a good idea).
Here's a paragraph from today's Forbes.com:
"An American Research Group poll released Tuesday showed Lieberman and Lamont about even among likely voters, with Lieberman receiving 44 percent of the vote, Lamont 42 percent and Schlesinger 3 percent. Last week, a Quinnipiac University poll showed Lieberman leading Lamont by 12 percentage points among likely voters."
Originally posted by no1marauderCampaign blunders aside, I expect it will depend a lot on what happens internationally between now and November. I would also expect some Democrats who voted for LaMont in the primary to have second thoughts when they actually get to the polls in November. I can't see why anyone who voted for Lieberman in the primary would have second thoughts but LaMont is the unknown political quanity and, after all, Lieberman is a known winner in senate races. Even though Lieberman lost as a VP candidate that also has to carry some positive weight with Democratic voters, I would think. I'm guessing that, after all these years, Leiberman has more political clout in the state than was apparent in the primary.
I saw that article. I think that as LaMont gets more name recognition, he will grow in strength. That is, unless he makes a serious campaign blunder (though Lieberman could also do the same; if he is hoping for Republican votes calling for Rumsfeld's resignation probably isn't a good idea).
Originally posted by DelmerI think there will be a lot of Democrats who voted for Lieberman in the primary, but think it's disloyal to the party and "SoreLoserman" for him to run as an Independent. I seriously doubt whether hardly any Democrats who voted for LaMont in the primary will turn around and decide to vote for Lieberman; that doesn't make much sense.
Campaign blunders aside, I expect it will depend a lot on what happens internationally between now and November. I would also expect some Democrats who voted for LaMont in the primary to have second thoughts when they actually get to the polls in November. I can't see why anyone who voted for Lieberman in the primary would have second thoughts but LaMont is t ...[text shortened]... these years, Leiberman has more political clout in the state than was apparent in the primary.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderMaybe, we'll see how it goes in November. I'll keep Lieberman's homepage on my desktop for the next couple of months. The internet is great for keeping up with politics in far away places. In any case it will be an interesting race to watch unfold. Our Michigan governor's race will be another as our "socialist, Canadian, (very attractive) female governor" tries for a second term against a strong, but new to elective office, successful, Republican businessman. Jobs and business climate being the key to the Michigan race.
I think there will be a lot of Democrats who voted for Lieberman in the primary, but think it's disloyal to the party and "SoreLoserman" for him to run as an Independent. I seriously doubt whether hardly any Democrats who voted for LaMont in the primary will turn around and decide to vote for Lieberman; that doesn't make much sense.
Originally posted by no1marauderwhat about all the armchair generals who said there weren't enough troops? think they'll shut up now?
While polls indicate that most Americans want the US to start withdrawing from Iraq, the Bush administration has quietly raised the level of troops to 138,000, an increase of 11,000 since the beginning of the year. And it is calling back into service those who have completed their 4 year active duty requirement and are currently in the Ready reserves bec ...[text shortened]... ill it be before supporters of the war suffer political consequences (like Joe Lieberman did)?
Originally posted by zeeblebotOf course those "armchair generals" included the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
what about all the armchair generals who said there weren't enough troops? think they'll shut up now?
My number of US troops that should have been deployed in Iraq is 0, so I'll leave it to you right wingers to fight that one out.
Originally posted by no1marauderTrue.
Of course those "armchair generals" included the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
My number of US troops that should have been deployed in Iraq is 0, so I'll leave it to you right wingers to fight that one out.
They should have been sent to North Korea, Iran and Pakistan.