DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Brassmask on November 09, 2006, 05:17:19 PM
-
The honorable Mr. Baker gives some weight to the idea that liberals may have been so discontent as to have affected Ford's race. Is it possible? The implications are daunting.
This is THE political reporter for Memphis.
Right up to the end, Ford was routinely being described by those pundits who were hazarding election forecasts as having run this year's best campaign. But that surely was a paradox: In the year of a roaring Democratic tide, with personal gifts that were undeniable and with coverage of his race with Corker devoted disproportionately to him, how indeed could Ford have lost?
One clue, perhaps, was the debate that raged amongst progressive bloggers in Memphis. It narrowed down to the following choices: Hold your nose and vote for Ford, whose politics had gone conspicuously rightward; vote for a fringe candidate of the left, such as the Green Party's Chris Lugo; desist from voting in the Senate race altogether; or, as a fourth alternative that came to be increasingly taken seriously, vote for Corker.
http://memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A21632
-
Could be a powerful tool at the nomination stage for progressive Democrats - - put up a candidate we can support or we'll torpedo her/him on Election Day.
-
Could be a powerful tool at the nomination stage for progressive Democrats - - put up a candidate we can support or we'll torpedo her/him on Election Day.
That would be called the Lamont strategy, no?
-
The Lamont strategy . . . ?
It should have worked. Maybe the wild card there was Lieberman soldiering on as an independent. That wouldn't happen in a lot of races, would it? Lieberman had his own money supply network, I think. Something about that race doesn't seem easily reproducible, whether it's Lieberman's strong local base, his easy access to funds independent of the Democrats . . . or maybe just that Lamont was not the right guy.
I'm still trying to figure that one out. It pissed me off enormously.
-
Lieberman gets big campaign bucks from the pharmeceuticals, which is probably part of the warm connection with the Bush family, who have largely been one of the Pharms best friends in DC.
It will be interesting to see how Lieberman factors into this newly mentioned move to force the pharms to negotiate pill prices for the poor and elderly.
Seems no matter what the issue, Joe lands not right but far right.
It was Joe, you might remember, who spent his every available camera moment during the debate to capsize Dean. He could not win, and he knew it, so he just attacked the single democrat who ever mentioned corporate corruption.
Pelosi has the political expertise to hold them all as a unit, but Lieberman will surface to lead a less progressive side. It will be interesting to see whose head pops up when Lieberman's does.
-
"Seems no matter what the issue, Joe lands not right but far right."
I wouldn't think so , does his voteing record seem liberal or conservative?
How was he suitable in the 2000 race and unsuitable now?
-
The Lamont strategy . . . ? It should have worked. I'm still trying to figure that one out. It pissed me off enormously.
How about the idea that running on a pure anti-war Anti-Bush platform just doesn't fly with the electorate
-
How was he suitable in the 2000 race and unsuitable now?
============================================
He was chosen in 2000 because he criticized Clinton (because Gore wanted to distance himself from the Monica scandal provoked by the asshole ratwingers) and because he was Jewish and the Gore campaign needed money. in addition to votes Jews have LOTS of money, and gave a ton of it to the campaign.
Clinton's "morality" is no longer an issue.
The Jewish card has been played and is now played out.
Note how neither of these had a damned thing to do with Leiberman's voting record.
As for the Republicans, I hardly think that their changing his name to "Loserman" will have made Leiberman love them.
-
State officials said turnout appeared unusually high for a race that Lamont had framed as a referendum on President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq - and Lieberman's refusal to back the withdrawal of U.S. troops. With 655 of 778 precincts reporting, Lieberman beat Lamont, 50 percent to 39 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger had 10 percent.
Republican: Alan Schlesinger got 10% of the vote. It appears a lot of Republicans voted for someone other than a Republican. Really folks, its not that hard to figure out.
-
Republican: Alan Schlesinger got 10% of the vote. It appears a lot of Republicans voted for someone other than a Republican. Really folks, its not that hard to figure out.
There aren't a whole lot of Republicans in that state?
-
There aren't a whole lot of Republicans in that state?
Yeah, looked up the exit polls from Connecticut. 26% of the voters are registered Republican.
-
There aren't a whole lot of Republicans in that state?
Yeah, looked up the exit polls from Connecticut. 26% of the voters are registered Republican.
So you have a state, chalk full of Dems (North Eastern Dems for that measure), and it was that group of voters who told the pure anti-war candidate & Democrat primary winner, to go pound sand. Larry was right when he said, it's not that hard to figure out
-
So you have a state, chalk full of Dems (North Eastern Dems for that measure), and it was that group of voters who told the pure anti-war candidate & Democrat primary winner, to go pound sand. Larry was right when he said, it's not that hard to figure out
Well, actually, only 38% are registered Democrat. The rest are independants. I'm not sure about Connecticut, but most north eastern states don't allow independants to vote in Democrat primaries - they are not allowed to vote in primaries, or in some states, they can vote in Republican primaries.
So, there was a significant voice in that state that didn't get heard in the Democrat primary.
-
Sirs, Source, I hope you have statistics to back up your claim. The fact is when a Republican get only 10% of the votes in any state, that raises a red flag. In any other election year the Republicans would be in court demanding a recount and an investigation. Take my word for it, Sirs, Republicans elected their man, by what ever means became necessary.
-
Take my word for it, Sirs, Republicans elected their man, by what ever means became necessary.
The Repubs went with the devil they knew. I guess the thinking was that in a two way race between Lieberman and Lamont, Lieberman was closer to their thinking than Lamont. Sounds like they were being pragmatic and wanted their vote to count.
-
Sirs, Source, I hope you have statistics to back up your claim. The fact is when a Republican get only 10% of the votes in any state, that raises a red flag. In any other election year the Republicans would be in court demanding a recount and an investigation. Take my word for it, Sirs, Republicans elected their man, by what ever means became necessary.
Larry, to be bluntly honest, I have no clue what you just said. Ami provided the statistics, and what's been made clear is that a candidate running on a pure anti-war/anti-Bush platform is not going to do well.
And your continued harping on non-validated claims of stolen elections under Bush, now completely debunked as this current election cycle had just as many if not more close razor thin elections, that happened to go the Democrats way, yet you don't see the GOP going ape snot demanding recount after recount, investigation after investigation.
-
The fact is when a Republican get only 10% of the votes in any state, that raises a red flag.
Not when Republicans only amount to 26% of the voters. Even if every Republican voted for the Republican candidate, that candidate would have lost. As BT said, they made a pragmatic vote - the race was down to Lieberman and Lamont, they made sure the one who was closest to their viewpoint won.
-
Sounds like they were being pragmatic and wanted their vote to count.
Good afternoon, BT, I can live with that. I'm not sure Democrats are going to be happy with the veto-proof democrats. Gun control, for example. Civil liberties may become an issue with the dems as much as it did with the Reps. Like they say, be careful what you ask for.
-
"In any other election year the Republicans would be in court demanding a recount and an investigation."
Also known as "going Gore" .
I think you are projecting, Republicans are not famous for attempting to overturn an election in the court , they are known for respecting the process.
-
I agree Sirs, a lot of things don't make sense about this election. There were a lot of deals being cut to avoid recounts and court battles. Personally, I would like to have seen a more balanced result. Too much power in the hands of one party, often lead to a bad deal for the country.
-
So, they wanted their vote to count BY VOTING FOR THE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE.
How novel.
-
So, they wanted their vote to count BY VOTING FOR THE THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE.
How novel.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
But don't it give you hope?
-
I agree Sirs, a lot of things don't make sense about this election. There were a lot of deals being cut to avoid recounts and court battles.
Where do you get that from? Who?, what deals? A source would be a nice addition to that claim
-
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
But don't it give you hope?
some but not much.
-
Well Sirs, that is just a total assumption on my part. I mean, Bush could have faced cirtan impeachment, but the dems made Bush an offer he could not refuse. Don't give us any trouble and we want impeach you. Thats just my guess of how it went down.
-
Well Sirs, that is just a total assumption on my part. I mean, Bush could have faced cirtan impeachment, but the dems made Bush an offer he could not refuse. Don't give us any trouble and we want impeach you. Thats just my guess of how it went down.
Ahh, so its complete unverifiable, unstubstantiated uncorroborated guess? Yet you proclaim it with such factual certainty "There were a lot of deals being cut to avoid recounts and court battles."
I wonder why's that
-
I confess Sirs, I can't explain it, its just a gut feeling that dems are going to let Bush get away with mass murder and insurrection.
-
I confess Sirs, I can't explain it, its just a gut feeling that dems are going to let Bush get away with mass murder and insurrection.
Historians are unflinching.
The passage of time will reveal all.
How will you feel if you find that what you thought was honesty and what you thought was deception reverses?
-
That is what is most scary of all.
Most people think the new World Order is just a conspiracy theory. The NWO is a coalition of State subsidized corporate entities. The so-called new world order came into existence at the end of WW II. The power was shared between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until 1991. The failure of the Soviet system ended the relevance of the Warsaw Pact. Iraq is now under occupation and the Soviet Block Nations are unstable. The (Order) is changing and duplicity is a constant among ally. I am smart enough to know, I don't know what is really going on. Thats why Americans must demand more oversight.
-
That is what is most scary of all.
Most people think the new World Order is just a conspiracy theory. The NWO is a coalition of State subsidized corporate entities. The so-called new world order came into existence at the end of WW II. The power was shared between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until 1991. The failure of the Soviet system ended the relevance of the Warsaw Pact. Iraq is now under occupation and the Soviet Block Nations are unstable. The (Order) is changing and duplicity is a constant among ally. I am smart enough to know, I don't know what is really going on. Thats why Americans must demand more oversight.
Haahahahahahaa
Quo custodiet ipso custodes?
Or oversight? let me oversight!
If there was that much collusion how could the USSR have failed at all?
-
If there was that much collusion how could the USSR have failed at all?
The answer is Russia ran out of investment capital. The Global economy does not recognize sovereign nations. Today, due to the merger of the NYSE and Archipelago, the Dow itself is being traded. America's financial power is now being used to fund the (Investor) that could be terrorist or any nation who wants to gain a foothold in America. Off course, Archipelago was not an issue debated in 2006. No one in Washington wants to talk about the money. I say, follow the money and you will find the corruption.
-
How would the USSR run out of investmant capitol ?
You were saying that they were in collusion with the west , not rivalry .
There was a lot of Western investment and lending in the USSR , but their Communist syatem was never able to cope .
There is more investment in Russia now than ever before , because now that they are truely economic rivals we are actually in collusion with them.
-
There is more investment in Russia now than ever before , because now that they are truly economic rivals we are actually in collusion with them.
That is my point. Bush and Putin are two men who share one idea, a one World Government. Both men are type "A" authoritarian and both men understand they can do things through that proxy World Government, they could never do under the laws of their respective countries. Both Putin and Bush see the World government as a way to ignore the laws of their own country.
That is not such a big change for the former communist of Russia, but that is a big change for the U.S. Democratic system. Bush has shown a willingness to destroy the Bill Of Rights and Putin has shown he has no intent of every adopting any such civil liberties. The communist and conservative have found common ground and it is somewhere outside of U.S. Jurisdiction. Fascism is the new investment opportunity.
-
I confess Sirs, I can't explain it, its just a gut feeling that dems are going to let Bush get away with mass murder and insurrection.
I think I'm going to have to defer to the facts on the ground vs your gut, on this one Larry
-
I think I'm going to have to defer to the facts on the ground vs your gut, on this one Larry
Why start now?
-
I think I'm going to have to defer to the facts on the ground vs your gut, on this one Larry
Why start now?
Deferring to the facts? Been doin that since day one, big guy. Should take a vacation from that planet of yours and join the here&now sometime
-
I understand it's Saturday night but you really shouldn't drink and post.
-
I understand it's Saturday night but you really shouldn't drink and post.
Occasional Daquari, perhaps once every other month when out with friends. So, what's your excuse?
-
I totally hooked on reality.
-
I totally hooked on reality.
HeheheheheheheheheheheheheRBEheheheheheheheheheheee
-
I totally hooked on reality.
HeheheheheheheheheheheheheRBEheheheheheheheheheheee
:D ditto that one