Well, I guess that that is one seat that the Republicans won't get...

Well, that's one seat that the Republicans won't get in November...

So... if the democrats don't support Lieberman, that's somehow bad and disloyal, but if the republicans don't support their candidate, it's just logical, given his numbers.

Yes, I see...

"Well, that's one seat that the Republicans won't get in November..."

also one seat the Democrats won't get either.

"If Lamont's victory in the primary was considered a referendum on Bush and/or the war in Iraq, then anti-war Democrats must be kicking themselves in private now, because this referendum is currently looking much better for Bush and the war then it is for the far-left base of the Democratic Party."

I really don't understand this statement. I don't know if the results in CT will translate to other parts of the country but what happened there is this: when Iraq was a major issue in a campaign and the contrast between the positions of the candidates was stark, the result was record turnout with the progressive supported candidate winning.

The fact that dems went to the polls in record numbers is a really bad sign for Bush. Yes, nearly half of them voted for Lieberman but a lot of those voters were motivated by cross cutting issues like Big Labor GOTV, pork concerns, Jewish support for a Jewish incumbant, etc. How many voted for Lieberman because he advocated stay the course in Iraq, not many if the polls of democratic support for that position are to be believed.

If the Iraq war issue can motivate dems, it makes it harder for the republicans to rely on the cross cutting issues to get out their base (just in this cycle they have been turning to immigration, gay marriage and other issues to rally). The Iraq war has lost a lot of support among republicans, even more among independents.

The dems were banking on that bringing out voters without candidates having to draw really clear lines. The Lamont election which drew those lines (compared to other elections like CA - 50th that didn't) reflects how important to turnout clearly contrasting your position with the opposition's can be. Like I said, I don't know if dems across the country will be as motivated as CT. dems regarding Iraq but I don't see how this benefits Bush. Either it hurts him or doesn't hurt him, but I don't think it benefits him.

UofAZGrad, can you think of any other race where there is primarily one single issue dividing the candidates? Assuming you can (the Bilbray/Busby race would be a good example, IMHO), can you think of one where the dividing issue is the Iraq war (the Bilbray/Busby race would not be a good example)?

To quote Tip O'Neil (who had a bigger nose than even Ted Kennedy) "All politics is local".

My Lord, I apologize for that nose comment.

UofAZgrad- You realize CT is a very blue state and this only brought a 4 point win?

"The Iraq war has lost a lot of support among republicans, even more among independents."

From http://www.pollingreport.com/Iraq.htm
CBS News/New York Times Poll 7/21-25/06
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
47% Did the right thing. 5% Unsure.

USA Today/Gallup Poll. July 21-23, 2006
"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by August 2007, that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq."
Take as Long as Needed 38%
Send more troops 7%
Unsure 2%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. July 11-12, 2006.
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you think would do a better job on each of the following issues? Iraq."
Republicans 36%, Equal 10%, Unsure 16%

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 3-6,
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq?"
Republicans 40%, Neither 11%, Unsure 5%
"Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?"
Increased 17%, Same 27%, Unsure 3%
"Do you think the Democrats in Congress do or do not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?"
Do not: 66%, Unsure 6%

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Aug. 10-11, 2006
"How confident are you that the United States will successfully establish a stable democratic form of government in Iraq over the long term? Are you very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?"
Very confident 11%, Somewhat confident 32%, Unsure 3%
"From what you know now, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or not?"
Right thing 49%, Unsure 4%

Now let me call attention to a few things. Most of the poll numbers on the war come down with no less than 45% supporting the war and/or unsure. You may remember that percentage because it's the same percentage the polls showed Bush had a week before beating poor Kerry by 4 million votes. It's true, the MSM has bashed Bush enough that when it's about him personally it's not supported, about 2/3 disapprove of how he's handled the war. 2/3 is also the ratio of people who think the Democrats don't have a plan on the war, not counting those who aren't sure that they don't have a plan on the war. And the most recent of all the polls (not even a Fox News poll for you to deride) shows 49% of Americans think we did the right thing in going to Iraq. So where exactly is the "lost support" you lament among republicans and democrats for the war? Hezbollah has reminded America that this is a war we must win, even when our nation sees how our soldiers have sacrificed for years.

Morris, I can't tell whether you are a troll or not. Your numbers don't sound so good. Or is it that you hope we don't pay attention to what you didn't say? As far as I can tell, not only don't you cite references (none that I could link up with anyway), but you don't offer any statistics that add up to 100%. Worse, the ones that I do link up with give very different numbers than the ones you offer. What's that about? Are you trying to lie or something? I'm just asking. And I will happily withdraw my question when you provide more info. This is, after all, the fact-based community you're dealing with. For that reason it is incumbent upon you to be scrupulously honest. You wouldn't want your numbers to be two years or so out of date, right?

Morris: "Now let me call attention to a few things. Most of the poll numbers on the war come down with no less than 45% supporting the war and/or unsure. You may remember that percentage because it's the same percentage the polls showed Bush had a week before beating poor Kerry by 4 million votes."

I think your numbers are way off. But I am willing to stand corrected. Do you have citations? That Kerry statement would be particularly nice (not the vote count but the war numbers). Quite frankly, I'm having a hard time verifying ANY of the numbers you cited (except the vote count). Even the one reference you offered (pollingreport.com) isn't working. So I have to ask... did you actually research this stuff or did you pull it off some web site and assume it was accurate?

Darn, that was the weirdest double-post yet! Lol! Anyway, both are accurate in their own way. So take your pick.

Ricorun-
Morris' numbers dont add up because he's not telling the whole story. He got most of his info from
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Now let me call attention to a few things myself. In reading your post Morris I was wondering why you left out two things that I think are important to mention. 1) the Democrats numbers, and 2) the trending of all the numbers from back near the beginning of the Iraq invasion. So i looked into it.

"From http://www.pollingreport.com/Iraq.htm
CBS News/New York Times Poll 7/21-25/06
"Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out?"
47% Did the right thing. 5% Unsure.

I think it does need to be mentioned that you left out the % of those that responded with we did'nt do the right thing by invading Iraq. Let me help you out with that

48% say we didn't do the right thing by invading Iraq

Trending that back to December of 2003 the numbers read somewhat differently then:

63% Did the right thing. 31% Didn't do the right thing. 6% Not sure.

I'd call that a loss of support.

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. July 11-12, 2006.
"Which political party -- the Democrats or the Republicans -- do you think would do a better job on each of the following issues? Iraq."
Republicans 36%, Equal 10%, Unsure 16%

Again the Dems lead in that question with 38%. Thats up from 20% in May of 2003 and your 36% now is down from 52% in that same month. A dramaitic shift in both directions to say the least.

"Do you think the Democrats in Congress do or do not have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?"
Do not: 66%, Unsure 6%

This is the only place where you mentioned the Dems numbers because you think it looks bad on them to do so. I think your playing a little fast and loose with this and not giving the whole picture here.
The 66% who reponded "Do Not" today is actually down from the 74% it was in December of 2005. "Do" is actually up 4 percentage points from that time.
On the other side when asked if Bush and the republicans have a clear plan for the situation in Iraq the numbers looked like this;

Do 33% Does not 64% Unsure 3%

So when you talk about nearly 2/3 of people thinking the Dems dont have a plan for Iraq you should also say to they dont think the republicans have a plan either. Let's just agree to call that war fatigue.

What were the numbers for republicans in October of 2003?

Do 42% Does Not 53% Unsure 5%

Thats called trending negatively for Republicans and positively for Democrats.

"Do you think the number of U.S. military forces in Iraq should be increased, decreased, or kept about the same?"
Increased 17%, Same 27%, Unsure 3%

Now this one really sparked my interest because the numbers are so low in the answers you cited and I began wondering "why are they so low?" Oh yea, it's because you left out one answer catagory. The ones who said DECREASED and they came to ..................53%
That is UP from 44% in March of 2005. How is the message "Stay the course" being recieved in other words troop levels to remain the same? Not very well. Down from 36% in March of 2005 to its now 27%.

I guess the anti-Iraq War extreme left isn't looking so extreme any more huh?

"Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Aug. 10-11, 2006
"How confident are you that the United States will successfully establish a stable democratic form of government in Iraq over the long term? Are you very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?"
Very confident 11%, Somewhat confident 32%, Unsure 3%"

You left out not too confident 24% and not at all confident 30%.
I guess you just overlooked that as "unimportant"

Originally not to confident was 19% and WOW!!!! not at all confident was a lowly 14%

"From what you know now, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or not?"
Right thing 49%, Unsure 4%"

Apart from mentioning the 47% that say it was the wrong thing to do I feel that citing just this question as a barometer of support for the war is very misleading especially since there is another poll that flies in the face of this result.

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Aug. 3-6, 2006. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS. RV = registered voters.

"All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?"

WorthFighting 39% Not Worth Fighting59% Unsure 1%

Trending that from back in March of 2003 it read as follows:
Worth fighting 70% Not worth fighting 27% Unsure 4%

So now I hope you can see that when we say there is diminishing support for the Bush/ Republicans policies on the Iraq war, you can see a trend that says there is no confidence for "stay the course"

Rico and Lefto,
What I'm responding to here is the idea that the war is losing support among Republicans and Independents. The latest poll numbers show it's a dead heat, 48% against and 49% for. How in the world is this losing support when the numbers you point out show that this is more support than it's had for the last year? I'll freely admit it's less support than when the war started, but it's equally divided, something quite amazing considering we didn't find the WMDs we were looking for. I credit the Hezbos and the would be liquid bombers with reminding our nation of the price of an early peace.

Again, your numbers on Dems and Repubs show the same thing, a statistical dead heat. And that's why I pointed out to you that in the last 2 presidential elections, democrats were declared the victors by early polls. These instruments are not exact to a percent and it isn't unusual as in the last election that they're as much as 5% off, regardless of the "margin of error" because they typically undersample conservatives as they've done in the last elections. With the doom and gloom of the left and MSM about the war, it is a testament to the American people and alternative media that we're equally divided and if anything gaining support in the latest polls.

I find it funny you act as though I was misleading you. Have you liberals really gotten that slow that you can't add to 100%? Or do you just not pay attention? I specifically said most of the numbers added up to 45% supporting or unsure about the war, except the most recent numbers. Considering the similarity between that and Bush's poll numbers a week before the last election, I think it's easily a statistical dead heat of an evenly divided country suffering from war fatigue as you say, but still supporting a war we've been fighting for years even without WMDs. I guess many Americans still see Iraq as part of the GWOT, no?

I'll fully admit there's one poll out of all of them that said 59% say Iraq is not worth fighting. You may not have taken a class in advanced stats, so let me help you out. When one poll is so different from the others, it tends to indicate error. And the poll that says 49% of Americans think we did the right thing by going to Iraq is a week more recent than this poll.

The diminishing support you speak of is a tide that has once again turned. Americans have been reminded of their enemies. You might learn something from them about how to fight them.

Morris, when I first tried the link you provided I couldn't get it to work. It's working now, so I can see where you're getting your numbers.

I'll fully admit there's one poll out of all of them that said 59% say Iraq is not worth fighting.

And of course the poll-loving LLL jumps all over it with "Oooohs" and "Ahhhhhs" and get smug looks on their faces. Whereas late on election eve, the smug looks are replaced by the "what happened?" and "Oh No! Not again" looks, while the lesser libs try to get their money back on the cases of champagne left undrunk and the party favors left unopened. Live by the poll, die by the poll. Ask Gore. Ask Kerry. Ask Dean.

I wonder if support for Lieberman is such a good idea for the GOP. What's stopping him from forgiving his former party, if he wins, and announcing his return to the Democratic Party?

Still, I suppose, better Joe than the that whack job of a nominee the dunks have running.

Conneticutt is a Democrat stronghold and Senator Lieberman is popular there so Schlesinger was always considered something of a sacrificial lamb, anyway.

The fun part is that while Joe has been a reliable (D) vote in the Senate by going Independent he severs all ties to the Democrat Party. Meaning that he can vote for them or not; he has absolutely no obligation to tow the party line. There aren't enough Democrat votes in the Senate to snub him, either: Reid may want to ignore him but he can't afford to.

If the Demmocrats gain the majority by 2+ votes in November his bargaining position is extremely weak. But if they remain in the minority or (especially!) tie the GOP Reid will have to offer generous terms for him to caucus with them, else he'll screw them up by moving across the aisle.

Oh, and Lieberman WILL win the election. Lamont is already 6 points behind him in the polls and the polls are biased against Lieberman by 8-10 points. A lot of normally reliabie Democrats voters who like Joe will sit this election out and Republicans will vote for him just to tick off the Democrats.

Rico also demanded proof that failure to know or understand driving rules would result in poorer drivers. Demanding proof or supporting numbers is a favorite ploy, often merely oppositional in nature.

I haven't seen or heard anyone discuss the fact that it is impossible to know, contemporaneously, exactly how effective an action is and has been. It requires time to settle and a historical perspective, which includes projection of what might have occurred if that action had not been taken.

The problem is that the situation in question is not static.

If we could have had a way to freeze Iraq in 2003---to keep its WMD from progressing, to keep it from funding or supporting terrorism in any way, to keep it from furthering its nuclear weapons development, to keep it exactly in statis, then we could possibly say that what we did was or was not effective in specific ways.

But this is impossible.

Iraq was moving, changing, developing, and incubating all sorts of plans, programs, and alliances.

Yes, we knew that if we removed the rigid controlling influence of the Sadaam regime, the seething resentments of various factions would be free to develop and be acted upon. This is not a surprise, much as Lefties would like to pretend that no one predicted this. What we do not know, cannot know, is what would have happened if we had not unseated Sadaam. So pretending that the factional rivalries were CREATED by the U.S. invasion is simply silly.

There are way too many possibilities along the time line. The most likely, to me (sans absolute data to support my speculation) is that our occupation may have accelerated the near-civil-war situation we are seeing now. Not created it, just moved it to a different spot on the time line. Because it was going to happen, one way or another. Any event which altered the balance of power in Iraq would have had a freeing influence on this situation.

While the neorads like to claim that all the problems in Iraq at this time can be laid at the feet of the Bush administration, the fact is that some of what we see probably would have happened anyway---but happened simultaneously with advancement of various WMD, including nuclear weaponry, increased training support for various terrorist factions, and the very strong likelyhood of the provision of WMD to said terrorists.

So it is not as if an Iraq ignored in 2002-2003 would be same today as it was then. The indications that pressed us to action then indicated that if Iraq had been left alone and allowed to incubate its various programs, the Iraq of 2006 would be a far more dangerous, far more fornidable, and far more lethal Iraq than we could easily deal with.

But the Left is genius at manipulating fact, manipulating information, and manipulating the thinking process, such as it is, of millions who choose to simply accept what they are told without applying any analysis. And their polls present the Iraq of 2002-2003 compared to the Iraq of today and ask for an opinion on whether it, and we, are better off now than then. They never introduce the spectre of what Iraq would likely have become by now and compare THAT to the Iraq of today---one with elected representative government, improved infrastructure in most parts of the country, an improved economy (and economic future) improved education, freedom of women, and so on.

It simply does not make sense to compare the Iraq of 2002 with the Iraq of today and imply that the Iraq of 2002 would have still existed if we had not invaded.

But back to the thread..

I don't know why the Republicans didn't nominate a viable candidate in CT. Maybe they didn't have anyone else willing to be a human sacrifice in such an overwhelmingly Liberal state---who knows? But to claim that the prospect of electing a Republican to the House in CT is because the Dems have a better person running is a wild leap.

And in this case, they don't.

Also, pretending that their candidate's nomination is not a vote on the war is extremely silly. The Left turned their backs on Leiberman the day he said he supported the war. They have been scrambling ever since to try to come up with a more palatable excuse, but with no luck. The man they dumped had an impeccable record of Liberal voting on all issues---except one. He was the darling of the party, till he made this one comment.

They have put their money on an anti-war platform, and have to live with it. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

And if the President chooses to actively support a candidate or merely to sit on the sidelines, it in no way compares to the blood lust savagery of the Liberal attacks on one of their own. I know the Liberal dictionary lets you fill in the blanks to define words any way to want, to fit any occasion, but the President, or the GOP, have in no way attacked or denigrated any of their candidates for their political stances.

On the other hand, the Party has come out in criticism of Republicans found to be breaking the law or acting unethically, when proven to be doing so.

This is the big difference, I think, between the parties. The Dems will savage one of their own for having a dissenting political opinion, but support lawbreakers and pond scum. The Republicans will not kick out one who has a dissenting political opinion, but will not tolerate proven malfeasance.