A question for my friends on the left.........

[Navy Pride]

If the polls show that most Americans are against the war in Iraq how can you explain the fact that in the latest polls Leiberman is leading Lamont by a 46% to 41%?

 

[jfuh]

If the polls show that most Americans are against the war in Iraq how can you explain the fact that in the latest polls Leiberman is leading Lamont by a 46% to 41%?

How about posting the poll? Also, the war is not the only reason that lamont beat out leiberman. But I think you know that already?

 

[aps]

If the polls show that most Americans are against the war in Iraq how can you explain the fact that in the latest polls Leiberman is leading Lamont by a 46% to 41%?

He has name recognition, and I think that the republicans in that state know that they can't vote for the republican, so they might as well vote for Lieberman.

 

[Navy Pride]

How about posting the poll? Also, the war is not the only reason that lamont beat out leiberman. But I think you know that already?

Your wish is my command but the poll was not 46 to 41 Leiberman, I apologize for that........It is 49 to 38 favoring Leiberman and don't kid yourself, the reason Leiberman lost in that primary was because of his support of the Iraq War and you know it......

Here you go, eat your heart out::roll: So much for polls that say Americans want out of Iraq......

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/08/17/ap/us/d8ji5mj01.txt

New Poll Shows Lieberman Leading Lamont
By SUSAN HAIGH Thursday, August 17, 2006

HARTFORD, Conn. - Ned Lamont, whose anti-war campaign rattled the political landscape by toppling Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary, is gaining support among voters _ but Lieberman still has an edge, according to a poll released Thursday.

The Quinnipiac University poll has Lieberman leading Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from 4 percent. Among likely voters, Lieberman was supported by 53 percent, compared to Lamont's 41 percent and Schlesinger's 4 percent.

 

[Navy Pride]

He has name recognition, and I think that the republicans in that state know that they can't vote for the republican, so they might as well vote for Lieberman.

Are you saying Lamont does not have name recognition in Conn. then how did he win the primary? Same 2 guys running....

 

[Iriemon]

If the polls show that most Americans are against the war in Iraq how can you explain the fact that in the latest polls Leiberman is leading Lamont by a 46% to 41%?

Does the Leiberman vs. Lamont poll purport to

1. Be representative of Americans in general?
2. Represent an accurate correlation between views on the candidates and views on the war on Iraq?

 

[Navy Pride]

Does the Leiberman vs. Lamont poll purport to

1. Be representative of Americans in general?
2. Represent an accurate correlation between views on the candidates and views on the war on Iraq?

I think it says a lot about what the citizens of a liberal state think about the war in Iraq and it might say how the whole country feels about it in spite of what the left wing media preaches.......One would think that if Conn. was against the war and the only major difference between the 2 candidates is the war and the pro war canidate is creaming the "Cut and Run" candidate.well you do the math my friend........

 

[Iriemon]

I think it says a lot about what the citizens of a liberal state think about the war in Iraq and it might say how the whole country feels about it in spite of what the left wing media preaches.......One would think that if Conn. was against the war and the only major difference between the 2 candidates is the war and the pro war canidate is creaming the "Cut and Run" candidate.well you do the math my friend........

I think it says you are making unfounded inferences from the data.

 

[Navy Pride]

I think it says you are making unfounded inferences from the data.

Can you elaborate?

 

[Iriemon]

Can you elaborate?

You are assuming the poll data of Leiberman/Lamont in Conn. reflects the single issue of support for the Iraq war. There are many other reasons Leiberman might by polling higher in a general Conn. poll, not least of which is name recongnition among the general Conn. populace.

You are also assuming that the Conn. poll data reflects national attitude on the war, which it does not because Conn. is just one state and this was not a poll on the war.

If you want accurate poll information on how Americans feel about the war, as opposed to how folks in Conn. feel about Leiberman vs. Lamont, there are plenty of polls out there to consider.

 

[Navy Pride]

You are assuming the poll data of Leiberman/Lamont in Conn. reflects the single issue of support for the Iraq war. There are many other reasons Leiberman might by polling higher in a general Conn. poll, not least of which is name recongnition among the general Conn. populace.

You are also assuming that the Conn. poll data reflects national attitude on the war, which it does not because Conn. is just one state and this was not a poll on the war.

If you want accurate poll information on how Americans feel about the war, as opposed to how folks in Conn. feel about Leiberman vs. Lamont, there are plenty of polls out there to consider.

Well what other major issues to Lamont and Leiberman disagree on......I watched their debate and that is basicly all Lamont pounded him on........

Well if you same name recognition in the state of Conn. then how did Lamont beat him in the primary?

Oh I see in your mind the how the people of one of the most liberal states in the union feel about the war is not relevant.......

Bottom line if any state would favor and anti war candidate it would be a state like Conn. so maybe the national polls put out by the left wing media saying everyone is against staying in Iraq may not be accurate........I mean Leiberman is not just winning by the margin of error like Lamont did in the primary he is stomping the "Cut and Run" candidate...

 

[Iriemon]

Well what other major issues to Lamont and Leiberman disagree on......I watched their debate and that is basicly all Lamont pounded him on........

Well if you same name recognition in the state of Conn. then how did Lamont beat him in the primary?

Oh I see in your mind the how the people of one of the most liberal states in the union feel about the war is not relevant.......

Bottom line if any state would favor and anti war candidate it would be a state like Conn. so maybe the national polls put out by the left wing media saying everyone is against staying in Iraq may not be accurate........I mean Leiberman is not just winning by the margin of error like Lamont did in the primary he is stomping the "Cut and Run" candidate...

You tell me -- if Conn. is a Democratic state, and Lamont won the democratic primary, why is he behind Leiberman in the polls?

If this poll data means that America supports the war, why do national polls indicate a firm majority is against it?

 

[Navy Pride]

You tell me -- if Conn. is a Democratic state, and Lamont won the democratic primary, why is he behind Leiberman in the polls?

If this poll data means that America supports the war, why do national polls indicate a firm majority is against it?

1. That is and easy one.Because the people of Conn. want to elect someone who does not want to "Cut and Run" in Iraq.........The American people may not like the Iraq war but they don't want to desert the Iraqi people before the job is finished............

That is why Lamont will go down in Conn. and Republicans will retain the Congress in November...Book it.........

2. Because those polls are published by a left wing media.......and they ask the wrong question......They ask was it a mistake to go to war in Iraq when they should be asking do you want to "Cut and Run" in Iraq.........

That is the poll I posted here in DP and most people said finish the job........

The results of that poll were 23 for finishing the job and 16 for cutting and running.......

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/12861-time-cut-run-iraq-12.html

I think that says it all......

 

[Iriemon]

1. That is and easy one.Because the people of Conn. want to elect someone who does not want to "Cut and Run" in Iraq.........The American people may not like the Iraq war but they don't want to desert the Iraqi people before the job is finished............

That is why Lamont will go down in Conn. and Republicans will retain the Congress in November...Book it.........

2. Because those polls are published by a left wing media.......and they ask the wrong question......They ask was it a mistake to go to war in Iraq when they should be asking do you want to "Cut and Run" in Iraq.........

That is the poll I posted here in DP and most people said finish the job........

The results of that poll were 23 for finishing the job and 16 for cutting and running.......

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/12861-time-cut-run-iraq-12.html

I think that says it all......

Well maybe you are right. I don't purport to be able to tell the future when it comes to politics. Tho' I'm not sure how much weight I'd give your fair and balanced poll as a predictor of national attitude.

 

[Navy Pride]

Well maybe you are right. I don't purport to be able to tell the future when it comes to politics. Tho' I'm not sure how much weight I'd give your fair and balanced poll as a predictor of national attitude.

Me either but at the very least it has to make you wonder that if you have a very blue state like Conn and the polls say the rest of the country of the country both red and blue states are against the Iraq war and that blue state elects a pro war candidate what exactly that means.......

At the very least it can not be good news for the anti war democratic party........

 

[aps]

Are you saying Lamont does not have name recognition in Conn. then how did he win the primary? Same 2 guys running....

When only democrats are voting--Lamont won. When both dems and repubs are being polled, Lieberman is more popular because the repubs are voting for him and NOT Lamont.

 

[BWG]

What's getting lost in all this is the Republicans are turning their backs on GOP Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger. Saying that he is not a credible candidate. Proof that the cons will eat their own.

This morning, a source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in a phone interview that the party will not help Schlesinger or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.

Then, the powers that be spoke and the NRSC changed their stance to..

An NRSC spokesman just called to make clear the distinction between actively and openly supporting Lieberman, which they're not doing, and merely opting not to support a Republican in Connecticut.

Mustn't get out of step with the party line....LOL

 

[Navy Pride]

When only democrats are voting--Lamont won. When both dems and repubs are being polled, Lieberman is more popular because the repubs are voting for him and NOT Lamont.

Yeah but there are only 50,000 registered voters in Conn......The people that are not just Republicans that are hurting Lamont but Independents......

The reason Lamont won is because in primary whether they be Republican or Democrat the far left base of the party turn out......They are not representives pf the party whether they be cut and run dems or religeous right republicans.........

You have to admit after all of the dumping of Leiberman by the cut and run dems it would be a terrible defeat for their party..........

 

[Navy Pride]

What's getting lost in all this is the Republicans are turning their backs on GOP Senate candidate Alan Schlesinger. Saying that he is not a credible candidate. Proof that the cons will eat their own.

Then, the powers that be spoke and the NRSC changed their stance to..

Mustn't get out of step with the party line....LOL

Your right they are turning their backs on him and supporting a guy who can win.........The Republican candidate has been involved with gambling problems and has no chance........If I lived in Conn. I would vote for Leiberman too.............The Independents like me are the ones who will reelect Leiberman.......

 

[Iriemon]

Your right they are turning their backs on him and supporting a guy who can win.........The Republican candidate has been involved with gambling problems and has no chance........If I lived in Conn. I would vote for Leiberman too.............The Independents like me are the ones who will reelect Leiberman.......

You're an "independent"? LOL

 

[Navy Pride]

You're an "independent"? LOL

Yes I have to be because I vote for my local congressman Norm Dick who is a democrat.........What Republicans do you vote for?:lol:

 

[Indy]

Yes I have to be because I vote for my local congressman Norm Dick who is a democrat.........What Republicans do you vote for?:lol:

Personally I think your far more democrat than republican, and WAY more liberal than conservative. But then again all I have to go on are your postings on this site and the general "feel" of what you are saying. Wouldn't you agree with me NP? :lol:

 

[Navy Pride]

Personally I think your far more democrat than republican, and WAY more liberal than conservative. But then again all I have to go on are your postings on this site and the general "feel" of what you are saying. Wouldn't you agree with me NP? :lol:

Hmmmmmmm I guess that was said tongue in cheek but tell me one issue that you think I agree with democrats on......

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Yes I have to be because I vote for my local congressman Norm Dick who is a democrat.........What Republicans do you vote for?:lol:

Today Dicks told the SEATTLE TIMES that "it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war... Dicks says the intelligence was 'doctored.' And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency. 'The insurgency has gotten worse and worse,' he said. 'That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.'"

do you vote for him just so you can claim to be moderate, or do you agree witht hese sentiments, Navy boy

 

[Navy Pride]

Today Dicks told the SEATTLE TIMES that "it was all a mistake — his vote, the invasion, and the way the United States is waging the war... Dicks says the intelligence was 'doctored.' And he says the White House didn't plan for and deploy enough troops for the growing insurgency. 'The insurgency has gotten worse and worse,' he said. 'That's where Murtha's rationale is pretty strong — we're talking a lot of casualties with no success in sight. The American people obviously know that this war is a mistake.'"

do you vote for him just so you can claim to be moderate, or do you agree witht hese sentiments, Navy boy

First of all I am no moderate......Lets get that straight Major..........Like Leiberman I don't agree with him on many issues but he is strong on defense and support for the military.........He is instrumental in getting many contracts for the local bases here at Fort Lewis, McChord, Sub base Bangor, and the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and keeping those bases off the closure list...........