That's fine, but it's likely the candidate that F'd it up in that case. It has little to do with any national trend.

It's a presidential thread and you mentioned George Bush. What was I thinking?

Actually the correct answer was, "I'm sorry I misread your post."

As to it's importance, if it was alone, yes it means nothing, but it's not alone. The Republicans have lost three special elections in reliably red districts, Hastert's old seat, LA-6 and now MS-1. In all three the RCCC spent a lot of money and still couldn't hold onto them. Add to that the polling data that says 80% of Americans think we're on the wrong track, on almost every issue people say they trust Dems more, many by a wide margin, and self-identification showing Dems holding a 20 point lead. There's also the issue of twenty-five retiring Republican reps(26 if Fossella leaves) and a huge funding disparity between the RCCC and the DCCC. Call me crazy, but I don't think all of that means nothing.

To be fair... this is a Democratic PRESIDENTIAL nominee thread. So I can see the confusion.

Translated, my assumption was correct and you were implying a massive voter movement against the republican party, which is being show through results in state elections. I didn't misread your post at all. With that said, I've seen your arguments throughout this thread and your assumptions shouldn't be surprising to those who have read along. Your bias runs very deep and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

No, you suggested that I thought MS was now going to vote Dem in the presidential election when I most certainly didn't. I was talking specifically about the U.S. House. You also said:


Which is exactly what I'm saying. And talk about bias is just another way to dismiss an argument without engaging the points. You can argue my conclusion is wrong, but there's no bias in the data. Can you actually provide data that suggests this won't be a bad year for the Republican House candidates?

Siddiqui: We've talked about a lot of things outside the Dem. candidates for President here. I don't think it's too difficult to understand that a post with no reference to a Presidential vote switch in MS, indeed isn't about a Presidential vote switch in MS.

Also seeing as how a lot of talking heads are trying to link this with the Presidential election, I can't fault Mizzou at all for thinking that was the link.

I'll be off banging my head against the wall.

That's how we feel when we talk to you, so welcome to the club :D.

There is evidence all around you that there is, indeed, a voter movement against the Republican party, of which last night's result is but one piece. Hastert's seat and the Louisiana seat are two more.

You have many other examples out there. Democrats are outraising Republicans by wide margins at every level. Even when the GOP primary was wide open, Democratic turnout was substantially greater.

Given the underlying national and international factors -- a historically unpopular Republican president, a prolonged and unpopular war, and a struggling national economy -- Democrats are positioned to have a very strong electoral outcome. So strong is the position, in fact, that even the Democrat's proven ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory may not come into play here.

You can argue that McCain has some combination of skills, ability and reputation that make him a strong candidate this fall (although I wouldn't). But you have to admit that the playing field is slanted against him.

This is the statement from the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. It's amazingly devoid of any spin.

Smart. Make it clear to their base that they are in serious trouble. The truth is always an effective weapon.

NARAL endorsed Obama today, despite the scores of women who are pissed that they didn't endorse the SS Hillary.

And this despite this ad in Mississippi, Childers still won:

I fixed it. It was NARAL, too.

NY Times says that Edwards was waiting to figure who was going to be the nominee so he could get a candidate sweet spot. Rumor has it that Elizabeth Edwards isn't a fan of Obama. Edwards wants to be AG. I think he needs to put Hillary on the Supreme Court with the first opening he gets, she probably would take that, provided someone goes away in the next few years.

I actually think Clinton would make a fine Supreme Court justice.

I can't remember the last time I had to see a Supreme Court justice, so that works for me.

Just pure speculation on my part, but is Hillary perhaps vying for the VP spot? She's not dumb, if people in this thread knew she couldn't win quite a while ago, I'm sure she has too.

To me, her continuing to run is her way of showing Obama that he can't win without her voting bloc. It's been successful, because she keeps getting wins.

I'm not sure that a Supreme Court spot deal would mean much to many voters.

Hillary won't be VP. There isn't any incentive for Obama to adopt the Clinton shadow for 4 years or more. He won't pick Edwards either, because no way he wants to be a losing running mate. He'd rather be AG. Her people won't defect to McCain. They won't all coalesce around Obama, no, but...enough of them will, along with the coalition that Obama has built and has energized and haven't seemed to fall off.

He'll have to go with someone who can help him on the board or at least, can give him experience and a 'fresh face'.

CNN is calling it a "surprise endorsement" which is bull, of course. And Clinton is up 28 points in Kentucky.

Third time the GOP (or their surrogates) has used a Wright attacked against a non-Obama Democrat, and it failed for the third time. McCain essentially begged the NC GOP to pull their Wright attack add a few weeks ago, and he can't be happy with this trend.


I actually spoke with Elizabeth semi-personally about this (8 people or so in the conversation), and she believes strongly in the necessity of universality in health care, and thus, is not a proponent of Obama's healthcare plan. She also feels that Clinton has some better policy proposals, but obviously John endorsed the candidate who will win.

Finally, I see it as highly unlikely that J. Edwards recieves an Attorney General's nod. I think that, given his legal history of "ambulance chasing", he would face a fight in the Senate that neither Obama nor Clinton would want to face.

Clinton may be angling for something a bit nicer than VP (which really is a crappy job). She may want SecState.

Reid doesn't seem like he'll give up his majority leader seat for a deal.

Along the lines of my VP post several days ago, I have to wonder - have more Secretaries of State gone on to be President later, or incumbent Vice Presidents?

Not that too many SecStates have made that jump in the last 50 years or so, but still.

The last Secretary of State to become president was James Buchanan (pre-Civil War).

Believe it or not, only four sitting VPs have ever been elected President and George Bush is the only one to have done so in the last 150+ years. Nixon is the only non-sitting VP to be elected President. Truman, LBJ, Teddy Roosevelt and others have been elected after succeeding a president.

Thank you wikipedia. :)

I still say Hillary will get her debts paid off, play nice with the Dems and get Obama in office, wait a year or two and she'll be on the Supreme Court. It's the perfect way to solidify her legacy and she'll last way longer than President Obama will in his office.

Edwards will get a cabinet spot and won't be VP. I still say AG and that confirmation won't be hard, given the yahoos who have served in that role and managed to get confirmed in recent year.

Some Clinton surrogate will get first crack at the VP spot, to help them ensure that the Dems capture the White House, because too many people have too much to lose if they don't capture the big prize this year.

Universal health care with mandates won't happen no matter how much the hard left embraces it. Obama's plan probably won't work either, but...it's close as folks are going to get in this generation to some semblance of universal coverage.

we were discussing this at dinner, and this was the likely scenario we came up with as well.

There is no way. NO WAY, Hillary gets confirmed for the Supreme Court. All the justices on the courts are highly respected jurists and have been on the bench for a while before going to SCOTUS. Hillary's nomination for the court will be compared to Harriet Myers.

I think Ed Rendell gets tapped for VP... it unites the party, gets Obama PA easily and helps him in neighboring Ohio, and Rendell is popular with white, working class voters. Ted Strickland of Ohio may be a better choice aside from the fact that Strickland has always been an Obama supporter and thus doesn't have the "uniting the party" behind it.

Strickland was an early Hillary supporter.

Ah... well then, he could be on the ticket too... but, googling it a bit, it appears he called Obama a "fluff" and that may hurt his chances.

Rendell's popularity is overrated by the MSM. He's not going to be put on the ticket. Strickland is a better choice, but it won't be him either. Giving up his governorship to be VP just isn't in the cards, I don't believe. Especially under Obama.

Clinton is no Harriet Miers. And "highly respected jurists" is a bit of an overstatement, when some of the more recent picks are clearly political hacks in robes.

Every single justice on the SCOTUS bench has been an appeals court judge. And say whatever you will about Roberts and Alito, but both have been respected lawyers and jurists, known for their legal reasoning and analysis. Roberts, in private practice argued a number of cases before the Supreme Court before being an Appeals Court Justice. Alito had been on the 3rd Circuit for about 16 years before getting the nod for the big chair.

Clinton doesn't even have a state judge on her resume. Edwards has more experience in being a SCOTUS judge and even he'd be laughed at for the job.

Clinton will NOT get the job. Maybe she'll be able to get an Appeals Court judgeship for a few years before being considered (if she deserves it). But not right away.

Bill Clinton lost the white vote to Bob Dole in '96. Obama is winning about consistent in most states the white vote at the same clip that other Democrats have won these votes.

The only reason everyone is making such a big deal about Obama not getting the "working class white vote" is because he's black. The fact that he can't get off message or alter his stump speech to try to create a coalition that's never been created of suburban liberals, black working class people and rural whites is because no one has found a way to do that yet. Too many things are at play to really make that work.

Obama might understand and feel for the plight of poor blacks, but he has but a passing familiarity of what rural whites deal with and so, it's probably not a stretch to say that he's got little to draw on in relation to how to communicate with them.

I take it for granted, but there is a certain art to knowing how to navigate the world of small towns in this country. But if there's a candidacy that should be able to find a way to do it, it should be this one.

I don't see them managing to pull it off, though.

I'm aware of their backgrounds. It's not rocket science. She's a different case. With the Dems owning Congress, they'll do what they want. It'll be the scenario everyone prefers. She gets to cement her legacy, she gets to 'serve' in a new way, to be the O'Connor of a new generation and she gets out of the hair of the Senate.

She's a wild card case. It'd not normally happen, but...she's not a normal person.

I don't disagree with why it's unlikely, I'm just saying that...HRC is anything but a "likely" figure. But again, we won't know if it's possible for a while, if ever, depending on what happens in November.

They won't do "what they want". Remember the Dems had solid majorities when President Clinton submitted his health care plan and that died horribly. The American people will see her name submitted and think of it as over the top political. At least Roberts and Alito had the credentials. This would just be seen as blatent politics.

The Republicans, for one, would have a field day with this and the Obama Presidency would be slammed by the public and the media.

Won't happen.

I agree with Siddiqui with the caveat that if there's a second opening on the court it would be possible. Myers would be on the court instead of Alito if it weren't for defections from the Republicans. Personally, I think she would be pretty good on the court. Her knowledge of legislation and the law really impressed me when I saw her last year.

I think (and hope) that Obama would think long and hard before agreeing to pay off any of Hillary's debt. Obama has thrived on receiving small donations and a "grass roots" mentality with his supporters. If he agrees to use ~$12M of those supporters' money to pay off the ill-advised (she could have closed shop and been even six weeks ago) debt of someone that reported earning $100M over the past few years AND loaned herself most of that $12M, people are going to think twice about donating to him again and he will continue playing into the elitist charicature that he has been labeled with.

I am a pretty partisian Democractic voter and I just voted for Obama in the NC primary a little more than a week ago, but his glossing over (my home state of) WV during the primary, rather than putting his feet on the ground, shaking some hands, and getting to know some people throughout the week has turned both me and my wife off of him a bit. Paying off Hillary's debt, on top of that, would probably make me reconsider whether I would want to vote for him in the presidential election.

There is no appreciable difference between the plight of poor blacks and whites. Its the closest thing to a caste system that exists in America today. If Obama understands and feels for the plight of poor blacks, then he can do the same for rural whites because the differences are imaginary.

However, the underlying problem is that an underachier's mentality will almost always shift the blame for lack of personal success on someone else, i.e.-"the man or those damn black people." Obama will not be able to break this defeatist attitude of poor Americans. Hell, the only reason he got such a large proportion of the black vote against Clinton was Clinton's decision to campaign on the basis of winning the hispanic and women's vote.

I think anything less than a reconcilation between the two candidates and Hillary running as VP will spell doom for Obama.

I agree that it would turn me off a bit. Hell, when I give to my candidate and he/she loses, I don't get my money back.

Warren was a looong time ago, back when you didn't have justice subject to ABA rankings and scrutiny over their legal backgrounds. Things have changed greatly since then.

My understanding is that he's forbidden by law to pay off Hillary's debts from his campaign funds. His campaign can only donate the same 2300$ that any individual can donate to a campaign. What he can do is go to his big donors and ask them to donate to Hillary.

I don't know if Hillary can spend her general election funds to pay off her primary election debts. If she can, she has more than enough general elction funds to eventually pay off her debts.

Myers is what I was looking at. Bush thought he could get her on the court, but as soon as she was put forward, the public, the media, and his own party went ballistic. The ABA ranked her poorly and it was dead in the water.


I think people aren't aware of what paying off Hillary's debt means. Obama can't give his supporters money to Hillary (under the law). What would happen is that Obama would run joint fundraisers and have a common fund with Hillary (already began, IIRC) to "elect a Democratic President", and part of that would go to Hillary's debt pay off.

It doesn't matter... its just the way things are now. We demand more credentials to be a SCOTUS judge. The view that the Warren Court legislated from the bench has changed the requirements.

I believe that you can transfer unspent funds -- or debts -- forward to the next election, meaning that she will be able to pay off the debt with general election funds after the convention.

You are right about what Obama could and couldn't do. He can't pay off or accept her debts. But he could pass the hat around on her behalf.

There are no requirements, save getting appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

And while people may be supportive of the actions of the Warren Court (some of them), the idea that it could basically be turned into another legislative branch made people want serious jurists instead of politicians in the role.

siddiqui: But the ABA rating had nothing to do with Myers withdrawal. She pulled her name only after enough conservatives flipped out over her qualifications and political stands. If the Republicans had excepted her nomination she'd be on the court. If Dems would stay behind Clinton, she'd make it. I don't think it's likely she'll be nominated, especially as all the talk now will certainly make a nomination look like a payoff, but if she were nominated she'd probably be confirmed. Of course I'd love to see the hypocrisy of a Republican filibuster over a Clinton nomination.

I think if nominated, she'd be confirmed. The Republicans would bitch and moan a little bit, but they'd secretly be ok with it, since it would mostly shut her up.

The ABA rating contributed to public opinion being in the toilet about the nomination. If the public was ok with it, the conservatives probably would have gone lock step behind it. But Myers was a disaster from the beginning. When the ABA calls you unqualified, its not easy to convince the American people that this should be a SCOTUS nominee.

Now, Obama could try to force it, but it'd drag his approval ratings into the toilet as the public would really be upset over it. Even before the payoff talk. Just from the qualifications point of view. I don't think Obama risks dragging his approval down for it, and it'd give the Republicans something to hammer Obama on.


On a side, tangential note, what a coward John Edwards is. Obviously he was waiting until the bitter end to see which candidate would get the nomination, so he could then throw his support behind them and possibly fanagle his way into an AG role. He would have backed Hillary if she was the one with no chance to lose now.

You say coward. I say smart politician. He doesn't owe anybody anything. He shopped for the best deal and will get it if Obama wins.

Frankly, it smacks of cowardace to me. No principles on who he'd rather support, but wanted to play up a position in the administration.

The joke, of course, is on him. The Edwards support this late in the primary doesn't mean anything really. So Obama doesn't have to be beholden to put him as AG or something else.

Well, from the Edwards camp, they said they were trying to convince both candidates to support more poverty-reduction efforts as well as Elizabeth's attempt to convince Obama to adopt universality in health care. They met with both candidates, and I truly believe that they were trying to affect the candidates position. Thus, John couldn't (and didn't want to) endorse one candidate because he believed he could positively affect the platform of whichever candidate was selected.

Perhaps that was high-minded of him, or perhaps he took that approach so he is set up to receive a nice position, but I think it is important to recognize there was a (possibly meaningless) motive behind his wait.

To be fair to Edwards, I think Obama and he are closer on policy and priorities than he is to HRC.

Edwards's support, I think, does have meaning. It got folks to stop talking about the butt-kicking he received from WV voters, for one. Also, 28 delegates (which I believe was JE's total) is 28 delegates. It is like winning a medium-sized primary.

Are those delegates required to follow Edwards' endorsement? I think that the vast majority would, but I didn't think they were required to support Obama.

Edit: CNN states that it is 19 delegates.

No, Edwards can just released the delegates. He can suggest they vote for Obama, but they can vote for Edwards or Clinton or even Kucinich if they wanted.

And as much as I don't care one hoot for Edwards, there's also the possibility that he genuinely believes that he would be the best choice for whatever post he's angling for. And by doing what he can to put himself into position to get that appointment, he's doing what he believes is "best for America" (for lack of a better phrase).

While I can't personally imagine any position where he would actually do something good for the country, I can't rip on the guy for following a logic something along the lines I described. (Yeah, I know, the odds of any politician actually thinking of the country before themselves is kind of slim these days, but it's still theoretically possible)

Things have changed greatly just in the last 15 years. My understanding up until Bork, all nominees were rubber-stamped with token opposition.

That's not entirely true. A lot went sailing through, but few were denied:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

As you can see Nixon had two rejected in trying to replace Abe Fortas (Haynesworth and Carswell... both were rumored to support segregation for one). Though interestingly, Blackmun, who was the 3rd choice was unanimously approved.

Didn't know that, Immy, thanks.

You are also looking at 2 sets of delegates. 28 superdelegates pledged to JE, and I've seen 16 pledged delegates for him (8 in SC and 4 each in NH and IA). As of this morning, apparently, 14 of this total (7 from each set) have now pledged to Obama and 2 to HRC. If my count is accurate, then 28 are still undecided.

According to the National Journal, Obama picked up 6 of the 8 SC delegates and 1 of the 4 NH. I'm not entirely sure that IA has selected human delegates yet. As a caucus state, I don't think they select the people to fill the delegate slots until their state convention, which I think is still pending.

Actually the 28 is his number if you include Florida where he has 12 delegates 7 of which have stated that they will go to Obama if (when) FL is seated.

Did you notice? Among all of the typical political bullshit yesterday and today, Clinton was marginalized?

What went wrong, How Hillary lost from the people within the campaign.

I love reading stuff like this, which I why eagerly anticipate the special Newsweek issue that comes out after the election that gives all of the behind-the-scenes stuff that we don't know about at this time.

I found this to be really funny, "She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies."

I think one of the themes that I pick up is the 'delusional' element (for the lack of a better term). She is still doing that today when she is insisting that she has a lead in popular votes. Someone is telling her to say (and keep saying that) while everyone know she doesn't, no matter how they justify it.

Agreed. There is an obvious disconnect for her, because I don't think she saw this coming. I don't think she imagined she'd be in a position NOT to win the nomination.

Never count a Clinton out...even after the fat lady sings

Well, I tried to keep the Republican nominee thread alive with updates on McCain's flip-flops, temper tantrums and senior moments, but Bucc and Cam just made fun of me.

Jerks. :p


With the exception of Clarence Thomas, of course.

Obama becomes the first presidential candidate ever to visit the Crow Nation in Montana. .
And if you've ever driven past there on the way to Billings, it's indeed a sad, sad sight. I'm amazed he made the trip.

And apparently, he got 75,000 to come see him in Portland the day before. What?

Montana has gotten into the strange habit of electing Democrats statewide lately, most recently dumping Senator Conrad Burns for Jon Tester. Obama winning MT is a stretch, but I've said it before and I'll say it again -- the voters are angry this year.

I think this mindset infected her campaign team, too. They saw the chance of Obama or Edwards emerging as a challenger to be so remote, they failed to do the fieldwork that even a front runner needs to do. They blew ridiculous amounts of money on high-priced consultants, and when the thing tunred out not to be over on Super Tuesday, she was essentially running a front runner's campaign underfunded and from behind.

One of the anonymous respondents made the point that Harold Ickes had a comprehensive understanding of the proportional delegate math, but the plan was based on winning big states rather than winning delegates. She had a GOP plan in a Dem primary.

Kentucky projected to Clinton. MSNBC has Pat Buchanan talk about how Clinton has a "case for the nomination" and of course, Obama goes and tries to take Oregon and use that as his declaration that the game is almost over. Buchanan is saying that Clinton would want to be VP bringing her coalition of white blue collar voters to the fold. But I can't believe she wants to be VP, but then, I suppose better to put the heat on him and add to the agenda than not.

Should be intriguing to see how the spin goes for all of this tonight. But I can't imagine he wants her or needs her and I don't believe it'll happen.

I think he's made a mistake by completely avoiding Appalachia. Sure, they lose. But I say that he has a message for them and to avoid them was a really silly tackle decision.

Claire McCaskill is out in front and has been an Obama early adopter forever. She has to be on his short list for some sort of cabinet gig. I doubt she'd be his VP choice, but...I wouldn't rule it out either. She's been on his scream team since Day 1 it seems...and she seems to be on TV for him more than anyone. Though I've seen John Kerry doing it a lot lately too.

The short version:

Hillary lost because she hired Mark Penn.

I have a shorter version: High Negatives

.

Obama only raised 31 mil in April! A staggering 94% of donations were under 200$. I don't know if he can win in November, but he's got a fundraising revolution going on.

dola

Guys, it's simple logic.

Mark Penn always loses.

Hillary hired Mark Penn.

Ergo, Hillary lost because she hired Mark Penn.

Here's part of his wiki

It's probably worth noting that in the 3.5 big battleground states (FLA, Ohio, PA, Michigan) Hillary is killing Obama when it comes to head to head polls vs. McCain - double digit differences in most. Maybe they'll swing back by November, but IMO there's enough bad blood against the DNC and Obama if he has to prevent the seating of delegates that Florida would go solidly GOP and Michigan would be in play.

Interesting map by the NYTimes... probably some fascinating things to take a look at with this tool, but Rich Lowry points out if you look at the Kentucky county-by-county votes, there are more than a few (particularly in the southeastern part of the state) where Obama ended up in the single digits.

http://politics.nytimes.com/election...map/index.html

I also noticed that there are counties where just a few hundred people voted. That's insane (or typical, I don't know what voter turnout is like in counties outside of...well, NJ and Philly).

I don't know what the population of those counties might be either, or party affiliation. Certainly a lower turnout can skew statistics. But look at Pike County (it's in SE Kentucky). 14,000+ votes and Obama grabbed 6% of them. That's pretty amazing.

I completely agree it's amazing.

I know of Pike County. Go look up the demographics. I don't, however, suspect it's much different than some of the WV counties.

Wonder if Chuck Hagel might play to the Obama folks as a candidate for them, with turncoat Joe (Lieberman) hanging out with McCain.

No, every single politician should be pigeon-holed into a predicatable niche and have straight party-line affiliation.

I certainly don't think that. But Lieberman lost his party primary and was campaigned for by Obama. So he turns against the party that gave him his seniority, committee assignments and a guy that helped him save his hide, by going with a guy who can't keep his ideas straight?

I'm not rooting for a dog in this one, but as someone who REALLY liked McCain and respected him circa 2000, I'm appalled at how much he's completely turned into a conventional GOPer.

Saved his hide? Liebermann was going to win big in CT regardless and if he didn't get the committee assignments from the Dems, the Republicans would have given their spots to him if he switched over. Believe me, the Dems figured that they need Libermann.

He's not a superdelegate. After he endorsed McCain, he was stripped of his super delegate status. He's pissed a lot of people off by going so far out of pocket on this one.

They can't take him out of the fold now, given they've got such a narrow lead in the Senate, but if they pick up seats in November, it's been widely rumoured that they'd send him packing for good from the party tent. And sure, the Republicans might give him love. But he wont be in the majority party and he won't be hurting them from within.

And then, of course, they lose that seat in CT for as long as he's alive. And as the Republicans figured out, there can be dramatic swings in as little as a few years.

He won't get reelected again in CT. He duped them last time, but not in '12. This is his last go-round. I doubt they'll really boot him, but his influence won't be what it was after this year, for sure. Obviously depends on what happens. McCain would likely rescue him and give him a cabinet spot, if he wins.

I think you've seriously drank the Kool-Aid if you don't think he'll get re-elected. Liebermann is incredibly popular in CT to the point that even when the Dems in CT booted him, he won by a good margin in the general election. He's like Ted Kennedy (well before the brain tumor) in that Kennedy could have run on the Fascist party of Massachusetts and won big.

Leiberman has every right to believe whatever he wants. Ho doesn't, however, have a right to consistently attack his party and the likely nominee for President and then expect to retain his chairs.

From April 7, 2008:

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

All

Lamont (D) 51
Lieberman (I) 37
Schlesinger (R) 7

Democrats

Lamont (D) 74
Lieberman (I) 19
Schlesinger (R) 2

Republicans

Lamont (D) 4
Lieberman (I) 74
Schlesinger (R) 19

Independents

Lamont (D) 53
Lieberman (I) 36
Schlesinger (R) 6

Obama appears to have won the working-class white vote in Oregon. From electoral-vote:


Obama's also won a bunch of other predominantly white states from Clinton that haven't been in Appalachia (Idaho, Maine, etc...)

I'm not sure what this means, yet, but offer it as fuel for the discussion.

Aren't we decrying the polls for being too early in the Presidential race?

I just think it's clear he isn't, "incredibly popular in CT."

I have no doubt that you were trumpeting the same tune when Zell Miller spoke at the Republican convention.

This kind of partisan party group-think has always been present. I hope there's a trend away from it, but I won't hold my breath.

Mizzou, you really need to have your reading comprehension checked out. Above, I stated clearly that Lieberman can hold whatever policy positions he wishes. However, when he attacks his party and his party's presidential candidate, and the same would be true IMO for a Republican attacking his/her own party, he has no right to rewards granted by that party. Socially and economically he's on my side most of the time, so I can forgive the differences with foreign policy, but the lengths to which he's gone to hurt his party should carry some consequences.

The poll cited above isn't proof that Leiberman will lose in 2012, but it is proof that he's considerably less popular in CT now than two years ago and is in real danger of losing his seat.

IIRC, his approval rating in CT is around 50% even while getting hammered in the press by the Dem Party (in fact, his approval/disapproval rating is similar to Senator Chambliss of GA, and he's going to sweep to victory).