Thanks for the laugh. I don't remember that from the campaign. Funny how things have turned out.
I think these questions are just inane, but I look forward (with some concern) as to how all this silliness gets repackaged as something TO BE TAKEN VERY SERIOUSLY by the mainstream media. Anyone want to wager how long it is before these results start popping up on CNN? (Fox, I sort of discount, for many (obvious) reasons, but mostly because the Republicans don't look so good in this one....)
because now one party can say "we voted to withdraw the troops, just like the American public wants..." and the other party can say exactly what? We tried to strike the deadline language and they wouldn't let us?
It's an incremental step, but it's a step forward, and might just make a dent on the D.C. pundit class (hope springs eternal, as usual)--
And Lieberman most certainly no longer counts as a Democrat. He's Joe (I-CT).
If his fundraising mirrors Lieberman's and Clinton's, he's evidence (because he's so different) that what ties all those areas together is a willingness on the inhabitants to contribute to political campaigns in general. That's all.
The fact that Kucinich is so different is not irrelevant to the argument--it's precisely the point.
This is all pie in the sky, anyway, until party affiliation is available.
You seem to imply that the same supporters (the Republican donors who poured money into Lieberman's campaign this fall) of Lieberman are also supporting Clinton. And you point to geographical fundraising as your evidence.
If Kucinich, who is, policy-wise, quite different from Clinton and Lieberman, then your whole hypothesis about the same "fundraising" stream must be extended to any candidate, whether Lieberman, Clinton, or, for that matter, Brownback. Which might suggest that those geographical areas are where people who donate to political campaigns live--not that Republican donors are financing Clinton just because Lieberman and Clinton's donors are in the same geographical area.
Kucinich is just a counter example.
Remember, since we're not talking about the party affiliation of donors here, this is all just speculation.
Somehow, I don't think that's all you are wondering about.
What about Dennis Kucinich's fundraising? What if it shows the exact same pattern? Since we don't have the exact breakdown of party affiliation, let's just speculate. If Kucinich's funding "stream" appears to be the same as Clinton, Lieberman, and any other candidate, what would be your conclusion?
It literally was, post-primary, all Joe, all the time, and the Lamont campaign was too quiet. That allowed the schema of "Bipartisan Joe, just doin' what I can to make sure CT doesn't get hijacked by the lefty loonies" to solidify.
The local media bought it hook, line and sinker, and the national Dems just didn't want to recognize the Joe Lieberman that truly is.
And I don't agree that local bloggers thought Lamont was going to win. The polls consistently showed Lieberman up, and if people were overly optimistic or underestimating Lieberman, it sure wasn't apparent to me.
I do think it's strange that the majority (by a longshot) of Lieberman's financing came outside of CT.
I just don't see the parallels between Clinton and Lieberman because, please note: Clinton was chosen by Democratic voters in a Democratic primary. Lieberman wasn't. And still ran.
The fact that they both received lots of funding from the same (roughly speaking) geographical areas isn't all that surprising, because regardless of party affiliation, those areas are where the money is.
Huh. Hilary was chosen by the Democratic voters to represent the Democrats in the general election. Joe Lieberman wasn't chosen by the Democratic voters to do the same. Yet they both raised lots of dollars from the "same" geographical areas and still, what's the point that you're trying to make? Other than people with lots of money to donate to political campaigns tend to be clustered in the same geographical areas. Next, we'll find out that George Bush also raised money from the SAME AREAS.
Must be a conspiracy.
What's to be made of the disparity between in-state and out-of-state contributions in Lieberman's campaign?
I'm not sure what the point of this is. You think a comparison between someone who is running for President (a nationwide office) and someone who is running for Senator, in terms of the geographical financial support, is meaningful?
The issue isn't whether Hilary is getting money from the same geographical locations that Joe did, but the amount of money dumped into this race by Republicans who supported the once-Democratic candidate, and the total lack of interest in this fact by the local (statewide) media.
The local TV news was just dreadful during this election. "Greenwich millionaire Ned Lamont", without any other information, seemed to be the only way for the TV stations to refer to Lamont. And the day after the primary was all Joe, all the time.
The implications of the primary results, the Joe Flops, etc, were not even mentioned or discussed.
"Joe's experience". That's what I heard from mostly low information voters.
The name "Ned Lamont" and "millionaire" were never separated throughout the campaign in the media--print and TV. The support by Bill Clinton and Barack Obama was played up in the MSM, so that third of Democratic voters who went to the polls in November could rest easy by telling themselves that while Joe wasn't great, he still had the support of big Dems, and therefore, couldn't be all that bad.
The media share a responsibility for this shared delusion, of course.