DU's population is out of sync with the rest of the Democratic Party.

[LoZoccolo]

Even liberal Democrats.

Consider this poll question:

Is your opinion of Joseph Lieberman favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven't you heard enough about him?

The latest Quinnipiac poll found that amongst Democrats, the answers were such:

favorable 37%
unfavorable 34%
mixed 26%
haven't heard enough 1%
refused 1%

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=943 (question 7)


My DU poll from yesterday has found thusfar:

favorable 8%
unfavorable 79%
mixed 13%
haven't heard enough 0%

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2755212&mesg_id=2755212

My intention is not to criticize the concept of DU or even netroots, but I think people should note this before they proclaim that their opinions are in line with "the people" or "the party".

In the Quinnipiac poll, even amongst Democrats who consider themselves "liberal" (despite the explanation that people give here that the number of self-proclaimed "liberals" is tainted by the vilification of the label), the numbers still show a big divergence:

favorable 28%
unfavorable 43%
mixed 28%
haven't heard enough 1%

[Sammy Pepys]

1. No flames here....

You're right, but I don't think it's a negative thing.

[bvar22]

89. self-delete

*

[ThomCat]

2. I think that's a good thing.

I think we tend to be a bit more informed than the average democrat who gets their information only from the mainstream media.

Now all we need to do is lead other democrats in our direction.

[Zhade]

119. Yep.

NT!

[sgxnk]

152. elitism 101

perfect example (i see this all the time in repug blogs and groups as well)

what you are saying is that the fact that the population of DU is more left leaning because that is the natural result of being more "informed"

informed is a code word. it means that one has read the RIGHT theorists and has the RIGHT (or left as it may be) opinion as to relative validities of theories

this is such a classic example of elitism and i CONSTANTLY see it from political ideologues of all stripes

it is such a common conceit that "if only the masses were INFORMED as to what is REALLY going on, they would all agree with my political views"

and as a correlate... those who don't agree with me, are simply the uninformed massess

look how enlightened i am ... me me me

gawd, the frigging elitism of this SENTIMENT (and it is exactly that)

what is so absurd is i could show you posts from far right people that say EXACTLY the same thing

everybody sees THEIR side (when they are strong ideologues) as being THE informed ones as to THE truth

it is a condescending absolutist elitism

[ThomCat]

157. NO. It means that we read more.

Not that we read certain things.

It means that we get more than just TV newsbites like the vast majority of the population.

Having more information makes people more informed. Reading about issues, and participating in discussions about those issues makes us more informed.

There is nothing elitist about this. It's simple fact. Just like people who attend classes are more informed (about the topic of that class) than people who don't. If you're not exposed to information you won't be informed. We are exposed, so we are more informed.

[sgxnk]

184. it means jack

it is an elitist sentiment mentality

the extent to which you read is loosely correlated, if at all, with whether you are "right" in your political opinions

it is simply elitism

"look at me. I read foucault and derrida and chomsky. i am so much smarter than the dumb masses who just swallow the mainstream media. if only they understood what was REALLY going on. "

yawn

there are some very smart, very well informed people on the right side of the aisle and some very small, well informed people on the left side.

and all other variations. the idea that it is simply your accumulation of knowledge that seperates you from people who are to the side of you on the political spectrum is a classic elitism

i see it all the time in rightwingers and leftwingers

elitist ideologues are EXACTLY the same in this respect despite the fact that they are on opposite sides of the spectrum

it speaks more to psychology, hubris, and the philosophy of politics than it does to the strength of the underlying ideas one believes

[zanne]

204. So just how dumb do you want us to be?

The only alternative to being informed is to be uninformed. (Or, to parrot the right wing and reduce our knowledge to soundbites and emails we get from Rush Limbaugh) This anti-intellectual rant (and that's what it is) has been used by right wingers since the 60's. That's why they elected Bush; he's just as dumb as they are.

[treestar]

215. Exactly, it's not like being informed or educated is a bad thing

The reverse snobbery is ridiculous. I can respect people who have studied a subject more than I and learn from them - we can all do that.

Then again, it's also not black and white, either/or. I never read things like Chomsky, et al, at least not much, but I could say I'm better informed that the average sheeple.

Falling for the simple minded framings of the RW and the PNAC is more likely to happen to one who is uninformed or doesn't try to find out more than just what the MSM feeds.

[TankLV]

207. Thanx for just joining up to criticize us.

You are so appreciated.

:sarcasm:

[zanne]

203. Thank you.

Let's not descend into the ranks of the semi-literate.

[Skittles]

164. BS

those of us on this site can be presumed to be INTERESTED IN POLITICS, more so than the AVERAGE VOTER

[sgxnk]

185. so what:?

there are plenty of people equally as interested in politics who are rightwingers, or libertarians

the idea that if only people would get "informed" = they would agree with your so obviously correct (rolls eyes) conclusions is absurd

again, you have your EXACT analogues in the rightwing. they say the exact same thing

it also somewhat ignores the validity of experience, for being "informed" vs. book knowledge

i could play that game too. 'i've read derrida and foucault (in the original french), zinn and chomsky"

i'm SO informed. look at me. look at me.

yawn

[TankLV]

208. Oh, grow up and learn something yourself.

The repukes ALWAYS LIE.

That's a FACT.

Democrats NEVER lie.

This has been proven time and again.

Pick a topic or a statement.

What I said is the TRUTH.

Deal with it.

[LoZoccolo]

168. I do find it curious that nearly none of the explanations given...

...have any kind of self-criticism at all.

[H2O Man]

172. silly n/t

[sgxnk]

186. step outside

your narrow prejudices and enter the real world

there you will find some VERY informed people who hold various (and sundry ) :) political beliefs

the extent to which one is "informed" in the mind of an ideologue is the extent to which one has read the "right" theoreticians and holds the "right" opinions

[H2O Man]

188. step outside

yourself

[question everything]

189. More like Groupthink

and we know how dangerous this is

And I would not call all DUers informed. I can see from their selections of link to prove their point how biased and self centered and tunneled visions they are.

[TankLV]

206. Take is as you will, but that is correct: DU IS better informed.

Call it "elitist" or any other bullshit term.

That's the TRUTH.

Deal with it...

[AndyA]

3. Irregardless, Lamont is ahead by 13% according to NPR.

Lieberman has had his opportunity to do the right thing, and he has failed. Snuggling up to Bush, likely the most disgusting and dangerous man of our time, hasn't helped him any. What did Joe expect? Did he think the Dems would approve of his close relationship with Bush?

When Joe loses, it will be exactly what he deserves, based on his record in office.

[mopinko]

74. sorry to be the grammar police, but you have just invoked my

pet peeve. really, i hardly ever do this.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/84/I0238400.html

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

sorry for this interruption. carry on.

[Major Hogwash]

148. Yes, but this is casual writing, and I like the word "irregardless"

I used to drive my English professor nuts using it, too.

I told him once "I could care less . . " about something, and he corrected me and said "you meant to say 'you couldn't care less'".

I looked right at him and said "I think I know what I meant when I said it that way, Doktor."
And I pronounced it "dock-tore", as if I were from Transylvania or something.
He cracked up.
He hated being called Dr. Murphy or Professor Murphy.

LoL

[Clark2008]

161. Understood - but you were still wrong.

(It's a pet peeve of mine, too, but I'm the grammar vixen. I can't spell worth a flip, but, boy, I know what word I'd TRYING to use, damnit. And, it's usually correct). :7

[cgrindley]

175. About Irregardless

If it's a stressing of the lack of regard, eg functioning as a double negative, then the usage is okay as the English language has a long and rich tradition of compounding negatives in order to provide stress.

EG irregardless would mean without without regard, which would parse to mean: I utterly and completely don't give a shit.

Double negatives are common in Old and Middle English.

The grammar police are idiots. The English language should always use a descriptive not prescriptive grammar, and should certainly avoid prescriptive rules based on the behaviors of non-English languages. EG moronic shit such as claiming that a person should not split an English infinitive.

[Clark2008]

160. Hee hee. I was just about to shout... "REGARDLESS"

Thank you. :hi:

[Reciprocity]

178. And you have invoked my pet peeve Spelling/Grammar Nazi's.n/t

[IndependentVoice]

4. I think its the informed Dem's and progressives that come here n/t

[Robbien]

16. I agree.

And not just at DU, it is the same all over the Progressive web.

[sgxnk]

153. elitism 101

"if you don't AGREE with my political viewpoints, you just aren't INFORMED"

iow, i believe what i believe not because it is my political vision, but because it is the natural result of being INFORMED

elitism 101

gag me

[cgrindley]

167. The constant cry of Elitism is irritating and has to stop

it chills debate by shouting out "thougthcrime" and seems oblivious to the fact that with regard to many specialized sets of knowledge, education and exposure to "certain theorists" do bring with them a more relevant and meaningful opinion. Certainly, everyone has a right to hold an opinion (ignoring for a moment the Socratic notion that a person cannot "know" something that isn't "true"). But many opinions are based on logical fallacy, educational shortcoming, bias, prejudice and so on. People may hold all the opinions they want, but the majority of them will probably be prett stupid opinions. People who believe in a hollow earth, for example, are entitled to their opinions, but their opinions, nevertheless are stupid ones.

There is nothing elitist about claiming that an specialized education or exposure to "certain theorists" may or even will bring about a more relevant opinion on a topic (even politics, even left wing progressive politics). Matter of fact, the cry of elitism, to me, is the first sign that someone is extraordinarily close minded, probably ill educated, and definitely jealous of something (something that they probably don't want to consciously admit).

[sgxnk]

201. utter rubbish

it is more a comment on psychology than on politics. politics is ultimately psychology in many respects. it's an extension of the psyche. oooooooh.

the elitism is this "i believe what i believe because i am informed. if others were equally as informed as me, they would think like me"

which is utter rubbish. there are people at every notch on the political continuum who are phenomenally well informed. you do not believe what you do POLITICALLY SPEAKING because you know MORE. you believe what you do because of how you parse WHAT you know

and the conceit that your political stances are an offshoot merely of superior knowledge is the ULTIMATE hubris

and the fact that you can;'t see it shows that with all your getting, you didn't get understanding

[zanne]

205. Most political argument is not only intellectual.

It also involves morals and values. Political discussion, especially during the past ten years, has been used to advance moral/immoral causes. Torture of prisoners is controversial both intellectually and morally. Abortion is another one of those; conservatives have been using morals as a kind of political weapon and they claim superiority in that area. Is that elitism? Where do you draw the line? I know what you're trying to say, but I'd be very curious to know how you come to a conclusion about anything political if you don't think you're right about anything.

[sgxnk]

214. absolutely

i think claiming moral high ground is another form of elitism

frankly, that's an interesting dichotomy in that i think conservatives are more likely to use the moral high ground argument, and liberals the intellectual high ground

i don't think either is true of course.

i am not saying that elitism is thinking you are right

elitism is thinking that people with opposing political views hold those views because they are not informed. if only they were informed, they would believe what you believe

i think this is contrary to evidence

[treestar]

217. A greater knowledge is going to affect an opinion, that's why

it is a good idea we look at them as at least somewhat provisional, depending on how much we know about a subject. The more you knew the more relevant your opinion will be, I agree. On subject I know a lot about, I can see people not so much disagreeing with me as being wrong, but on subjects I know less about, they can educate me.

That's why it is best to respond to an argument with your knowledge where you can, and educate the other person. The freepers show the wrongness of their opinions by responding with insults or other irrelevance, simply because they have nothing else to resort to, proving that their "opinion" is little more than emotional bias.

The more educated a person is the more likely they are to be liberal and there's a reason for that!

[ScreamingMeemie]

5. Yet on that same page...there is some other interesting stuff.

TREND: If the 2006 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont, for whom would you vote? (If undecided) As of today, do you lean more toward Lieberman or Lamont? This table includes Leaners.


LIKELY DEMOCRATIC
PRIMARY VOTERS.......
Aug 3 Jul 20 Jun 8
2006 2006 2006

Lieberman 41 47 55
Lamont 54 51 40
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - - -
DK/NA 5 2 4



4c. (If candidate choice q4) Is your mind made up, or do you think you might change your mind before the primary?


LIKELY DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS
JL NL
Tot Voters Voters

Made up 85% 83% 88%
Might change 14 16 12
DK/NA 1 1 -

Which is very much in line with the general thought on DU, IMO.

[skids]

97. Precisely. More like "carrier wave" than "out of sync"

Du, dkos, mydd, etc are the vanguard, those who didn't procrastinate in reading up on things. People drift towards the perspectives here as they hurredly educate themselves.

[Vickers]

6. Many self-identified Democrats are actually Repukes.

I see it all the time in the South, even in my own family.

[welshTerrier2]

13. many self-identified progressives are actually right-wing Democrats

i see it all the time in the North, but not in my own family ...

[Vickers]

15. I agree there is a corollary, but how it skews this particular

poll escapes me.

Care to educate a dumb Southerner? :)

[welshTerrier2]

30. i have no idea how it skews the poll ...

the point i was trying to make was more or less in agreement with yours that we can't always assume everyone is really who they say they are ...

[Vickers]

33. I couldn't agree more.

Sorry for the confusion on my part, even coffee ain't helping today. :P

[Zhade]

120. Yeah, some of them even post threads about how we at DU are...

..."out of touch" (rather than the reality of being on the leading edge).

[democracyindanger]

7. heh

"My intention is not to vilify DU or even netroots permanently"

Nah, just on this occassion.

[Zhade]

123. Heck, I'm surprised he didn't say "nutroots" like his DLC heroes.

NT!

[Cocoa]

8. that poll got Diebolded

:tinfoilhat:

[warbustdotcom]

102. i don't know

I don't know. It is just a poll. Who was their sample?

[TwilightZone]

9. DU has never been representative of society in general.

In one way, that's too bad, because we'd probably have Wes Clark as president at the moment.

DU is also not representative of the Democratic Party as a whole. Far from it. Many on DU think "liberal" = "Democrat" and vice versa, while reality is much different.

[alfredo]

140. We are what we are. I'm fine with that.

[fujiyama]

162. Interesting

This place is much more idealogical and passionate about politics than society in general, but that's to be expected. Most self-ascribing Democrats don't spend nearly as much time reading on many topics.

But to add to your last point, I think there are many out there that think "Dem=liberal". I have a friend, whose politics lean to the left, but he frequently interchanges "liberal" and "democrat". It's a peeve of mine, because the situation is much more complex than that and it doesn't take into account the many different factions that lie within the party. It's like when RWers call Clinton a liberal, which in itself is a pretty ridiculous notion.

[Zensea]

10. This is old news

I'm amused that you're even bothering to post it.

[Pharaoh]

11. We are much more informed

Than the average democrat or average american for that matter.

[LynneSin]

73. And we're in the minority

Every post we make here, even in disagreement, is still preaching to the believers.

WE need to get our message out there - to the people who still belive their computer is for downloading music & porn

[LowerManhattanite]

76. "people who still belive their computer is for downloading music & porn"

I take great offense to that assessment.

I also use my computer to play solitaire.

So there! :)

[skeeters2525]

12. You Are Right

Doubt if many will take it under advisement.

Democrats want to get elected. So yes they must recognize there is a center.

A center that doesn't read blogs every day and know Bush is Pol Pot.

A center that maybe only watches cable news, if even that, and thinks we will be attacked any day by whatever enemy Bush tells them about this week.

So we have a hundred days. Support every Dem. Work to get the vote out.

If we are depending on the media to do the work. Say hello to President Jeb

[LoZoccolo]

21. I would say DUers are seldom doers as well.

My "tell us how you're getting involved" threads sink like rocks, and most of the people I know from Illinois Dem Net don't even know that Democratic Underground exists. It is extremely rare that people post their experiences in doing real political work, what they've learned, and the opinions of the people they've encountered. The thing that always perplexes me is that a lot of people post about how our democracy is being threatened by unaccountable voting machines, and make efforts to inject a discussion of it in all sorts of threads about electoral politics, but I've rarely seen anything about what to do about this or the organizations in which you can make a serious effort involving this issue.

This doesn't have to be that way. We can all take some concrete steps to correct this.

DNC meetup:

http://dnc.meetup.com

Illinois Dem Net:

http://www.illinoisdemnet.org

Or, contact your local Democratic Party headquarters.

[leveymg]

29. I've been walking precincts and phone banking since Lyndon Johnson '64.

I was eight years old then. DON'T INSULT US THAT WAY!

If you don't feel comfortable with DU's Leftish orientation, go somewhere else. Don't hang around just to hector us.

:kick:

[LoZoccolo]

31. I acknowledge that some people participate.

But in general, for people who involve this much of their time watching, thinking, and complaining, they spent very little of it doing.

[leveymg]

39. I'd say you're wrong. The DUers I know are far more active within the

Party than average Democrats. Many, many of us spent considerable time on the Kerry campaign - and on other campaigns - in the "real" world, not just doing on-line organizing and blogging. I was a Kerry traveler, worked the phones for my Dem Congressman, do local Committee work, and will be putting time into the Senatorial campaign.

And, then, there's DU and DKos and Next Hurrah, Clemons site and Rozen, and half a dozen other blogs that I post at or communicate with regularly. Not to mention the other news sites from New Zealand to New Delhi I write for.

If you choose to dismiss Internet politics as a waste of time or a distraction, you're really way behind the curve.

Your supposition isn't even intuitively correct. People who blog and chat about politics are generally far more likely to be Party activists. Maybe not your kind of Party activists, but we're good, committed lifetime Democrats.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TankLV]

210. Thank you.

LOCO zolo has been on a curious rant for a long time now, and it's very irritating.

SURE he "says" he supports Lamont, etc., etc., but the topics and emphasis of every single on of his posts prove otherwise.

It's very old and stale.

[ScreamingMeemie]

35. Bull poop.

You wanna know how this DUer is getting involved?

Working the polls like I did in 2004...I've been door to door for local candidates... I've written tons of LTTE's, made phone calls.

Assuming that is utter bee poop.

I would hedge a guess that many, Many DUers are more involved than I. I know of two of my close friends here who are closely connected with their local Democratic clubs. Saying that is completely disregarding the many good works of many here.

[LoZoccolo]

37. Individual examples really don't disprove what I said.

I'm sure there are people who get involved, and I'm sure that most people know that I am not denying this. I am speaking from experience from many threads I've posted.

I think the gestalt of this board would be of an entirely different character if people saw they have to work to get what they want.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calico1]

44. Bingo!

That and the tireless support of Joe Lieberman from someone who does not even live in CT. (Talk about wasting time). It kind of takes credibility away from anything the OP posts.

[Zhade]

124. The *OP* kind of takes away credibility from anything the OP posts.

(But watch, if you're not already on his ignore list, he'll whine and put you on, as if being ignored by him is a LOSS!)

[TankLV]

211. Exactly.

You hit it on the head.

[LoZoccolo]

45. I am willing to agree to disagree on civil terms. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

98. As was I. I am still surprised that the use of the word bullshit

constitutes a personal attack to some.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zodiak]

85. Many do not participate in your threads

Especially if the results of one thread you post are used to disparage DU in general or progressives as group, as you have done here.

Ever think about that? Probably not...still being our self-appointed wise father teaching us children how to behave.

[LowerManhattanite]

87. Careful...

...for pointing that out, you're liable to have your message reported and then deleted.

Been on the receiving end of that within this thread already. :(

[calico1]

94. I just noticed that was done to a post I

responded to which was not offensive at all. I guess some people can dish it out pretty good but not take it. :grr:

[ScreamingMeemie]

96. I'm still trying to figure that out as well.

We disagree with the poster and get our messages deleted?

[Zodiak]

103. sorry about that Manhattanite

in truth, the very fact that a post gets reported is why it was deleted because (from what I heard) the mods just do not have the time, especially in these Israel/Lebanon War days, to actually read the comment and the context in which it is embedded. Better safe than sorry.

It is for this reason that I only curse when I am talking about Republicans.

Try not to take offense to the mods, but feel free to articulate the thin-skinness of the reporter if you feel it is warranted. Also, some people here work the refs like a pro...it comes with the territory. If overdone, it is a tremendous waste of the site's resources...something to consider when one hits the Alert button due to a bruised ego.

After all, if the mods had more time not having to deal with these petty problems, they might actually have time get out and work on some Democrat's campaign instead of all of this "wasted" time on
DU.

OK, now I am just being sarcastic.

[AZBlue]

122. No one's being disparaged.

Seems to me the way to win elections is (obviously among other actions) to (1) find out what people think and want, (2) educate them where they may be wrong about facts and information and (3) constantly keep in touch with the voters.

If you don't like the fact that the two polls don't match, get out there and do something about it. This is a call to action and you are free to interpret what that action should be.

[AZBlue]

118. You're absolutely correct.

Yes, there are people on this board who are actively involved - and they span across the spectrum of what's labeled "liberal." But, I would place money on a bet (and thanks to W, I don't have that much of it now, so you know I really believe this) that the majority of the people here don't participate much. Or, maybe it' just the majority of the really "loud" people on DU. I've not done a poll (although I'm not surprised yours didn't do well on here) but I don't need to in order to know that this isn't just a hunch or a feeling. If you look at the posts of many people here and consider their "suggestions" against what you and I and others have seen in action in the campaign offices, you know these people don't have one clue about what actually goes on there and probably have never set foot in one. And, sadly, never will. The total sum of their action is posting inflammatory responses on message boards and they aren't happy unless they are angry. Don't let them pull you down with them.

(Before I get flamed - I'm not talking about the couple of DU members who responded to the thread stating that they work hard in political activities - I didn't see where anyone said that no one on this board participates and I think your offense is a bit out of place and an overreaction.)

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zhade]

125. That's probably because they don't feel they have to indulge a blowhard's

vanity demand that they prove themselves.

[JerseygirlCT]

173. What's being identified these days as the center just isn't

The "center" has been pulled so far to the right, it no longer deserves that designation.

Compromise doesn't consist of giving in to the other side's every wish. That's what the GOP is after with their lauding of "centrists". It's so transparent, and I wonder that not everyone seems to see that.

[ljm2002]

14. That's the price we pay...

...for being ahead of the curve.

DU is a self selected group of political junkies (for want of a better term). We follow closely what politicians do. Most people do not expend nearly as much energy to find out what their representatives are up to. That is one reason that most people are susceptible to the propaganda that is sent their way 24x7.

In any case, it is people like us, and bloggers like TPM and many others, who have brought attention to Holy Joe's shortcomings, particularly his embarrassing habit of embracing GWB and railing against members of his own party.

Bottom line: in the old days he could get away with it, there was no one to call him on his positions on the war, abortion, etc., but especially on his systematic disloyalty towards his own party. That's the thing, really: the party has room for people who disagree on various things, but not for someone who embraces the opposition at every turn, and publicly chides their own party members for "daring" to criticize the pResident.

Joe is getting what's coming to him. He's earned it. And we at DU, and other 'Net places, have been in the vanguard, making sure that the issues that trouble him become more widely known.

Looks like it's working. :-)

[Zhade]

127. Don't Republicans say we're "out of touch"?

Your analysis is more, well, factual than the OP.

[Lerkfish]

17. LOL!

well, I prefer enlightenment to DLC, thanks.

its a question of democracy vs. aristocracy.

[Sinti]

54. Perfect

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner. This is the best response I've seen. Thanks.

[LowerManhattanite]

18. Additionally...

I believe the Quinnipiac poll samples only local (Connecticut) likely voters, as opposed to the DU poll which draws in respondents from across the country. I would imagine that if one were to include such blue bellwethers as New York and Calfornia in the Q-poll, Lieberman's numbers would skew considerably harder against him. Particularly if one takes into account the general fed up-ness of the populace as evidenced in the verrrrry negative poll numbers for the president and people who appear too closely allied with him.

The fact that GOP candidates are running away from Bush to win in November speaks to the potential toxicity of Lieberman (the most closely allied Dem to Bush) were he to be polled nationallly.

The DU result is to say the least, something to think about.

(Mispelled "respondents"--fixed it) :)

[MaineDem]

25. I agree - CT voters have different views

I think your point about the Q poll being the views of CT voters is an important one. Many of the people I've spoken with from CT have a much higher opinion of Lieberman than those here at DU.

[LowerManhattanite]

83. And this just came up on "The Wires" to ack-cen-chu-ate my point:

"US Senator Joe Liberman (D-CT), facing the greatest challenge of his Senate career, is preferred by more Republicans than Democrats, a USA Today/Gallup Poll has found.

The national poll, conducted last Friday, Saturday and Sunday, shows Lieberman's support among Democrats declining, from 65% in 2000 to 38% last week. During the same period, support for Lieberman among Republicans grew by 3%, from 43% to 46%. In the six year period from Lieberman's 2000 nomination for Vice President, this is the first time more Republicans have approved of Liberman than Democrats." snip

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_Mor_Republicans_like_Lieberman_than_0804.html

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

90. This is very scary stuff since the Repub

candidate is such a weak one

[sendero]

19. Yeah..

... but the rest of the country is moving in our direction. Someone has to lead.

[Minnesota Libra]

20. I think being "...out of sync with the rest of the Democratic Party"......

.....has been a noticeable point on more than just this one issue. Not being willing to recognize and deal with that issue of being "...out of sync with the rest of the Democratic Party" is why Democrats haven't been any more successful than they have so far. The main reason Democrats may - not guaranteed though - do very well in the next two elections is many Independents and liberal Republicans will be voting against the neocon/fundie republicans rather than voting for someone. I have my doubts as the whether more liberal Democrats/Progressives will wake up to that fact and adapt accordingly in time for elections past 08.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. My intention is not to praise ceaser but to bury him

oh whatever.

Your poll was self selected and consequently the only thing you can say about it is that of the people that participated, this is how they voted. You cannot, for example, compare it to the random (for some value of random) sample that the Quinnipiac poll was based on.

I am truly shocked that people here on DU might be more opinionated and perhaps even more progressive than the general population. Who could have imagined?

As for our being out of step, I guess we will find out tuesday when your boy joemomento gets his hat handed to him by Lamont.

[Botany]

23. so is Skinner Justin Half Baked?

We are a boy band?

[AtomicKitten]

24. I think the DU population is an entirely different planet.

Yesterday I read a post that declared that if you do not support Cynthia McKinney you must have "racism and sexism in your heart."

I guess that means if you don't support Lieberman you are an anti-Semite?!

DU: Check your brain at the door.

Effin hell.

[SteppingRazor]

32. Now, really, AK...

if you truly felt that way about DU, why would you post here? We get all types here, as you well know, and I don't think it's fair to dismiss all DUers (which, by the way, includes YOU) simply because some of them throw out nutty statements such as the one you illustrated.

I would say, in fact, that DUers are probably a lot more politically aware than the typical poll responder, which could do a lot to explain the discrepancy between DU and typical-Democrat views of Joe Lieberman.

That said, I don't have quite as big a problem with Joe as many here do, but I do think he's ripe for a fall. I mean, why not? :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

42. I wasn't speaking categorically.

DU harbors distinct factions of pack mentality wherein a handful of disgruntled types articulate a position and hammer it over and over again (a la the GOP Wrecking Machine) using gross rationalizations (and often patent untruths) to indict one person and absolve another, using the same criteria for crissakes. People who are less sure of themselves get sucked into the vortex and start parroting the same rhetoric, and flame wars are incited between the pack and others who know themselves well enough to question the mantra and the gauntlet thrown at their feet.

I am sympathetic to politicians who are damned if they do and damned if they don't when I am hammered for being a DLC shill and for not supporting the DLC, obviously both can't be true, and in reality neither are. But for some reason the truth and reason never seem to enter the equation with some when they are barking their buzz-phrases and casting aspersions randomly and unjustifiably.

People seem to lose all sense of self and boundaries and of critical thinking.

Indeed such is life but it is that and then some in a vacuum.

[SteppingRazor]

47. True enough...

At least it keeps us mods busy ;)

[AtomicKitten]

49. tip of the hat to the mods

[WildEyedLiberal]

68. That's what's wrong with DU in a nutshell

Well said.

[Exiled in America]

57. And yet you hang here and bitch about it... :)

I'm just observing. ;)

[AtomicKitten]

60. typing a ":)" in your posts

is a poor cover-up for hostility
perhaps you might want to consider the sarcasm smilie

[AZBlue]

126. AK - you rock!

LMAO!

Effin hell indeed.
(why do you think I had to take a breather??)

[mtnsnake]

191. It's from a different galaxie

[leveymg]

26. NEWSFLASH: DU to the Left of the Democratic Center

Gee, I would never have known if you didn't point that out. I thought this was the website for the DLC. :think:

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Maven]

77. Precisely. Thanks. nt

[MrBenchley]

176. Actually it's left of the Democratic left.....

[bullimiami]

27. it has to do with information absorbtion. DU is full of critical thinkers

who pay attention.

and the most active of us are also the most likely to respond in a du poll. we are not typical, we are ideal. :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

86. Actually, I'd put it the other way round.

DUers are disproportionately prone to believing things that confirm their prejudices and disbelieving those that don't, and like to think of this as "not being taken in by the MSM" and "not being sheeple".

[Bill McBlueState]

104. you're right, but

"disproportionately prone to believing things that confirm their prejudices and disbelieving those that don't"

That's a flaw that's central to the human condition. In other words, everyone's like that.

[bullimiami]

142. i absolutely disagree. one of the most intelligent, critical thinkers

is noam chomsky.
i would venture to say that the typical du'er is more in line with his view of the world.

embracing ignorance, even when it puts you squarely in the mainstream, is nothing to be proud of.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

151. I don't think that works.

Firstly, saying "There exists an intelligent man who agrees with us" is not a terribly strong argument - in fact I don't think it's relevant at all.

Secondly, I think it's more accurate to characterise "the typical DUer"'s views as a broad and not-terribly-well-informed caricature of Chomsky than as those of Chomsky, from the little I know of the man.

[LoZoccolo]

28. I will also say this regarding some of the paranoia we direct at our own.

There is a tendency amongst some people to dismiss or accuse opinions which diverge from DU's general population as being those of Republican infiltrators or DLC operatives or part of some other plot, and admittedly those accusations have been pointed at me from time to time. I think we can now lay the notion to rest the assumption that such divergent opinions do not come from genuine Democrats.

[skipos]

34. DU is more progressive than your average Democrat

but Lieberman is more pro-war and pro-Bush than your average person in Connecticut.

Hence, he is going to lose the primary and, considering his continuous steady drop in poll after poll, he will probably lose the general election as an independent.

[Redbear]

41. You are also comparing scientfic and unscientific polls

Many people who have an overall favorable opinion of Joe, don't click on Lieberman-Lamont threads because they are much more interested in other issues.

It also makes a difference to poll numbers if you ask the who are you voting for question before you ask the favorability question. I would choose Lamont, but I have a favorable view of both candidates.

If you ask only one question, up or down on Joe? you may get different answers.

[readmoreoften]

141. Very, very good point. /nt

[electron_blue]

199. I agree.

[Tsiyu]

43. Well, the polls you cite are apples and oranges

Te first no doubt attempted a random sample.

The second was only a representation of those who chose to respond to the poll, and who may have done so because of particularly strong feelings on the issue.

These are two very different animals when it comes to accuracy.

Was the first poll done in Lieberman's district or among American Democrats at large? Those in his district might have more knowledge on which make a choice. Those not familiar with Lieberman might not have this information as to his voting record and tactics.

In short, these are not the best examples to use if comparing the DU animal to the average non DU Democrat.

[seaglass]

46. Your DU poll is meaningless - not statistically significant,

not scientific - you can't draw any conclusions from this except what you'd like to make up.

[jonnyblitz]

51. no shit! the result depends on who decides to participate.

this isn't exactly rocket science. :eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

58. Do you honestly believe that 37% or even 28% of people here...

...have a favorable impression of Joe Lieberman? Or even close to that number?

[seaglass]

82. My impression is the majority of those who are interested in posting about

Joe Lieberman on DU don't have a favorable view of him. I come to that conclusion using only my powers of observation.

An unscientific poll just cannot prove that DU is out of touch, it's not valid evidence. That's all.

Whether DU is out of touch or not doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't really matter to you. If you know you're right about something then that should be good enough.

[jonnyblitz]

114. LoZoccolo wants to think DU is out of touch and not him. nt

[seaglass]

115. I don't get why it matters though. Frequently DU has been ahead

of the curve - if we had taken a scientific poll in 2002 I bet we would have had a higher percentage of DUers that believed that the WMD/Iraq claims were bullshit than would have been found in general Democratic polling.

I guess that would have meant that DU was "out of touch" but so what?

[Zhade]

129. Well, consider how often he talks himself up.

How often he proclaims that he's doing SO MUCH MORE than, like, any DUers, ever.

How he warns swaths of DUers that he'll put them on ignore, as if that's some sort of threat anyone cares fuck-all about.

There's a pattern emerging.

[seaglass]

150. Ah...I meant it in general, I haven't paid enough attention to the

OP's other posts to see any patterns just assumed there was a po'd Lieberman supporter who was trying to browbeat DU for not agreeing with him/her.

[welshTerrier2]

48. DU's population is NOT monolithic ...

there are probably all sorts of ways to slice and dice the views seen on DU ... one thing's for sure, we sure do argue a lot ... DU'ers are not monolithic ...

are we different from the mainstream of the Democratic Party? some are and some are not ...

the main difference I see on DU, to choose just one model, is between those busy "beating republicans" and those busy "trying to reform the Democratic Party" ... no, the two groups are not mutually exclusive ... there's plenty of overlap ...

but i see the "beating republicans" group as much closer to the Democratic mainstream than the "party reformer" group ... it's incredible how much time and effort goes into battling back and forth between these groups ... each accuses the other of "hurting the cause" ...

until party reforms occur and real communication is enabled within the party, nothing will change ... we will remain a house divided ... i agree with those who believe DU criticisms of the current party elite are not usually coming from republican infiltrators; the criticisms are coming from those with a deep belief that the party needs to change ...

[Captain Hilts]

180. But it skews more towards Green than towards Independent.

It's not representive of the party as a whole.

[Blackhatjack]

52. It is time to get rid of the "enablers" since they made all this possible

Sorry, but when members of Congress abdicate their constitutional responsibilities, for whatever reason, they are enablers of those who are destroying our government and our country.

It takes more than an evil leader to do damage, they must "lead" others to act, and those who do not stand up to them or try to stop others from acting bear responsibility for the consequences as "enablers."

Crimes of "omission" are usually worse than crimes of "commission."

[ulysses]

53. gosh!

We'd better get back in line, DU! Shame! Shame!

[Arugula Latte]

55. Yes -- We're Far Left Crazies because we believe

that Democrats should act like Democrats and stand up against tyranny,illegal wars, and presidents who are acting in the interests of only the top one percent of the country. How could we have such out-there notions? What were we thinking? :eyes:

[ulysses]

88. you *know* how wrong it is to be different.

Why can't you conform?!?!

[kentuck]

183. Oh, shit !

Caught again! :)

[Exiled in America]

56. Thank you for the compliment! :) This is DemoCRATIC, not DEMOCRAT

Underground.

And the sooner the democratic party returns to its more proud history of social democratic liberalism, the better the PLANET will be.

We don't need "new" democrats, we need new dealing democrats! This country needs a new deal.

[GreenTea]

59. Proves DU is progressive, the rest of the Dem's need to catch up!!!

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JNelson6563]

62. It's called having a clue

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2757030

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. I think you owe liberals an apology.

For the last six years the liberals have been right about every single issue. While moderate thems have been siding with Bush and, therefore, wrong about just about everything.

Lieberman's yesterday's news. And frankly moderate dems should be thanking us that we're not giving them the boot like Lieberman.

[LoZoccolo]

64. Actually, it's me who has been right about every single issue.

There is a checklist which proves that.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Well, you're wrong about this one.

And I'm guessing that since you're such a moderate you were probably among the 90% of Americans who supported Bush five years ago.

were you for the war in Iraq too?

[LoZoccolo]

69. Wrong about which one?

And I'm guessing that since you're such a moderate you were probably among the 90% of Americans who supported Bush five years ago.

Yes. I believe at least one poll had it at 92%, right? In either case, I confess to being "normal" that way.

When I went up to Wisconsin to help out the Kerry campaign on election day, I pointed out that the house that they were doing some phone banking from had a poster of the New York City skyline with post-9/11 quote from Bush* about freedom or courage or something. A fellow campaigner mentioned that that was from "when Bush was cool". And you know what? Me and him may have done more real work to get Democrats elected that one day than a lot of the people who'd bitch about me not being part of the 8-10% have done for the last five years. It's funny how riled up people get when I mention stuff like that.

were you for the war in Iraq too?

For a while, but I think that had disappeared by January or February 2003. It had definately disappeared by the time I marched on Lake Shore Drive the day after it started in what might have been the biggest act of civil disobediance ever in Chicago history.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. Oh, see there you go.

[Dr Fate]

111. So you were not right about the war, or in your support for Bush.

No offense- but you claimed to be right about every issue- then admitted to being wrong about 2 pretty big things.

[Zhade]

131. "For a while" - see, you were wrong.

So you HAVEN'T been right on everything, despite your laughable self-aggrandizing comment to the contrary.

(Glad you came around to our side, though. Many of us were against the war since we suspected it was coming up in early 2002.)

[TankLV]

212. So, in other words, you were LAZY and believed the BULLSHIT and LIES

as they were being said.

As opposed to US who INSTANTLY knew that the FACTS dictated otherwise!

But it is now, according to you, OK to be PROUD of the fact that you have been PROVEN WRONG, again.

Still waiting for that list of where you were right and we we all wrong.

But WE won't hold our breath...

[ChiciB1]

66. You Need To Check Out An EMAIL From Comcast I Just Posted!!! n/t

[chibi]

93. lol

now that just set off all my alarm bells ;->

[Ignis]

95. Please provide the Official Hubris Checklist. (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

99. The Republicans would steal it and use it for revisionist history.

They would falsely claim that they had been in line with it the entire time and fool many people.

[Ignis]

107. So the support for your counter-arguments is...classified? (nt)

[Zhade]

132. There IS no support, because he's wrong.

His claim was debunked BY HIS OWN WORDS in record time.

(But the funny thing is, he probably even relishes the negative attention he's getting.)

[Ignis]

182. Most people who rely upon hyperbole have no support. (nt)

[Zhade]

130. HAHAHAHAHA!

Yep, you confirmed my suspicion - it IS all about you.

Let's see that list, ace. I seem to remember you being wrong on more than one occasion.

[Ken Burch]

158. EVERY issue?

Even "Tastes Great" vs. "Less Filling"?

[rinsd]

67. Also this just in water is wet, the sky is blue, Bush is a liar etc.....

:popcorn:

[Renew Deal]

70. Good job pointing out what should be obvious

but for some reason isn't. If you post at DU, you are not politically normal. You are interested or an activist. That's a very small percentage of the population. And if you're interested, then your views are probably pretty passionate.

[LynneSin]

72. This is the biggest problem with the DU (although I love this site)

We DUers along with the host of other online political communities are not the only registered voters. Hell last year I swore that Howard Dean was going to be the next President of the United States. Every online poll I read, ever post I read here at DU made me believe I was on the winning team.

Howard barely got 3rd place.

Until we realize that the vast majority of voters have nothing to do with the online political community and form their opinions else where, then we will never suceed in moving our party to the left.

As much as we complain about Lieberman he still have a 54% approval rating in Connecticut which oddly enough is down about 10 points from a few months ago. Since that poll was a statewide poll of connecticut voters (not CT democrats) I'm guessing that the 10% drop is from disgrunted democrats who are fed up with his crap.

I am hoping for the best with Lamont but it's not in the bag with this one

[GreenTea]

75. Republicans electronic voting machines assured us the weakest candidate

Kerry...I too was for Dean, Dean wins big time in NH and then out of nowhere Kerry wins in Iowa and then cruises with no real challenge...too convenient for the republicans...oh I know just another coincidence, look no further!

[LynneSin]

78. You can discredit the value of Name Recognition

I'm not discarding what you have said, if anything I think it was the other senators who were democrats in the race (ie Edwards and Lieberman) working in cahoots with the Kerry campaign to ensure that the strongest of the 3 got on the ticket. Who knows.

People knew who John Kerry was his name was more established than Deans.

[paulk]

113. "Dean wins big time in NH "

there goes your credibility....

[smoogatz]

91. Funny...

You didn't link to the poll you're quoting. But here's the 6/20/06 SUSA poll, that shows that "among Democrats, Lieberman has slipped below 50% approval. Ony 46% approve of him, while 50% disapprove." They conclude: "So what does this say? It seems to suggest that if the election were held today, Lieberman would probably lose."

http://connecticutlocalpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/06/surveyusa-lieberman-approval-below-50.html

So, in fact, DUers are out in front of but generally in synch with rank and file Dems in connecticut.

On edit: my impression is, though I can't link to any sources, that subsequent polls showLieberman's approval eroding even further among CT Dems.

[w4rma]

79. That's because DUers are *more informed* than the general populace.

DUers research the information better than the general population. DUers get information that big media isn't showing people.

[Zhade]

133. I mean, fucking DUH, right?

NT!

[smoogatz]

80. "Better informed than" isn't the same as "Out of synch with."

DUers are much more likely to be following the Lieberman story closely than most rank-and-file Dems. Any progressive/liberal with two or more functioning neurons who's been paying attention to Rimjob Joe's big manly Bush-love is going to find his whole, fake "moderate" shtick offensive. But never mind, LoZoccolo. Go ahead and smear the entire DU community as far-left nutjobs. I'm sure your inside-the-beltway lobbyist/consultant role models would be very proud.

[TrueFunkSoldier]

81. An informed citizenry is a patriotic citizenry...

Yes, those polls *may* imply that we are out of sync with the rest of the Democratic party, but let me tell you: the mainstream press has been constantly reporting that Lamont's favorable numbers have progressively gotten better as people learn more about him. Six months ago...even a month ago, very few knew much about Ned Lamont. Even as a political scientist I knew very little about him. With the advent of the ubiquitous blogosphere, you can't help but learn more and more. And LIEberman hasn't helped himself much, anyway. The more he speaks, the more he reeks of desperation...

[BattyDem]

84. Not "out of sync" - just more informed

:-)

I truly believe that if the "mainstream" democrats knew as much - or even half as much - as DUers do, they would share our outrage and disgust on every issue facing this country and every DINO running for office.

[chibi]

92. i'd say DU tends to be a step ahead of most

since DU'ers pay more attention than most.

[warbustdotcom]

100. feeding the pub spin machine

Aren't we just feeding the Republican spin maching by focussing on this? Gives them another reason to say we are not united and bla bla bla

[LoZoccolo]

101. I'm not sure that a message board of about 5,000 posters a week...

...could be considered a major faction in a split.

[citizen snips]

105. only 173 people voted

I am sure that is not the whole DU population.:shrug:

[izzybeans]

106. Convenience samples will always lean one way because of

the fact those motivated to answer on the subject will answer overwhelmingly more often than others. Skewing the proportions of even the target population of the poll.

Comparing a DU poll to a random sample is probabalistically impossible no matter how you slice it.

[LoZoccolo]

108. Are you really surprised by the DU poll result?

I would think the scientific Quinnipiac poll would have more questioned results amongst people here.

[izzybeans]

116. I'm not surprised by the poll result but that doesn't mean it

is reliable.

[politicasista]

109. kick

Your post and stories do have some truth to it.

[Dr Fate]

110. Most polls show that folks think Saddam had WMDs too.

And all the polls showed that a vast majority of Americans supported invading Iraq- until recently.

It is true that DUers are more informed than the average voter- it is also true that those same voters eventually catch up to us.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZBlue]

117. Thank you!

An excellent post - well said and factually supported.

On edit: Wow...there's certainly a lot of "protesting too much around here" (to borrow from WS) - or does the truth just hurt a bit too much?

[AtomicKitten]

128. I just PM'd you

begging you not to be a stranger, so, like, quit being a stranger.

[AZBlue]

190. Like, ok

PS...love your avatar!!

[Zhade]

134. "Out of touch" isn't the truth, it's rightwing bullshit.

"Ahead of the curve" or "on the leading edge" or "more informed than the average Democrat", now THAT'S truth, as witnessed by the literally countless times DU as a collective has been out ahead and right on a lot of issues.

I for one feel no shame in being markedly more aware of geopolitics and the reality of our government than some of my Dem friends. Happily, instead of concluding (like Republicans) that I'm out of touch, they listen to the evidence I present and generally see what I'm seeing, which is largely reflected on DU (trolls and corporatist fans aside).

[LincolnMcGrath]

121. Given that you have threatened 90% of DU with "I'm putting you

on ignore", How would you know?

[Zhade]

135. LOL!

IBTL

[LoZoccolo]

136. I cannot put poll results on ignore.

Please read the original post for more info.

[LWolf]

137. When the population is out of sync with

things like social and economic justice, civil liberties, and other issues that I consider vital, I'm going to be out of sync with the population.

I really don't give a shit if I don't "fit." I'll stand on principle by myself, if necessary.

Hell, I'm out of sync with much of DU these days. Given the choice, I'll stand for what I think is right before I'll "get in line."

I wish the "rest of the Party" the best, and hope their combined wisdom gets them what they are working for. What ever that is.

I'd like to work for:

Universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care.

Environmental responsibility

Civil Rights

Election reform

Fair trade

rebuilding infrastructure

superb public education for all

the benefit of the person over the benefit of the corporation

corporate accountability

Peace

the end of empire

I could go on. I'll be there to help "the rest of the Party" every time even one single Democratic rep puts this issue on the table with an honest effort to achieve it.

In my lone political opinion, "winning" does not count for SHIT if it leaves these issues behind or in the shadows. I think we "win" by putting issues first.

[Zhade]

139. WORD, my friend. Spot-on.

NT!

[bvar22]

155. Right there with you, LWolf!

:patriot:

[CJCRANE]

138. DU has been out of sync

on

WMD in Iraq
Abu Ghraib
Plamegate
NSAgate

etc etc.

One person's "out of sync" is someone else's "paying attention" or "ahead of the curve".

[krkaufman]

143. Ummm... perhaps the differences are also related to the fact ...

... that the Quinnipiac polling is "scientific" and DU polling is the standard unreliable net-based opinion voting.

No reliable comparison can be made between the polls.

[flaminbats]

144. what do you expect the internet to be in sync with?

the internet is a nice source of info and so is DU. If I thought DU was all there was to the Democratic Party..then I might be worried. But DU is a great place to find friends in the party, who come from other parts of the country! :grouphug:

[Ken Burch]

145. And how should we respond to this assertion of yours?

Are you saying that we should all beg Ned Lamont to get out of the race even though its now clear he's going to win the primary(unless Diebold steals it)?

Should we give conservative(or as you would call them, "moderate")posters some sort of special deference in the threads just to make up for our "out of touch" ness?

Or should we just shut the whole friggin' site down and surrender to the DLC, since they are the true and natural leaders of the party and the universe?

Tell us, oh great master, we who are unworthy of your great wisdom...:sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

146. Don't want to rain on your parade, but your poll isn't scientific

Your poll sampled 173 DUers who happened to see your poll at the time you posted it in GDP and felt like responding to it. That's not an accurate sample by any means.

[me b zola]

147. You should expect a shift

Most Americans don't have time to be informed--we are. We are also the ones who raise $$ and knock on doors--you know, the base. We do the reading and foot soldiering for the other Dems who are too lazy or don't have time, we should be driving the party. How figging hard is that to understand?

[Q]

149. Does 'voting center'...

...mean supporting corporations over people? Trickle down/supply side economics? War for the sake of war?

Lieberman's position (for example) is representative of the New 'Centrist'...a position not much different than any mainstream GOPer since the 80s. His buds in the DLC have tried for decades to 'pressure' liberals into believing that THEY were 'out of touch' and not the 'new democrats' who walk, talk and act like Republicans. They told us they had to act like Republicans in order to compete in the corporate sponsored campaigns.

If being in the 'center' means selling out everyone else in order to win...then it has to be bad for the Democratic party and the American people. Liberals have always represented the common denominator...public schooling, social safety net and equal rights. Centrists don't want to finance the 'common good' any longer. They want the tax bucks that would normally flow back the people to end up in their campaign chests or cayman island accounts.

There is only right and wrong. Everything else is someone trying to sell you something.

[Redneck Socialist]

154. You're just realizing this now?

Though in DUer's defense, we pay more and closer attention to things political than most folks and are far, far more passionate about said things. It should come as surprise to none that we are more "extreme" in our views as a result.

[Guaranteed]

156. LOL a practical tie between his favorable and unfavorable amongst DEMS?

This is amongst his own party members, my friend.

[Odin2005]

159. It seems that moderate Dems tend to avoid DU.

On other forms I've seen many good Dems blast DU because of it's reputation of conspiracy theorizing.

[Blue_Tires]

181. that's hasn't been my observation....

ymmv

[Skittles]

163. I don't care

I know what I think and I don't like Mr. Lieberman at ALL

[alvarezadams]

165. Out of touch?

or merely more politically aware?

[converted_democrat]

166. DU is ahead of the curve, nothing Earth shattering about that..n/t

[Iniquitous Bunny]

169. What does this matter?

It shouldn't be a huge shock (even if the poll isn't scientifically valid) that more active people tend to be somewhat more polarized. What will matter Tuesday is the actual primary. The primaries are for parties to choose a candidate. If Lieberman (and I AM a CT Democrat) wins Tuesday, I'd vote for him in November. I don't think it's too much to ask Lieberman (as a fellow CT Democrat) to also vote for the Democratic winner of the primary in November and support the will of his party even if it's not him.

It is your right to be pro-Lieberman, but is there not also a duty once a candidate is picked in the primary to support that Democratic candidate? Are you willing to do this?

[kentuck]

170. If true?

It would probably indicate that DU is more in "sync" with the rest of America. Which means, the Democratic Party is out of touch with DU and the rest of America, if the polls are to be believed.

[LoZoccolo]

174. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

If DU is out of sync with likely Democratic Party voters in Connecticut, but more in sync with the rest of America, are you saying that DU is more in sync with independant and Republican voters than Democratic voters?

[kentuck]

177. I didn't say DU was out of sync with Democratic voters in CT...

The DLC wing of the Party is out of sync with most the rest of everybody else.

[Solon]

200. Actually, that is probably more true than you know...

There are more Independents than Republicans, and regardless of what you think, being an independent doesn't mean you are automatically a moderate. Independents are simply folks that aren't registered as either Democrat or Republican, they are Libertarians(big L, little l, whatever), Greens(two different parties), Socialists(try to win their votes), American party(more wacko than the Repukes), etc. So the point being that to WIN, you actually have to try to figure out who you want to win over. Then there is the majority, the folks who DON'T vote because they think it doesn't make a difference, generally these people favor Democrats(Most are to the left), but think they can't make a difference anyways, so don't vote, win them, and you win the majority.

[JerseygirlCT]

171. No flames, but that's not what I'm seeing here in CT

There's a lot of support for Lamont -- lawn signs and comments from people I've been surprised about. (Not the usual suspects).

People are plain fed up with Lieberman. He's made it obvious in too many ways that he's not interested in serving, but in maintaining his position. His sense of outrage that anyone question him is obvious. And in the fact that he only started listening when he got scared. Before that, it was high and mighty holy Joe all the way.

The media can call it netroots. They can label Lamont supporters as fringe leftie nuts.

They're wrong. That's not what I'm seeing here.

And I'll make a confession: my own feelings run far mor enegatively about Lieberman than they do positively about Lamont. I don't like voting that way, but I cannot vote for Lieberman again. Can't do it. He's insulted me and the rest of CT's voters one time too many.

[mitchtv]

179. Don't worry they'll catch up

It's the fault of the incumbent party. They allow the media to get away with lies.

[mmonk]

187. We're more up on things. Hell, 50% of the population

still thinks Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

[mtnsnake]

192. LoZoccolo, that's the understatement of the year, but thanks for saying it

Hell, if the Democratic Party ever closely reflected the sentiments of 80% of the posters on this forum, we'd never win another political election again. DU has become overrun with WHINERS who'd rather piss, moan, and give up, rather than talk about anything positive.

[Ken Burch]

195. It's the DLC that wants the Democrats to "give up".

give up our principles and ideals, give up on the struggle for peace and social justice, give up defending the majority of the country who aren't uptight white suburbanites, give up, in short, everything that makes us different from the GOP. And it's only our differences from the GOP that gives this party a reason to exist at all.

History has proven that a Democratic Party that doesn't clearly present itself as a progressive alternative to the GOP is useless and doomed to repeated defeats. The last three elections('00,'02,'04)prove it as well.

Why shouldn't we be the party that represents those the GOP excludes? They do exclude the majority of the country after all. It's doesn't do us any good to represent moneygrubbers and hawks.

We want a positive future. The problem is, there's nothing positive in bland, militaristic centrism.
That way lies defeat after defeat after defeat.

[question everything]

193. Election results confirmed your post (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

194. Maybe, but it's kind-of apples to oranges.

You can have a favorable impression of Lieberman, but an even more favorable impression of Lamont, and then vote for Lamont as a result. But I did post a Lamont vs. Lieberman poll before this one that you could compare to the results, that basically falls in line with the other one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2762574

[Mountainman]

196. Your poll was not a random sample so statistically it is not comparable

to the Quinnipiac poll. Your poll is like the ones that your can freep or DU. Your statement that DU is out of sync with the party is flawed. The only similarity to your poll and the other one is the word poll,

[benny05]

197. The DLC is out of touch...with us

We are the leaders we've been waiting for...to borrow from John Edwards, who borrowed it from someone else..a social activist.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/18/91417/5941

[Toots]

198. DU has been correct way more than not so look upon us as cutting edge

We are establishing the criteria not reacting to it...

[NJmaverick]

202. Excellent point! Sadly DU is wasting time attacking Joe L.

While critical senate races against REPUBLICANS are ignored and neglected!

[Mountainman]

209. Did you get the point that the poster's poll was unscientific?

If you are referring to the idea that DUers are out of sync with national polls that idea is not supported by the poster's poll. His poll was not a random sample there fore any inference that the poll reflects the population at DU is false.

[TankLV]

213. We ARE attacking "repukes" - "holy"joe just proved himself a fellow repuke

He IS running against the Democrat...

[Joanne98]

216. We're just ahead of the trend.. Congrats to DU!

[BootinUp]

218. Why you say "netroots"?

I prefer nutroots.

[sknabt]

219. So what?

And if participants at DU are more liberal than other groups - what your data suggests - who cares? Should folks here change their politics to fit in? Should DU fold it's tent in shame?

Maybe DU can merge with an RNC-funded forum so, on average, it'll be... well, Joe Liebermann. ;)

[symbolman]

220. Here's my vote on the subject, a Flash that tells it all about LIEberman

Here's my latest work all about Joe LIEberman's ridiculous run as a "Party of One", which reminds me of "Army of One" (which gives ME a mental image of a guy stuck under fire in a foxhole, looking around and saying, "WHERE the hell IS EVERYBODY!!") :) -- Makes about as much sense in a marketing vein. Party of One, Translates into "Party of NONE" when it involved LIEberman, might as well be saying, "Party of ME", eh?

This flash also incorporates the fact that the Terror Lockdown on Liquids, etc came so close on the heels of Joe's Smackdown by Lamont as to not be considered credible - even today they are confirming that people will walk FREE because they don't have the evidence to hold them, let alone that there were NO Explosives in their possession, they hadn't even made reservations, etc, etc..

Meanwhile they talk about charging a PREGNANT woman for having some water, and a face wipe - this flash addresses those concerns as well, the fact that WE are being used as PUPPETS in a The Politics of Terror.

Remember, a republican said they'd ride this last nonThreat all the way into November. Let's prove them wrong.. Let's VOTE for Lamont, as we all know this last Primary was a referendum on Bush and his faked "war". The Nerve of LIEberman to shit all over the Democrats. It's like using a girlfriend to get you through medical school and then snatching up the Trophy Wife once you've graduated. How can we ever trust this Puppet again?

One of my best Flash works ever, and to the Tune of "Masters of War" by Mr Bob Dylan, and no truer words were spoken in our time.

Have a look at:

http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20060819044200833

[Skittles]

221. so?

we are much better informed than the average voter