Each threat that gets bandied in the press, bolsters joe amongst independents. Even though CT is left-leaning, I have a strong feeling that a majority of the voters still hold their noses and make the choice of lesser of two evils. If Lieberman is an independent, it gives them a chance to let both parties know where they stand. Thier vitriol is completely counterproductive if they are trying to keep voters home, especially independent voters.

worth noting that if he wins, it will be a huge rejection by the moderates of both parties. The gop is used to that in CT, but for dems:

It may show voters will reject party over a person, even in the extremely liberal state of CT.

Independent trumping democratic party-says a lot about the left’s cohesiveness.

The brouhaha about Liebermann not being a democrat is going to be extremely useful for Joe. The left is helping him, by saying he is not one of them, saving him the trouble of having to distance himself in the eyes of independent moderate voters, and risk alienating his democratic supporters.

That our govt is not even willing to prevent voter fraud says all that needs to be said in regards to their commitment to true equality. The people who run around in urban precincts are violating the virtue of our system-

one person, one vote. (Not to be confused with the framer’s intent, ‘one white male owning land, one vote.)

Dems would make the argument that it is ‘restrictive’. A conservative would make the argument that it would keep people from selling their food stamps to crack dealers who have no trouble using the stamps without ID.

the classic ‘restrictive’ v. fraud prevention argument.

nebulous personal freedom versus concrete financial results/savings…it should be a no brainer.

But then again people from Indiana are so much more reasonable than people from elsewhere — I never met anyone from Indiana I didn’t like –