southsider2k5 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 12:59 PM) Americans don't vote for losers. Expain this then... http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cubsatte.shtml Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) Expain this then... http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cubsatte.shtml Yup, but they sure do like the underdog. Edited August 10, 2006 by KipWellsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) Expain this then... http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/cubsatte.shtml Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:59 AM) Actually, the paper that you're so quick to bash happens to be Lieberman's hometown paper, and it endorsed Lieberman over Lamont in the primary. That's nice, but it doesn't mean anything. Did the AUTHOR of the article endorse Lieberman? Did he change his mind and decide to toe the party line after Joe lost the primary? I find it absolutely laughable that people are actually asking Joe to quit because they think that he's too much of a "threat" to their agenda. That would be like the Sox asking the Twins and Red Sox to tank the rest of the season because they're all serious threats to their Wild Card aspirations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 TPM Media is continuing to follow the "Joe was hacked" story. Here are interviews, which don't exactly match, with a couple of Joe's tech guys. Here is a discussion into the software and Hardware the Lieberman campaign says it was using, and how it could potentially have been the real problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 11, 2006 Author Share Posted August 11, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 02:24 PM) That's nice, but it doesn't mean anything. Did the AUTHOR of the article endorse Lieberman? Did he change his mind and decide to toe the party line after Joe lost the primary? I find it absolutely laughable that people are actually asking Joe to quit because they think that he's too much of a "threat" to their agenda. That would be like the Sox asking the Twins and Red Sox to tank the rest of the season because they're all serious threats to their Wild Card aspirations. Connecticut Primaries don't have Wild Card berths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samclemens Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 feds investigate hacking of lieberman's website: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/10/D8JDNHG81.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 11, 2006 Author Share Posted August 11, 2006 Alexa is a website that tracks traffic on commercial sites. It happened to be tracking Lieberman's and Lamont's site. Both had equal spikes in traffic. The difference? Joe Lieberman's website was on a shared server with 74 other websites. This website has trouble with 350 people on it at once. It wasn't a bandwidth issue. It looks more like a server issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 01:02 PM) Alexa is a website that tracks traffic on commercial sites. It happened to be tracking Lieberman's and Lamont's site. Both had equal spikes in traffic. The difference? Joe Lieberman's website was on a shared server with 74 other websites. This website has trouble with 350 people on it at once. It wasn't a bandwidth issue. It looks more like a server issue. This site has trouble with 350 people on it because of database limitations, not bandwidth or server issues. For the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 08:02 AM) Alexa is a website that tracks traffic on commercial sites. It happened to be tracking Lieberman's and Lamont's site. Both had equal spikes in traffic. The difference? Joe Lieberman's website was on a shared server with 74 other websites. This website has trouble with 350 people on it at once. It wasn't a bandwidth issue. It looks more like a server issue. That might, or might not mean anything. If they are claiming a denial of service, that could be important. If they are claiming they were hacked, that is a different story, and how much traffic is on the site doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 07:16 AM) That might, or might not mean anything. If they are claiming a denial of service, that could be important. If they are claiming they were hacked, that is a different story, and how much traffic is on the site doesn't matter. They've basically backed off of their DOS claims that they made earlier. They're still sort of saying they were hacked, but they're not saying what the Hackers did at all except spike traffic, which sure sounds like a DOS attack, which they stopped saying it was. Confusing enough? Anyway, that Alexa graph...that's some damn good evidence in my mind. That's the sort of thing that makes me think filing a false police report charges could be coming down against people in that campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2006 -> 10:57 AM) They've basically backed off of their DOS claims that they made earlier. They're still sort of saying they were hacked, but they're not saying what the Hackers did at all except spike traffic, which sure sounds like a DOS attack, which they stopped saying it was. Confusing enough? Anyway, that Alexa graph...that's some damn good evidence in my mind. That's the sort of thing that makes me think filing a false police report charges could be coming down against people in that campaign. Now that's a stretch. They suspected foul play and asked the police to investigate. Seems legit to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 According to new Rasmussen poll, Lieberman has the lead in a three way race. Details to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 Lieberman could end up a man without committee assignments or seniority in the Senate. http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheH...1606/news1.html “Lieberman’s tone and message has shocked a lot of people,” said a second senior Democratic aide who has discussed the issue with other Senate Democrats. “He’s way off message for us and right in line with the White House.” “At this point Lieberman cannot expect to just keep his seniority,” said the aide. “He can’t run against a Democrat and expect to waltz back to the caucus with the same seniority as before. It would give the view that the Senate is a country club rather than representative of a political party and political movement.” The aide said that it would make no sense to keep Lieberman in a position where he might take over the Governmental Affairs Committee. Ironically, a lawmaker with a good shot of replacing Lieberman atop the Governmental Affairs panel, Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), is spearheading the effort within the Senate to preserve Democratic support for Lieberman. Carper is the third most senior Democrat on the panel after Lieberman. But the two Democrats who outrank him, Sens. Carl Levin (Mich.) and Daniel Akaka (Hawaii) are likely to keep their perches as the most senior Democrats on the Armed Services Committee and Veterans Affairs Committee, respectively. Carper’s chief of staff, Jonathan Jones, has contacted Democratic aides recently and urged them that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee should not spend money in the race between Lieberman and Lamont, said two Democratic aides familiar with the conversations. Jones said the money would be better spent elsewhere since the seat will remain in Democratic hands, said the sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 02:34 PM) Lieberman could end up a man without committee assignments or seniority in the Senate. http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheH...1606/news1.html oh noooooooooo, he's not being punished for holding his view for the war, not at all... noooooooooooooo... /rolly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 10:56 AM) oh noooooooooo, he's not being punished for holding his view for the war, not at all... noooooooooooooo... /rolly Yeah, because everyone who doesn't hold the same opinion on the war is getting the same treatment, and it's not just because he's departed the Democratic Party for the Lieberman party. Nope, couldn't be that at all. In fact, I think the Republicans should give Jim Jeffords back all of his committee assignments. Sure he gave the Dems a brief majority in 2001 by stopping caucusing with the Republicans, and is now registered as an Independent, but the Republicans shouldn't punish people for leaving their party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Seems pretty simple to me. I totally agree with the Democratic party in sending Lieberman out the door. After all, he isn't a Democrat. But on the other hand, more power to him if runs as an indepedent. I think that would be excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I tried to go in and edit my response before the damn site went down again. (@#$% server company). Anyway, I knew you all were going to come back and say this. And you're partially right... but look how many times in that article it had to be referred to about how he was 'aligning with the White House'. That was more my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 He's running as an "independent minded Democrat" which includes getting all but endorsed by a Republican president, accepting money and help from Republican partisan sources. If Lieberman wants to keep his spot in Senate seniority, he oughta pledge that he'll caucus with the Dems in January 07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 02:23 PM) He's running as an "independent minded Democrat" which includes getting all but endorsed by a Republican president, accepting money and help from Republican partisan sources. If Lieberman wants to keep his spot in Senate seniority, he oughta pledge that he'll caucus with the Dems in January 07. Actually, according to the Lieberman campaign, he has done so. Edited August 16, 2006 by Balta1701 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 16, 2006 -> 04:23 PM) He's running as an "independent minded Democrat" which includes getting all but endorsed by a Republican president, accepting money and help from Republican partisan sources. If Lieberman wants to keep his spot in Senate seniority, he oughta pledge that he'll caucus with the Dems in January 07. I disagree. I think his days of being successful in the Democratic party are over. At this point, he might as well shoot the moon - go indy, or go GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=948 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Probably worth noting the trend lines in that poll...July13-18 poll in () Lieberman: 49 (51) Lamont: 38 (27) Schlesinger: 4 (9) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 How about this for a scenario: Dems win the Senate by one vote. Lieberman set to take chairmanship of Homeland Security committee. Lieberman passed over for chair. Lieberman switches parties. Repubs back in power. Sound familiar, Lincoln? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Aug 17, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) How about this for a scenario: Dems win the Senate by one vote. Lieberman set to take chairmanship of Homeland Security committee. Lieberman passed over for chair. Lieberman switches parties. Repubs back in power. Sound familiar, Lincoln? If Lamont can't even win, then the Democrats sure as hell won't be winning back the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts