Did video games lose it for Lieberman?
by Kyle Orland 
{ Aug 10th 2006 at 9:35AM }
Was support for video game regulation a significant factor in Joe Lieberman's primary loss to Ned Lamont in yesterday's Democratic Connecticut Senate primary? That's the theory put forth by one blogger, who says that the young children who remember Lieberman from the 1994 video game hearings are now of voting age and out for revenge!We're not buying it, though. For one thing, 18- to 24-year-olds are a historically unimportant voting bloc -- only 36 percent of them voted in the 2000 presidential election (though this group is growing: 47 percent voted in 2004). For another, exit polls (.pdf) show that issues like the war in Iraq and Lieberman's close relationship with Bush were foremost on voters' minds -- video game issues don't even make a blip.
Despite the loss, Lieberman has announced he will still be running as an Independent, which means his vociferous calls for game regulation might yet continue to ring through the Senate. Even if he does lose in November, other Senators like Hillary Clinton have shown they are more than willing to take up the cause.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Piddy @ Aug 10th 2006 9:39AM
I'm 39, and I still remember :)
Rhine @ Aug 10th 2006 9:47AM
He lost becuase he supported the war in Iraq simple as that not everything in the world is becuase of videogames :/
Markster @ Aug 10th 2006 9:50AM
I've always been weary of Liberman thanks to his video game stance.
Back in the 2000 election, the only upside to Gore losing was that Liberman wouldn't be in the Vice Presidental position to start his video game witchhunt.
His anti-gaming platform of 2000 is well rooted in my mind.
SickNic @ Aug 10th 2006 9:54AM
Honestly, that is why I dispise the man. I remember reading about him in EGM or gamepro back than. I didn't vote this time around, but I only associate his name with that crap that happened back then. I will never vote for this guy. He should be concentrating on the real problems with the world, like bad parenting...
On a side note, I agree with Rhine. He really lost because he supports the war, and the majority of americans don't...
Beex @ Aug 10th 2006 9:57AM
I think it's because the man has zero charisma - his voice drones, he seems disingenuous, and (perhaps most importantly) the man is simply so hard to look at. I mean, let's face it, he's beyond unattractive... from the nose down Lieberman's face looks like a manatee vulva. It's brutal.
32_Footsteps @ Aug 10th 2006 9:58AM
Look, I'm not one who usually makes these kind of posts...
But if you don't buy it at all, why even discuss it? By far, the three factors I've seen universally brought up against Lieberman is a) his unwavering support for the war in Iraq despite all evidence that shows that we went in under false pretenses, b) his incredibly cozy with President Bush, who is highly unpopular in Connecticut, and c) the fact that he seemingly trashes the Democratic party every chance he gets (it's awfully hard to convince people to vote for you when you constantly go on about how morally bankrupt they are).
Trust me, as a video gamer and someone interested in politics, I'm all fuzzy with the idea of Joe Lieberman leaving the Senate. It's just not worth the level of delusion required to even consider that video gaming had something to do with it. In terms of politics, video gaming is a very small fish in a very big pond.
Fuzz @ Aug 10th 2006 9:58AM
I thought he lost because he was cought making out with George Bush.
Andrew Yoon @ Aug 10th 2006 9:59AM
I really wish "the majority of Americans" that don't support the war now... didn't support it earlier. Oh well. Lieberman is a closet Republican to me, so good riddance.
Phranctoast @ Aug 10th 2006 10:00AM
I just like how he looks like the emperor
ncdign @ Aug 10th 2006 10:02AM
Be careful he is Senator Palpatine in disguise!!
Brandon @ Aug 10th 2006 10:04AM
Talk about video game regulation all you want but we're in the midsts of a war in Iraq. That just seems a little more important to me.
Steve @ Aug 10th 2006 10:15AM
I always have voted against him for his video game views and will continue to do so. I hope his political life dries up like a Grandma hooker's you know what.
Buckshot @ Aug 10th 2006 10:21AM
It's easy, no one like wussy dems. With Hillary and Sharpton as thir current presidental picks, they will find themselves pwned yet again.
Marry @ Aug 10th 2006 10:26AM
Phranctoast, he just looks like emperor, but isn't it
smarterray @ Aug 10th 2006 10:26AM
*hypothesis
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 10:35AM
"With Hillary and Sharpton as thir current presidental picks, they will find themselves pwned yet again."
WTF planet do you live on?
Grassroots dems (the ones who actually organize, are active, and vote in primaries that decide who the nominee is) HATE Hillary Clinton. She is no better than Lie-berman with her pandering to the right-wing wannabe fascists.
And Sharpton may always run, but he never ever gets any kind of serious support.
The main Dem Prez contenders, who actually have a chance of getting the nomination as of right now are:
Gen. Wesley Clark
Sen. John Edwrads
Sen. Russ Feingold
Sen. Joe Biden
Sen. Evan Bayh
As for "no one" liking "wuss" Dems, well according to every poll taken in the last year, Americans would prefer to be led by Dems by an average 15% margin.
Not surprising, considering how much the wannabe fascists in the Repug party have completely screwed up our country in the past 6+ years....
Mephistar @ Aug 10th 2006 10:41AM
What lost it for Joe was not going on the Colbert Report. Let that be a lesson to the rest of you Senators.
polly @ Aug 10th 2006 10:53AM
"I really wish "the majority of Americans" that don't support the war now... didn't support it earlier."
You mean back when the "We have proof they have WMDs" claims were being made by practically every White House official? You're right. Shame on us. Fact is most of the reasonable Americans were tepid about Iraq, but gave the administration the benefit of the doubt since they had all this evidence and knew what was going on behind the scenes. Or so we thought.
"Talk about video game regulation all you want but we're in the midsts of a war in Iraq."
Yeah, a civil war.
Erik Novak @ Aug 10th 2006 10:54AM
I voted for Bush because of Lieberman's history when I was 18. Trust me, I regret that vote. :(
Buckshot @ Aug 10th 2006 10:55AM
No repug love here. Just don't ever want any of my money going to free chesse and minorities. And I think the country is in great shape other than the "war on drugs". I make more money than I ever have, and have gotten a well deservered tax break.
You can do something to fix the country, vote Libertarian, the 2 party system is dead. Same crooks, different masks.
Jellodyne @ Aug 10th 2006 10:59AM
Who says you can't be a conservative, right-wing democrat?
I guess the votors in Connecticut do. Good for them.
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 11:01AM
"And I think the country is in great shape other than the "war on drugs"
[cough]Iraq[cough]
[cough]stem cell research banned by Bush[cough]
[cough]$800,000,000,000 deficit[cough]
Yeah, no problems here...
Ryan @ Aug 10th 2006 11:05AM
Reason for Lieberman's loss? Lamont's successful smear campaign. Who knew you could win an election based solely on one issue? Oh, wait, maybe...the president?
It doesn't matter. I think Lieberman's Republican support and Moderate Democrat support will keep him in office as an Independent. We shall see in November...
32_Footsteps @ Aug 10th 2006 11:06AM
Jellodyne, the question isn't whether you can or can't be a conservative-leaning Democrat. It's actually not even a question of whether you can constantly get away with insulting members of your own party, which Lieberman did with astonishing regularity.
It's merely a question of voters deciding who represents them better. And the voters decided Lamont did. If Lieberman represented Connecticut better, he'd have won the primary. End of story.
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 11:06AM
"Back in the 2000 election, the only upside to Gore losing was that Liberman wouldn't be in the Vice Presidental position to start his video game witchhunt."
I remember feeling the exact same way back in 2000.
Of course knowing now what I didnt know then, I would gladly trade in the Iraq War and the botched response to 9/11 for what most likely would have been a very ineffective "video game witchhunt".
So seeing Lieberman go down in CT was sweet because of how cozy he is with Preznit Chimpy McCokespoon, but it was also sweet because I remember how I was so angry at his anti-Mortal Kombat stance when I was younger...
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 11:20AM
" Reason for Lieberman's loss? Lamont's successful smear campaign."
Geez, I dunno about that. From what I saw, Lieberman's ads were far more negative and hostile than Lamonts. You can look them up on youtube and see for yourself, really.
but the bottom line is that The people of CT have spoken. I would hope you would think that those people are capable of making a decision based on more than just television ads.
But then again, I would hope someone like Holy Joe, who CLAIMS to be a Democrat, would respect the primary results. It's called Democracy.
You dont go and start your won party if you lose the nomination.
Like Jon Stewart said last night, what happens when Lieberman loses the General (which he will)? Does he plan on starting his own Senate and making himself the Majority leader?
Its laughable. The only support lie-berman has at this point is from the right-wing, and the only reason they support him is because he gives them Democratic cover for their oppressive and wrong-headed policies.
But now that Holy Joe is buh-bye, the Democratic Party is that much more united -- which they desperately need to be if they are going to win this November.
cringer8 @ Aug 10th 2006 11:29AM
Really? No one else is going to say it? *sigh* All right...I guess it has to be me.
He lost because he's Jewish.
I don't like it, but it's true.
32_Footsteps @ Aug 10th 2006 11:36AM
Cringer, you'll need to do much better than "he's Jewish and he lost" if you want to bring up charges of anti-Semitism. After all, if anti-Semitism was such an issue, how did Lieberman serve 18 years before now?
Grant @ Aug 10th 2006 11:37AM
Yeah cringer, that's why he's been able to keep his seat for 18 years or whatever... cause no one likes a Jew.
eric_with_a_k @ Aug 10th 2006 11:38AM
#22, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. He vetoed federal funding of stem cell research. Completely different. Private funding can be spent on stem cell research unrestricted. If you're so concerned about this issue, why don't you gather like-minded individuals, you all put your money where your mouth is, and leave everyone elses tax dollars out of it? I'd much rather my money be spent getting more police on the streets, filling potholes, defending our borders and doing something about this damn traffic.
Jeff @ Aug 10th 2006 11:42AM
I'll just say this.
I *almost* didn't vote for Gore/Lieberman in 2000 because of both of their stances regarding freedom of speech issues; Gore with his involvement with the PMRC and Lieberman with this video game regulation stance (as well his his hearings on broadcast television content). In the end, it was the most grudging vote I've ever given to a Democratic ticket; I did so because they were the lesser of two evils (and I believe that more today than I did back then).
Who would I have voted for if I lived in CT last week? Ned Lamont. And yes, part of the reason is his attempts to legislate morality.
Another part is definitely that "other" major issue that's got nothing to do with video games and that conventional wisddom is saying cost him the election; that's true. But one issue, no matter how big it is, isn't *usually* enough to sway me - my vote for Gore/Lieberman proved that. But when you add it all up - morality legislation, Iraq, his staunch defense of Bush's policies - that is *not* a Democrat. It says something that Cheney and Rove are now making the rounds praising him and calling Democrats idiots for voting him out. To me, that's all the justification I think Connecticut voters should need to know they were right. The more Republicans praise him, the more obvious it is that he is not a Democrat.
I saw a poll of Lamont voters that asked them why they weren't voting for Lieberman, and the breakdown was something like 51% Iraq, 41% local issues, and 8% "other issues". Lieberman lost by 3.8%. You don't think those "other issues" counted in this race? Sure they did.
The bottom line is if you want to keep getting elected as a Democrat, you need to actually *be* a Democrat in more than name. And to me, and to most Democrats (Hillary Clinton notwithstanding), that means being in favor of first amendment rights and against government attempts at legislating morality.
NATO_Duke @ Aug 10th 2006 11:42AM
The fact that anyone would think he lost becasue of games just shows how out of touch and desperate to be relevant some gamers can be. He supported the war and didn't fight with Bush about everything. Thats all there was to it. No matter how antivideo game a guy was, I would likely vote for him if he were to be the best guy to protect the country and give us good jobs. Games don't trump reality.
Cabrill @ Aug 10th 2006 11:42AM
I'm 26 and his year 2000 antics are on the forefront of my mind in the world of politics. He doesn't even "feel" like a democrat. I think he'd be much more comfortable as a Republican.
Jeff @ Aug 10th 2006 11:42AM
"And yes, part of the reason is his attempts to legislate morality."
Er, by "his" I mean "Lieberman's".
DigitalMatrixIO @ Aug 10th 2006 11:44AM
I am a CT resident that proudly voted for Lieberman in this week's primary for State Senate (as well as 6 years ago in the general election.) I am a very avid gamer and have been for the past 15+ years. I am twenty one years old so whatever videogame legislation Lieberman does pass will not effect me much at all. All the game stores have policies for not selling to minors (prompts to ask for ID if selling M rated games in the transaction.) If more stict laws were put into place the only way it may effect me is that game creators may hold back on content so they don't have a mature rating and will then be able to sell to minors. Since Content providers are protected by free speech there is not much that can legally be done to force a reduction of mature content in videogames.
Jason W @ Aug 10th 2006 11:44AM
Lord Meth Head you are an idiot. Stem Cell research has never been banned. Only public funding of it. At no time in history has there been puclic funding of stem cell research. This post is about Joe the Emporor not your hatred for Bush. Damn the man is not even running again. Its like all the people on the conservative side that still bitch about Clinton. Get over it. He is gone. As for Republicans in general since they own 70+ % of the state houses, the house, senate, white house i dont think they are going to disappear anytime soon.
Now Mr. Liberman will win in the general election as an independent. But I dont mind putting him in that catagory with Jumping Jim Jeffords since it will negate his voting ability to near zero. He cant mess with my games as an independent.
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 11:45AM
"#22, Bush didn't ban stem cell research. He vetoed federal funding of stem cell research."
Without federal dollars, its essentially as destructive to the field as a ban. The dollars we're talking about here are federal dollars that are earmarked for scientific research either way.
"I'd much rather my money be spent getting more police on the streets, filling potholes, defending our borders and doing something about this damn traffic."
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. I, for one, think its just a tad more important for our country to have research done in a field that has a strong potential of providing cures for Cancer, AIDS, MS than to fix potholes.
But thats a non-sequitor anyhow, because as I said, the money that is earmarked for scientific research is the same either way, its just a matter of how its allocated.
Jeff @ Aug 10th 2006 11:49AM
"Now Mr. Liberman will win in the general election as an independent."
Oh no he won't. Just you watch. He's got no money (and no prospects for raising any), his campaign staff all quit yesterday, he's got no support from the Democratic party, and he's being portrayed as a sore loser in all the CT press. The next poll you see, his numbers will be in the toilet - and they're only going to go down from there.
Lieberman is finished. The only question is how he chooses to go out; kicking and screaming like a little baby or with at least some of his dignity left intact.
cringer8 @ Aug 10th 2006 11:51AM
@ 32_Footsteps and Grant
Ummm, did you guys know there's *another* war going on right now between Israel and Lebanon? A lot of people don't approve of how Israel is handling this war, hence the newfound popular view of anti-Semitism in the US. I'm looking at you, Mel Gibson.
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 11:53AM
"Lord Meth Head you are an idiot."
Thanks for raising the level of discourse.
"Stem Cell research has never been banned. Only public funding of it."
See my comments above. It may as well be.
"As for Republicans in general since they own 70+ % of the state houses, the house, senate, white house i dont think they are going to disappear anytime soon."
70% is way off the mark. Rethugs control congress by about 7%. Dems are in a very strong position to take the 15 seats they need to control congress, and even have a chance of getting the 5 seats they need to control the Senate. Do some research before you make such wildly inaccurate statements.
"Now Mr. Liberman will win in the general election as an independent. "
He has no financial support. Democratic leadership has already begun to completely abandon him, and he will soon be stripped of all his Democratic committee seats. Its over for Holy Joe, in fact I will guarantee you that he drops out of the race before a single vote is cast in November. And that's a good thing.
32_Footsteps @ Aug 10th 2006 11:57AM
"I saw a poll of Lamont voters that asked them why they weren't voting for Lieberman, and the breakdown was something like 51% Iraq, 41% local issues, and 8% "other issues". Lieberman lost by 3.8%. You don't think those "other issues" counted in this race? Sure they did."
Well, if you actually do the math, only 4.16% of all voters picked Lamont because of "other issues". But the problem is that this is so vague as to be practically meaningless. There are dozens of issues that could lump in with this (among them, personality issues, Joe's stance on stem cells, his loudmouth ways during the Terry Schiavo brou-ha-ha, his support of the current administration, his habit of insulting other Democrats, and a few others that don't spring to mind).
His stance on censorship (let's be charitable and lump in Lieberman's attacks on anything pop culture-related) is just a very small slice of a very large pie.
Grant @ Aug 10th 2006 12:04PM
Cringer, the war between Lebanon and Israel had very little to do with this election I'm sure. Lieberman isn't an Israeli. It's clear that it's all about Iraq, because that's the big difference between the candidates. Come on.
cringer8 @ Aug 10th 2006 12:11PM
I'm comin' on, Grant.
Do you think common Americans are intelligent enough to differentiate between an Israeli and a Jew? I argue that "no," they are not.
And for you to assume that I am saying only ONE factor decided his fate is silly. There are innumerable factors at play. Some are even subconscious.
And I think this is one.
Not *all* supporters of the war are going to lose this election cycle. That may have played a role, but was no more of a factor than anti-Semitism.
Bored @ Aug 10th 2006 12:15PM
How about what lost it for Lieberman is the fact that Lamont has JP Morgan money to throw around like Sonny Corleone after breaking a reporters camera.
Markster @ Aug 10th 2006 12:16PM
"Now Mr. Liberman will win in the general election as an independent."
No, he'll split the Democratic vote, and the Republicans will win.
Consider this,
in 2000, Liberman got 64% of the vote, compated the 35% for the Republicans. Democratic support is obviously split 50/50 between Liberman and Lamont.
So, the simple math idea of vote splitting puts the 2006 vote at 32/32/35 for Liberman/Lamont/Republican
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 12:25PM
"How about what lost it for Lieberman is the fact that Lamont has JP Morgan money to throw around like Sonny Corleone after breaking a reporters camera."
Lamont Campaign total money spent: $5M
Lieberman Campaign total money spent: $10M
Lamont took ZERO dollars from Washington lobbyists. More than half of Lieberman's money came from the lobbyists and elitists in Washington.
"Democratic support is obviously split 50/50 between Liberman and Lamont. "
It WAS split 52/48. After Holy Joe has gone on to be such a poor loser, expect the next poll to by vastly different.
To reiterate, Lie-berman has no financial support from the Democratic establishment anymore. Dems are uniting behind the primary winner.
Lieberman had his chance, he lost, he doesnt want to give up, but soon he will have no choice. I promise.
eric_with_a_k @ Aug 10th 2006 12:26PM
Lord Meph, if stem cell research is so important and it's potential so great, why do we need public funding anyway? If there's money to be made, and there is if what you say is true, you can bet private funding will be there. The government screws up everything it touches (remember Katrina?) so why do people like you keep pushing for its involvement in more and more areas???
Lord Meph @ Aug 10th 2006 12:35PM
Posted at 12:26PM on Aug 10th 2006 by eric_with_a_k
Please dont take this the wrong way, but you apparantly have no idea how federal funds for scientific research are allocated.
All major scientific research, usually performed at universities, is HIGHLY dependant on federal funding.
I cant disagree with you that our government screws up quite a lot of stuff, but this isnt a case where the government themselves would be doing the actual research. They would simply be providing the funding in the same manner that they do for all the other vital research that goes on in our country's universities today.
There is certainly a good amount of private funding already going into the field, and thats great. But without federal funding the level of research will never be able to compete with a country like China -- who is on the verge of surpassing us in many scientific fields, including stem-cell research.
Rayonic @ Aug 10th 2006 12:45PM
Just to clear things up:
1) Lieberman has offered plenty of criticism of the Iraq War. He views it as inevitable but badly executed (and if you read up on your history, you'll see he's mostly correct.)
2) Too close to Bush? God forbid a senator try to schmooze the current president and forward the party's agenda. I guess some people haven't realized that the Democrats have lost their majority in Congress and might have to "work with" their hated enemies.
Sarge @ Aug 10th 2006 12:46PM
Wow, all these people that think that Lieberman is cozy with Republicans? One issue does not a Republican make. Just because he supports the war in Iraq doesn't make him conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He is one of THE most liberal senators, look at his voting record.
Personally, Bush made one huge mistake, and that's he went into "damage control" mode way too soon. The idea that Iraq never, ever had WMDs is ludicrous. He should have stuck to his guns, it's obvious that the WMDs are buried in the desert somewhere, or more likely in Syria. Just look at what's going on over in Israel and Lebanon right now with Hezbollah. No one thought they were THAT well armed, and you can't tell me that Saddam was incapable of getting his WMDs out of country given the four month lead-time.
I've also been curious as to why everyone thinks embryonic stem cell research is the "magic bullet" to cure all these various afflictions. It hasn't been shown yet, and even if I was in favor of this particular brand of stem cell research, I wouldn't want the government mucking the whole thing up with senseless bureauracracy. Private investment will do just fine, thank you.
I can't wait, though. It's going to be interesting to see a split vote in CT and see a Republican elected. I just hope it's a conservative Republican, and not one of those so-called "moderates".
Sarge out.