Lieberman Opens 17-Point Lead In Connecticut, Poll Finds

[robcon]

Lieberman Opens 17-Point Lead In Connecticut, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds

"Candidate debates this week did not help the two principal challengers in the Connecticut Senate race, as Sen. Joseph Lieberman now holds a 52 - 35 percent likely voter lead over Democratic candidate Ned Lamont, with 6 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger and 7 percent undecided, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 49 - 39 percent Sen. Lieberman lead over Lamont, with 5 percent for Schlesinger in a September 28 poll by the independent Quinnipiac University.

In this latest survey, Lieberman leads Lamont 70 - 9 percent among likely Republican voters, with 18 percent for Schlesinger, and 58 - 32 - 5 percent among likely independent voters, while likely Democratic voters back Lamont 55 - 36 percent.

While 35 percent of Connecticut voters watched Monday's candidate debate, another 35 percent said they heard or read about the debate. Of those who watched the debate or read or heard about it, only 3 percent say they changed their mind about whom they would vote for as a result of the debate.

"Ned Lamont needed to score a knockout in the debates to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, but he apparently didn't lay a glove on him," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.

"Lamont's negatives are up and he has fallen farther behind in the matchup against Lieberman because of his drop among independent voters and men.

"Observers had speculated that Alan Schlesinger would benefit from the debate exposure and take Republican votes away from Lieberman," Dr. Schwartz added. "Instead, he took Republican votes away from Lamont."

Connecticut likely voters give Lieberman a 49 - 28 percent favorability rating, with 21 percent mixed. Lamont gets a negative 29 - 36 percent favorability rating, with 21 percent mixed and 13 percent who haven't heard enough to form an opinion. For Schlesinger, 65 percent don't know enough about him to form an opinion..."
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=974

[monarch]

1. No way that poll is accurate!!

[bigscott]

3. i agree

that is total bullshit

[greccogirl]

9. Yes it Is.

Lamont is going to lose HUGE.

[against all enemies]

70. You seem happy about that. Lieberman is a neocon.

[LynneSin]

84. Actually I just think she was telling the facts

I've not seen Lamont anywhere closer than 10 points within Lieberman. I mean, now the republicans can vote in this election which is the difference between the primaries and now the general election.

I'm a realists, not a Lieberman supporter - he will probably win, let's just hope we can get 7 senate seats so we don't have to negotiate with him.

[greccogirl]

108. Yes. I don't think Lamont has

a chance. Lieberman will pull some dems, most if not all of the repubs, and probably all of the independents. Lamont couldn't pull enough to avoid a runoff and that was his only chance.

[greccogirl]

107. I didn't say I was happy.

It's just that Lamont is not that strong of a candidate, and as an independent, Lieberman is going to pull dems and a majority of republicans. I don't think Lamont can overcome that.

[saigon68]

143. LIMPMANN IS BUSH " LITE"

[greccogirl]

174. Yes, but he still

pulled 48% of the dems and now a huge amount of republicans are going to support him. I don't think Lamont can overcome that (or anyone could).

[barb162]

151. I didn't read it that way; the poster is just pointing out a fact

That's not a tight race

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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

[greccogirl]

109. Well since I don't live in that

district, I won't be "sucking" on anything.

[ihelpu2see]

163. sorry, but the Q-poll is flawed and does not include 2nd debate

Joe has done miserably in the 2 debates so far and Neds new media buy will put shame to Joe and the $5.5 million that he recently has taken in from the "Friends of the White House" organized by Cheney and Rove....

[KittyWampus]

27. It probably is, that's what happens when grassroots insist on pushing

ONE single hobbyhorse (Iraq War) and make it that much easier to portray their candidate as such.

[Tesha]

72. It's what happens when RIGHT WING DEMOCRATS don't vote for the party.

What's the matter? Can't they hold their noses and vote for the
Democratic nomineee (as we lefties are so often told to do)?

Tesha

[CTLawGuy]

91. centrists get a special pass

and special rules apply to people like Mark Pryor, Harold Ford, Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, Mary Landrieu.

[Jax]

121. Wish I could nominate this reply

Spot on Tesha

:thumbsup:

[Tesha]

136. Thank you. (NT)

[Ken Burch]

90. What are you saying, we should've NOT talked about the war?

People who still supported the war were unquestioningly pro-Lieberman. We were never GOING to get their votes.

[CTyankee]

92. However, there are LIeberman supporters for whom the war is not

the deal breaker. Understand that. There were simply other things: support for Israel, bipartisanship (a big deal that obviously played well in Joe's focus group testing because that has been a big theme in their ads), "saving" the Groton sub base.

That was the miscalculation both here on the ground in CT and on DU: every Dem would just fall into line with us on the war. Ain't so, folks. I have talked with people when I call for Ned and the Dems who say they'll vote for Joe many times also say they hate the war. So there you have it. Sorry.

[KittyWampus]

144. The salient point- Lamont has successfully been tarred as ONE ISSUE

candidate.

[Ken Burch]

154. The way you say that, it sounds like you think it serves Lamont right

Are you saying incumbent senators should NEVER be challenged in primaries?

[The Count]

51. Quinnipiac - Oct 2000: Hillary slipping, neck in neck with Lazio

Only had her 'surge" the day before the election to spare themselves complete embarrasment when she trounced him.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11372.xml
Clinton Slips And It's Neck And Neck In New York Again, Quinnipiac University Poll Finds; Her Loss Shifts To Undecided More Than To Lazio
When Giuliani was at top 911 sainthood, they'd take polls of him vs Hillary - in spite of the fact that none was running for anything

[rinsd]

55. They still had her up 3pts, which is the same that Zogby had

[slackmaster]

79. You feel the poll is inaccurate

But you have not presented any facts to support your belief.

[billbuckhead]

97. Interesting that you show up to support a pro Lieberman poll

:evilgrin:

[marmar]

2. Je ne comprends pas.

I just don't get it. Clearly every Repug is voting for Loserman, and a lot of Dems just don't get it.

[Kagemusha]

4. Republicans were voting for Lamont?...

I'm not questioning the accuracy on the basis of limited knowledge but, I had no idea that any Republican in the entire state was even considering voting for lamont.

[TheWraith]

48. Sure.

Even in a normal election, there are big chunks of fence-jumpers. As many as 20% of a given political party will on average vote for the other guy. So the Dem gets Republican votes, the Repub gets Democratic votes, and it sort of works out in the wash unless someone gets a decisive advantage. Particularly in a state like CT, there are bound to be many people who are Republican registered who aren't thrilled with the current course of events: fiscal conservatives, isolationists, right-leaning libertarians, etcetera. Some of these people, maybe a lot of them, would lean more towards a Democrat over a rubber-stamp Republican, or in this case over a pro-war/deficit Dem.

In this case, though, the Repub candidate apparently showed himself to be somewhat in line with their views, so he took away some of that right-wing vote from Lamont, the chunk that was more comfortable supporting a Republican with a certain stance than any Democrat. At least, that's my read on the poll. Ironically, the Republican in this race is turning out to be the spoiler who'll help insure the return of Joementum to the senate--though to be fair, it probably wouldn't be winnable even if there were only one candidate besides Lieberman.

[TroglodyteScholar]

59. On average?

As many as 20% of a given political party will on average vote for the other guy.

And whose ass did this statement come out of?

[TheWraith]

73. Every poll ever conducted?

Do note that that is an UP TO figure, as in up to this many people. But if you check any kind of poll which breaks down candidate support by voter affiliation, you'll find anywhere from 8 percent on the low end to 20 percent on the high end of people who identify themselves with a particular party also say that they're voting for the other party's candidate. That's the way elections work. It's not lockstep, and you DO need votes from the other side, contrary to what people here may believe.

[TroglodyteScholar]

86. You can't have an "up to" figure that is "on average"

I wasn't unclear about what TheWraith was getting at -- I was making a point that seems to have been missed.

[TheWraith]

147. I meant, in an average race.

Some races have larger numbers of defectors. For instance, Eliot Spitzer here in NY is pulling pretty much all the Democrats, most of the indies, and well over a third of the Republican vote. Others have almost no party-jumpers.

[brooklynite]

5. I don't want to sound pessimistic...

...but I've long ago learned not to mix my hopes and dreams with my view of reality.

The bottom line is that Ned Lamont is not a strong candidate. Think back to the August Primary. Despite all the presumed anger about his support for the war and his cozing up to Bush & Co., Lierberman got 48% of the Democratic Vote - nearly half. Starting with that base and adding Republicans and a share of Independents, he's in a good position to win again. Add to that the fact that Lamont's message has not been compelling - set aside for a moment whether you personally agree with it, and ask yourself: Is his language, his advertising, his personally speaking style going to really resonate with the non-activist voter? If not, and absent a major corruption scandal, I think a sizeable number of voters are going to stick with what they've got.

[greccogirl]

111. Very good analogy

and totally correct. I think people forget that Lieberman pulled 48% the first time and now he's got the repubs with him. Lamont cannot overcome that. Plus Lieberman is experienced and many have liked his work as a Congressman, or so my friend tells me. I just think that race is toast for Lamont, baring an unforeseen surprise.

[CTLawGuy]

167. what you are saying, essentially

is that it is no big feat to topple an 18-year incumbent in his own party's primary.

Of course he got 48% of the vote, he'd get that much if he slaughtered babies on live TV. He's the incumbent running in his own party's primary! It's amazing what Lamont was able to pull off, with almost zero establishment support, running against the guy who PAID FOR the state nominating convention.

Now Lieberman is STILL the incumbent and he's basically running as the Republican candidate.

[Ken Burch]

6. Goddamn it, why didn't Harry Reid make it clear the day after the primary

That HolyWarJoe would lose his seniority if he won as a right-wing independent?

Why did Reid kiss Lieberman's ass?

[quiet.american]

7. One has to wonder.

[dmallind]

12. What choice did he have?

Lieberman: Can I keep my seniority and get my pick of committees if I win as an independent?

Reid: No god damn you you traitor - you'll be ostracized and sent to the back of the queue where you belong!

Lieberman: The Republicans have offered me my pick of jobs and full seniority if I caucus with them instead of you. I'm going to win anyway - everyone knows that. Do you want me in your caucus or theirs? Sure I vote with Bush a portion of the time, and I still will, but I vote with you guys most of the time, for now at least (smirk). Who do you want me voting for for Senate leadership if this thing ends up 49-49-2? You want to be Majority leader or minority Harry? You want Dems to control Senate committees and agendas or Republicans Harry? NOW can I keep my seniority and get my pick of committees? You know I'm going to win anyway, right Harry?

Reid: Ermm..... OK

[toopers]

22. Because Reid will need Joe . . .

when he is in Washington.

[The Count]

25. Good luck with that. better chances with Bush than Joe I'm afraid.

Poll is bogus but may indicate a fix. Connecticut has lever machines, but maybe a voter purge or something.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

129. Lordy...

Connecticut has lever machines, but maybe a voter purge or something.

Why is it so goddamn difficult to admit that the experiment is in the process of failing? You're calling election fraud before there's even been an election, when there's no evidence that the election will be rigged, and when there is a completely rational and sane explanation for the phenomenon we are witnessing. The only good that can possibly come of this mess is for the netroots to drop its delusions of grandeur and get back to doing the work it's really, really good at. It's important work, and it is making a difference. But not in Connecticut.

Let's face reality: The Democratic leadership views the netroots as a group with more money than sense. The netroots are humored by the leadership. They think you're nuts. I chose the word "nuts" very specifically to illustrate the point that the leadership is using the netroots in a manner that is similar to the way the Republicans use the fundies. And until the netroots understands that, and understands why they are viewed this way, then we're simply going to sit here having the same old arguments between people on two sides of the reality divide.

Being part of the "reality-based community" means accepting reality, even when you don't like what it says about you.

[Ken Burch]

156. What "reality" are you saying we should accept?

If you're saying that activists should just settle for the candidates our leadership allows us to have, why should anyone with principles VOTE Democratic?

People whose main concern is reelecting incumbents don't stand for anything that matters.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

160. "The leadership" is not responsible for Ned going down to defeat.

The voters of Connecticut are. The netroots have proven that they can be a force for positive change in the primaries. Next time, I hope they try to influence a primary where the outcome will be useful.

[Ken Burch]

161. That makes it impossible for the "netroots" to decide where to work...

NOBODY knew, when all this started, that Lieberman would be dishonorable and refuse to accept defeat in the primary. Nobody knew that he would have this good a chance of getting away with it.

And there really wasn't a better fight for the netroots to choose. What primary battle, exactly, do you feel was a naturally better choice than standing up to Lieberman?

Aren't you basically saying the "netroots" and the activists shouldn't even have TRIED to fight for their principles anywhere this year? That we should have just blindly, unquestioningly done what the party leaders told us to, even though obeying the leaders always means abandoning your beliefs and settling for mere victories in name, if we get the victories at all?

You may not realize this, but it really sounds like you're getting a charge out of kicking good people while they're down here. Could you maybe attack the RIGHT for a change?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

164. Well...

NOBODY knew, when all this started, that Lieberman would be dishonorable and refuse to accept defeat in the primary. Nobody knew that he would have this good a chance of getting away with it.

Not many people expected Lamont to win the primary, but he did. However, anybody who knows how Lieberman works would understand that he wasn't just going to roll over if he lost the primary.

And there really wasn't a better fight for the netroots to choose. What primary battle, exactly, do you feel was a naturally better choice than standing up to Lieberman?

I disagree. There are plenty of DINOs out there, especially in the house, who aren't anywhere near as entrenched as Lieberman. You're telling me that none of those would have been worth fighting? Some of those could have been won. What I am suggesting is that the netroots have overestimated their own strength. There are plenty of achievable goals they could have attacked, as opposed to running a medicore candidate to try to take down one of the most powerful and popular (in his state) senators in the opposition party. Unfortunately, none of those other contests had the sex appeal of going after Lieberman.

You may not realize this, but it really sounds like you're getting a charge out of kicking good people while they're down here. Could you maybe attack the RIGHT for a change?

I am not attacking anybody. If you look back up to the beginning of this subthread, I was responding to the notion that somehow the Connecticut election was going to be rigged in favour of Lieberman - an idea that is a perfect and ludicrous example of the divorce from reality that I believe is troubling the netroots community as a whole. Lieberman doesn't need election fraud to win. Which thing better serves the netroots community: Shouting election fraud with no evidence and the polls clearly indicating a Lieberman win, or looking rationally at what happened, why they failed, and what they can do better next time?

I have made it clear in several other posts in this thread that I've got respect for the netroots community, and I think they have the potential to do tremendous good. However, they also have a propensity for believing their own rhetoric, and that is suicide in politics. As for "kicking people while they're down," I was kicked repeatedly for predicting exactly this outcome many months ago, and was derided as a DLCer and all sorts of other shrill gibberish. So there might be an element of I-told-you-so in my tone. However, the basic point (which I made elsewhere in this thread) still stands: The netroots campaign has actually made Lieberman more powerful than he was before. And that is why I think this is a disaster.

[Ken Burch]

38. Joe wouldn't be winning if Reid had made it clear

The he'd be a backbencher for defying the primary.

[toopers]

47. That's untrue . . .

Lieberman won 48% of the democratic vote. So, he gets that regardless of Reid, plus the cross over vote that will vote for Lieberman as a best of the worst scenario.

[Dr Fate]

29. Because he is a frightened, hand-wringing little girl.

You should have learned that during Kerry's Alito Filibuster attempt.

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

132. Could've done without the "obeys his Israeli masters" line

But the second part of your post is correct.

[krispos42]

40. Because they can't make changes midterm with a full vote

The way it was posted in a thread a few months ago, it looked like, at the beginning of a new session of Congress, they vote on who gets on what committees. The Dems pick their guys, the Repubs pick theirs, there's a vote, and that's it for the year.

In order for Lieberman to be removed, the Senate would apparently have to re-convene and vote on it, and I doubt the Repubs would vote with Harry Reid to strip Joe of his committees.

At least, that's now I understand it.

This sucks big time. Just like BushCo, Joe is being a big giant arrogant asshole with no moderating characteristics, and he's going to be rewarded for it.

[BlueStater]

46. It certaintly didn't help that a few Democrats went against Lamont...

...to endorse Lieberman.

Shame on them. Shame on them all.

[greccogirl]

110. I doubt that would make

any difference - the average voter doesn't even know that or probably care.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

126. Because...

The simple fact of the matter is that the Democrats need Lieberman a hell of a lot more than he needs us. Remember Jim Jeffords? Add to that the fact that a lot of the Democratic leadership isn't particularly happy with the netroots' fucking with a safe seat. Is this really so difficult to understand?

[Ken Burch]

157. You're defending the Democratic leadership for sabotaging a Democratic

candidate.

Are you really this bitter that HolyWarJoe lost the primary?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

159. I'm not defending it.

I think it's a bunch of fucking bullshit. But I understand the logic that's driving their actions.

[barb162]

152. Because Reid will want him on his side when Lieberman wins

There's no point burning bridges in politics. Reid is smart

[BootinUp]

8. They luv dead hand Joe I guess.

:shrug:

[wisteria]

10. What happened to all the grassroots efforts for lamont?

Did they exhaust all their energizes in the primary. Remember, it isn't over till it over, and it is the Republicans who are pushing Lieberman over the top right now. It still remains to be seen if they will actually go out in numbers and vote for him.
Someone has got to start breathing some life into Lamont's campaign. Lieberman will be in an even more powerful and influential position if he is elected. He will owe a lot to the Repubs and he will use his leverage against Dem's to get what he wants.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

128. Exactly.

Lieberman will be in an even more powerful and influential position if he is elected. He will owe a lot to the Repubs and he will use his leverage against Dem's to get what he wants.

And people wonder why I was against this particular little adventure.

[Rose Siding]

11. Dean's rallying with Ned today, and there's a good ad out with Dodd

at noon.

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/event/detail/rallies/wrb2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SA0IymlwXY&eurl=

[movonne]

13. How can this be...what is wrong with CT., the war is going real bad

and they want someone who thinks we should still be there...I don't get it...even the repugs should be turned off...what is really going on there...even some of the labor unions are still backing this SOB..

[robcon]

14. I don't think it's the war.

I think Ned has all the votes of those who think the war in Iraq is the primary issue.

The problem, IMO, is that other voters are overwhelmingly for Lieberman, and especially the Republicans are in a remarkable lock-step behind Lieberman. Less than 10% of the vote is an incredible number for a Repug nominee.

[Flanker]

18. The problem is that there are tons of Democrats more Republican

Than human beings...

[krispos42]

42. CT has tons of rich Democrats, that's why

It is the richest state in the union, and they have a residual Puritan streak. They voted in John Rowland thrice, even though just before he was reelected again, 911 tapes of his wife calling the cops because he was (allegedly) beating her. A judge buddy of his squashed the tapes until after the election. Awfully convenient, huh?

Of course, impeachment hearings were started on him after illegal use of state money to rebuild and upgrade his summer cottage, among other things. He resigned and spend most of a year behind bars.

But I digress...

But look at the representatives they elect: 3 Republicans, 2 Democrats.

Of course, that may change in a few short days...

<edit: fixed typo>

[KittyWampus]

28. Iraq is NOT the only issue, but it's what grassroots insisted on

labeling Lamont with. Thus, it was a piece o'cake for Lieberman to paint him as a single issue candidate.

[brentspeak]

62. Yup. Plus, the average Connecticut voter probably isn't

comfortable with an "activist" politician who gets most of his support from out-of-state. Connecticut is the epitome of the "moderate" state.

[Ken Burch]

105. Ned talked about a lot of other issues.

Why don't you just admit you're a bitter end Lieberman loyalist who is pissed that peace won in the primary?

If Ned had STOPPED talking about the war, he'd be further behind. And you know it.

[Zhade]

169. That poster called the war a "hobbyhorse" for activists.

Clearly, the murder of half a million people based on lies isn't important.

Oh, and the poster also believes "Intelligent Design" is science (said so a number of times), so...yeah. Not well-informed, clearly.

[Ken Burch]

158. Will you stop bashing the grassroots already?

Without us, the party would NEVER have stood for anything. Our leaders never fight for anything unless the grassroots forces them to.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

123. It's called incumbancy. n/t

[Stand and Fight]

15. Connectificut...

Connecticut, while one of the richest states in the Union, will surely be deemed one of the dumbest states in the Union if they send Holy Joe back to Congress. I do NOT trust these polls. Not the ones showing Democrats winning big or otherwise. While I think the voting companies may have their hands in the mix come November 7th, I hope to God that we prevail and the Republicans lose handedly — including Joe-motherfucking-Lieberman. :mad:

[flyarm]

33. CT HAS OLD LEVER MACHINES..NOTNEW DRE'S...N/T

[bluedog]

16. they have to start fighting like JOE is the GOP

............he is no longer a Democrat......he changed when he LOST..........he showed his true loyalties to the party when he would not take NO for an answer.
He sides with the GOP.....he is financed with the GOP...they campaign for him.....and in all truth......he will switch again to GOP.........

This man is not to be trusted and should be campaigned against as if he were a GOP candidate running.
This is the problem and if Lamont's campaign doesn't do this..........then they LOSE..............
Wake up out there........

[President Jesus]

17. a serious reality check to the "Netroots" crowd

As if Dean losing 49 of 50 states in 2004 wasn't enough of a message, this Lamont episode shows how far the Netroots have to go to before actually being effectivive when it matters.

Ultimately this is Lamont's fault, though. He should have ditched the dKos crowd and raced towards the center after winning the primary. That's just politics...not saying I like it.

[Dr Fate]

30. Only if DEMS start ignoring the primary results and go for GOP votes.

Your scenarioonly works if more DEMS start ignoring primary results and then cultivate GOP votes away fromthe GOP nominee- as in this case.

In how many instances will it happen this way?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

127. The "Netroots" crowd needs a reality enema.

Of course, every time I bring up the "pointless waste of time and resources that could be better applied elsewherre" argument, I get shouted down as a freeper or a DLCer or some other such nonsense, despite the fact that I dispise Lieberman as much, and probably more than the netroots crowd, and for a lot more reasons. The netroots have succeeded in proving that they can influence the primary process, which is important, and also extremely frightening considering the utterly pointless way in which they chose to exercise this power. Unfortunately, they didn't chose to influence the primary process anywhere where it might have made a difference. Don't get me wrong, I respect their commitment to making this country a better place. I just have to wonder what fucking planet they think this country is on.

[Ken Burch]

134. You're saying we should have given up on stopping the war

Which is what not challenging Joe in the primary would have meant.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

137. How does the current outcome...

...a probable Lieberman victory, stop the war? If anything, this has strengthened his position.

[Ken Burch]

140. There was no way to predict this outcome.

But it clearly wouldn't have been any better to give up without a fight.

The effort had to be made. And it may still succeed.

How would things be better if we'd just said "OK Joe, the seat's yours for life. Go on kicking us in the head and we'll just go on taking it"?

You know the man was just going to keep getting worse and worse no matter what he did.

And I'm getting sick and tired of people acting like the Lamont campaign was a crusade against free speech and dissent. Bullshit times twelve. It was a fight FOR dissent.

Saying we should have left the Lieb unchallenged is just as pointless as saying we owed LBJ renomination.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

142. Yes there was.

A lot of people predicted it, and we were shouted down as freepers or DLCers or assholes or whatever. The electoral math was never there for a Lamont victory. This was known to most reasonable people long ago, and only the most deluded wishful thinking could have seen otherwise. Yes, Lieberman is going to get worse. Possibly much worse. He's been given a position of leverage that he didn't have before. And this stupid, selfish attempt at unseating him has done nothing but strengthen him.

How would things be better if we'd just said "OK Joe, the seat's yours for life. Go on kicking us in the head and we'll just go on taking it"?

All you've proved is that Joe can take your licking and keep on ticking. The result is the polar opposite of what the netroots set out to accomplish. It has made Lieberman stronger, not weaker. This is, quite frankly, a disaster.

[Zhade]

170. None of you KNEW he'd lose.

Just as none of us KNEW he'd win.

It's dishonest to suggest you KNEW Lamont wouldn't win*.

*election results pending

[JCMach1]

19. The good part is we will still have the same old Lieberman... but

that's also the downside.

[bluedog]

20. not sure about that

seeing he is getting alot of repuke support....he will cater to the party.........think hes getting funded to agree and vote with the Democratic party?

I still don't understand .....why...after losing the primary that some members of our party support him........he is no longer a Democrat.

[pscot]

21. He may remain a nominal Democrat

but he's been wounded in his self-love and he will extract his pound of flesh. He's had a near death experience. It's likely to change him for the worse. I had misgivings about this from the gitgo. A lot of time, effort and money were pounded down this particular rathole.

[Xenotime]

23. The poll is inaccurate. He doesn't have a chance.

[Placebo]

24. Not a single poll in months has come out showing Lamont ahead.

Inaccurate? Hardly.

Lamont should be pissing his pants.

[The Count]

26. Maybe, but they were getting close. What triggered 17 points surge?

Other than asking GOP-ers?

[TheWraith]

49. I don't see how it was ever close.

Every poll for months put Lieberman at 10 points ahead, other than one that put him at 8 points ahead--a loss for him, rather than a gain for Lamont. Lamont has never cracked 40% in any poll, to the best of my knowledge.

[brentspeak]

60. If the vote was to take place on DU, then he wouldn't have a chance

But it's actually taking place in the real world (ie. not the Web). In this case, Connecticut.

[SoCalDem]

31. What's sad is this..

The deadline to get your name on the ballot should be BEFORE any primary. There should not be a "window of opportunity" like Joe used.

If you have a primary , it should be used as a winnowing device ONLY..and people who LOSE in a primary should NEVER be allowed to just "put on a new disguise" and continue to run..

Why even HAVE primaries if people can do that?

Lamont v Lieberman.. Lamont won..and yet must still use his money to run against the guy he BEAT?? makes no sense..

This race should be Lamont v Schlessinger and Lamont's money should be used to point out the difference between dem v rep...

The republican money that Lieberman is getting is what's making the difference and we all know that Joementum will be angry at the people who "turned on him", and beholden to the ones who "saved" him ..

[anotherdrew]

80. they have a law stating exactly your wishes. they chose not to follow it

seriously, there's a law there specifically against that holyJoe has done, the secretary of state "decided" it didn't apply.

[Blue_Tires]

101. good points n/t

[goforit]

32. This is a set up for a rigged election!!! Watch and see.

[Robbins]

36. Lieberman

If he wins which Is looking likely we can kiss the majority In the senate goodbye.Does anyone think
after his attacks on Lamont on partinship,using the White House's talking points on Iraq,and his
endosement of Bolton he Is really going to caucus with Democrats?With Bush and and Iraq's low numbers how can any Dems or dem leaning Inds vote for him Is beyond me.

[TheWraith]

50. He's made a campaign pledge to caucus with Dems.

To do anything else would be begging for an election fraud lawsuit. Maybe even removal from office, though I'm not sure how that works in CT.

[mac56]

66. Since when do you believe anything he says?

Particularly if it involves loyalty to Democrats?

[TheWraith]

75. It's a matter of legal precedent.

He's said he would caucus with the Dems if reelected. That's a specific, deliverable campaign promise, part of his platform. Elect me, and you get a Democrat. He's obligated to follow through on that for the same reason that we can't run a Dem candidate as a Republican in their safe districts. The laws tend to take a dim view of such behavior, considering it a form of election fraud. I don't know what the protocols are in CT for removing someone from statewide office, but I certainly suspect that it's possible.

[martymar64]

117. Since when has Joementum kept his word?

If he wins, I call on a boycott of CT goods. Serve them right for electing a traitor Right winger like Joe.

[98geoduck]

130. Start with Big Pharm, Insurance Companies, and Defense industries.

Anyone wondering why Joe has his own protective armour in this state only has to look at it's industry.

Joe needs to be around to clean the taint of the Bushco regime.

[martymar64]

133. Of course he'll be loyal to Big Biz!

The people mean nothing to him. They're just cannon fodder for his wars.

[rinsd]

37. Yeah on those Diebold lever machines!

:eyes:

And we say rightwingers are in denial

[Placebo]

43. THANK YOU.

Someone needs to burst the bubble sooner rather than later.

[rinsd]

45. I hold out hope but geez sometimes the foil is wrapped too tight

[JanusAscending]

Get a Clue!!

If you will read back a few posts, you'll realize we still use the old LEVER machines in CT. Makes it hard to be in "denial" if it ain't so !!! I live here in Ct. , and if anything is screwed up, it's the polls. I don't care whose polls they are, people aren't being truthful with their answers. I believe they are saying one thing , but going to do the total opposite when they get in the booth!!

[fooj]

41. Most definitely! These polls are fixed.

There is NO way that after the union pulled support for Joe and threw it Lamont's way...

The kick in the ass Joe took at the debates...

Prove that he is 17 points ahead...

I say...PROVE IT!

[TheVirginian]

53. Provide a poll that doesn't show a Lieberman lead.

The burden of proof is on you.

[fooj]

54. Zogby shows 49-43%...

That's plausible.

Why is the burden on us? Didn't he ALREADY LOSE the primary race? How can an individual who continually spews lies (which have been proven as such) suddenly gain such an enormous lead when he has already lost once to the voters in CT. I say the burden of proof REMAINS with Joe.

[TheVirginian]

56. Two things:

First, the 49-43 poll is a Zogby Interactive poll, which uses unsound methodology. Zogby has chosen 2006 as the year to test it and experiment with it, and it is widely considered unreliable. However, even if we accept a six-point lead as accurate, Lieberman still is going to win.

Second, no matter what your hatred for Lieberman is or the causes for it, Lieberman isn't behind these polls. Quinnipiac University, Mason-Dixon, Rasmussen, Zogby International, and others are independent polls and not associated with Lieberman's campaign. While Lieberman may have a lot to answer for, you're not questioning Lieberman's integrity when you question these polls, you're questioning the integrity of independent polling agencies that have a long track record for accuracy and reliability; therefore, the burden of proof is on you.

[ScreamingWhisper]

63. You're my hero Virginian, way to present facts, not emotion! n/t

[fooj]

95. Joe lost the primary.

That's a FACT. No emotion there.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

125. Which proves what, exactly? n/t

[Alexander]

65. Only ONE poll showed Lieberman losing the Dem. primary.

Just because you DLC types want Holy Joe to provide you with the Wargasm you need doesn't stand in the way of the facts.

The polls are all over the map on this one. Some show it within MOE, some show it within 10 points. And then we have outliers. My bet's on this one as an outlier.

I think Lieberman's still ahead (although the 2nd debate may have changed that), but the vast majority of polls don't show a blowout of this magnitude.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted sub-thread

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

[TheVirginian]

71. No, but most polls consistently show a lead of at least 8-10 points

Primary polling is far more volatile and unreliable. People who say they're likely to vote many times do not, and the sample size is far smaller, providing with polls all over the place that can provide a general picture but should never be trusted for exact results.

Along the same lines, primary polling showed the race a lot closer than the general; because of the lower turnout and fewer votes cast in a primary, the number of votes that might amount to one percentage point in a general election poll might equal 5 or even 10 percentage points in a primary poll.

However, polling for this race has not been "all over the map", as you claimed. An "all over the map" polling trend would be Ohio five months ago, when polls ranged from DeWine up 10 to Brown up 15. Polling in Connecticut has shown Lieberman consistently leading. While the number he's leading by changes, many things remain the same:

1. Lieberman consistently polls near or above 50%
2. Lieberman consistently pulls a majority of Republicans and Independents
3. Lieberman consistently gets above 35% of the Democratic vote
4. Lamont hits a ceiling around 44%.

These are all evident in every poll that's released, and they all point to a Lieberman victory.

[Alexander]

74. It took me 5 minutes to find 6 polls that show it within MOE.

Rasmussen (August 21, 2006): Lamont-43%/Schlesinger-6%/Lieberman-45%/MOE-4.5%

American Research Group (August 22, 2006): Lamont-42%/Schlesinger-3%/Lieberman-44%/MOE-3.5%

Zobgy (September 10, 2006): Lamont-42.1%/Schlesinger-3%/Lieberman-46%/MOE-4.3%

Rasmussen (September 14, 2006): Lamont-43%/Schlesinger-5%/Lieberman-45%/MOE-4.5%

American Research Group (September 19, 2006): Lamont-45%/Schlesinger-3%/Lieberman-47%/MOE-4%

Zogby (September 28, 2006): Lamont-44%/Schlesinger-0%/Lieberman-45.8%/MOE-4.2%

Quinnipiac polls have never shown it to be a close race - even in the primary. They consistently show a Lieberman-favored blowout in both primary and general results.

Face it, the facts are, these polls are all over the map. Either it's a statistical dead heat or Lieberman's 10 points ahead, and there are bound to be outliers on either side. This Quinnipiac poll isn't rigged, it's an outlier - and outliers do happen in polling.

Note: I believe Lieberman is still ahead, even though I support Lamont. I just don't believe he's 17 points ahead.

Not only that, there's still debate #2, which the media perceived as Lieberman getting trounced, Joe's call for an invasion of Iran, and the front-page Hartford Courant articles showing Lieberman unable to tell reporters who he'll vote for in the other races, (D) or (R). And Dodd's new commercial with Lamont.

This race isn't even close to being over.

[TheVirginian]

77. Look at the most recent polls.

As we get closer to Election Day, more people make up their minds. Not to say they can't change, but to say that the more recent the poll, the more accurate it will be:

October 20th: Q-pac: Lieberman 52, Lamont 35
October 5th: Rasmussen: Lieberman 50, Lamont 40
October 5th: Zogby International: Lieberman 53, Lamont 33
September 28th: Q-pac: Lieberman 49, Lamont 39

All of the polls done in the last month show, at least, a ten point lead, and at most, a 17 point lead.

Keep in mind I purposely excluded Zogby Interactive, because those use unsound methodology, and are categorically unreliable.

[Alexander]

78. This poll still doesn't factor in the stream of bad news for Joe.

Even in the most recent Q-pac poll, only 1/3 of respondents watched the first debate.

In the first debate, Lamont's performance was lackluster, and Schlesinger did very well. No surprise that Lamont's numbers didn't improve with those viewers.

But the second debate is where Alan and Ned essentially teamed up on Joe, and Lieberman had his microphone cut repeatedly for talking longer than he was allowed. Not only that, he publicly called for an invasion of Iran in the second debate.

PLUS Dodd filmed a recent commercial with Ned, being broadcast in the next few days.

PLUS The Hartford Courant last week ran front-page articles about how Joe can't answer who he would prefer to take Congress.

PLUS Lieberman publicly supports John Bolton now.

PLUS Approval for Congress is now 16%, and approval for Bush won't go above the 30s now.

Not only do I think this Q-pac poll is an outlier, I see Lieberman taking hits in just about every poll from here on out, based on these new developments.

[rinsd]

82. 1/3 of respondents watched the first debate.

Which makes sense.

How many Senatorial debates do you think get higher TV audiences amongst voters?

[Alexander]

85. What about Debate #2? You still haven't addressed that.

It makes sense (to me) that the numbers wouldn't budge much just after debate #1. Lamont was visibly nervous, Lieberman held his own, and Schlesinger made it interesting, based on what I saw.

In the second debate, however, Lieberman was repeatedly told by moderator Bob Scheiffer "Your time is up, Senator", and when he continued to ignore him, his microphone was cut off.

Lamont was smoother and more polished, Lieberman stated we should invade Iran (as if one unpopular failed war wasn't enough), and Schlesinger seemed to team up with Lamont on Lieberman (talk about bi-partisanship).

I foresee a larger audience for the second debate, partly from the buzz about it before it was broadcast (it wasn't broadcast live, like the first one was), and the fact that the minor-party candidates were also included.

I personally have watched both debates. Tell me, did you watch either debate?

You still keep ducking the issue of debate #2, which can only hurt Lieberman and help everyone else.

You still haven't addressed the recent developments I cited (Bolton/Dodd/Iran/Cong. approval/Courant articles), none of which were favorable to Lieberman.

You still haven't said who you want to see win this election.

Apart from your last post, your arguments still amount to little more than saying "me too" to whatever Virginian says.

Get back to me when you have something substantial to say.

[greccogirl]

112. Maybe you are right.

But every single poll almost since he primary has shown Lieberman in the lead. I remember commenting to my husband a week or so after the primaries that the first poll showed a 10 point lead by Lieberman and it has pretty much remained constant. Lamont has run on the one issue - the war. I think another thing is that many people may not like Congress, but you'd be surprised how many people just don't vote except for the Presidential election.

[Zhade]

171. Why do some of you keep saying that? HE'S RUN ON MORE THAN THE WAR.

This is obvious, from his website, his rallies, the debate itself - please stop reinforcing untruths.

[greccogirl]

175. I don't feel it is -

I know he's run on more than the war, but that is how he is perceived by many.

[Zhade]

181. Okay, cool, thanks for clarifying.

NT!

[fooj]

96. Here's some info...

I DO question their integrity. Sounds like a cheerleading gig to me...

Schwartz certainly doesn't portray himself as unbiased. Just my take...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/the06fix/index.php?id=136


Challenger Ned Lamont Takes Lead In Connecticut Democratic Primary Race

(AP) Sen. Joe Lieberman, under fire from activists in his own party, has lost ground to his challenger and is narrowly trailing him for the first time in their race for the Democratic nomination, a new poll released Thursday shows.

"This is a surge for Lamont," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz. "It's rare to see such a big change in a race."

Businessman Ned Lamont had support from 51 percent and Lieberman from 47 percent of likely Democratic voters in the latest Quinnipiac University poll — a slight Lamont lead, given the survey's sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

"He leads, but it's not a statistically significant lead," said Schwartz, adding the race is too close to call. Lieberman "has just as good of a shot right now as Lamont. He shouldn't give up and analysts shouldn't close the door on a Lieberman victory."

Lieberman had led in a Quinnipiac poll last month, 55 percent to 40 percent.

The new poll suggests that Lieberman still could win a fourth term, even if he loses the Democratic primary Aug. 8.

Lieberman filed papers last week that will allow him to petition his way onto the November ballot. The poll found that among all registered Connecticut voters surveyed, including non-Democrats, Lieberman had the support of 51 percent, followed by Lamont with 27 percent and Republican Alan Schlesinger with 9 percent.

The telephone survey of 2,502 registered voters, 653 of them likely Democratic voters, was conducted July 13-18. The margin of error for the overall survey was plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Lamont, a multimillionaire and founder of a cable television company that has wired college campuses, has gained national attention in his challenge to Lieberman. Liberal blogs have built Lamont up while taking shots at Lieberman for his support of the Iraq war and other moves perceived to support congressional Republicans and Bush.

"We think the voters of Connecticut are continuing to realize that Ned represents the kind of change they want in Washington," said Lamont campaign spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. "It's clear that Joe Lieberman is just interested in hanging on to power."

Lieberman campaign spokeswoman Marion Steinfels said the poll simply shows that the race is "competitive."

"We've been treating it that way, and we continue to work hard to make sure Joe Lieberman wins on Aug. 8," she said. The campaign announced Thursday that former President Clinton would help campaign for Lieberman.

Schwartz said Lieberman needs to encourage his supporters to vote on Aug. 8. Turnout for primaries is typically low in Connecticut.

"Probably for Lieberman, the best thing he can do right now is get out his troops," Schwartz said. "This is going to be about turnout right now."

<snip>

It's not about hatred. It's about truth.

[Alexander]

103. You're right, there IS bias - the first line of the article reveals it.

"Candidate debates this week did not help the two principal challengers in the Connecticut Senate race"

Note "debates". Not "debate".

But then there's this.

While 35 percent of Connecticut voters watched Monday's candidate debate

So, the TWO debates didn't help Lamont - yet the respondents had only seen ONE debate?

:eyes:

This Q-pac poll is biased crap.

[martymar64]

118. I hope you're happy. The traitor gets to stay.

Joe will continue to undermine the party at every turn and his butt kissing of the Boy King will even escalate. He will continue to push for more war and tax breaks for the rich and for Israel uber alles. He is Benedict Arnold and Grima Wormtongue all rolled into one malignant little package. He deserves to be backbenched in the Senate and to lose all seniority within the committee structure. Let him go over to the Rethugs, he's one already.
If he wins, then CT deserves a boycott for betraying the rest of the nation.

[toopers]

57. I am sure he will provide the proof on election day . . .

eom

[ldf]

99. what if this is the first of the gop

"democrats are stealing the election" spins?

say the polls give their boy joe a huge lead when he doesn't really have it.

then when the election goes the other way, they can scream THE DEMOCRATS ARE STEALING ELECTIONS!!!

that would be a set up for the 2008 election, where bush will be doing so badly, but thanks to some bogus polls he reclaims his gawd-given mandate, and then loses HUGHly!!1!1! and they can scream again, with bush declaring martial law and invalidating the election that legitimately kicked his sorry ass to the curb.

just guesstimating now, got a headache from the tight tin foil....

:shrug:

edit for grammar

[onenote]

177. so do you all of the polls are fraudulent

Then what about the polls by some of the same pollsters that indicate Democrats are winning in various senate/house races?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

124. That's idiotic.

If you don't understand why Lieberman is ahead, then I really have to wonder why you're fucking around with politics in your spare time.

[goforit]

34. 881 voters polled ...IS NO POLL!!! This is pathetic this day and age!!!

[TheVirginian]

52. You don't know anything about polling.

A NATIONAL poll is usually 1,004 with a MoE of +/- 3.0. The standard for a statewide is usually 400-600. 881 is not unheard of, but its actually high compared to many others in the polling industry.

[wisteria]

35. If Lieberman wins, he could be our new Zell Miller.

I don't want to see that. he will forever been a thorn in the side of Dem's. A real Republican hidden beneath the claims of being a Democrat. That is why the Repub's are pushing him. He will vote with them on all the issues that count and come between people wanting to fight for our rights.

[greccogirl]

113. He already is

the new Zell Miller. I live in Georgia, remember how the republicans ousted Cynthia McKinney? Cross-voting. I see the same thing happening here.

[bluedog]

39. check out the inner polls

2. If the 2006 election for senator were being held today, and the candidates were Ned Lamont the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger the Republican, and Joseph Lieberman running as an independent candidate, for whom would you vote? (If undecided q2) As of today, do you lean more toward Lamont, Schlesinger or Lieberman? This table includes Leaners.


LIKELY VOTERS.............................
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Lamont 35% 9% 55% 32% 32% 38%
Schlesinger 6 18 - 5 8 4
Lieberman 52 70 36 58 53 50
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - - -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - - - - - -
DK/NA 7 3 9 5 6 8

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT............
01 02 03 04 05

Lamont 34% 35% 33% 28% 44%
Schlesinger 5 4 6 8 7
Lieberman 51 54 53 57 43
SMONE ELSE(VOL) - - - - -
WLDN'T VOTE(VOL) - - - - -
DK/NA 9 6 8 7 6





3. (If Lieberman supporter) What is the main reason you support Lieberman? Is it because of A)his experience, B)his personal qualities, C)his stand on the war in Iraq, D)his stand on issues, other than the war in Iraq or E) Because of his political party?


LIEBERMAN SUPPORTERS......................
LIKELY VOTERS.............................
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

A) Experience 47% 36% 73% 44% 37% 59%
B) Personal qualities 16 20 7 21 20 12
C) Stand on Iraq 9 19 - 7 11 7
D) Issues, not Iraq 12 11 7 17 14 10
E) Political party 2 3 3 - 3 -
OTHER(VOL) 12 11 7 9 13 10
DK/NA 1 - 2 2 1 1








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


LIKELY VOTERS.............................
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Favorable 49% 67% 36% 53% 52% 47%
Unfavorable 28 13 41 24 28 28
Mixed 21 19 21 22 19 23
Hvn't hrd enough - - 1 - - 1
REFUSED 1 1 2 1 1 2



http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=974

[BlueStater]

44. Well, Liebermworm got himself reelected in the most sleazy way possible

He's just as bad as any of the of the Republicans and obviously doesn't give a shit about democracy.

[ScreamingWhisper]

61. Don't understand why he's sleazy, simply because he chose

the independent route.
I realize Joe isn't that popular here anymore, but I believe there is something note-worthy of a man who holds
himself to the fire for the choices he's made and the beliefs that guide him.

[Alexander]

64. He used the Dem. party's money for his Independent run.

When you use the party apparatus to finance and support your bids, you don't jump ship at the last minute.

If Lieberman REALLY wanted to be "Independent" he would've done so way before this last summer.

Instead, he took the Democrats' money, support and apparatus, and used that to help finance his new "Independent" bid when it looked like he might lose the primary.

You run as a Democrat, you act like a Democrat. You run as an Independent, you act like an Independent - and snub major-party support.

Joe tried to have it both ways, and when the Democrats voted his ass out, ignored the will of his own party.

BTW, ScreamingWhisper: Watch yourself, buddy - it's against DU rules to support anyone running against a Democrat here.

Just because Joe USED to be a Dem doesn't mean he is one now - after all, Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond and Richard Shelby all USED to be Dems.

[mac56]

67. "Holds himself to the fire"?

Explain, please.

[against all enemies]

69. Maybe you didn't see him defend Bush on the Wall Strreet Journal

Opinion Journal? That's like appearing on Rush's show and saying what a great President Bush is. Lieberman is a piece of garbage, giving Bush talking points on the Iraq war. Joe looks out for himself, and screws everyone else. It is a sad day for Democrats if Lieberman wins.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

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

[CTLawGuy]

93. why is it sleazy

imagine 10 presidential contenders in the Dem primary in 2008. Imagine 1 dem nominee and 9 indpendent-"democrats" versus 1 repub nominee in the General.

[Zhade]

100. Advocating for lieberman is against DU rules.

You are in violation of the rules.

[Thickasabrick]

104. Puleeze.....how can anyone defend that traitorous douchebag?

[martymar64]

119. Because of his choices he is a Republican.

His support of the war in Iraq, his support of Israel slaughtering Lebanese civilians, his call for war with Iran, his unbridled love for Bush, his support of John Bolton, his voting with the Rethugs on all the important issues. Which of those items make him a Democrat?

[TankLV]

131. First - it's against the rules to support the LOSER of the DEMOCRATIC

primary.

Second - we JUSTIFIABLY lable him as sleazy and worse because he criticizes OTHER DEMOCRATS who DARE to criticize repukes and the WAR CRIMINAL bush*, while actively PRAISING repukes and the WAR CRMINAL bush*

But anybody with half a brain already knows that, don't they?!?!

[Alexander]

58. Remember, only ONE poll showed Lamont winning Dem. primary.

A week before the primary, no less.

Keep in mind this poll didn't factor in Debate #2, where Schlesinger and Lamont tag-teamed Lieberman and Holy Joe got his microphone cut off by the moderator repeatedly for talking too long.

Nor does it factor in Dodd's new commercial with Lamont.

There's still time!

[cmkramer]

120. Really?

The polls I saw all had Lamont winning the primary or it being too close to call.

I didn't see any polls close to election day that had Lieberman winning.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

139. And what the fuck is that supposed to mean? n/t

[Lurking Dem]

166. I somehow doubt we'll get an explanation.

Not that we really need one.

[Jack Rabbit]

81. Not good.

Sorry, folks, but it looks like it's time to write this one off.

If a Democrat in any other race had a seventeen point lead over a Republican and the Republican won, I would just assume that something went wrong and that somebody like Ken Blackwell made it go wrong.

If we are going to trust public opinion surveys as a way of gaging whether or not an election is stolen by the GOP, it means we have to trust them when one of our own is shown to be going down to a de facto Republican.

[Inuca]

83. Too much poison...

I am no Lieberman admirer, find him bland, uninspiring, and definitely wrong on Iraq. But as far as I know, if we put Iraq on hold for just a moment, can anybody truly say that Lieberman has been such a terrible democrat? How often has he voted with the Republicans on anything EXCEPT Iraq? As far as I know, barely ever. Agree, he is not a standard bearer for the liberal agenda, but there are Dems far worse than him in terms of their voting records. I am not trying to minimize Iraq, it IS hugely important, but nevertheless it is NOT the ONLY thing. My guess is that if reelected (and it looks like a most likely event), Lieberman will indeed caucus with the democrats. Would I prefer Lamont to win? Undoubtedly. Do I think it is terrible if he does not? No. (I must have been watching too much TV, I start sounding like Rumsfeld, apologies :-))

[IndianaGreen]

87. Lieberman supports torture and the repeal of habeas corpus

at a minimum that makes him an enabler of human rights violations and crimes against humanity. Lieberman's support of Bush dictatorship, ie., Bush being above the Constitution, makes Lieberman a traitor and an enemy of the people.

Lieberman deserves the same fate as Norway's Quisling who was hung for his crimes.

[ShortnFiery]

88. I'll always consider Lieberman a traitor, I can't stand him. n/t

[Alexander]

89. Terri Schaivo. Contraception for raped women. Censorship. The list goes on

Lieberman used to be liberal, yes.

But now Lieberman won't even give a straight answer on whether or not he wants the Democrats to win Congress.

And he hasn't answered if he'll "unequivocally" caucus with the Democrats("unequivocally" meaning "without any conditions"), instead making veiled threats not to if he doesn't get his precious "seniority" on the Homeland Security Committee.

[bluedog]

94. Lamont is the Democrat in the race

This op-ed speaks for me*****************

From here on out, Lamont is the Democrat in the race. We hope he beats Lieberman like a bongo drum — not because of Lieberman’s Iraq war stance, but because of Lieberman’s attitude.

Lieberman is now just an individual on an ego trip powered by his belief he’s too big and too important to be allowed to fail.

To hell with the party and its primary; such trifles apply only to the common folk. Special people like Lieberman are entitled to do whatever it takes to win.

Or so he seems to think.

Lieberman’s egotistical sense of entitlement and anything-to-win mindset are what really distinguish him as a neocon/Bush Republican in Democrat’s clothing. It’s those things, far more than his enthusiasm for the Iraq war and his congenial relationship with President Bush, that cost him our respect.

http://wpblog.ohpinion.com/?p=984

[savemefromdumbya]

148. Yes, voters have to be reminded that Lamont is the Democratic candidate

and 'Dubai Joe' is not anything?

A vote for 'Dubai Joe' is a vote for the GOP

[Freddie Stubbs]

178. Lamont will be listed as a Democrat on the ballot:

http://vvv.munic.state.ct.us/MIDDLEFIELD/docs/MDF_Nov_2006_sample_ballot.pdf

[Polesitter]

98. I'm conflicted over this race. While Lamont won the primary,

the senate seat belongs not to one party or the other, but to all the people of Connecticut. When we start thinking of a seat as ours to do with what we decide, we ignore reality.

[MODemocrat]

102. You Got anymore "good" news Robcon?

It's really strange how well Lieberman is doing since he's turned totally republican. He couldn't do it
as a Democrat, so he bounced over to Independent, but should be running on the republican ticket. He's
so often voted with Bush, it's not going to make a whole lot of difference.

My skin just crawls every time I think that he got my vote when he was Al Gore's running mate. I'm sure happy I don't vote in Connecticut. ;( :puke:

[robcon]

116. Another Repig endorsement.

Does Lieberman have no shame?

Dean campaigns for Lamont.

Lieberman Gets a Boost From a Republican and a Lift From a Recent Survey
By JENNIFER MEDINA Published: October 21, 2006

HARTFORD, Oct. 20 — "United States Senator Joseph I. Lieberman won the backing of a top Republican in the Senate on Friday as Howard Dean traveled here to rally Democrats behind Ned Lamont’s effort to unseat Mr. Lieberman.

On the same day, a new independent poll was released showing Mr. Lieberman, who lost the Democratic primary to Mr. Lamont and is running as an independent, with a substantial lead as he seeks a fourth term.

Mr. Lieberman appeared at the New London City Pier with Senator Susan M. Collins, a Republican from Maine, to highlight the need for port security — and to campaign together. Ms. Collins said her support for Mr. Lieberman, a one-time Democratic vice-presidential candidate, marked the first time she was backing a “non-Republican.”

Ms. Collins said she admired his ability to work with both parties in Washington. “There are certain leaders, and certain issues, that transcend partisan politics and require work across party lines, and Joe Lieberman is that leader, and homeland security is that issue,” she said.

While Ms. Collins said she wanted nothing more than to see Mr. Lieberman win, she added that she did not want the Democrats to win back the Senate, where she heads the Homeland Security committee.

“As much as I love Joe Lieberman, I like being chairman,” she said, embracing Mr. Lieberman with a laugh...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/21/nyregion/21conn.html?ref=politics

[Chomskyite]

114. Has Lamont bothered to mention . . .

. . . that Leiberman will likely vote for Republican leadership of the Senate if the Dems only manage 51 come election day?

[cmkramer]

135. No, and it happens to be untrue anyway

Joe has already pledged to caucus with Democrats. If he votes for Republican leadership, that means he's caucusing with Republicans.

FWIW, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why in the latest poll Schlesinger took votes for Lamont rather than Lieberman. Lamont and Schlesinger are the anti-incumbent candidates. No doubt many people were supporting Lamont simply because he wasn't Joe Lieberman. They may not have agreed with him on everything but the fact that he wasn't Joe was enough.

But then Schlesinger gave a credible performance in the debates. So now there's another person to get the anti-incumbent vote.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

138. No.

Because that's a fantasy cooked up by the netroots in order to somehow justify what they've done.

[yurbud]

122. who is this 36% of Democrats who back Lieberman?

brokers and defense contractors?

[robcon]

141. Probably about 2/3 of those who voted for him in the primary

Joe still has some followers among Democrats.

[Zhade]

172. But far more among conservatives, aka the uninformed.

NT!

[Clarkie1]

145. Past time to redirect our efforts elsewhere. nt

[citizen snips]

146. damn it

that is not good news.

[plasticsundance]

149. Ah ... so the United States is going for Joementum

Help speed up the decline of the US. Make sure you keep the dickless leaders in place to ensure everyone is comfortable with the lie that the US is not totally fucked.

Speaking of fucking, picture Joe doing someone with his joementum line. Ain't even embarrassed, aye America.

[98geoduck]

150. great article in The Nation by Bruce Shapiro regarding ...

"It's hard to know how to gauge polls in this emotional and hard-fought race--the usual tests for likely voters in the primary didn't predict the high turnout that propelled Lamont to the nomination. For weeks, Lieberman--holding on to one-third of Democrats--has been running a consistent ten points ahead of Lamont, but with 24 percent either undecided or willing to change their minds. As election day nears, that gap is closing. The Courant/UConn poll has Lieberman ahead of Lamont by eight points--48 to 40, compared with a twelve-point gap in August--but with 8 percent undecided and another 15 percent willing to change their minds. One key constituency: unaffiliated voters, who in Connecticut outnumber Democrats and Republicans alike. Among such voters Lieberman remains ahead, 45 to 37, but again, that's a volatile number. And Schlesinger could yet change the political chemistry. He made a surprisingly forceful impression in the first three-way debate on October 16.

Lamont remains largely self-financed; so far he's donated about $11 million of his own fortune to his campaign. Oak Investment Partners, run by his even more wealthy wife, and her workplace colleagues have contributed many thousands more. In another state Lamont's riches might raise eyebrows, but in the second-wealthiest state in the country (even adding in two of the country's poorest cities), that makes him only the latest in a long tradition of patrician reformers in both parties, from Chester Bowles to Lowell Weicker.

Sustaining Lieberman's campaign since August, on the other hand, is an unusual fundraising pipeline. Though Lieberman describes himself as an "Independent Democrat" and promises to caucus with Senate Democrats if re-elected, early campaign finance reports have made it clear that the primary shareholders in Lieberman Inc. include prominent Republicans and White House allies--like Mel Sembler, chair of the defense fund for indicted Bush Administration official Scooter Libby. Sembler hosted a Florida fundraiser for Lieberman in September. Anti-Lamont ads are being paid for by the Free Enterprise Fund, backed by Karl Rove associate Bob Perry, a Texas financier who in 2004 bankrolled Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. "



http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061106/shapiro

[upi402]

155. Joe's money comes from Repubs and Whitehouse allies

Leave it to the nation to insert facts that support my suspicions.
:toast:

[Zhade]

173. Look in my sigline for who else is funding Jihad Joe.

If people think we're going to let up on this scumbag if he somehow wins - let me stop laughing long enough to say "fuck you, we're not giving up".

[fujiyama]

153. The lead may be exagerrated

but this was an uphill battle all along.

It was nice to see Lieberman be shown the disapproval by Dem voters, but Lieberman has played a crooked game and people have fallen for his act.

CT is obviously full of fat and happy rich Dems (and "moderate" independants and republicans), for whom the war isn't a pressing concern because the state profits off it. It's funny when people mention Iraq as not being the number one issue, because it shows how awfully disconnected this country is. We have people dying every day there, and even if we ignore the over half million Iraqi deaths (which many people do so all too easily), it's amazing how people can just forget 60+ Americans killed in one month.

Unfortunately I also agree that this will likely embolden Lieberman to be worse than he was earlier. He knows where he got his support this time. Oh well, as long as he caucuses with us, it's better than this state going republican. I don't trust him, but he's the one with the bargaining power and we need him with us more than he needs the party. It's too bad though. I really wanted his sorry ass out of the senate.

[kohodog]

162. LIE: ""Candidate debates this week did not help the two principal chall.."

The Poll was conducted after only Monday's debate, not both. The Q poll was off by ten points prior to the primary too. I'd like to see the questions. Zogby had a far different result and Schlessinger is just starting to come on the radar screen.

The race is not over.

[98geoduck]

168. "Both Lamont and Schlesinger questioned the validity of the poll results."

..."Monday night, its closing hours overlapped the broadcast of the second debate, which was aired Thursday evening.

Sixty-five percent of those polled said they did not watch Monday's Senate debate.

Both Lamont and Schlesinger questioned the validity of the poll results, saying that they don't reflect their performances in the two debates.

Schlesinger, who has enjoyed a spike in campaign contributions and media appearances after delivering forceful performances in the debates, was particularly dismissive.

"I don't know if they polled Massachusetts residents, or perhaps they confused the names of Lieberman and Schlesinger in this particular poll, but I have to question it, because, I'll tell you, my race right now is so different than it was last week," Schlesinger said.

"These numbers are going to be very fluid," he added. "My campaign started Monday. Their campaigns have been going on for several months. You have got to give me a little time here, and I think you'll see the numbers change dramatically."

Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, said they flat out don't believe the poll results.

"I find the Q poll to be both inaccurate in terms of the state of the race, but also bordering on malpractice for a polling firm," he said. "For Doug Schwartz to imply in his press release that his poll numbers reflected the outcome of the last two debates is as intellectually dishonest as anything I've ever heard from a pollster.""

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-senate1021.artoct21,0,4287619.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics-state

[robcon]

176. Another poll in CT

This one shows a 12 point lead for Lieberman... more consistent with previous polls. Oct 18-20

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[TheVirginian]

179. I think everyone can accept 17 points as high

The fact that a poll with a 12 point lead is the "more reliable" should be no comfort to Lamont supporters.

Taking an average of credible polls done within the last two weeks, Lieberman's lead is solidly in double-digits.

[98geoduck]

180. Lamont IS going to WIN and HERE is WHY....

CT-Sen: Not a Chance
by thereisnospoon
Sun Oct 22, 2006 at 10:15:57 AM PDT
That's how I see the situation in the Connecticut Senate race. Not a chance. No way. No way in Hell.

No way, that is, that the actual election results will look ANYTHING like what the polls are currently saying.

This race has been a muddled, confusing, surprising mess from the beginning, with nothing in it conforming to expectations. The current polls show Lamont trailing by double-digits--a fact that has caused everything from handwringing to outright obituaries all over the liberal blogophere.

Honestly, that's a load of horse manure. The polls showing Lamont leading by double digits before the primary were out to lunch. And so are the current polls.

NOTHING about the race as it's currently polling makes any sense--and it won't pan out that way. Ned Lamont is going to win this election, and here are the reasons why:


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/22/131557/28