Quinnipiac: Lieberman (I) 51%, Lamont (D) 27%, Schlesinger (R) 9%.

[TheVirginian]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x19247.xml
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=940

Ned Lamont has taken a lead in the primary for the first time, with a projected 51% of the vote supporting Lamont and 47% for Lieberman. But the polling indicates that Lieberman still has a very comfortable 24-point lead over Lamont in a three-way race.

Democratic Primary:

Lieberman: 47%
Lamont: 51%

General Election Match-ups:

Lieberman: 68%
Schlesinger: 15%

Lamont: 45%
Schlesinger: 22%
Undecided: 24%

Lieberman (I): 51%
Lamont (D): 27%
Schlesinger (R): 9%

[peacetalksforall]

1. ??? lead in title? nt

[napi21]

2. If that is really true, WHY is Joe fighting so hard NOW?

I suppose it's possible because the Pubs seem to like him as well as some of the Dems, but I don't understand why Joe is fighting Lamont like this if he knows he has a lock on the election anyway!

[LoZoccolo]

8. There's actually a big thing that points to Lamont desperation.

The fact that one of his supporters had to try to plant a rumor yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1674602

[MercutioATC]

17. And Lieberman forming his own party wasn't an act of desperation???

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--senate-connecticu0710jul10,0,7530996.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut

[Pale Blue Dot]

21. I assume you have proof of this accusation.

Otherwise, why would you be leveling it, right?

[TheVirginian]

44. The run-down:

The TPM Cafe ran a piece on how Lieberman was "mulling" running as a Republican. The reason why is because the blog contacted a low-level member of Lieberman's press office, who, not knowing what to say and not able to speak on the Senator's behalf, gave a non-answer while someone with authority handled the question. Quite dishonestly, the TPM Cafe spun the story as if Lieberman was considering it. A few hours later, Lieberman's press secretary announced that Lieberman has always been a Democrat, and will never run as a Republican. But in the meantime, anti-Lieberman blogs from here all the way to DailyKOS reported the TPM Cafe's story as truth, as opposed to the utter fiction it truly was.

[PATRICK]

119. This points to

disintegration and incompetence in the Lieberman camp. Lamont team is having some cruel fun at their expense. That is what it appears to me. I suppose if you support Joe you would get a different perspective.

As to the three way race, that is counting on GOP corssovers not offended by Dem intraparty wrangling- so far. ONLY counting on a diivided Democratic base and a big chunk of GOP moderates is building your election on sand. All the middle road chickens can come home to roost for the senator and even he must know those numbers now mean nothing. His surefire re-election is evaporating as surely as the first fired up layer of primary Dem voters. Once Lamont WINS the numbers will change and probably keep changing if Joe keeps up his missteps and bad habits. A third party candidacy would be ruinous for him personally unless he is bitter enough. Hell, we have NY Dems(Carey,Koch) who ARE that spiteful, endorse GOP jerks all the time just out of pure payback. I don't think Joe has even that "wrong" stuff. That at least may be to his credit.

What his threat to run as an independent tells me is that in fact the primary is all or nothing for him. Sounds contrarian? If you think about the psychology of the candidate rather than the present poll numbers, it appears a very plausible theory.

[TheVirginian]

122. Incompetence? Hardly.

Low-level staffers are explicitedly told that they don't have the authority to speak for the Senator. If they field a question from somebody on the poll, giving them a non-answer is precisely what they're supposed to do. Most people who ask questions on the phone will not make the automatic jump that non-answer is, in fact, an affirmative answer.

In the matter of hours it took for the low-level staffer to talk to somebody who did have the authority who then released a statement, the blog who called the staffer reported that Lieberman was, indeed, considering a GOP bid. That's just a flat-out lie, and any repudible news source would know not to print it. As it is, TPM Cafe isn't a repudible news source, but rather just a blog connected to the network of those whose duty it is not to report the news, but to rally the base, whatever the cause. That means that when the Daily Kos got ahold of the "news" that Lieberman was considering switching parties, they took absolutely no time or effort to make sure that the story checked out, and instead went straight into celebration mode. That's not incompetence on part of Lieberman or his office, its straight up lying on the part of the blog who called him.

As far as Lieberman's support goes, its not based on GOP crossover votes, its based off moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans, and Independents, the latter of which makes up nearly 50% of the voters in CT. I would say that his base is more than just sand.

[ruggerson]

134. Reputable

R E P U T A B L E

[TheVirginian]

136. Thank you. n/t

[LowerManhattanite]

123. What the Lieberman backers fail to address about the question...

...is the very reason it could even be asked of a Northeastern Democratic Senator. The mere fact that a hypothesis like that one could even be floated out there speaks volumes about the nature of this race. And the secondary fact that even an alleged "low-level staffer" could not answer a simple and on the face of it "insane" question definitively is a wake-up call about three major issues within the Lieberman camp.

1.) Is his campaign staff so ill-trained that they cannot answer what should be a simply dismissed, slam-dunk question like this one?

2.) Does a woeful mishandling of this situation like this (woeful in the respect that it could even be asked, as it would NOT be of virtually any other candidate for office) point to problems within the campaign, re: messaging and an over-reliance on paranoid "top-down" management (a classic sign of a campaign in trouble).

3.) Are there perhaps rumblings within said camp that would have given the staffer pause to consider whether perhaps someone had leaked possible private debate over Lieberman's considering switching to the GOP ticket?

For me, the idea that a question like the one posed could even be asked is a sure indication of serious problems in that campaign--and quite possibly serious problems with that candidate.

O.T. It woudl also appear that Holy Joe's attempted smear on Lamont re: Halliburton has backfired--quite literallly in his own froggy little face.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/20/joe-lieberman-running-against-himself/

Methinks that he probably wishes he were a millipede--as he's rapidly running out of feet to fire bullets into by himself. :(

[PATRICK]

124. That says it better than

I could spare the time for. At least it seems more far reaching to call the Lamont people "desperate". In this form of aggression they remind me of the Kerry campaign who obviously knew what they were about in winning the primaries.

[TheVirginian]

129. Concerning your three major issues.

1) Regardless of the question, if a staffer or worker is told not to answer any questions as an authority, such as a newspaper reporter or a blog writer, then that's precisely what they will do. Whether the question is "what is your position on abortion", "will you run as a Republican", or "is the sky blue". Half of answering a question is the way you answer it. So every press office will tell their staffers not to answer any question on the record.

2) It doesn't point towards a mishandling. The only thing that was mishandled was the truth, at the hands of an impetuous, illegitimate source. The management structure is easy to understand and beneficial to all: there are a certain number of sources that are authorized to speak for the Senator. This helps each office control the message, and it also helps news sources be more efficient by letting them know who to talk to. Everybody on Lieberman's side of the story handled this exactly the way they were supposed to. When the source that calls your office up is prepared to lie, there's very little you can do to prevent it.

3) See #1. It doesn't matter what the question is. The proper response, if you're not somebody with the authority to go on the record, is to get somebody who can go on record and let them know about it.

Its worth mentioning that the news cycle in Washington is either 12 hours or 24 hours. This story all took place in under four hours, a remarkable time for an office to recieve a query and respond to it. Unfortunately, the blogosphere works in a matter of minutes, and after the lie was posted on TPM Cafe, it was only a matter of minutes for it to be spread around.

[LowerManhattanite]

135. Asking a three-term incumbent Democratic Senator's staffer...

...if said Senator intends to switch parties during a key election cycle should be a question so beyond the pale as to be IMHO, immediately dismissed if the answer is definitely no. Just the idea of something like that being considered by a candidate is as rare as braces on hen's teeth. I'm afraid I don't buy the "but he/she was barred from saying anything" defense--especially in light of the candidate's allegiance being under question and a campaign issue in the first place.

That kind of question gets a boiler-plate, no-nonsense response. End. Of. Story. And as to your allegation of a source calling up being "prepared to lie", well...you are entitled to your opinion, conjecture or whatever it's called. You have no proof of that. What IS known is that Lieberman's campaign was asked a simple, straightforward question--a no-brainer, and the hemming and hawing over so simple a thing caused quite the kerfuffle. Hours were spent between the minute the question was asked and a response given--silly wasted hours considering the simplicity of the question, So, was there mishandling? I feel, yes, particularly based on the campaign's seeming chronic and well-documented ineptitude in dealing with the internets as it were.

And yes, I and many others are well aware of the speed at which the blogosphere operates (as well as the general time of a news cycle--weekends taken into account too), but evidently as previously stated, the Lieberman campaign has more than a litttle to learn about this "new animal". Eighteen years of incumbency and a weddedness to cozy, establishment modes will do that to a fella...and his camp.

[TheVirginian]

138. "Hours were spent..."

What do you imagine those hours looked like? Perhaps all of Lieberman's staffers gathered around a table, pondering the question. Maybe Good Ol' Joe was playing a round of golf, and they had to track down which hole he was at to ask him. Or maybe, just maybe, the staffer had a pile of things on his desk, and when he mentioned it to his boss, or when somebody in the office saw a flat-out lie spreading around the internet, the press secretary released a statement. At any rate, you're holding an 18-year Senator's entire political legacy on the line for the actions of a staffer who regarded the phone call as most phone calls are regarded. The only thing out of line in the entire affair was the pure irresponsibility of TPM Cafe for publishing something that was flat-out untrue.

There was no hemming or hawing. This is standard procedure, especially if the blogger identified himself as, or otherwise pretended to be, a reporter. For a reporter's question, a four hour return time is unheard of. Its usually twelve to 24 hours, like I said before. And, as said before, if the staffer was under the impression that he would be on the record, you absolutely, positively do not give an answer, no matter how straight-forward or stupid the question may be.

[LowerManhattanite]

140. You oversimplify...

"At any rate, you're holding an 18-year Senator's entire political legacy on the line for the actions of a staffer who regarded the phone call as most phone calls are regarded."

I do not hold his "legacy" (whatever that may be) on the line over the actions of a mere staffer. Lieberman's problems for me are faaaaar deeper seated than this, as I called it earlier "kerfuffle" goes.

I hold him "on the line" for his stance--his continuing and now seemingly eccentric stance re: the well-predicted debacle of the war in Iraq.

I hold him "on the line" for his uncanny camera-seeking when the time comes to criticize a stance taken by "his" party when his support is desperately needed on a major issue--and his equal timidity to stand up as a member of "the loyal opposition".

I hold him "on the line" for his craven knuckling under to the anti-abortion nuts via his backing the limiting of access to the Plan B, post-coital contraceptives to women in his own state. The callousness to suggest "In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," as some sort of compromise that helps women in dire need of said Plan B is in a word, disgusting.

I hold him "on the line" for his parroting GOP talking points in attempting to chill dissent with the president from his Democratic "colleagues".

I hold him "on the line" for his unabashed chumminess with a president who let a city drown while he mock-strummed a guitar, his backing said president's meddling in and complicating the danse macabre that was the Terri Schiavo affair. And his bowing to the president while as a so-called member of the Democratic Senate leadership, joining a group of 13 other Senators who in effect said they would rubber-stamp the POTUS's picks for the Supreme Court.

I have issues galore with this man and I'm doing all I can to see to it that the state of Connecticut gets the best Democrat it can to run for that Senate seat. IMHO, the party can do better than it presentlly is in that state.

But it begs to be asked...should a simple question, "Will the candidate run under the opposing party's line should he lose this primary?" be that difficult to answer straight-up?

For I dare say almost any other candidate, a question such as this honestly isn't one of the "Hey, lemme check on that variety" if a candidate is truly "going to caucus with X party" or if said candidate is actually loyal to that party's ideals. Spin this if you will as some mere administrative gaffe, but it is undeniable that this campaign has been internet-challenged in numerous ways as the political/pundit landscape changes. It's well documented and I have no reason to believe this couldn't have been yet another "whoopsie" moment in this "Tim Conway"-esque campaign.

[windbreeze]

146. What no one has said....

Is that, considering it is Leiberman, who played kissy face with *, and started his own party in order to run, if he loses the primary...should have simply told the person responsible for the campaign....IF anyone asks will I run as a Republican...the answer is an unequivical ABSOLUTE NO!!...How simple would that have been?...It isn't as though everyone is questioning whether he is going to switch parties, or like he would be unaware that everyone thinks he's Rep lite as it is.....or is everyone on his campaign secluded somewhere on mars and don't hear what people are saying/asking/speculating about????...

IF this is the first time he or his campaign staffers have been asked this question...then I am surprised as hell...every last person working on his campaign,or answering phones, should have had the ability to answer that question, and been given the right to answer if asked by anyone....why let a question like that one float around out there for speculation for ONE minute, let alone hours???

Geeze, either a poorly managed campaign...or a candidate, who was so secure in his position he forgot how complicated it could get, running for office...or a combination of both...
windbreeze

[TheVirginian]

149. This is just nonsense.

A blogger called up his campaign, and was prepared to publish a fabrication based upon whatever they wanted to believe, and now its because Lieberman's campaign is mismanaged and out of touch? There is absolutely no defense against a source that's ready and willing to make things up. No defense at all. You can say whatever you want, but procedure is in place for a reason. If there's something to be said on the record, you only let a certain number of people say it. You control the message that leaves your office, and if you don't, you don't stay in office long. Anybody that understands this simple concept are the same people that understand you don't publish lies on your website. Unfortunately, the TPM Cafe decided that they were going to publish lies on their site, and they solely bear the responsibility for the absolute mess that occured yesterday.

If you don't understand the interaction between Senate offices and the press, and if you don't understand the importance of being on the record, then please don't comment on the situation, or you're just as bad as the people at TPM Cafe who willingly spread pure fiction in the name of ideological purity.

[LowerManhattanite]

153. Sorry...

"If you don't understand the interaction between Senate offices and the press, and if you don't understand the importance of being on the record, then please don't comment on the situation,"

But I do understand how things work, and I also understand that a question like the one asked was as simple to answer as one saying "Should your candidate lose the primary, will he re-locate to Mars?" It is your opinion (and it is an opinion only) that someone "was prepared to publish a fabrication based upon whatever they wanted to believe" as there are no facts to back that up--merely your conjecture. (and a rather heavily biased conjecture at that with the bandying about of loaded phrases like "ideological purity".)

As to the request to "not comment", this is a subject that interests me and as this IS a public message board on which I've participated for at least two years I have every right to voice my opinion--as do you.

[TheVirginian]

155. Its not conjecture.

They asked the Senator's office for a comment, and didn't get one, so they published what turned out to be a complete lie, based on nothing that they got from the staffer. If they were willing to turn a non-answer into a fabrication, then they had to have had an agenda going into the phone call, and that agenda clearly was the publish damaging information about Joe Lieberman. When they recieved none, they went ahead and just made something up, duping half the progressive blogosphere along with it.

Its not heavily biased, either. Places like TPM Cafe and DailyKos thrive on any embarassment that comes Lieberman's way. There's no doubt that those places are cornerstones for Lamont on the blogosphere, which in turns translates into anti-Liebermanism. The fact that TPM Cafe was so willing to publish a flat-out lie, and the DailyKos was so willing to link to it without so much as a rudimentary check to see if its veracity held up, proves as much.

And the reaction on this board proves as much, too. Instead of rightfully rebuking TPM Cafe and DailyKos for abandoning simple public responsibility for the messages they spread, people turn this around and blame Lieberman's staff, as if every single person that works there should be prepared to go on the record. Even in the face of pure dishonestly on the part of the blogosphere, people here would rather find a way to make it about Lieberman than call a spade a spade.

[LowerManhattanite]

158. "Its not heavily biased, either."

On that rather ironic note--claiming "no heavy bias" while flogging for Lieberman with much gusto--re: his precious shared "values" (Love that word!) with Conecticut voters, whining about the "left wing", "hard left" and "far left", and yes, resorting to the near-Rovian tactic of repeatedly claiming victory long before the contest has occurred, I bid this fine, little irony-soaked discussion "adieu".

Some things, well...simply speak for themselves.

[TheVirginian]

161. Wait just a damn minute here...

First of all, I'm saying that my observation of the whole "mulling a GOP bid" scandal is unbiased. I will admit to bias in conversations about Lieberman. I think he's a good Senator, I think he's a good statesman, and I think just about 80% of the criticism he gets from this board and other places goes way too far.

Second, what's wrong with saying that Lieberman's centrist position most closely matches the majority of CT voters that are unaffiliated with either party? Is there something inherently evil, or Republican, about the word "values", or are you just using that as a distraction so you don't have to address the points I made?

Third, there's no whining about anything. I never used the term "left-wing" improperly or as an accusation. I simply stated fact: Ned Lamont's support comes from the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman's support comes from the moderate wing of the Democratic Party. While there are cross-overs, and certainly exceptions to that generalization, that's where the base of each candidate is at. Do you disagree with me, or are you again using my accurate terminology as a distraction so you don't have to address the points I made?

And finally, I never claimed victory, nor do I have any stake in a victory for either candidate. There are many here who are trying to claim that Ned Lamont is now the front-runner, or that Lieberman has lost all support in CT, in an attempt to futher smear the man and use the latest poll numbers as validation that Lieberman has lost touch with the voters and should be kicked out. All I'm doing is rightly pointing out that Joe Lieberman currently stands 24 points ahead of Ned Lamont in the only election that determines who will be elected Senator.

If you're unwilling or otherwise uncapable of continuing this discussion, I won't hound you. If you're confused or don't understand what I'm saying, please let me know and I'll do my best to help you out. But making personal attacks on me for what you wrongly percieve to be spin or bias is a cheap way of admitting that you don't have anything left.

[loudsue]

165. LowerManhattanite YOU ROCK!!

Great post!! :applause::bounce:

[Pale Blue Dot]

3. This puts the lie to Lieberman's excuse

to stay in the race as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary.

His loss will NOT mean the loss of a Senate seat. Therefore, it's obvious that Lieberman is only going to stay in for Lieberman.

No matter. Independents aren't familiar with Lamont yet. By November, Lieberman is done. Want to bet?

[LoZoccolo]

5. It still could go to a Republican.

If Schlesinger got all of the undecided vote he would win.

[TheVirginian]

6. Only if Lamont is the Dem. candidate and Lieberman is out.

Which is probably why Schlesinger is on record saying that his best chance is a three-way race... this might make Democrats nervous and increase the pressure on Lieberman to get out, so Schlesinger will be one-on-one with Lamont, the only race he has even a prayer of winning.

[Hippo_Tron]

126. Schlesinger doesn't even stand a chance in that scenario

He dropped 10 points from the last poll due to a gambling scandal. He would be absolutely crushed by either Lamont or Lieberman or both. Bottom line, he is FINISHED.

[calico1]

7. That isn't going to happen, trust me.

The Independent voters here tend to be Moderates. Shlesinger is very right wing. He also has a little scandal going on with his casino gambling. And the Republican Gov. has tried to talk him out of running. I'll be surprised if he even gets into the double digits at all.

[Pithy Cherub]

9. That ain't gonna happen. Lamont is the one with rising

political capital, great polling for a primary challenger, monetary clout and energized REAL Democrats.

[dsc]

16. and can you name one, just one, race in which an incumbent

wasn't on the ballot where that happened? I literally can't imagine that large a group of undecided breaking entirely toward the Republican or Lamont for that matter. Again, just one citation of a similarly large group of undecided voters breaking that way in a race without an incumbent is all I ask.

[LoZoccolo]

18. It's unlikely, I admit.

I would like to see Lamont poll a decisive majority against Schlesinger in a two-way race.

[dsc]

23. until Lieberman is dispatched you won't

since his base is holding back. The 24% undecided are likely hard corp Lieberman supporters who would have to start shopping for a candidate. Given the fact that CT voters are not happy with the war and not happy with Bush I would imagine most of his voters would go to Lamont in a two way race.

[Hippo_Tron]

128. What you would see is something like 40% Lamont 10-15% Schlesinger

Lamont's name ID is simply not high enough to poll at 50% this early in the year. The only non-incumbents in senate races that are getting 50% right now are Bob Casey and Jon Tester. Both of which are facing very un-popular incumbents and both of which have already won their party primaries. Should he actually wind up in a two way race against Schlesinger he will very quickly move up to 50%.

[TheVirginian]

130. And Tester only very recently hit 50%. n/t

[saltpoint]

19. I wouldn't lay a huge chunk of cash down on that bet.

If Lamont and Lieberman both rob a bank this afternoon and gun down half a dozen cops, ok, then Schlesinger has a chance.

Not unless.

[calico1]

29. Hehehhe.

Or if Lieberman and Lamont are caught together in bed or something. Seeing that Gov. Rell herself doesn't like that he is running, Schlesingers chances are next to nothing.

[saltpoint]

35. One report had Gov. Rell trying to shove Schlesinger over a cliff.

Not a literal cliff, but you know what I mean!

[calico1]

36. He's an embarrassement to her.

After Rowland she has gone out of her way to appear squeaky clean. Now she's got a compulsive gambler wanting to be the candidate. Hehehe.

[saltpoint]

38. A gambler is right. And his odds ain't that good.

[CTyankee]

92. Yes, and I am Marie of Rumania n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

125. Schlesinger dropped 10 points after the gambling scandal

Last time they did this poll he was polling at about 19-20%. Now he's at 9%. His prospects were very slim to begin with and now they are nonexistant. Either Lieberman or Lamont would crush him in a two-way race and he doesn't stand a chance in a three-way race either. I can say with 99.9% confidence that this seat will either be won by Lieberman or Lamont unless the GOP decides to field a stronger candidate at the last second.

[Zynx]

154. You know perfectly well that would not happen.

[ihelpu2see]

42. I believe that if Lamont wins by 10+ in the Primary, Lieberman is done! nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. The good news is the Republican loses no matter what

In the 3 way contest, he gets an almost laughable 9% - indicating there are some Republicans who would vote tactically to get Lieberman in for sure, rather than their own Republican.

[RogueTrooper]

10. Are you advocating the support of an independant

over that of a Democrat?

[LoZoccolo]

11. Are you advocating that the EU invade the US?

Why do you hate America?

[RogueTrooper]

12. I beg your pardon?

[LoZoccolo]

15. There's an EU flag in your avatar.

According to your actions, I thus have the right to imply all sorts of weird things.

[endarkenment]

33. And you sure do exercise that right.

So how long do you think we ought to continue killing Iraqis for no good reason while throwing away the lives of our own sons and daughters?

[calico1]

14. What on Earth are you talking about?

:wtf:

[Pale Blue Dot]

28. He's talking about a "straw man"

Otherwise, he would have to address the issue. The right-wingers do this all the time.

[calico1]

31. There are a number of DU'ers who are using

these right wing tactics and its really getting tiresome. :eyes:

[jonnyblitz]

58. i think its funny because it's so transparent. nt

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[saltpoint]

49. Reliable sources are now reporting that the European Union's

invasion of the United States is imminent.

Run for your life!

[saltpoint]

76. I'm serious, dammit! Run! Call in your kids and pets!

Helicopters on the lawn! Paratroopers!

[saltpoint]

25. An excellent question. And pertinent. Lieberman has expressly stated

that he will in fact run as an Independent if he loses the DEMOCRATIC primary.

Very good question.

[TheVirginian]

30. Reporting a poll isn't advocating anything.

[LoZoccolo]

39. Actually, it is.

It is advocating the study of reality through scientific statistical means, which is in polar opposition to fantasy politics on the Internet.

[RogueTrooper]

40. Indeed

but framing your post in such a way is advocating the support of that candidate over the Democrat.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[LoZoccolo]

43. That's why you as a mod should delete the allegation. n/t

[saltpoint]

59. Let me add my demand on you as a mod as well:

I think you should own and play often every CD of Joni Mitchell's you can get your hand on.

It's a moral imperative.

Ok, that's it.

That's my demand.

[bdamomma]

13. I hope Lamont wins

I'm not from CT. but I hope Lamont wins.

[LSK]

20. this makes no sense - who are these Independent voters????

Where are all these "I" voters coming from??? Apparently there are not many Republican voters in this state otherwise Schlesinger would do better. If these "I" voters were actually Dems then Leiberman would win his primary. So where are all these "Independents" coming from???

[TheVirginian]

32. From 49% of the state.

The majority of CT voters are non-Democrats. Roughly 50% are Independent, 30-35% are Democrat, and 15-20% are Republican.

[Peace Patriot]

22. This is a misleading subject line. What's really happening here is that

the Democratic voters now prefer Lamont, and Lamont and the Democrats will win--unless Lieberman spoils it by running as an Independent. In that case, Lieberman will be deliberately thwarting the will of the Democratic voters, a majority of whom want to dump him and his pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-Bush policies.

When Lamont and Schlesinger are matched up, the undecided vote gets bigger--but figuring a 50/50 split of the undecideds (generous to Schlesinger, I think--who appears to be quite unpopular)--Lamont will win hands down--by nearly 70% of the vote!

Unless Lieberman turns traitor to the Democratic Party.

The Lamont-Lieberman-Schlesinger matchup, a 3-way split, is kind of hard to figure (57-27-9)--given the likelihood of a nearly 70% victory by Lamont in the Lamont-Schlesinger matchup. It's probably attributable to name recognition. The Dems know Lamont a lot better than the general population of voters know him. And Lieberman is a well-known Dem (--although the general population may not be that knowledgeable about Lieberman's pro-Bush policies, and are just thinking of him as a Dem, versus anathema, a Repub.)

I wonder about these other Dems--Boxer, Clinton, for instance--who are supporting Lieberman. Will they support him if he runs as an Independent against the Dem candidate? Will they, too, act to thwart the will of the Democratic voters in Connecticut? Would they support an Independent over the choice of the Democratic voters? That would make history. And it would indicate truly grave problems in our Dem Party leadership on Mideast war issues--actually more than "truly grave," it would be a Democratic Party crisis. We already know that half the Dem leaders voted for Bush's war, and have shoveled billions and billions and billions of unaccountable dollars into Donald Rumsfeld's hands. THAT is a grave problem! But their opposition to a Dem Party candidate, chosen by the Dem voters--which I think would mainly be because of the war (and their support for it)--could seriously fracture the Dem Party, and could even lead to a split-up of the Dem Party in Connecticut and possibly elsewhere. We would have the War Dems and the Antiwar Dems. We very nearly have that now, in the Leadership vs. the Rank and File. But it's not a formal split. The Rank and File are trying to work with the situation (Dem leaders' support for the war), to hold the Party together as the only viable vehicle of change.

If Lamont wins the primary (momentum is on his side--but we've got to figure Diebold into this picture--Bushite election theft machines, which Connecticut's OTHER Senator, Dodd, a 'Democrat,' helped to engineer)--this crisis will be upon us. What will these War Dems do? How much are they hogtied to the war? Enough to destroy the Democratic Party?

[Peace Patriot]

26. Is it possible that Schlesinger will drop out--throwing his votes to

Lieberman (I)?

That has been suggested (in question form) in the other thread on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1683530

Anybody have any info in this possibility?

[calico1]

34. No. The Republicans will put up someone.

They won't not have a candidate in the election. Contrary to what a lot of non CT residents seem to think, the Republicans here don't all love Joe. In fact, a lot of them hate him as much as they hate Clinton or any other Democrat.

[TheVirginian]

37. How is it misleading?

What part of it were you misled by? The truth of the matter is that Lieberman enjoys the support from a majority of voters in his state. Regardless of what happens in the primary, this poll says that Lieberman will easily be re-elected, even as an Independent.

The only thing misleading in this thread so far is the notion that only Democrats should get a chance to vote whether Lieberman should still be the Senator from CT. The last time I checked, Joe Lieberman represented all of his constituents, not just the Democrats.

You can't just assume a 50/50 split of undecideds. The most likely scenario, if Joe Lieberman isn't a candidate on the ballot, is depressed turn-out and more write-in votes. Voters with a ballot in hand and recognizing neither Lamont nor Schlesinger will more likely just skip the race than vote in it. In every race, there is always a ceiling of how well a candidate can do. With Lamont's numbers where they're at, I can't buy the argument that he'd get 70% of the vote, even if it is against Alan Schlesinger.

[SteppingRazor]

45. Here, I have to disagree with you...

You say "The truth of the matter is that Lieberman enjoys the support from a majority of voters in his state. Regardless of what happens in the primary, this poll says that Lieberman will easily be re-elected, even as an Independent."

But the head-to-head Lieberman/Lamont poll shows more voters supporting Lamont -- and for the first time, IIRC. If that percentage continues it's upward climb, we very well may see an independent Lieberman run after the August primary. And after that, I can't support a Lieberman candidacy. Additionally, I think a lot of Democratic voters will change their minds about Lieberman once he actually moves to independent. This is pure speculation, of course, but if Lamont wins, I think you'll see that 51-24 gap close quickly as November approaches.

[TheVirginian]

46. The head-to-head is among Democrats only.

The majority of the state are non-Democrats, where Lieberman continues to enjoy strong support. And while its very likely that Lamont will make gains if he wins the primary, its very unlikely that he'll make up a 24-point deficit.

[SteppingRazor]

47. Maybe so, maybe not... I think it'll be a helluva race. n/t

[sampsonblk]

141. Good analysis

Thanks for preventing my panic. I think you're right.

[DancingBear]

120. Ah yes, the old "support from a majority of voters" argument

Seems as if that little chesnut got used quite a bit when Lieberman led Lamont by about 40+ points a while back.

"Just because DU doesn't like him doesn't mean CT doesn't" the line went, "and he will easily win re-election."

Oops.

Oh, BTW, I was born and raised in CT and I know a wee bit about it. Hell, I even know where Quinnipiac is, and might even know a couple of folks who work there. :)

THe poll numbers will tighten in the GE just like they are doing in the primary. If Lamont wins the primary, all bets are off. A lot of those folks in CT are just a WEE bit pissed off at Joementum, you see, and it's a blue state.

Lamont blue, I'm guessing.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. Yes, if Lieberman loses the primary and persists in running

we could see a replay of the 1980 Javits-Holtzman-D'Amato race in New York, in which Jacob Javits was upset that Elizabeth Holtzman (one of the sharpest members of the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate) won the endorsement for the seat that he was vacating (due to having ALS), that he ran as an independent (even though he was fatally ill) and siphoned off enough votes to let Alphonse D'Amato win.

The final results were D'Amato 45%, Holtzman 44%, Javits 11%.

[TheVirginian]

52. Schlesinger is no D'Amato, by any stretch of the imagination.

This isn't even a close comparison.

[calico1]

57. OMG! I am sorry but there is absolutely no

chance of that. The Gov. is trying to talk him out of running! And she is Republican! He is not even close to D'Amato in recognition or popularity.

[saltpoint]

24. Lieberman's circumstances are dire. The numbers in such a poll will

shift dramatically if Ned Lamont whips Joe on August 8th.

You will see a seismic shift in support away from Holy Joe.

His pronouncement this morning that he's not going to run as a Republican was a ridiculous gesture, and quite pathetic, I thought.

A 3-term Democratic Senator having to declare that he's not running as a Republican.

What a loser.

[calico1]

27. I agree. Every day he loses more and more

respect from CT voters. The fact that he had to come out and say he is not running as a Republican tells me there was something to that rumor. Knowing how selfish he is he is probably considering any and all options to retain his seat.

[skipos]

48. Wow, Lieberman gets lower and lower in every poll that comes out

At the rate he is going, things aren't looking to good for his indy run.

[TheVirginian]

56. Not true, actually.

Last month's Quinnipiac poll had Lieberman higher in a three-way race, yes, but the Rasmussen poll that came out a week afterwards had Lieberman at 44%. While many people, including myself, said that the differences in polls were due to a difference in methodology, there was a very loud chorus of people who claimed that the ten-point drop in a week was due to Lieberman losing support. This poll, taken three weeks after the Rasmussen poll, shows Lieberman with 51%, which rebukes that claim.

This is not an attempt to lump you in with that chorus, if you weren't part of it. But this poll has Lieberman's numbers higher than they were reported by Rasmussen last month.

[saltpoint]

61. Lieberman's numbers are in the toilet. Less than a year ago

he was an unchallenged 3-term high-profile tv-celeb Democrat from a blue state.

Today his ass is getting kicked all over the lot. He is being outpolled, within margin of error, by a heretofore unknown businessman.

Poll numbers change. If Lamont wins the primary on Aug. 8, you will see another poll.

My guess is that in that poll, Joe Lieberman's status as a viable independent will be drawn into sharp question.

[TheVirginian]

63. Based on what?

Do you think that people polled, when asked about Joe Lieberman running as an Independent, simply don't get it?

And why do you imagine Ned Lamont gaining traction among Independents and Republicans? In order to get that support, he'll have to pull it from Lieberman. Among Democrats, that's no problem, but Independents are beholden to the Democratic Party, and a majority of Independents and a majority of Republicans approve of the job that Lieberman is doing. They don't care about viability, they care about the candidate, and they like Lieberman.

[saltpoint]

64. A tremendous slide downward for Lieberman. Easily one of the most

endangered incumbents -- and from dissatisfaction with his leadership from within his own party.

His poor standing and slide in esteem has resulted in people from many other states sending checks to Ned Lamont's campaign. Mine among them.

Lieberman was a fool to place himself above his party, and he's paying the piper now. His problems are of his own design.

[TheVirginian]

65. Funny how an incumbent with a 24-point lead is "endangered".

[saltpoint]

66. There is no lead.

There is only Ned Lamont's surge in the polls.

Lieberman's lead is gone.

Am I talking to James Stewart in HARVEY?

It's in the Connecticut papers this morning if you care to check it out.

The lead is gone.

Lieberman stands a particularly good chance of getting his hindend booted by an unknown businessman.

[TheVirginian]

67. The lead in the PRIMARY is gone. Joe is still in great shape for the GE.

Lamont is surging in his support among Democrats, but he'll have a harder time gaining traction among Independents and Republicans. Lieberman stands a good chance of losing the primary to Lamont, but stands a better chance of winning re-election.

[saltpoint]

68. There is no lead. The lead is gone.

Say bye-bye to the lead, Joe. It's all gone.

[TheVirginian]

69. Lieberman (I) 51%, Lamont (D) 27%. Are you just making things up now?

[saltpoint]

71. It must have been a significant disappointment to you, Virginian,

to see your boy losing that lead.

It's all gone.

Now we're still 20 or so days out fromt he primary. It's close. Lieberman could win, who knows?

But as well, he could lose. He's lost a HELL of a lot of ground already, and justifiably. so.

Lamont's running a smart campaign. He's a good man. More to the point, he's a good Democrat.

Ned Lamont promised to support the decision of Democratic voters.

Your boy didn't.

[calico1]

73. And that last statement alone has a lot to do

with Lieberman's drop in support. A lot of people outside of CT just don't realize how much he has pissed people off here. His shiny, good guy, decent reputation has suffered significantly. A lot of people now just see him as a desperate, mean, greedy, sneak that will do anything to hang on to his seat.

[TheVirginian]

74. Why are you making this personal?

I'm simply trying to tell you that, even if Joe loses the primary, which looks like to be more of a certainty now, he's still in great position to be re-elected as Senator. His lead in the primary is gone, but the lead that's most important is the lead in the general election, which now stands at 24 points.

[saltpoint]

75. Let's say I actually read the poll this morning and I understand your

24 points, but let's also say my point is that a poll taken following a Lamont win in the primary may very well indicate a decidedly different number.

That point's been made several times. You appear not to be able or willing to consider it.

Joe's fortunes are in a discernible downtrend. He's lost enormous ground. He's desperate. He is in trouble.

A 3-term incumbent Democratic senator from a blue state is now tied or trailing a previously unknown challenger.

Don't tell me that's not trouble for Lieberman. It is.

[TheVirginian]

77. Because its based on nothing more than guessing.

You have no evidence to support your theory that Lieberman will lose a considerable amount of support if he loses the primary. He has a majority of support of Independents and Republicans, and that support will not be affected by a primary loss.

[saltpoint]

78. Your guess versus someone else's guess. Why are your guesses

right and others' guesses wrong?

In fact, Lieberman's lead was a presumed thing not a few months ago.

It ain't there this morning.

[TheVirginian]

80. Because mine are backed by numbers; yours by wishful thinking.

Lieberman enjoys support from a majority of Independents and Republicans, as well as a contingent of Democrats. Lamont's support stems almost exclusively from the left-wing of the Democratic Party. There is very little chance that Lamont will be able to reach out towards Independents and moderates and convince them to vote for him rather than Lieberman. He's down 24 points. Every other race where the incumbent leads by 24 points is considered a sure thing.

[saltpoint]

84. The numbers you're standing on now are the same kind of numbers

Joe Lieberman's lead 3 months ago stood on.

There in shards on the ground right now.

[TheVirginian]

85. No, they're not.

Primaries only poll a certain party; general elections poll the entire state. Somebody who the state's party shares more values with has tied Lieberman in primary polling, but he can't do the same thing in the general election, because the majority of voters share more values with Lieberman, not Lamont.

[saltpoint]

90. You mean YOU share more values with Lieberman. The shift among

many voters suggests that fewer than ever Democrats share Lieberman's views and in fact Democrats comprise a very significant share of that statewide vote you cite.

I wouldn't count Ned's campaign out of this AT ALL.

[LowerManhattanite]

96. "Values"...

...Such a loaded word. And a key talking point of another party for the last ten years or so.

Isn't it amazing how as Lieberman's fortunes flag, folks loyal to him fall back on GOP talking points?

i.e., "Why do you hate America", "Values".

Interesting how the worm do turn, ain't it? :)

[saltpoint]

102. I would love to love Joe if Joe loved my party but the damn fool left

hours ago and I'm holding the bill.

I'm mad at him and would like an explanation of his so-far unexplained departure.

[TheVirginian]

97. Why are you making this personal?

Ned Lamont is a left-wing Democrat. His support among Democrats has increased. Joe Lieberman is a centrist. His support among Independents and moderates has increased. 49% of the state's voters are Independent. Another 20% are Republican, another group that Lieberman enjoys the majority of support from.

I'm not counting Lamont's campaign out of this, but I don't understand the basis for your confidence that he'll pull independent and moderate voters away from Lieberman.

[saltpoint]

101. Yep. Looks like a landslide for Lamont in the general.

Very encouarging numbers.

[TheVirginian]

103. Now you're just making things up. Get your head out of the sand.

[saltpoint]

112. Yep. It's a landslide for sure. Another round of margueritas!

[Peace Patriot]

110. TheVirginian, you say Lieberman is a centrist. He is certainly not that

on the Iraq War. 70% of the American people oppose that war, and it's been nearly 60% since before the invasion. And we saw a poll today that EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT of Americans oppose U.S. participation in a wider Mideast war. That's puts Lieberman way off the charts to the right of most Americans (and, in my opinion, in fascist territory of "You get war whether your like it or not, peons!").

I think the Bush junta has pushed the political spectrum way off the charts to the right, and most Americans are way back in the left-leaning center--pro-peace, anti-unjust war, anti-torture, pro-social programs, pro-environmental protection, etc.

So when you say "centrist," I think you really need to define the term. Is pro-Iraq war a "centrist" position in the current political climate? Not at all.

I think it's notable that the great majority of independent voters voted for Kerry in 2004 (--as did the great majority of Nader voters, and the great majority of new voters). (Where DID Bush get his "majority," I wonder.) I'm not sure how many indies were moved by Bush's illegal and heinous war, but I imagine quite a lot were (since so many Americans were and are against it). Kerry wasn't the best antiwar candidate in the world, to say the least. He just wanted to do a more efficient war, from what I could tell during the campaign. But I think he was distinguished in peoples' mind from Bush, who started a war with no justification. Kerry wouldn't have done that--and, as it turned out, Kerry is now for withdrawal. He is truly a moderate on foreign policy, with center/left social leanings.

This bodes ill for Lieberman. Is there any reason that Connecticut voters would be more pro-war than the 60% to 70% of Americans who are (and have consistently been) anti-Iraq war?

[V. Kid]

150. With at least one issue, that's not true...

....and that issue is Iraq. Lamont's views are inline with a majority of voters when it comes to what's fuelling his candidadcy, Iraq, Lieberman's are not. This has been confirmed by this very poll, where in regards to the Iraq War these percentages of Connecticut voters think it was:

Right thing 31%
Wrong thing 63
DK/NA 5

Remember those are the numbers about the war itself, not GWB's handling of it.

Also the poll cited these numbers, with regards to Lamont:

37/37/26% Yes/No/DK-NA - The right kind of experience amongst likely Dem Primary voters.

23/39/37% Yes/No/DK-NA - Same question amongst Independents

16/49/35% Yes/No/DK-NA - Same question amongst Republicans

Meaning that in a three way race there are still enough voters who, even at this relativley early stage of the general election campaign, who could be convinced to vote for Lamont as they think he'd do a good job. And should he continue to run a good campaign, it's likely he could make those numbers, especially amongst Indy's more favourable to himself. That sort of thing is the basis on which Lamont could continue to grow his support.

Also one should note that strong majorities of Indy and Dem voters are against Lieberman's position on the issue. In fact overall 51 to 41 percent of voters in Conn. disagree with his position. And even stronger majorities are against GWB's position, and should Lamont continue to tie Lieberman to GWB then he'll have a good chance at continuing his momentum in the GE, as a nice chunk of Republican voters, and a significant majority of Independents are unimpressed with Lieberman's position.

[calico1]

79. But you are not guessing or giving your personal

opinion, right? What you say is irrefutable fact! :rofl:

[TheVirginian]

81. I'm looking at polls, not inventing reality.

[calico1]

83. I'm curious...

What part of CT do you live in?

[TheVirginian]

86. Fairfax County, Virginia.

[skipos]

70. Sorry, you are wrong.

Comparing one pollster to another isn't going to be the *most accurate* way to detect trends, especially if you have the same pollster doing multiple polls with the same methods.

May 2 Quin Poll, July 20 Quin Poll

CT Primary
Lieberman 65%, 47%
Lamont 19%, 51%

CT General Election
Lieberman (D) 65%, 68%
Schlesinger (R) 14%, 15%

Lamont (D) 25%, 45%
Schlesinger (R) 20%, 22%

Lieberman (I) 56%, 51%
Lamont (D) 13%, 27%
Schlesinger (R) 10%, 9%

Even dedicated Lieberman fans have to admit that Joe has downward momentum, and Ned has upward momentum. Joe could win the primary, and Joe could win the general election. But three things are very clear.

1. Ned would beat Schlesinger if Joe didn't hedge his bets.
2. A Joe independent win is not the "sure thing" everyone was talking about two months ago.
3. Joe vs. Schlesinger isn't changing at all

I am fairly certain that the next Rasmussen poll will have, if anything, more downward momentum for Joe, and more upward momentum for Lamont. I doubt it will have Lamont winning in a three way though. Do you disagree?

[TheVirginian]

72. I don't disagree.

Everything you said is true. I was speaking out of my frustration with others here who saw the Q-pac poll from last month and the Rasmussen poll a week later, and used the 10-point drop as an example of Lieberman losing support.

As far as your three points, here are mine:

1. Schlesinger's best chance is against Lamont, without Lieberman in the race.
2. The smartest money is on Lieberman maintaining his large lead in the polls as an Independent.
3. Schlesinger stands no chance in any election that includes Lieberman.

[LowerManhattanite]

51. Is There Any Particular Reason in your breakdown...

...only the Lamont vs. Lieberman head-to-head listing is set up with the candidate with the lesser percentage listed first?


"Democratic Primary:

Lieberman: 47%
Lamont: 51%

General Election Match-ups:

Lieberman: 68%
Schlesinger: 15%

Lamont: 45%
Schlesinger: 22%
Undecided: 24%

Lieberman (I): 51%
Lamont (D): 27%
Schlesinger (R): 9%

It looks...well, kinda funny, yknow?... :)

[TheVirginian]

53. Force of habit.

I do regular polling updates on another message board, and the standard that I've adopted has been to list the incumbent first. Absent an incumbent, list the incumbent party first. In races like an open-seat primary (like Maryland), list the challenger with the highest number first.

[LowerManhattanite]

55. Interesting...

...to say the least.

[Peace Patriot]

54. The Diebold factor...

(I'm re-posting from the other thread, which got locked for some reason...)

Peace Patriot (1000+ posts) 
Thu Jul-20-06 11:05 AM
Response to Original message


5. Don't forget to factor in Diebold. The OTHER Connecticut Senator,

Christopher Dodd ('Democrat') helped engineer the Bushite corporate takeover of our election system, which now controls all vote tabulation in the country with TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code and virtually no audit/recount controls. Diebold, its brethren corporation, ES&S, and a third Republican election theft player, Sequoia, have the capability of putting an undetectable 5% to 10% "thumb on the scales" for Bushites, warmongers and corporatists (and have certainly done so in the last two elections*).

I'm pushing an Absentee Ballot protest. If enough people vote AB, all those shiny new election theft machines will be obsolete. Then we get American Revolution II (the American people demanding TRANSPARENT elections--and everything good that can come from TRANSPARENT elections).

(Note: AB voting is not safe either, but it IS a PROTEST against the rigged machines. Like Rosa Parks, who refused to sit at the back of the bus, WE REFUSE TO VOTE ON THESE RIGGED MACHINES! We can't help what corrupt election officials do with our AB votes (they scan them right into the rigged electronic system--separating the vote from the evidence of the vote (the ballot) which is almost never seen again.). But we CAN refuse TO TOUCH the machines. We CAN refuse to cooperate with all that expensive, crapass, election theft technology. And, if this protest gets big enough, we CAN bring the rigged system down by AB voting.)

I'm not familiar with Connecticut's voting system, but I imagine (with Dodd as Senator) that it's some version of this insecure and extremely insider hackable election theft technology, controlled by the main corporate players. By voting on these machines, you are cooperating with election theft. Sorry to say it that way. But it's true. Even if CT has optiscans (which include a paper ballot record), these machines are part of this corrupt system. The vote is separated from the ballot, and the ballot is almost never seen again. The central tabulators are also run on private, secret, corporate-controlled programming code. The audits (matchup of electronic results and ballots) are 1% AT BEST (often no audit at all), and recounts are extremely hard to get (and even then, only involve 1% to 3%). In this high speed, OPAQUE environment, massive vote switching can occur WITHOUT DETECTION. And can you imagine Bushites RESISTING such a temptation? Har-har. In fact, they set it all up this way ON PURPOSE (and with the collusion of a whole lot of corporate swill 'Democrats'.)

Anyway, will the vote counting in Connecticut be TRANSPARENT and VERIFIABLE? No! (Nor will it be anywhere in the country.) So that must be factored into this critically important, war issue race. The fascists will steal it if they can. And they can.

We passionately work our butts off for change--as we did in '04. And they just steal it--invisibly now. It's disheartening. But it's better to know this, than not know it. If you know the REAL reason you've lost, you can do something about it. If you get falsely led to the wrong reasons, things will never change--because we will never develop the right strategy to defeat it (such as massive AB voting).

------------------

*Note: The "thumb on the scales" for Bush was detectable in 2004 by analysis of the exit polls, which showed a 3% Kerry win. When you combine that with Bushite vote suppression of Dem voters, Kerry likely won by 4% to 5%. All indicators pointed to a Kerry win--except for the "official count" which was derived by TRADE SECRET formulas, owned and controlled by Diebold and ES&S, two related, rightwing Bushite corporations. The war profiteering corporate news monopolies DOCTORED their exit polls to MATCH Diebold/ES&S's "trade secret" result, thus depriving the American people of major evidence of election fraud. The polling firm that did this--Edison-Mitofsky--has promised never to let us see their real exit polls again, and has refused to disclose the raw data, even to a Congressional committee and statistical experts. So it's going to be very difficult in future to detect the fraud. Also, Diebold has been experimenting with massive vote flipovers, as with the election reform initiatives last year in Ohio: predicted to win by 60/40, but, according to Diebold "trade secret" vote tabulation, LOST by 60/40 on election day.

See: Bob Koehler, title: "Poll Shock" 11/24/05)
http://commonwonders.com/archives/col321.htm

[calico1]

60. We don't have diebold machines in CT n/t

[Peace Patriot]

94. ES&S? Sequoia? Or any of the other corporate TRADE SECRET,

PROPRIETARY voting machines and central tabulators?

Are Connecticut's elections TRANSPARENT and VERIFIABLE?

What system DO you have?

[Peace Patriot]

98. I just Googled it myself. Bradblog says CT rejected e-voting for '06.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2235

"BLOGGED BY Brad ON 1/4/2006 2:31PM  

"ANOTHER STATE REVERSAL! Connecticut Ditching Electronic Voting Machine Plans for 2006!"Feds Said to Approve Return to Lever-Style Voting Equipment!

" Voting Company Danaher Reportedly Misled State! ALSO: CT is Home to HAVA Author Sen. Christopher Dodd!

"Great news! Just in from WTHN.com in Connecticut…

"There likely will not be a high-tech voting machine in your future this year. After announcing late last year that Connecticut's 3,300 mechanical, lever-style voting machines could no longer be used, the secretary of the state reversed herself. It's all about a big foul-up by companies bidding for Connecticut's business.
…
"'I am stopping the purchasing process for electronic voting equipment in Connecticut,"\' Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz. 'The state will use lever voting machines in the 2006 election.'

"After a much publicized, public testing of modern electronic voting technology late last year, it was determined that none of the high-tech devices met all of the requirements of new state and federal rules. In addition to being user friendly for those with disabilities, voters must be able to see the entire ballot all at once and there must be a voter verifiable paper record of their vote. Not even one of the machines tested qualified.

"So the secretary of the state announced the process must start all over again.

"At our invitation, two professors of computer science from a group called True Vote Connecticut watched. They had tried to raise the red flag on the electronic machines. Their complaints were dismissed last month by Secretary Bysiewicz, but today they learned that their observations were right on the money."

[calico1]

107. That's right. We still have the old

lever machines.

[sendero]

82. While I would prefer to see better numbers...

.. before the Joe lovers break out the champagne they should remember : the race is a long way off and not long ago Lamont didn't even poll well for the primary.

The momentum is clearly on Lamont's side and even a 24 point deficit can be overcome with the right campaign.

[dpbrown]

87. Hey, ho! Joe's gotta Go!

Lamont people need a cheer.

[question everything]

88. I stand by my earlier post: Opposing Lieberman to cut our nose

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2712667

How embarrassing it would be for our party when he wins as an Independent. How will all those who attacked him, like Kerry, would be the first to grovel, to ask for his vote, for his grace.

[saltpoint]

91. Grovel? Ask for grace? Good god. I don't THINK so.

[calico1]

93. If anything, it is Lieberman who will have to do

the groveling should he win as an Indy.

[skipos]

144. I don't stand by your post at all

and I am a constant defender of moderates like Nelson around here.

[rhombus]

89. So what's your point? This is complete false projection

Two months ago, Lamont was down by more than 20 points in the polls. Now, he's still relatively unknown to most Ct voters. If Lamont wins, watch Joe's numbers continue a rapid slide down as even prominent Democrats would abandon him. It won't be close in the general. Lamonts win hands down.

[TheVirginian]

99. Because Lamont is a left-wing Democrat. Joe is a centrist.

Its not hard to understand how Lamont gained support among Democrats in a Democratic primary. Its a large stretch of the imagination to assume he'll have the same success with Independents and moderates, where Joe's base of support is at.

[Dr Fate]

127. How is supporting the far right on the major issues "Centrist?"

Last time I checked, supporting the far right was not centrist, but far right.

[TheVirginian]

131. Look at Lieberman's overall record.

[Dr Fate]

132. Nah- I'll focus on the major, important, all encompassing issues.

Why should I cherry pick issues just for his benefit?

He is far right when it comes to supporting illegal wars, and far right when it comes to dissenting against this dishonest admin.

If Joe is successful in supporting this illegal war and opposing dissent against it, then that means BILLIONS of dollars less to fund all the other issues.

That is why Iraq and an hionest discussion of how we got there is THE issue.

He is not "centrist" on Iraq or on the freedom to call out the executive branch when they lie- he is far right.

"We question Bush's credibility at our Nation's peril"

Is that a "centrist" philosophy, or is Joe just paraphrasing Micheal Savage?

[TheVirginian]

133. I'm not asking people to support Lieberman.

All I'm saying is that Lieberman's record over the last 18 years in the Senate has been that of a centrist Democrat.

[Dr Fate]

159. What is "centrist" about supporting the far-right and George Bush?

????

Last time I checked, that was not centrist, but far right.

We dont need to shift the political spectrum to the point where agreeing with far-right principles is somehow "moderate" or "centrist" just for Lieberman's benefit.

Doing so allows these conservatives to frame my own moderate positions (disagreeing with multi-billion dollar wars based on lies, agreeing that dissent against dishonest Presidents is good, etc) as "looney left."

[TheVirginian]

162. This is just semantics.

Lieberman has constantly and consistently been a liberal and progressive Senator. He supports the war. Whatever partisan label you want to attach to his support, the conglomeration of all of his postions over the last 18 years is that of a centrist Democrat.

[Dr Fate]

163. His Supporting a war based on lies is not an issue of semantics...

It's an issue of supporting far-right principles.

There is nothing "consistently...liberal and progressive" about his un-American, Limbauhesque statement that we should not dissent against Bush, even when we know he is lying.

Let's call Lieberman's postions what they are- conservative or right leaning.

I'm being charitible with that- I could truthfully say that on the major issues he is actually neocon or far right.

Semantics shemantics!- certain postions are indeed right or left- on the major, all encompassing FP & dissent issues, Lieberman leans right.

It's not semantics- it's political reality.

If you dont like semantics, then stop using them to frame Lieberman's right-leaning positions as "centrist."

You are helping conservatives in their effort to shift the political spectrum to the right, just for Lieberman's benefit- he is not worth it.

[skipos]

145. You make this point over and over, and it is a bad one

Democrats outnumber Republicans and they outnumber independents in CT. This isn't Nebraska, where many people still like Bush. This is a state where a large majority of the people do not support this president and do not support this war. I guarantee you that many if not most independents will vote for Lamont, just as most of them voted for Kerry, and most of them do not support this president or this war. Joe will be fighting with Schlesinger over the Repub vote, the smallest group of voters in CT by the way.

Many DUers have a fantasyland notion that Lamont is going to win the primary and election for sure, but you seem to take the exact opposite fantasyland notion that Lieberman is going to win no matter what. My question for you is, what happens if Joe loses the primary? When Democratic politicians and Democratic organizations nationwide throw their support to the primary winner, as they say they will do? When money pours in to Lamonts campaign? When your average, barely-paying-attention voters start hearing about this Lamont guy for first time? When Joe gets a public spanking from his own party?

Do you really think Joe's numbers are going to stay up IF that happens? Do you really think that Lamont won't continue to pick up steam like he has for the last two months?

[TheVirginian]

148. I think Lamont will hit a ceiling.

I think he'll win the primary, increase his support among Democrats to 60-70%, then lose in the general election to Lieberman.

You're wrong, BTW. Most CT voters are non-Democrats. Most (49%) are Independent, followed by Democrats (25-30%), then Republicans (20-25%). So Joe Lieberman enjoys a wide berth of support from people who couldn't care less about the Democratic primary.

Will Lamont pick up support after he wins the primary? Undoubtedly. But he's currently 24 points behind against a three-time incumbent whom the majority of the state says should be re-elected. Lieberman is very vulnerable in the primary, but he's not vulnerable at all in the general election.

[skipos]

152. Democrat 37%, Independent 33%, Republican 30%

If there are more independents, they must have sat out the last election Connecticut :shrug:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004//pages/results/states/CT/P/00/epolls.0.html

Since you believe Joe is "not vulnerable at all," there is much money for you to make at tradesports.com. Joe believers there are dwindling by the day.

[TheVirginian]

157. According to CT's Secretary of State:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-bysiewicz0718.artjul18,0,4945380.story

"Unfortunately, our state's largest block of voters - nearly 900,000 registered voters who are unaffiliated - will not be able to vote in this primary. Party rules prohibit unaffiliated voters from voting in Democratic or Republican primaries, meaning 44 percent of our nearly two million active voters are left out of a critical piece of the electoral process"

I'm guessing a large amount of unaffiliated voters stayed home in 2004, but according to the person that would know best, and have the most updated figures in front of her, 44% of the state is Independent.

[CTyankee]

95. What's going to happen

in Cornwall Bridge versus Mystic, in your opinion? Do you think West Hartford will break for Lieberman? And what do you do with Willimantic?

[TheVirginian]

100. You tell me.

And how does that change the reality of a state-wide poll?

[CTyankee]

109. West Hartford will prolly go for Joe because of a high number of Jewish

voters there. I'm going to bet that Cornwall Bridge, close to the NY line in beautiful, wealthy Litchfield County, will break for Lamont, as I have experienced pockets of strong liberal politics in that area (I picked Cornwall Bridge because the name of the place is so lovely. I could just as well have picked Washington Depot or New Preston). Mystic is on the shoreline and that's toss up IMHO. Willimantic is a distressed town with bad drug problems and a high teen pregnancy rate and I sense voter disaffection, driving down their participation in the primary and GE.

I never said that my query changed the reality of this snapshot-in-time poll. I was just engaging you in a conversation about on the ground politics in CT. We'll see how it plays out, won't we?

[fuzzyball]

104. Regardless of the primary, Lieberman will be elected senator of CT

because Joementum will abandon the democratic party if he loses
to Lamont, and run as an independent. But I believe Joe is fighting
to stay a democrat because that is his preference. But keeping his
job as a senator is paramount to Joe, and supercedes any party affiliation.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

137. Welcome to Democratic Underground, fuzzyball!

:hi:

[fuzzyball]

160. :toast:

:toast:

[lonestarnot]

105. ewwww. misread. edit yeah!

[lonestarnot]

106. What? What is with this thread title OP'r? Confusing

[TheVirginian]

108. I'm reporting what the latest poll has shown. What's confusing about it?

[lonestarnot]

113. The headline appears to represent that Libernumbnuts is

ahead of Lamont, but the context of the post states the opposite? Maybe I'm just loosing it. Happens every day. Not to worry. :rofl:

[saltpoint]

114. Hey there, lonestarnot. Howdy-do. As headlines on this story go,

here's the (AP) take from the on-line edition of the Sacramento BEE:

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/3333998p-12277590c.html

[lonestarnot]

115. Howdy-do.

Have to register to get that Old Crusoe. But I am assuming Lamont is kicking ass? Am I wrong to make that assumption?

[saltpoint]

116. It's a tight one. After being far away and way down, Ned Lamont has

soared this summer and his campaign has put together a terrific effort.

He's now a slight bit ahead of Lieberman for the August 8th primary.

If Lieberman wins on the 8th he is the prohibitive favorite of course in the general.

If Lamont wins, Lieberman says he will then run as a third party candidate to hold the seat.

That's the source of a lot of tension in this thread. Well, one of the sources!

So yeah. It's close.

[lonestarnot]

117. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

[TheVirginian]

121. There are two elections being polled.

Lamont pulled ahead of Lieberman for the August 8th Primary to determine who will be the Democratic nominee in November. In the general election, if Lieberman runs as an Indepedent, he has a 24-point lead over Lamont.

[lonestarnot]

151. uggg.

[Dr Fate]

164. What would the poll be if Lieberman endorsed/supported the Democrat?

I wonder what upcomming polls would look like if Lieberman endorsed the Democratic party instead of campaigning against us.

Any ideas?

[Peace Patriot]

111. Eugene McCarthy drove LBJ out of the Prez race in '68, and he didn't even

win that primary (NH). He just did well--against LBJ.

All about the war.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

118. At risk of starting a row, I think this somewhat justifies Lieberman.

It shows that a majority of the people of Conecticut want him to be their Senator, whether or not a majority of the voters in the Democratic primary do.

Essentially, what these results mean is that what matters is not the election itself, but the primary, and what it will decide is whether the Senator for Conecticut will be Lieberman (D) or Lieberman (I).

I'm inclined to prefer the former, but I can see a case to be made that it might set a precedent that would be harmful to progressive politics in America.

[Clarkie1]

139. I think you are right.

I posted a thread on this last week that caused an uproar. Facts are in a Democracy the senator is supposed to be the one who receives the most votes. If the Democratic Party rejects Lieberman, Lieberman almost has an obligation as the popular incumbent to run as an independent, I would argue....especially based on these numbers

I hope Lamont wins the general election, but I am doubtful since Lieberman is obviously drawing from the majority of voters who are registered independent, as well as some conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans.

[rucky]

143. If your power forward is scoring baskets for the other team...

what's the point of keeping him on your team?

Lamont should be rewarded for his ballsy campaign and good sense by being given a fighting chance in the general. Let's bring him off the bench. Still a few months for CT to get to know him.

I remember in the early presidential primary polls, Lieberman was way ahead out of pure name recognition. Hell, my wife even kicked a few bucks his way because of his VP run. Boy did that change fast.

[rucky]

142. I'm seeing the numbers & I'm still not believing itt.

How could Lieberman be so far ahead in that scenario?

I'm dumbstruck. wonderfounded. befuddled and fubeedled.

[onenote]

156. because there are more independents than Democrats in CT

and if you check the details on the poll, you will see that CT independents say that they support Lieberman over Lamont (and have a generally more favorable perception of Lieberman than registered Democrats in general or likely Democratic voters). I think that, if Lamont wins the primary, the race will tighten, in part because some of the independents will rethink their support, but more importantly because I think that some Democrats who would support Lieberman in the primary (and who currently say that they'd support him as an independen, will reconsider their decision to support someone other than the nominee of their party. If that tightening occurs, it may bring greater pressure to bear on Lieberman not to pursue an indpendent run for election. On the other hand, if Lieberman continues to maintain signficant support even after losing the primary, he'll probably stay in the race.

[ProudDad]

147. Cool

after he gets back to the Senate, dino Joe can finally caucus with the repukes.