How would you explain a two-week "Dean crumble" by Lamont?

[LoZoccolo]

As we remember, Dean lost a 25-point lead in about two weeks before the Iowa caucus. There have been varied explanations for this. If the same thing were to happen to Lamont, what would your explanation be?

[bluestateguy]

1. Well

That's a good description of what is happening to Lieberman right now. If it happens to Lamont, then we'll look at the facts and the evidence and talk about it.

[dsc]

2. If the media does to Lamont what they did to Dean

the answer will be obvious. Local media tends to be more honest though, so I doubt that will happen.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Dumbest post ever... unworthy of a response.

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

5. Are you saying that Dean did not blow a comfortable lead in two weeks?

Why would that be able to happen, and this not?

[Cooley Hurd]

6. .

:boring:

[LoZoccolo]

7. From Wikipedia:

During the last weeks of the campaign however the polls began to indicate a significant change in support. Dean and Gephardt had been hammering each other with negative advertisements. Both candidates began hemorrhaging support to revived Edwards and Kerry campaigns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

[Cooley Hurd]

8. .

[karynnj]

24. But there were caveats on every story with Iowa polls

saying who goes to the caucus is notoriously hard to predict. The one source I saw was a tracking poll that reported a smoothed average. Therfore, if a major change occured, it took a few days for its impact to register, Kerry (and Edwards) were steadily improving. In both cases, there were events that caused the shift. You also had Dean and Gephardt throwing accusations at each other.

Kerry was reunited with Rassman in what was the most television perfect campaign event in decades. Rassmann, a Republican retired police officer had not seen Kerry, who saved his life in Vietnam, since he left Vietnam. The reunion was intensely emotional with Kerry shyly saying "that anyone would have done it". (Imagine if Kerry were a media favorite - and this would have played in heavy rotyation in a short campaign summary of Kerry's and Bush's campaigns. In this clip, Kerry is the epitome of the "American hero", down to the humble modesty.)

Edwards got the endorsement of the prestigious Des Moines Registar. He was already seen as likable, this endorsement gave him credibility.

It didn't help that the news bite of Dean the weekend Kerry was with Rassman was the one where he told a 70+ yr old heckler to sit down. That and fighting with Gephardt were what was seen in the last weeks. It ssems some of his support was shallow and it went to Kerry and Edwards.

[LoZoccolo]

33. I think you bring up some excellent points.

Having not really watched much television campaign coverage (instead following it mostly here), I wasn't aware of some of the media-oriented things you bring up. Thanks for your analysis.

[karynnj]

58. Thank you

I had the tv as background noise on most of the day that both the Kerry/Rassman and Dean story were shown. I was drawn to watch the Kerry story at least 4 times because it was really really a warm genuine thing. I had hoped that either Kerry or Dean would win - and worried that as the 2 NE liberal/moderate candidates they could split the same vote letting one of the other candidates win. I had prefered Kerry in the debates and after this I was for Kerry. (So, the power of the tv spot worked on me)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. From what I SAW while door-knocking in Iowa

for the Kucinich campaign, I expected the results to be Dean-Edwards-Kerry. Certainly the Dean team had the most people out, and I saw more Edwards lawn signs than Kerry signs.

But I think Iowans kept their preferences to themselves. I met a lot of undecideds, but those who had decided to support someone else NEVER told me who their favorite was. It was always, "We've decided to support another candidate."

[LincolnMcGrath]

44. Kerry targeted the right people here in IA.

Folks who caucus consistantly.

Folks involved in county parties.

[MarkDevin]

4. Why not ask me what I'd do if grasshoppers flew out of my butt?

Sorry, but I deal in reality, not in "what-ifs."

[aquart]

9. Planting the seed?

Some things never change.

[LoZoccolo]

10. How would that work?

I don't get how this post will have any significant effect on the election.

[NoPasaran]

11. Over-zealous volunteers in orange hats

[DancingBear]

12. Look!! Yet another "Democrat" post!

To recap:

a) they're quite tiring

b) they're incredibly transparent

c) you mean, like a Dreadful Lamont Crumble?

Something like that????

[benburch]

13. Which side are you on? nt

[Cooley Hurd]

15. Take a guess...

[LoZoccolo]

18. What kind of question is that?

I don't understand what you're talking about. Please delineate the sides so I can answer your question.

[benburch]

29. It was a perfectly simple question!

Lamont or Lieberman? Which side are you on?

[LoZoccolo]

32. I'll ask you another question about your question.

Are you asking who I'd rather see in the Senate, or who I think people should vote for at this point in time given all available data?

[benburch]

45. Both.

If those are different.

[LoZoccolo]

47. Who I'd rather see in the Senate:

Lamont.

Who I think people should vote for at this point in time:

Lieberman.

These might change even next week depending on the dynamics of the polls.

[benburch]

50. Why not vote for who you think is best?

Rather than who you think can win?

Because in this race I can't see any difference whatsoever between an Ex-Democrat and a Republican, so there is no downside.

[LoZoccolo]

54. Yeah, see, that's disingenuous.

That's been substantiated over and over, but I'm not convinced doing it any more will change things. The people who say that don't even believe it, I don't think. Maybe it's this thing about proving loyalty by bending the truth or something, but I can't say for sure.

Anyways, we've heard that line before, and look where it's got us.

[LincolnMcGrath]

55. Speaking of disingenuous

Lamont supporters: would you mind a Republican sitting in the Senate seat? (Poll) LoZoccolo Sun Jul-16-06

Wait wait wait wait WAIT! OK so if Joe Lieberman is a Republican... LoZoccolo Mon Jul- 17-06

Your vote is not a "statement". LoZoccolo Fri Jul-14-06

Who would you rather see in Lieberman's Senate seat? (Poll) LoZoccolo Sat Jul-22-06


How would you explain a two-week "Dean crumble" by Lamont? LoZoccolo Sat Jul-22-06


Lamont supporters: give me your phone number at work. LoZoccolo Thu Jul-20-06

[benburch]

66. That documents an interesting record of working to defeat a Democrat.

And not one that I would care to see continued here on Democratic Underground.

[LoZoccolo]

68. This is not the place to make those accusations.

And it makes no sense anyways because any primary-related threads for any campaign are working to defeat a Democrat (duh).

If you have a problem with one of my threads, put your fist on the alert button and let the mods handle it. Don't air your grievances here.

[LincolnMcGrath]

72. I swear ben, How long before some of the more militant dlcentrist-

zellocrats here on DU take to calling anyone who opposes them DUmmies!??

The hate democrat crowd has really been putting in overtime! lol

[benburch]

73. Well, if they do want to do that...

...I can suggest a venue that would be more to their liking. :evilgrin:

Though I think that a few of them actually come from there.

[benburch]

64. Ignoring good advice like that has gotten us spineless Senators

I'd rather have a Senator that will stand up and filibuster or none at all, thank you.

You can commit treason against the Party if you choose. I choose not to.

[skipos]

14. That a genie granted you a wish?

That Rasmussen poll must have you pretty worried for ole Joe. The good news for you is that primary polls can be very inaccurate. The bad news for you is that Joe has been going down in the polls with surprisingly steady momentum. I think a 25 point win by Lamont is more likely than a 25 point loss at Joementum's current pace.

[LoZoccolo]

17. I've said before that I don't mind Lamont getting elected.

I would actually prefer it.

The sorts of issues I'm bringing up are bigger than that.

[kohodog]

26. huh???

From your pro-joe posts I don't get where you are coming from. Will you (or would you if you are not in CT) vote for Lamont if Joe goes Indy? What issue is bigger than a pro-war neocon Bush enabler Senator being challenged by a guy who wants to get out and undo the damage while supporting women's rights, fair trade and objective judges, issues on which Holy Joe chose to side with the idiots?

[LoZoccolo]

30. I'm not from Connecticut, but here goes.

Say it was like this:

45% Lieberman
45% Lamont
10% Schlesinger

I'd vote Lamont.

Say it was like this:

35% Lieberman
30% Lamont
35% Schlesinger

Then it would be Lieberman.

To me it's all about getting more of what I want rather than less, and in doing so, dealing with the situation as it is.

[kohodog]

36. Talk to me when Schlesinger breaks 15%

Even the Republicans in CT don't like him. Until then, vote for Joe (stay the course in Iraq, no plan B, Alito, Roberts, Privatized Social security, Schiavo, no health care for you) Lieberman, or Ned. Seems like a no brainer to me, but who am I?

Joe will run on the issues in the primary and lose, state the holy Joe party and lose again.

[LoZoccolo]

46. Why not vote for me then?

You could write in my name, and I have not voted Lieberman's way on Iraw, plan B, Alito, Roberts, privatized Social Security, Schiavo, or health care. Plus I promise to lift our dependance on oil within 12-18 months, and will guarantee full employment for all Americans. Lamont has not made those two additional promises.

[skipos]

69. You know there is a poll out that is 40-40-13

which is damn close to your ridiculous 45-45-10 requirement for supporting Lamont.

You really need to give up your weak "Schlesinger may beat Lamont" argument because it has been negated by mutltiple polls in the last few weeks.

Or else get on tradesports.com and put your money where your mouth is. I have already made some money on suckers who thought Lamont had no chance in this primary. FYI the current odds on the GOP winning the seat is @ 1 to 99 there.

[LoZoccolo]

71. Online gambling is illegal in my state.

It seemed to be one of the first to outlaw it when I checked in 2000. Curiously, all the first states to outlaw it had legalized casinos.

[CTLawGuy]

27. another "Lamont supporter"

who can do nothing except act all upset that Lieberman is doing so badly....

[LoZoccolo]

31. Show me one post where I am upset that Lieberman is doing badly.

You can't do that without making some very big inferences.

[LincolnMcGrath]

34. How about 50 "Poor Widdle Joe" threads in the last 3 weeks?

Get serious!

[LoZoccolo]

48. I did not post 50 threads; document or retract. n/t

[LincolnMcGrath]

52. I'm sorry, it was 49 "Poor Widdle Joe" threads in 3 weeks!

My Bad!

[CTLawGuy]

35. inferences? yes

warranted inferences? yes.

For instance this OP. Why would any Lamont supporter be talking about how we would react to a 2-week collapse?

You also had a poll about whether we would blame ourselves if Schelsinger were to win in a two way race because Lamont beat Lieberman and he dropped out. Again, what Lamont supporter would be taking the time out to post something like that?

You've also defended lieberman's decision to run as an independent.

[LoZoccolo]

43. I'm studying the nature of his support.

I think it's good to sometimes reflect on the nature of political campaigns, especially why one picks one candidate over another, and which motivations are productive ones. I think the discussion about regret is a very good one to have; for instance, if people are more out to get Lieberman than to keep a Republican out, is that a good strategy for getting more of what one wants than less? These are very important questions.

And yes, I have defended Lieberman's decision to run as an independant, because so far he has shown he can win. Lamont's starting to, and you shouldn't be surprised if I change my mind based on the projected dynamics of the general election. As I said I think somewhere else on this same thread, it's about getting more of what I want and dealing with the situation as it is. I don't think that's a bad idea. It certainly wouldn't have been during the 2000 election when dealing with the dynamics of a Nader run.

[saltpoint]

63. Joe's decision to gather signatures to run ANYWAY, if he loses to Lamont

in the primary, is sucking doorknobs coast to coast.

He's not only losing ground, he's losing ground faster than any other incumbent U.S. Senator I have ever seen, arguably faster than any Senator in the modern era.

You are witnessing the historic implosion of Joe Lieberman.

[IndianaGreen]

16. Are you working on your resume for when Lieberman has to laid off

his staff? You better get busy before another unemployed staffer gets the better job in the private sector.

[LoZoccolo]

19. I am not a Lieberman staffer. n/t

[saltpoint]

61. You should be. He needs all the encouragment he can get since his butt

is now WAY behind Lamont in the primary and no better than TIED with Lamont for the general, per Rasmussen's poll to be published tomorrow morning.

Joe's going to need a few remnant pals to hang out with now that he's being blown out of the water.

[Autumn Colors]

20. I can explain the "Dean crumble" easily

Howard Dean went on "Hardball" and said his first executive order as President would be to break up the big media conglomerates ....

One week later, said "big media conglomerates" started repeatedly airing the footage with audience audio omitted and kept repeating this mantra about Dean being "angry" ....

then .... boom .... dead candidacy.

EDIT: Has Lamont made any statements like that recently? I don't know, but I live in CT and I'm voting for him in the primary.

[formactv]

21. the party picked the candidate

and the primary was irrelevant

[LoZoccolo]

23. I think it had more to do with polls that said...

...he couldn't win against Bush*. The people who liked Dean liked that he was "angry"; why would they change their minds on that?

I've also heard that the Dean campaigners made themselves very obnoxious, to the point people were pretending they weren't home. I could see that, having been a Dean campaigner (references available on request).

[madfloridian]

37. You want to talk about obnoxious? LOL

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Lots of people pretended not to be home

even though the Kucinich people wore no identifying insignia except T-shirts (which in my group's case, were covered with jackets--it was January, after all.)

Sometimes we'd be lucky to find three people at home on a block on a Saturday afternoon.

I think people were tired of political campaigners, period.

[snowbear]

22. Cooley Hurd.. LOL! :o)

Your posts are a kick in the butt!

Love your awesome sense of humor! http://eliteleague.co.uk/forum/images/smilies/lol!.gif

[calico1]

25. Not again......

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

[LincolnMcGrath]

28. This is just the latest in the almost hourly series of "Poor Widdle Joe"

spam fests unfortunately.

[FloridaPat]

38. The media did it. Dean would have been a condidate of the people.

Can't have that. Too many corporations would loose the footing they now have.

[karynnj]

67. Kerry has as much claim to being the candidate of the people

He clearly had no party support in the fall of 2003. Party leaders had clearly discouraged people from contributing. He loaned his campaign money by mortgaging his house. Other than in 1972, Kerry has never been a media favorite. Think back to 2003, there were at least 6 major magazine covers with Dean. When Clark entered the race, there was a burst of knight on a silve horse stories. Only after Kerry won Iowa did he get any covers. Even as Kerry won primaries, the media seemed in love with Edwards.

He has been a champion of amall businesses against mega businesses since he joined the Senate. He chose to be on the small business committee and has been there for 21 years. He wrote legislation to try to stop some of the media consolidation in his role as chairman of the small business committee.
Kerry was willing to fight the establishment when he took on BCCI.

[madfloridian]

39. Cute tactic: Putting Dean, Lamont and crumble in the same sentence.

:banghead:

[LoZoccolo]

42. There is a rationale for asking this question.

The reason being that polls had shown that Dean would not beat Bush* in the general election at the time of the Dean crumble, but Kerry and Lieberman would. Lamont is in not as bad of a situation, but a somewhat similar one in that Schlesinger's percentage plus the undecideds is larger than Lamont's in a two-way race.

It might be better for people to discuss these questions, better in terms of acting skillfully in electoral politics, if they would consider these situations rather than spending a lot of time arguing about why they are being asked.

[dsc]

49. that is assine

I will bet you $50 right now that Lamont will not lose to Schlesinger in the general election. Put up or shut up. BTW we went with Kerry and all the things we were told would happen with Dean did.

[LoZoccolo]

56. Those sorts of wagers are illegal in my state.

Do not ask me to break the law.

Who knows, you may see me reverse my position next week. But for now there is a hole big enough for Schlesinger to walk through. If there isn't, why are you so upset at me asking this question?

[dsc]

59. I always get upset when people play with numbers

BTW I wonder if these polls are before or after the Republican got caught lying about his gambling habits. You convientely omit the three way poll showing a 40,40, 13 three way race.

[LoZoccolo]

62. Rasmussen is the polling firm that Fox News uses.

I actually soured on them when someone - might have been their head - described Dean as "ultra-liberal".

[saltpoint]

65. Rasmussen is felt to lean toward conservatives, that's true enough, but

that's worse news yet for Lieberman.

Lieberman is FOX's star Democrat.

[skipos]

70. Exactly. If Rasmussen oversamples repubs and has Joe and Ned tied

Joe is even more screwed than the poll shows.

[saltpoint]

74. A strong possibility, since Rasmussen is polling. And it may not

be Joe's weakness alone, but also Ned Lamont's campaign staff might just be out-hustling the incumbent.

Things are not lookin' that rosy for Lieberman 'long 'bout now.

[madfloridian]

51. There are other similarities as well that you forgot to mention.

The party leaders resent Lamont just as much as they resented Dean. They consider them both to be interlopers in an how dare they sort of way. Like they are messing around being candidates when they are not worthy.

That sort of similarity.

It is a primary. If Lamont loses, he loses. If Joe loses he loses. Vice versa.

It is just that we know more what to expect this time. If you expect to be screwed, it is less painful and less likely to succeed.

[Orangepeel]

53. the Connecticut primary isn't a caucus

there are a lot of reasons that Dean did so poorly in Iowa. Not the least of which is that Iowa is a caucus, not a primary. Dean's young, enthusiastic-but-inexperienced, many-from-out-of-state volunteers were no match for Kerry's older, experienced supporters. Kerry's supporters, in general, had more long-time ties to regular caucus goers and were much better able to convince them in a one-on-one personal selling format.

If Lieberman were running this race like somebody with as much experience as he has, Lamont would be in trouble. But, his campaign, for an incumbent, has been astoundingly bad. It is stupid move after stupid move (I'm firmly convinced that if Lieberman had said "I'm a Democrat and I'll support the winner of the Democratic primary" instead of this bonehead independent move, he would have won in a walk).

All else being equal, Lieberman OUGHT to have the same type of old hand advantage that Kerry had. But, circumstances are much different and Lieberman's no Kerry.

[TankLV]

57. How do YOU explain the ACTUAL crumble by LIEberman?

That is the important question, not some repuke fantasy that you dreamt up.

We'd much rather talk about the REAL world - you know - the one where Lamont is currently eating that repuke LIEberman for lunch!

[saltpoint]

60. Rasmussen's poll on the CT Senate race will be published tomorrow

morning.

Premium subscribers have it already.

Lamont leads Lieberman in the primary now, 51% to 41%.

In the general election, should Lieberman run as an independent, Lamont and Lieberman are TIED. Schlesinger is a distant third.

Joe's toast.

[Pale Blue Dot]

75. LOL - ask me if it happens

Nice try, though. Want to debate the issues?

[The empressof all]

76. Locking

Flamebait.....I don't know where you all live but it's hot enough here already without this kind of crap