To be honest i though Schlesinger won that debate Lamont was..

[bigdarryl]

alright and Lieberman was his usual self. i think Schlesinger will go up in the polls which is BAD news for Lieberman

[rpannier]

1. I have no problem with that if you're correct

I encourage every Republican in the state of Connecticut to rally around Schlesinger.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. If every Repub in Connecticut goes for Schlesinger

then Connecticut will end up with 2 Repub senators, since LIEberman will still be taking votes away from Lamont

[napi21]

3. I don't know about that. I don't live in CT. so I can only speak from

what I've read. I understand CT. is mostly Ind's. I thought I heard Lamont was about 10 pts away from Joe. If that's the case, don't you really believe the Pubs could take at least 15% or more of the total vote? I think it would be very close, but I think Lamont can win!

[Zynx]

7. Connecticut has very few Republicans at only about 26% self-identification

and 46% Democrats. I'm not that worried.

[calico1]

8. How would we end up with 2 Republican

senators? There is only one seat up for grabs. And Dodd is a Democrat.

[Awsi Dooger]

4. Newsflash: we want Schlesinger to win every debate

I rooted for him on every answer and was thrilled. He thoroughly dominated that debate.

I'm not sure it will move the numbers significantly, but that's Lamont's only chance.

Let's face it, Lamont is a rank mediocrity. It was evident again today. The posters who have been waiting for Lamont to take control and soar in the polls on his own merit are in a dream world. When you rely on vote-against and not vote-for you end up with limited candidates like Ned Lamont.

Lamont's idiocy since the primary was not running commericals in which he attacks Schlesinger as too conservative for Connecticut. The numbers simply don't add up for Lamont unless Schlesinger rises in name recognition and therefore the polling.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. I wondered how the debate went

I saw it in the middle of the night (ugh) so my perception may have been off, but I also thought the republican won it. Although I don't agree with his politics, he certainly was passionate about his stance. If that Whiny Lieberman complained one more time about political campaigning, I was going to toss my slipper at him. Lamont came across as steady and reasonable. Of course I was biased.

[Arugula Latte]

6. That was also Matt Stoller's take on mydd.com:

"There is just no question that Alan Schlesinger won this debate, Lamont pretty much held his own, and Lieberman lost. Alan Schlesinger was funny, interesting, and passionate. He made compelling conservative arguments, and punctured the myth that Lieberman was a principled independent. Lamont held his own as a credible candidate, standing up to Joe's attacks. Lieberman was somewhat funny, but he couldn't defend his middle of the road mantra when Alan Schlesinger and Ned Lamont were pointing out that his record doesn't match his rhetoric."

http://mydd.com/story/2006/10/16/14539/576

[DinahMoeHum]

9. Here's the Hartford Courant's take on the debate. . .

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-ap-lieb-lam,0,1672980.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

(snip)
Sen. Joe Lieberman may as well have worn a bull's-eye on his back during a debate with his Democratic and Republican rivals Monday.
Democrat Ned Lamont fired away, calling Lieberman a career politician in lockstep with President Bush's invasion of Iraq, while long-shot Republican Alan Schlesinger warned moderates to consider Lieberman's record of voting mostly with Democrats.
(snip)


Heh heh. As long as it makes Lieberman look bad, the better the chances for Lamont.

:kick: