Lieberman Cuts Challenger's Lead In Half
By California Yankee Posted in 2006 | Featured Stories — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The day before Connecticut's Democratic primary, a new Quinnipiac poll finds Senator Lieberman has cut the lead of his Greenwich millionaire and anti-war challenger from 13 percent to 6 percent.
Finally reversing his challenger's momentum, Senator Lieberman now trails 45 percent to 51 percent among likely Democratic primary voters. Four days ago Quinnipiac released poll numbers showing the three term senator and 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee trailing 41 percent to 54 percent.
According to Quinnipiac, only 4 percent of likely Democratic primary voters remain undecided, but 28 percent of likely Democratic primary voters who choose a candidate say they still might change their mind.
These poll numbers will breath new life into the Lieberman campaign. Senator Lieberman has cut the lead in half during a week when the race card has been played by the challenger, with left-wing extremists Rev. Jackson, Rev. Sharpton, and California Congresswoman Maxine Waters campaigning against Lieberman. Another factor in the momentum shift was the blackface antics of Lamont supporter, Jane Hamsher. Lamont handled the distasteful racist blog posting poorly, telling News Channel 8's Jamie Muro:
I don't know anything about the blogs, I'm not responsible for those, I have no comment on 'em...Independent blogs, I can't say anything about it.
The anti-war candidate owes his entire campaign to left-wing blogs. You would think the Greenwich millionaire would be careful in dealing with an incident with such explosive overtones. After all, Lamont cancelled his membership in Greenwich's exclusive Round Hill country club before formerly announcing his Challenge to Senator Lieberman. He told the New York Times he quit the club because it was "too white and too rich and he did not want it to become a campaign issue."
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | You know I never look at polls, but... — Comments (1) »
Lieberman Cuts Challenger's Lead In Half 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
when the votes are counted, the faces of the KosKK and the pundits will look like they did on Election day 2004. I'll never forget the look on Susan Estrich's face when all those
exit polls turned out to be BS. I thought she was gonna cry.
This one's going to be close.
Especially when she kept rambling on about how Cuyahoga County was gonna "swing this race at the last minute to Kerry. That's what I'm hearing from my contacts in Boston."
You could see her face twitch as she yearned to light up another Camel.
...I've decided that the best possible outcome for we red state Americans is for Lamont to win tomorrow's primary.
Yes, it will break the enviable 0-for-21 losing streak of the MoveOn crowd, but it will only set them up for a crushing defeat in November---when Lieberman wins a 3-way race by something like 48-39-13.
I speak as a native of my beloved Connecticut who voted thrice for Lieberman in the 80s(twice for state AG, then once to jettison the noxious Lowell Weicker), before he sold his soul to Algore.
My guess as tomorrow's outcome is:
Lamont 53
Lieberman 45
Others/idiots/etc. 2
*Lieberman has been playing the race card more distantly. His camp has sent around young minority students to talk about Lamont's club membership and call him a racist. He also sought Al Sharpton's endorsement for the primary, but the reverend shot him down.
*There's a solid discontent with Lieberman, and Ned Lamont's name recognition is lower than you think. Campaigning with Alan on Saturday, he got mistaken for Ned Lamont more times than he probably should have. (Compare pictures)
http://www.removerepublicans.com/images/ned_lamont.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Alan_schlesinger_us_senate_ct_revised...
I think the less they know about Lamont, the more likely they are to default away from Lieberman.
*I saw a commercial for a second debate today between Lamont and Lieberman. Can anyone else confirm that? Kent?
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
I've heard there are pressures from within the party, but I haven't heard who might replace him.
Jack Orchulli, who lost to Dodd 66-34 last time, was floated, and he'd probably still like to do it. But it's too late to primary, and despite what Jodi thinks, he has the full support of George Gallo (GOP Chairman) and that's what matters.
To be honest, there's no stronger candidate than Schlesinger, who is pretty well known in the Valley but not as much elsewhere, outside of the three GOP congressmen. Chris Shays or Nancy Johnson might do better, but the race has been so stigmatized they wouldn't dare touch it.
I doubt anyone will break 20 in a three-way, unless we can really convince over 75% of the Republicans and 30% of the moderates that Lieberman is too liberal for them. In the meantime, I know Alan, and I think he's a good man and the best candidate of the three. We'll see what happens.
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
is more likely to be influenced by the grassroot lefties. I put less stock in the poll's for a general election but think they will run close to right on this race.
Lamont is an empty shell- I hope he wins.
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
quinnipiac polling is lousy. they do a bad job and have a solid record of unreliability, volatility and inconsistency.
however, here are two points to consider i'm not seeing comments about.
one:
could a tightening in this race be due to crossover registrants? this would seem unlikely to me even if the phenomenon is strong, because the pollsters probably lack current data, and they would need it to measure this effect. so this is all the more reason, on top of quinnipiac's usual unreliability, to discount all the primary polls now if one assumes crossover registration is a significant element in this primary.
two:
if you really want to see something interesting about the latest quinnipiac data (regardless of my negative comments about quinnipiac), look at the lamont-lieberman breakdown by sex. i find it very interesting that the men are more dovish than the women.
i am still very much of the opinion that the nedheads are going to soundly prevail in this race. in fact, i would not be surprised by a lamont margin of victory even greater than that indicated by the penultimate quinnipiac poll.
GOPaisano: don't know anything about another debate.
I keep having the feeling that Lieberman will win the primary, but then I want Lieberman to win the primary - and I know it. That makes me suspicious of my suspicions about the polling, if you know what I mean.
Guess we'll find out tomorrow.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
A civil war in the Democrat Party is a GOOD thing. Let them eat their own. I want the left-wing nutroots to take total control of the party.
Go Lamont .......... then, Go Joe!!!
...or anything else equally racist, then you may equate the two scenarios. Until then, don't, thanks.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
That a blogger supporting Lamont went overboard does not negate the merits of the Lamont challenge.
The question is why Lamont's challenge is seen as catastrophic and world-changing, whereas no one freaked out like this about Pat Toomey or, now, Steve Laffey.
You're just playing the old lefty game of 'spot the contradiction.' You're bringing no logic or insight, and instead just trying to jab a pointy stick.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I didn't realize that "logic" was a liberal thing. Remind me to call up my college mentor, Hadley Arkes, and tell him he was wrong about all that Aristotelian nonsense.
Here's the thing: it's a primary. There's nothing wrong with it. If Lieberman loses, it's because he no longer represents his constituents adequately, and it will be their decision.
What I don't understand is why going up against Lieberman has caused all this "No! We can't kill off moderation!" from the punditocracy and now you guys, when that wasn't the sentiment when Specter was challenged in '04.
Thanks for re-confirming Leon's literacy theory.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
When those who are for Laffey do the things that those who are for Lamont have done and do, then you may claim that they are in the same place. As of now, you may not.
As there is no such thing as a zero-syllable word, I don't think that I can make this much plainer.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
It’s downright embarrassing to see Republicans concede any races particularly State-wide ones as we did in Vermont in 1998, Illinois in 2004, and now Connecticut in 2006. We’re the national governing party and we ought to be able to mount a credible candidate in any and every race in the country.
Even if some of these States are so “deep blue” that they’re unlikely to go Republican in the near future, the point is by running credible candidates (hint: NOT Alan Keyes), we lay the foundation for building a competitive party in those areas which sooner or later will lead to winning elections and becoming a governing party that will implement (comparatively more) conservative ideas.
In my own State of Minnesota, for decades the “Independent” Republican Party of Minnesota was basically a joke (our last GOP governor and one of our last GOP Senators both turned RINO and endorsed Kerry IIRC) and we were regarded as one of the “safe” States for Democrats that they could expect to carry by double digits. In the last several elections, that margin has consistently narrowed to the point where we are one of the most competitive States in the nation (now a “purple” State) which has half of our Congressional delegation, our State House, three-fourths of our State-wide constitutional offices and one (hopefully soon to be two) Senate seats held by Republicans (although Coleman’s too much of a statist squish IMO). It didn’t happen overnight but we did make it happen and there’s no reason why other “blue States” cannot do the same IMO.
Jodi Rell is not only not supporting Alan in the election, her people are encouraging others not to support him. I think it would be fair to say that she wants Lieberman to win, much as Chris Shays does. Republicans here, as your old Minnesotans, think to be "moderate" they have to shy away from their party constantly.
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
If Republicans aren't backing the guy, are you're sure the war isn't a factor? The war on terror is completely missing from his webpage. As for Iraq in particular, maybe some Republicans are turned off by the fact that he wants to force 50% of our troops to retreat by November 2007?
You don't have to be a moderate to reject this guy.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I wish he'd talk about it more, considering he has no primary to worry about,
But Rell specifically backed off after he was caught using a fake surname on the casino card so as to avoid associating herself with any danger. She has a history of disowning Republican candidates in trouble from back when she was in Brookfield. As far as I know, she's never spoken out for the war in any way in any forum. I haven't spoken with her, so i can't presume to know, but I'm 99.99999% the war was not even considered. In fact, if his war position was covered and they asked her about the proposal flat-out, I think she'd be near-forced to support it in CT.
Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.
I wonder whether the polls that have shown such a large Lamont lead aren't really the result of dissembling voters. You know, like Nicaraguans back during the Sandinista days. People are afraid to say they'll vote for Lieberman because Markos and his Mentos minions may invade their house. And who wants that?