Lieberman reportedly with big lead over Lamont

[Barry Ramey]

Like I had mentioned before, the 44% of registered independents in that state must be making the difference since there are so few registered republicans in that state and looks wrong, as some suggested, that the independents were mostly democrats.


BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November's election. The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger drew 4 percent, the poll shows.

Democratic voters selected Lamont as their candidate on August 8 with 52 percent of the vote after an increasingly bitter race dominated by Lieberman's support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman vowed to stay in the race as an independent candidate in order to face Lamont and Schlesinger in the general election in November.

The survey found that Lieberman polled best among likely Republican voters, leading the others with 75 percent of the vote compared with Lamont's 13 percent and Schlesinger's 10 percent.

"Senator Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing," Douglas Schwartz, the university's polling director said in a statement. "As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran senator will be hard to beat."

Likely voters said by a 53 percent to 40 percent margin that Lieberman, the Democratic Party's vice presidential candidate in 2000 and once a presidential candidate himself, deserves to be re-elected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/pl_nm/connecticut_lieberman_dc

[W*GS]

A Quinnipiac University poll carried out in the week before the election found that Democrats from households with an income of less than $30,000 a year favoured the senator by a margin of 49% to 47%. Further up the income scale, though, his support eroded sharply. Among those who earned more than $100,000 a year (Connecticut has plenty) Mr Lamont led by 60% to 39%.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=945

[defenseman]

As expected...dman

[bendog]

Assuming Lieberman gets enough money to really stay in, it'd be interesting see if he's elected whether he and dems can or will do a deal so he keeps his senority and committee assignments. I don't think the dems ever fooled themselves that in an open race, Lieberman's support from the gop and likudnicks make him by far the best candidate.

[SteveTensi13]

A Quinnipiac University poll carried out in the week before the election found that Democrats from households with an income of less than $30,000 a year favoured the senator by a margin of 49% to 47%. Further up the income scale, though, his support eroded sharply. Among those who earned more than $100,000 a year (Connecticut has plenty) Mr Lamont led by 60% to 39%.

I guess its fair to say "Limousine Liberals" love ned Lament while the average Joe pulls for Lieberman.

[defenseman]

He'll get to stay in , I'm sure. Somebody will find a way to make sure he hangs in there. And, the Dems should be worried from where I sit. He could make things interesting for them, IF the repubs keep their majority..dman

[Barry Ramey]

But haven't we been told(or is it brainwashed) that the wealthy only vote republican since they cater to the wealthy, while the democrats worry so much about the average person and not the rich? Hmm, interesting those numbers fly in the face of that.

[Barry Ramey]

Likely more republicans and independents are going to vote for Lieberman, while the wealthy democrat types in that state will vote for a wealthy democrat. Interesting isn't it?

[bendog]

But haven't we been told(or is it brainwashed) that the wealthy only vote republican since they cater to the wealthy, while the democrats worry so much about the average person and not the rich? Hmm, interesting those numbers fly in the face of that.
You've been brainwashed, that much is obvious.

[defenseman]

You've been brainwashed, that much is obvious.

To be honest bendog, I do recall this type of "angle" be spewed in the past. But, I really don't have time to dig it up. I recall quotes similar to what ramey is saying being used by the dems wrt rich vs. poor and such......dman

*Hopefully my memory isn't going, and I know I haven't been brainwashed yet.

[Rohirrim]

This will be one of the most interesting midterm elections in modern times. All the pundits are saying that Iraq will drive this election. I'm not so sure. I still don't think these pundits and pollsters have figured out how to deal with the influence of the blogosphere. I also think that local issues (as always) will drive a lot of these elections.

All these pundits have nationalized Leiberman and believe that his war position will drive the election. It's much more likely that local, Conn. issues will decide.

[Barry Ramey]

Nah, I don't read the NY Times or lefty blog sites to get my news, thanks. LOL



You've been brainwashed, that much is obvious.

[Barry Ramey]

Actually all you do is have to listen to about any democrat give a speech and when the discussion is about taxes or the economy, they'll bring out the "republicans cutting taxes for the rich" mantra on cue. They talk as if there are no wealthy democrats and in Connecticut, if comparing the wealthy there, they look like the majority and voting for a wealthy democrat to boot. But what, these rich people want to get taxed more so they'll vote for a guy who will tax them more? Come on. These wealthy people have money tied up in all sorts of things and in Swiss bank accounts where it can't be touched, so the democrats talking about taxing the wealthy more is just bunk.



To be honest bendog, I do recall this type of "angle" be spewed in the past. But, I really don't have time to dig it up. I recall quotes similar to what ramey is saying being used by the dems wrt rich vs. poor and such......dman

*Hopefully my memory isn't going, and I know I haven't been brainwashed yet.

[defenseman]

This will be one of the most interesting midterm elections in modern times. All the pundits are saying that Iraq will drive this election. I'm not so sure. I still don't think these pundits and pollsters have figured out how to deal with the influence of the blogosphere. I also think that local issues (as always) will drive a lot of these elections.

All these pundits have nationalized Leiberman and believe that his war position will drive the election. It's much more likely that local, Conn. issues will decide.

I believe the blogosphere has negatively influenced the media. Ergo, it will eventually negatively influence alot of other everyday stuff till we get it under control. It will affect the election , in an of itself, I have no doubt. The terrorists are writing new books on how to employ the internet to build a base. We need to take a hard look on the impact it is having on our society. I'm of the mind that cable news, if it doesn't adjust their tactics, will run itself into oblivion eventually. I'm of the mind that in the future, the 'successful' cable news folks will "redefine" themselves, not concerned about getting the jump on the competition, BUT concerned with factual information exclusively and properly delivering it to their constituents, refusing to knee jerk to the pundits. these guys should win the day. Sit down one night, and watch a local news cast. Slow but sure, factual most of the time and however kind of dorky, gets the point across wrt the events and their facts for the most part. No spin at all for the most part here in omaha.
In any case, just interjecting a bit..dman

[bendog]

Barry might to some "digging" about how rich folk vote. Or does the fact that I make a seemingly decent living require me to vote gop? Can I vote for the good of the country as a whole?

Anybody who thinks the last 6.5 years haven't been a looting of the treasury to beneift the richest 1-5% and defund middle class social programs hasn't been paying attention.

[defenseman]

Barry might to some "digging" about how rich folk vote. Or does the fact that I make a seemingly decent living require me to vote gop? Can I vote for the good of the country as a whole?

Anybody who thinks the last 6.5 years haven't been a looting of the treasury to beneift the richest 1-5% and defund middle class social programs hasn't been paying attention.

That, is exactly what I plan to do. Based on my own personal opinion of course. It sure is nice to have the right to do so. Never want to give that up......dman

[Rohirrim]

Barry might to some "digging" about how rich folk vote. Or does the fact that I make a seemingly decent living require me to vote gop? Can I vote for the good of the country as a whole?

Anybody who thinks the last 6.5 years haven't been a looting of the treasury to beneift the richest 1-5% and defund middle class social programs hasn't been paying attention.

What I've been reading leads me to believe that, once again, the American people will vote their pocketbooks. Like Reagan asked, "Are you doing better now than you were four years ago?" The other question is, "Is the country better off than it was?" The GOP should be very worried about what the answer to those questions might be.

[defenseman]

What I've been reading leads me to believe that, once again, the American people will vote their pocketbooks. Like Reagan asked, "Are you doing better now than you were four years ago?" The other question is, "Is the country better off than it was?" The GOP should be very worried about what the answer to those questions might be.

Agreed, that is the question to answer, not the previous..dman

[Barry Ramey]

No, it might be you who needs to start digging and reading more carefully since I believe I stated that's what the media likes to say as well as the democratic party, that's not my opinion what the wealthy tend to do. If you take issue with this, that the wealthy vote republican and they coddle the rich, then take it up with those that say this on a daily basis.


Barry might to some "digging" about how rich folk vote. Or does the fact that I make a seemingly decent living require me to vote gop? Can I vote for the good of the country as a whole?

Anybody who thinks the last 6.5 years haven't been a looting of the treasury to beneift the richest 1-5% and defund middle class social programs hasn't been paying attention.

[Barry Ramey]

I hope everyone votes who can and does so what they think, not what the media tells them.

That, is exactly what I plan to do. Based on my own personal opinion of course. It sure is nice to have the right to do so. Never want to give that up......dman

[bendog]

No, it might be you who needs to start digging and reading more carefully since I believe I stated that's what the media likes to say as well as the democratic party, that's not my opinion what the wealthy tend to do. If you take issue with this, that the wealthy vote republican and they coddle the rich, then take it up with those that say this on a daily basis.
you have no clue as to how demographic groups vote. But, in your defense, seeing the dems stand on issues like juviniles getting abortions and prayers in school, neither to the dems.

[Barry Ramey]

I don't recall saying I did. Just wrote what the democratic party and the media says all the time. I doubt you're an expert yourself, so I guess we're even when it comes to that.

you have no clue as to how demographic groups vote. But, in your defense, seeing the dems stand on issues like juviniles getting abortions and prayers in school, neither to the dems.

[Blueflame]

Lieberman had a big lead over Lamont in the polls a few weeks before the primary, too. I'm wondering how much Democratic support he'll retain once he has to openly start taking Republican $$ though. And what of the Republican candidate that his own party is "throwing under the bus" by supporting Lieberman instead? Some Republicans aren't gonna like that.

[bendog]

simply put, there's a paradox involved.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/002089.html

Nevertheless, Barry, it's beyond doubt that the less money you make the more likely you vote dem, and vice versa.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

The problem is you came in with an ideology, seeking to diss the dems who dislike Lieberman. Those dems who don't have to worry as much about declining wages in increasing poverty, which we have btw, can afford to be more PO'd about the aWagmire in Iraq, which was the issue Lieberman lost on. Lieberman is percieved as being "democrat" on tax and social justice issues, and "republican" on for policy.

Personally my dislike for Lieberman goes way back.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7018152&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=8+

http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2002/foth020716.htm

I suspect some of those more well to do Dems took a bath in 2000-2001.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Lieberman had a big lead over Lamont in the polls a few weeks before the primary, too. I'm wondering how much Democratic support he'll retain once he has to openly start taking Republican $$ though. And what of the Republican candidate that his own party is "throwing under the bus" by supporting Lieberman instead? Some Republicans aren't gonna like that.

Lieberman has become a national figure. He already has enough advertising as a moderate to give him a significant PR lead coming out of the primaries. I dont think that it will take much to maintain that sort of visibility because he seems to be a figure that will define politics moving forward, and the news media will want to cover that election because of the controversy.

I dont know if the Repubs will need to prop him up financially. He has a self-made PR machine running pretty smoothly right now.

The Dems really were unfortunate to make a decision like that right before the Airline plot was foiled. That will only serve to aid Lieberman's cause.

[bendog]

oMG, Lieberman's the head of MI-6 too!

[Blueflame]

Lieberman has become a national figure. He already has enough advertising as a moderate to give him a significant PR lead coming out of the primaries. I dont think that it will take much to maintain that sort of visibility because he seems to be a figure that will define politics moving forward, and the news media will want to cover that election because of the controversy.

I dont know if the Repubs will need to prop him up financially. He has a self-made PR machine running pretty smoothly right now.

The Dems really were unfortunate to make a decision like that right before the Airline plot was foiled. That will only serve to aid Lieberman's cause.

Yeah, Lieberman is a national figure... and not all of his past media exposure has been positive ("Sore Loserman", anyone? His current situation could easily be perceived... or spun... as "Sore Loserman II"). If he had an advantage re: name recognition, that advantage was already in existence prior to the primary...and it didn't make the difference then.

His "self-made PR machine" was fueled by Democratic $$... those campaign $$ will now go to the winner of the primary, Lamont. Yeah, he's gonna need more campaign cash and CT independents don't have the resources he'll need.

The only way the foiled UK airline plot helps Lieberman is if the public buys into the rightwing talking point that Lieberman's stance on the Iraq war ultimately makes us safer. Will they buy it? Maybe.... and maybe not.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

simply put, there's a paradox involved.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/002089.html

Nevertheless, Barry, it's beyond doubt that the less money you make the more likely you vote dem, and vice versa.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

The problem is you came in with an ideology, seeking to diss the dems who dislike Lieberman. Those dems who don't have to worry as much about declining wages in increasing poverty, which we have btw, can afford to be more PO'd about the aWagmire in Iraq, which was the issue Lieberman lost on. Lieberman is percieved as being "democrat" on tax and social justice issues, and "republican" on for policy.

Personally my dislike for Lieberman goes way back.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7018152&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=8+

http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2002/foth020716.htm

I suspect some of those more well to do Dems took a bath in 2000-2001.


Barry Manilow = OWNED

[SteveTensi13]

I guess since Lieberman "only" voted 90% of the time with the Dems he was not "pure" enough to carry the title of Dumbacrat!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I guess since Lieberman "only" voted 90% of the time with the Dems he was not "pure" enough to carry the title of Dumbacrat!

Is that Oxycontin Boy's take?

[Blueflame]

I guess since Lieberman "only" voted 90% of the time with the Dems he was not "pure" enough to carry the title of Dumbacrat!

Joe Lieberman always was a DINO... and a wishy-washy self-serving, two-faced politician. Democrats all across America are glad he lost to Lamont... the only ones who are upset about his loss in the primary are Republicans. Doesn't that give you a tiny little clue about which side he was really on?

[SteveTensi13]

Doesn't that give you a tiny little clue about which side he was really on?

America's? maybe that's why he abandoned the party of retreat and surrender!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

America's?

Correction: 1/3 of America (read: knuckledraggers like you who still support the monument to ineptitude and corruption that is the Bush administration.)

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/5066/deletebush42mi.jpg

[Blueflame]

America's? maybe that's why he abandoned the party of retreat and surrender!

No, Steve. He's on Joe's side. He could care a whit less about anyone or anything else.

Nice rightwing talking point, btw... not true, but hey facts never got in the way of a good swiftboat.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The funniest part is that SteveCoulter13 and his ilk keep claiming they represent America when, in fact, they represent 1/3 of America at best.

[SteveTensi13]

The funniest part is that SteveCoulter13 and his ilk keep claiming they represent America when, in fact, they represent 1/3 of America at best.

America is a conservative country, get used to it. Maybe Canada is more to your liking, they don't offend anyone!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

America is a conservative country, get used to it.

And the handjob administration you support isn't conservative.

That's why you belong to such an ever-dwindling minority of unthinking nincompoops who still support the Smirk & Sneer junta.

Maybe Canada is more to your liking, they don't offend anyone!

Maybe China is more to your liking: The government is authoritarian, dissent is not tolerated, and the people are fed a steady diet of fake news. You'd feel right at home.

[Blueflame]

America is a conservative country, get used to it. Maybe Canada is more to your liking, they don't offend anyone!

No, America is not a conservative country. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans.

[defenseman]

No, America is not a conservative country. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans.

what party one is affiliated with DOES NOT mean they are either a conservative or a liberal, my guess? Alot of centrists in the country, they just don't know it..dman

[Barry Ramey]

I believe my original post was about the independents and you're still suffering from hysteria from that. And I believe I stated democrats supporting Lamont, the big money guy, went against the belief only republicans vote for wealth. Show my my post where I stated "all democrats" or where I said this applied to "all elections." I'd like to see that post since it doesn't exist, but I do find you being defensive about things that I didn't even write interesting.


simply put, there's a paradox involved.

http://www.centristcoalition.com/blog/archives/002089.html

Nevertheless, Barry, it's beyond doubt that the less money you make the more likely you vote dem, and vice versa.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html

The problem is you came in with an ideology, seeking to diss the dems who dislike Lieberman. Those dems who don't have to worry as much about declining wages in increasing poverty, which we have btw, can afford to be more PO'd about the aWagmire in Iraq, which was the issue Lieberman lost on. Lieberman is percieved as being "democrat" on tax and social justice issues, and "republican" on for policy.

Personally my dislike for Lieberman goes way back.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7018152&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=8+

http://www.fool.com/news/foth/2002/foth020716.htm

I suspect some of those more well to do Dems took a bath in 2000-2001.

[Barry Ramey]

What are you, 10 years old, if that? Life seems to have owned you it seems.

Barry Manilow = OWNED

[Spider]

What are you, 10 years old, if that? Life seems to have owned you it seems.
oh dont take it so bad very few get in a debate with Bedog and win .........

[Blueflame]

what party one is affiliated with DOES NOT mean they are either a conservative or a liberal, my guess? Alot of centrists in the country, they just don't know it..dman

Yeah... for example, many of today's Republicans are neocons, not conservatives... and some Democrats are so anxious to try to appeal to moderates of both parties that their move toward the center sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish them from the Republicans. A lot of voters are alienated by the extreme factions of both parties.

[SoCalBronco]

Go Joe!

[defenseman]

Yeah... for example, many of today's Republicans are neocons, not conservatives... and some Democrats are so anxious to try to appeal to moderates of both parties that their move toward the center sometimes makes it difficult to distinguish them from the Republicans. A lot of voters are alienated by the extreme factions of both parties.

Fair statement. I know I'm independet...dman

[broncocalijohn]

Assuming Lieberman gets enough money to really stay in, it'd be interesting see if he's elected whether he and dems can or will do a deal so he keeps his senority and committee assignments. I don't think the dems ever fooled themselves that in an open race, Lieberman's support from the gop and likudnicks make him by far the best candidate.

didnt the high ranking dems support him? It was the state dems that backs lamont but with Republican voting support, he should win. Then all the staunch Republicans can say they voted for a "democrat".

[Spider]

well it all boils down to the people of Connecticut , and what they want ........ I dont know how many of you have been ot the north east , but those are some damn good people there , but set in thier ways ............ Hard to read , but Conn is a military state , some subs are built there ....... If Liebermann faught to keep those bases and defense contractors open and going he will be damn hard to beat on a single issue like Iraq .........

[W*GS]

The funniest part is that SteveCoulter13 and his ilk keep claiming they represent America when, in fact, they represent 1/3 of America at best.

Their 1/3rd is still at least 100:1 bigger than the number of Americans who wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Barry Ramey]

Um, hard to win a debate that didn't even take place since arguing over things I didn't even write.

oh dont take it so bad very few get in a debate with Bedog and win .........

[SteveTensi13]

Um, hard to win a debate that didn't even take place since arguing over things I didn't even write.

You have to excuse spider. He went to the Cynthia McKinney school of debate!

[Spider]

Um, hard to win a debate that didn't even take place since arguing over things I didn't even write.
if thats your story stick to it .........

[Spider]

You have to excuse spider. He went to the Cynthia McKinney school of debate!
it is always good to see our boys in blue use thier great detective skills ....

[SteveTensi13]

it is always good to see our boys in blue use thier great detective skills ....

??

[Spider]

??
maybe this will help

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/kissy-negotiator.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lieberman hires GOP political consultant

HARTFORD - Sen. Joe Lieberman has hired a political consultant, Josh Isay, who helped Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican, get elected. Lieberman also hired GOP pollster Neil Newhouse, who lists popular Republican Gov. Jodi Rell of Connecticut among his clients.

Lieberman, who must appeal to Republicans and unaffiliated voters to beat Democrat Ned Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger in November, touted the new hires as proof of his campaign's bipartisanship.

Liz Dupont-Diehl, Lamont's campaign spokeswoman, said the hirings show Lieberman just wants to "hold onto power."

Lieberman is running as an independent after losing the Democratic nomination to Lamont.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/444757p-374567c.html

I think holding onto power is the bottom line for a lot of these sock puppets. Not just for themselves but for the private interests they represent. Those are the interests that backed them in exchange for pushing the legislation the entities - often corporate interests - wanted to pursue. They are upset when one of their proven puppets gets ousted by the will of the people and you had better believe they will do everything they can to prvent that loss from taking place. Let's hope the will of the people is strong enough to stand against it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lamont attracting new Democratic allies

By SUSAN HAIGH, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 20, 7:43 PM ET

HARTFORD, Conn. - When political newcomer Ned Lamont announced six months ago that he was challenging Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary, his support came mostly from grass-roots activists, a few state politicians and some liberal Internet bloggers.

But since Aug. 8, when he defeated the 18-year incumbent by about 10,000 votes, Lamont has discovered a lot of new friends — especially those within the Democratic establishment who originally backed Lieberman.

Lamont's phone has been ringing off the hook as politicians call, offering to campaign for the man who wrested the party nomination from a one-time vice presidential candidate by harnessing anger against the war in
Iraq.

"There appear to be a lot of people that have heard that Connecticut is a nice place to be during (fall) foliage season," joked Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager.

Lamont, who now faces a three-way race against Republican Alan Schlesinger and Lieberman, now running as an independent, is being careful about choosing people to appear with on the campaign trail.

"We're not going to let everybody who wants to come, come in, because we've got to continue to introduce ourselves to voters," Swan said.

Asked how many "new friends" Lamont has turned away, Swan said with a smile: "I'm not sure we've said 'no.' It's 'I'll get back to you.'"

While Lamont is the Democrats' chosen new standard bearer, a new Quinnipiac University poll shows he is trailing Lieberman by 12 percentage points among likely voters. Much of Lieberman's advantage comes from his popularity among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, the largest voting block in Connecticut.

"(Lamont) does need to broaden his base," poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "His core supporters right now are liberal Democrats. That's not enough to win a general election."

As Lamont tries to win over a broader range of voters, he is enjoying support from some big-name members of the Democratic establishment including Sens.
John Kerry and
Hillary Clinton.

"We're going forward united. We're clear on the war, we're clear on health care, we're clear on how we're doing business in Washington, D.C., with the lobbyists and the deficit," Lamont said in a recent interview with The Associated Press during a visit to Washington. "We gotta be clear and bold on where we stand. I'm happy to be talking to these folks."

The war in Iraq was the hallmark of Lamont's primary campaign. He calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from what he often refers to as "a bloody civil war," and says he believes that those who got America into the conflict should be held accountable.

However, he doesn't believe politicians such as Clinton should repudiate their votes in favor of authorizing
President Bush to invade Iraq. Instead, he credits them for saying that staying the course in Iraq, after more than three years, is not working.

"I think it's a very different situation than Senator Lieberman, who challenged those that challenged the stay-the-course strategy," Lamont said. "He's the one who said you're undermining the credibility of the president — very different set of circumstances."

Lieberman, however, is now billing himself as the alternative to the establishment. He hopes to appeal to voters who are sick of partisanship and want a candidate willing to work with others to get things done.

"This is a whole new chapter and it's all going to be about people power," Lieberman said in a recent interview. "We've had a lot of calls from Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated, some elected officials, former elected officials and just a lot of regular people who say 'We want you to keep fighting for us and delivering for us.' I'm actually recharged by this."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060820/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate_lamont

[mosca]

Dunno about the local Connecticut issues, but a lot of what Lieberman says regarding Iraq is spot on, if you ask me. He's called for the resignation of Rumsfeld, argued that the admin. should have sent more troops to Iraq in 2003 and 2004, is critical of the absence of post-war planning, and argues against a set deadline for total withdrawal from the country. Sounds like a logical intermediate position between the seemingly lost Bush admin. right and the total anti-war left that Lamont seems to represent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate_lieberman (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060821/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate_lieberman)

<b>Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign</b>

WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot "walk away" from the Iraqis.

Lieberman, the one-time Democratic vice presidential candidate, is running as an independent in his bid for a fourth term since losing the Democratic nomination to newcomer Ned Lamont, who harnessed voters' anger against the war in Iraq.

Lieberman, an early supporter of the Iraq war, said he had called for Rumsfeld to step down in 2003.

"With all respect to Don Rumsfeld, who has done a grueling job for six years, we would benefit from new leadership to work with our military in Iraq," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Lieberman said the Bush administration should have sent more troops into Iraq "to secure the country."

"We had a naive vision that the Iraqis were going to embrace us and then go on and live happily ever after," he said.

Lieberman said the administration must "put severe pressure on the Iraqis to contain sectarian violence."

"There is still hope in Iraq and as long as there is we cannot just pick up and walk away and leave them to the sure disaster that would follow and would compromise our security in the war on terrorism," he said.

The Lamont campaign issued a statement Sunday criticizing Lieberman for trying to "paint himself as courageous for clinging to the failed 'stay the course' policy in Iraq and not listening to the voters of Connecticut on the need to change course."

"His new found 'criticism' of the war won't convince Connecticut voters after so many years of stubbornly rubber-stamping Bush's failed policies," the statement said.

The war in Iraq was the hallmark of Lamont's primary campaign. He calls for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from what he often refers to as "a bloody civil war," and says he believes that those who got America into the conflict should be held accountable.

Lieberman accused Lamont of distorting his stance on Iraq.

"He made me into a cheerleader for George Bush and everything that's happened," Lieberman said. "And the record shows that, while I believe we did the right thing in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, I've been very critical over the years, particularly in 2003 and 2004, about the failure to send enough American troops to secure the country, about the absence of adequate plans and preparation to deal with post-Saddam Iraq."

"As bad as things are now — and they've gotten worse in the last six months — it would be a disaster if America set a deadline and said we're getting all of our troops out by a given date," Lieberman said. "That's a position Ned Lamont has taken."

Tom Swan, campaign manager for Lamont, said Sunday the campaign stands by its criticism of Lieberman as being too close to President Bush.

Asked about Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was quoted as saying that Lieberman echoes Republicans, Lieberman said it was "just plain politics by somebody who has ambitions of his own."

"I voted 90 percent of the time with a majority of Democrats in the U.S. Senate," he said.

"I'm worried that my party may become what we've accused the Republicans of, a kind of litmus-test party," he said. "If you don't agree with us 100 percent of the time, you don't agree with us. I'm devoted to the Democratic Party."

A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lamont is trailing Lieberman by 12 percentage points among likely voters. It said much of Lieberman's advantage comes from his popularity among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, the largest voting block in Connecticut.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lieberman calls on Rumsfeld to resign

The timing is what doesn't ring true.

[Blueflame]

Bush and Cheney are endorsing Lieberman. Are they calling for Rumsfailed's resignation? No. Lieberman's trying to play both sides against the middle.

[BroncoInferno]

But haven't we been told(or is it brainwashed) that the wealthy only vote republican since they cater to the wealthy, while the democrats worry so much about the average person and not the rich? Hmm, interesting those numbers fly in the face of that.

As usual, you can't grasp the simplest distinctions. Being rich isn't the problem. It's being rich and expecting to benefit from the tax code. Republicans have set up the tax code to benefit the rich. Just because some wealthy people have a conscience and vote against their economic interests (since they aren't likely to suffer much from a less rich-friendly tax code anyway), does not have anything to do with the central fact that Republicans have set up the tax laws to benefit the rich. Pretty simple distiction. See if you can follow it this time.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

As usual, you can't grasp the simplest distinctions. Being rich isn't the problem. It's being rich and expecting to benefit from the tax code. Republicans have set up the tax code to benefit the rich. Just because some wealthy people have a conscience and vote against their economic interests (since they aren't likely to suffer much from a less rich-friendly tax code anyway), does not have anything to do with the central fact that Republicans have set up the tax laws to benefit the rich. Pretty simple distiction. See if you can follow it this time.

^5

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lieberman May Be Violating Law

Several groups pointed out that Lieberman can't run as an independent while simaltenously still being a Democrat and a Democratic senator. Lieberman has two options: Get off the ballot or officially drop from the Democratic party. Or both. I go with both.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101427.html

It's not "dirty politics," Joe. It is the LAW...

[Blueflame]

Looks like that "big lead" is vanishing... the American Research Group's new poll has Lieberman and Lamont in a statistical tie. Oh... and the poll says Lamont leads 65% to 30% among CT Democrats.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/

[ClevelandBronco]

Looks like that "big lead" is vanishing... the American Research Group's new poll has Lieberman and Lamont in a statistical tie. Oh... and the poll says Lamont leads 65% to 30% among CT Democrats.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/

Keep believing in those polls.

They've stood your candidates in such good stead over the recent past.

[Blueflame]

Keep believing in those polls.

They've stood your candidates in such good stead over the recent past.

The polls may be more accurate in this instance, Cleveland... CT doesn't use Diebold electronic voting machines... and in the primary, gee, what a surprise. The exit polls matched the reported results.

It's still very early in the Lamont/Lieberman general election race and things could change as election day approaches. Still, when the OP was posted (not that long ago), a poll had Lieberman with a big lead.... a lead which may be evaporating very fast.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The polls may be more accurate in this instance, Cleveland... CT doesn't use Diebold electronic voting machines... and in the primary, gee, what a surprise. The exit polls matched the reported results.

Exactly the sort of thing Cleveland doesn't want to see.

[Barry Ramey]

Hmm, who was it that said that most of the independents in Connecticut were not democrats as the democrat supporters around here claimed? Oh yeah, me. YOU WERE WRONG!

Left for politically dead, Lieberman rises to top
Independents, GOP voters back longtime Dem


<!-- END HEADLINE/DECK & SUBHEADLINE/SUBDECK --><!-- START WRITER CREDIT-->Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau (zcoile@sfchronicle.com)

Sunday, October 29, 2006<!-- END WRITER CREDIT-->
<!-- end #contentheader --><!-- <hr> now part of stylesheet <hr noshade size="1" color="#CCC" />--><!-- START STORY -->
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL


<!-- START OBJECT THUMBS AREA--><TABLE id=relatedcontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=3 width=160 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/29_t/mn_bks07_politics_co_t.gif (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL&o=0) http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/29_t/mn_connecticut_senat03_t.gif (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL&o=1) http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/29_t/mn_connecticut_senat_t.gif (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL&o=2) http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2006/10/29_t/mn_connecticut_senat01_t.gif (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL&o=3) More... (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL&o=4)

(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL&type=printable)
</TD></TR><TR><TD><!-- dropin=/g/dropins/static/politics.txt --><TABLE style="BORDER-RIGHT: #333333 1px solid; BORDER-TOP: #333333 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #333333 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #333333 1px solid" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=text2smb style="COLOR: #ffffff" vAlign=center align=middle bgColor=#666666 height=20>Politics</TD></TR><TR><TD class=text2sm style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 5px; PADDING-TOP: 2px" vAlign=top align=left bgColor=#ffffff height=20>National
Dems face a tug-of-war in own tent (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/29/MNGUJM26MQ1.DTL) (10/29)
Left for politically dead, Lieberman rises to top (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEC1.DTL) (10/29)
Bay Area Democrats eye leadership posts (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/MNGE1M1FEA1.DTL) (10/29)
New tools for a new world order (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/MNG32M27K61.DTL) (10/29)
State
Candidates tout their records to black community (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/BAG5UM23RC1.DTL) (10/29)
Prop. 87 shines light on state's oil history (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/BUGV1M0SA91.DTL) (10/29)
Wildermuth: Winning over the voters is a question of good timing (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/INGM3LVP351.DTL) (10/29)
Schwarzenegger: Reinvented leader shows new humility. Insight. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/INGM3LVP331.DTL) (10/29)
Angelides: Wants to finish strong and score election upset. Insight. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/INGM3LVP371.DTL) (10/29)
Voters guide to the Nov. 7 election. Insight. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artlist.cgi?d=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F10%2F29&key=IN&Go=Go) (10/29)
Bay Area
City's cost of a life redeemed (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/10/29/MNGUJM26N01.DTL) (10/29)
Pre-election protest calls for end to Iraq war (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/29/BAG5UM24AH1.DTL)(10/29)
More Stories (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/politics/pages/election_prez.DTL)
Politics Page (http://sfgate.com/politics/)


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- end #additionalcontent --></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>




(10-29) 04:00 PST Waterbury, Conn. -- Three months ago, Sen. Joe Lieberman was written off as political roadkill after being beaten by Greenwich businessman Ned Lamont in a Democratic primary that was seen as a referendum on the 18-year incumbent's support for the Iraq war.

Top Democratic leaders urged him to accept the will of his party's voters and quit the race. His opponent and liberal bloggers denounced him as a traitor for continuing to run as an "independent Democrat."

But to the chagrin of his many critics, Lieberman now appears poised to win a relatively easy re-election. A recent Quinnipiac University poll showed him leading Lamont by 17 percentage points.
If he wins, it won't be with the support of Democrats -- a majority of whom back Lamont -- but with the votes of independents, the state's biggest voting group, and Republicans, who are choosing Lieberman over the party's scandal-plagued nominee.

"Do the math," said Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy, a Democrat who's backing Lamont, but admits Lieberman has a big edge. "If you get most of the Republican votes and some of the Democrats and you do a little better than break even with the unaffiliateds, you win."

Lieberman's rebound shows how difficult it is to knock off an incumbent, especially one who was the party's vice presidential nominee in 2000 and who has deeply entrenched support after almost four decades in Congress, the state Senate and as Connecticut's attorney general.

The latest polls also show that Lamont's anti-war message, which propelled him to victory in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary and made him a hero to the left, hasn't been enough to win over middle-of-the road voters, even in a staunchly anti-war state like Connecticut.

"The image of Connecticut is that we are this deeply blue state, and that OK, Lamont won the primary so he'll easily win in a deeply blue state," said Douglas Schwartz, director of the Quinnipiac Poll. "But we've had Republican governors for many years. We have three out of our five members of Congress who are Republican. It's not quite as deeply blue as assumed."

Analysts say Lieberman has waged an effective campaign to capture moderate voters by playing up his experience and boasting about what he's delivered for the state. At the same time, he's portrayed Lamont, a wealthy cable TV entrepreneur, as a political neophyte and partisan rabble-rouser who wouldn't get much done in Washington.

At a campaign stop earlier this month in Waterbury, a blue-collar city in the hills of western Connecticut, Lieberman bounded out of a black Lincoln Town Car onto the steps of City Hall where supporters held signs reading, "We're Sticking with Joe!"

The diminutive 64-year-old senator gave high-fives and flashed his avuncular grin while being flanked by hulking representatives of the state's police and firefighters unions. The two powerful unions, despite pressure from Democratic leaders to back Lamont, endorsed Lieberman because of his record of bringing home federal money.
"He's done ... grants for us in the past. He'll do more in the future," Connecticut Council of Police Unions President Paul Ariola said. "We're with Joe!"

At the rally, Lieberman tried to explain why a three-term senator who came within hundreds of votes of being vice president would run for re-election without his own party's blessing.

"I'm doing something unconventional," he said. "I decided to stay in the fight after the primary because I believe so deeply that I can do a better job for our state and country than the other candidates. I'm fighting to change the way business is done in Washington. There's too much partisanship and not enough problem-solving."

These applause lines infuriate Lieberman's detractors, who say his decision to stay in the race was more about saving his job than changing Washington.
With control of the Senate at stake on Nov. 7, Lieberman has had to fight the impression that he's switched over to the Republican side.
Lieberman insists he won't change parties. If elected, he promises to caucus with the Democrats and says he's been guaranteed that he'll keep the seniority he gained as a Democrat. But he also vows to be a "bridge builder."

"I've made a lot of friends across party lines. I don't have a better friend in the Senate than (Arizona Republican Sen.) John McCain," he said. "A lot of things I've been able to do for this state I couldn't have done if I didn't have those relationships."

The White House has been quietly rooting for Lieberman. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a radio interview this week with Fox News' Sean Hannity, praised Lieberman as "a big supporter of the global war on terror," adding: "I don't want to harm Joe's chances or prospects, so I haven't said anything about his election campaign."

Lieberman's greatest stroke of luck was that Republicans chose a flawed nominee for the Senate race: Alan Schlesinger, a former state lawmaker and mayor of Derby. Schlesinger's campaign was rocked in July when it was reported that he'd been sued over unpaid blackjack debts at local casinos, and had gambled under the fake name "Alan Gold."

Republican Gov. Jodi Rell urged him to drop out of the race, but he refused. He's given spirited performances in recent debates, including last week when he accused Lieberman of "masquerading as a Republican." But the latest Quinnipiac poll showed Lieberman backed by 70 percent of Republicans, with just 18 percent supporting Schlesinger.

"If you had a viable Republican candidate, I think Lamont would win," said Christopher Kukk, a political science professor at Western Connecticut State University. "There wouldn't be enough votes for Lieberman."
The senator also has benefited from Lamont's campaign missteps. At his election-night victory, he appeared onstage with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who were there to win over African American voters, but the two controversial figures did not endear him to many moderates.

Some analysts say Lamont's crucial mistake was not finishing off Lieberman when he was wounded after the primary. Instead Lieberman's campaign team ran a series of hard-hitting ads. One featured residents of Groton praising Lieberman for helping save their submarine base from closure, and saying, "If Ned Lamont was the senator there would be no sub base today."

Ironically, Lamont has been fenced in by the issue that made him a household name -- Iraq -- despite his efforts to talk about health care and other issues. In polls, he's the favorite of voters who say the war is the biggest issue. But voters who are worried about the economy and other issues are picking Lieberman.

"The problem is he hasn't been able to reach beyond his Democratic base," said Howard Reiter, chairman of the University of Connecticut political science department. "He's a new, fresh face, you would think he would have an ability to appeal to independent voters and anti-war Republicans. But he hasn't been able to do that effectively."

At a recent Democratic Party gathering at a bar in Norwalk, Lamont was preaching to the converted -- a crowd of activists still livid at Lieberman. Galen Wells, the town's party chairwoman, complained, "Lieberman has really enabled the Bush administration on a number of fronts. ... It's broader than just the war."

Lamont drew loud cheers when he shouted, "It's time for Democrats to hold this president accountable!"
But, in an interview, he acknowledged he's still struggling to win over independents.

"We've got really good support among the Democrats in this state," said Lamont, who has spent more than $10 million of his fortune on the campaign. "But there's an awful lot of unaffiliateds. It's the biggest so-called party in the state ... and they've seen an awful lot of TV advertising from Joe."

Both sides agree the roughly 900,000 independents will decide the race. Right now, those unaffiliated voters favor Lieberman by nearly a 2-to-1 ratio.
<HR>Connecticut's Senate race
Joe Lieberman
Party: Democrat (running as an independent)
Age: 64
Career: Practicing attorney, 1967-70 and 1980-82
Political experience: U.S. senator, 1989-present; Democratic vice presidential nominee, 2000; Connecticut attorney general, 1983-88; state senator, 1971-80
Family: Married (Hadassah); four children
Ned Lamont
Party: Democrat
Age: 52
Career: President and founder, Lamont Digital Systems, 1984-present; project director, Cablevision, 1980-84
Political experience: Greenwich selectman, 1987-89, followed by six years on the town's Board of Estimate and Taxation
Family: Married (Annie); three children
Alan Schlesinger
Party: Republican
Age: 48
Career: Practicing attorney, 1995-present
Political experience: Derby mayor, 1994-98; state House, 1981-93; Orange selectman, 1979-81
Family: Single
E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com (zcoile@sfchronicle.com). <!-- END STORY -->Page A - 15

<!-- end #contentbody -->

[W*GS]

Gee, the steadfast "Democrats" who had Lieberman on their 2004 national ticket are consuming him with their hatred...

It's fun to watch.

[defenseman]

Gee, the steadfast "Democrats" who had Lieberman on their 2004 national ticket are consuming him with their hatred...

It's fun to watch.

Pretty amazing. partisanship at it's best...dman

[W*GS]

Not reportedly a big lead:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Sen_graphs/connecticut_regres.png

With trendlines, ta boot.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Gee, the steadfast "Democrats" who had Lieberman on their 2004 national ticket are consuming him with their hatred...

Their "2004 national ticket?"

And we should take anything you have to say seriously because...?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Hmm, who was it that said that most of the independents in Connecticut were not democrats as the democrat supporters around here claimed? Oh yeah, me. YOU WERE WRONG!


Wow - talk about a bombshell!

You mean an independent isn't the same thing as a Democrat?

Did you figure that one out all by yourself, or did you have help?

Tune in next week when Barry breaks the story re: those big piles of $$ the GOP is putting behind Joementum. :giggle:

[Blueflame]

Not reportedly a big lead:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Sen_graphs/connecticut_regres.png

With trendlines, ta boot.

Where's the graph showing Lamont defeating Lieberman in the primary?

Oh... and in the 2004 Presidential race, the Democratic VP candidate was not Joe Liarman; it was John Edwards.

[Barry Ramey]

It was news to you a few months ago. You and others didn't believe independents weren't going to fall in love with Lamont. I know, hurts to be wrong, but that's your norm :rofl:


Wow - talk about a bombshell!

You mean an independent isn't the same thing as a Democrat?

Did you figure that one out all by yourself, or did you have help?

Tune in next week when Barry breaks the story re: those big piles of $$ the GOP is putting behind Joementum. :giggle:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I know, hurts to be wrong, but that's your norm

Hilarious!

This from a Bush supporter?

Ha ha ha! That's a riot. :rofl:

[W*GS]

Where's the graph showing Lamont defeating Lieberman in the primary?

That's history; this is now.

Lamont will likely lose. Badly.

Oh... and in the 2004 Presidential race, the Democratic VP candidate was not Joe Liarman; it was John Edwards.

My bad. Yes, 2000, not 2004. An error on my part.

[W*GS]

Their "2004 national ticket?"

And we should take anything you have to say seriously because...?

Geezus, I made a single character mistake - a typo, as it were.

You're just pissed that your darling boy, Lamont, is likely going to lose.

[Barry Ramey]

When they do that, which is typical from lefties, you know they have nothing else so focus on something like that instead. They'd rather do that of course than admit to being WRONG! Ha!


Geezus, I made a single character mistake - a typo, as it were.

You're just pissed that your darling boy, Lamont, is likely going to lose.

[baja]

Barry would you fall on a hand grenade for Bush?

[Barry Ramey]

Wow, what an enlightening question. I can see why lefties think they are so much smarter than anyone else. May not have needed Letterman's help on that one. Would you fall on a grenade? Just do it, doesn't have to be for anyone either :rofl:

Barry would you fall on a hand grenade for Bush?

[Blueflame]

That's history; this is now.

Lamont will likely lose. Badly.

It's history? Lamont defeated Liarman in the Democratic primary in September. Yet your chart shows Liarman ahead in September. Which means your chart cannot possibly be correct.

Reposting the chart to illustrate...
.
Not reportedly a big lead:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Sen_graphs/connecticut_regres.png

With trendlines, ta boot.



My bad. Yes, 2000, not 2004. An error on my part.

:)

[W*GS]

It's history? Lamont defeated Liarman in the Democratic primary in September. Yet your chart shows Liarman ahead in September. Which means your chart cannot possibly be correct.

Not my chart - take it up with

feed://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/RSS/index.rss

The poll results include Reps and independents; AFAIK, they aren't allow to vote in the Dem primary in CT.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

They'd rather do that of course than admit to being WRONG! Ha!

:rofl:

A lecture on admitting you're wrong from a Bush supporter?

That's too funny! :D

[Blueflame]

Not my chart - take it up with

feed://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/RSS/index.rss

The poll results include Reps and independents; AFAIK, they aren't allow to vote in the Dem primary in CT.

Since the chart shows Lamont behind in September... right during the time when he won the primary over Liarman, then one has to conclude that the polls at that time were incorrect. If they were incorrect then, why should we put much faith in their accuracy now?

[broncocalijohn]

I can thelp but say " Lamont, you big dummy!" I think he will go down by at least 4%. Allen will squeek out a 1.5% win.

[W*GS]

Since the chart shows Lamont behind in September... right during the time when he won the primary over Liarman, then one has to conclude that the polls at that time were incorrect. If they were incorrect then, why should we put much faith in their accuracy now?

As noted in the link:

"Only general election polls are shown. In these polls, Republicans' and independents' responses were included."

AFAIK, in CT, non-Dems aren't allowed to vote in the Dem primary. Ergo, Lamont had support amongst primary-voting Democrats, and thus won, but amongst all voters, he's dead meat running against Lieberman.

And I'm disappointed you've resorted to LABFian inane name-changing (i.e., "Liarman").

[Blueflame]

As noted in the link:

"Only general election polls are shown. In these polls, Republicans' and independents' responses were included."

AFAIK, in CT, non-Dems aren't allowed to vote in the Dem primary. Ergo, Lamont had support amongst primary-voting Democrats, and thus won, but amongst all voters, he's dead meat running against Lieberman.

And I'm disappointed you've resorted to LABFian inane name-changing (i.e., "Liarman").

The reference is to "Lieberman Is A Republican (LIAR). If it's Republican $$ and Republican votes (for the most part, since CT Republicans have essentially abandoned their own primary winner, Schlessinger, in favor of "Independent"/formerly Democratic Joe), then how can he be accurately characterized as anything but a de facto Republican?

[W*GS]

Got it. Thanks.

[Barry Ramey]

Lieberman wins easily. I guess those independent voters weren't closet democrats as claimed by some :P I wonder if he'll remember which democrats campaigned against him and turned their backs on him? I would.

[BroncoInferno]

Not really a big deal. Lieberman has already said he'll caucas with the Democrats.

[defenseman]

I'd keep an eye on Lieberman. He may surprise us all...dman