Rasmussen poll: Lieberman leads Lamont 46-41

[Awsi Dooger]

This info is from MyLeftNutmeg. Worse than the 3 point margin from preliminary results of his poll, but it's still less than the high single digit gap I expected, based on the dynamics of the race, i.e. Schlesinger the Republican receiving almost nothing.

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2742

"The final numbers from Rasmussen, after surveying 550 "likely voters on August 9 & 10 (i.e. post-primary):

Lieberman 46%
Lamont 41%
Schlesinger 6%

That's more than the 3% spread they teased. Other highlights:

Very unfavorable: 18% Lieberman vs. 23% Lamont
Very favorable: 31% Lieberman vs. 19% Lamont

Rell beats DeStefano 57% to 35%

Voters trust Lieberman over Lamont on the "War on Terror" 55% to 31%.

Most important issues are the economy (37%), Iraq (23%), and national security (16%).

They claim a MOE of + or - 4% with a 95% level of certainty."

[Patchuli]

1. Rasmussen is a *-asssucking poll

and I find it hard to believe that blue state CT would prefer Liarman over Lamont. I wonder if they just polled repubs...

[loudsue]

24. Sounds to me like they're already programming the voting machines

CT is supposed to have new machines before the November elections. Someone's already gotten word from Rove that the programming is in.

The reason the REAL Dem won the race this time was because they were using the lever machines.

:kick::kick::kick:

[Imagevision]

69. Take the poll on the war on terror VS. The War for WMD's in Iraq

[wussoch]

43. Rasmussen

Actually, I think Rasmussen is the best polling service that
currently exists.  Recall that Zogby had
"guaranteed" a Kerry win in '04, while Rasmussen had
Bush winning nationally by 3-4% (which was approximately the
result).  The early exit polls in '04 favored Kerry (as did
the Zogby poll), and turned out to be incorrect (obviously). 
There seems to be, unless you subscribe to conspiracy
theories, a systematic error in most polls FAVORING the
Democratic candidate.  Rasmussen seems to have figured out a
way to correct for this in his poll results.  I followed him
throughout the '04 campaign, leading up to Election Day and
found him right on the money.

[Patchuli]

45. Ras knew the fix was in

Welcome to DU. I hope you are here because you are a Democrat.

[wussoch]

46. Thanks

Of Course... I am simply saying that I like Rasmussen because
he is accurate.  I don't think anybody knows why most of the
other polling companies/universities are usually wrong.  False
hope is not a good thing... hence (whether he knew the fix was
in or not) I like the more accurate Rasmussen.  I think the
big theory today is that Repubs are underrepresented in many
polls because they are, I suppose for economic reasons, more
likely to own cellular phones.  Pollsters don't get phone
lists from Verizon, Cingular, etc. whereas they have access to
everybody's home phone number unless that individual/household
has specifically requested an unlisted number.

Anyway, the poster was maligning Rasmussen simply because he
didn't like the results of the poll.  That is kind of like
shooting the messenger.  If all of the polls were more
reliable, that would be better for all of us since so much
political money is spent campaigning based on poll results. 
The more accurate the information, the better armed we are
politically.  To discount an accurate pollster because you
don't like the results of one of his polls for political
reasons is not wise for the minority party.

[Patchuli]

50. Rassmussen has a right-wing slant

and I believe the exit polls in '04 that said Kerry won. It had naught to do with "liking it" or not.

I also think as many dems as pubs have cell phones and not just for economic reasons. I think the day of the Neo-Con is coming to a close. Thank God...I also think the dems won't be the minority party much longer. The so-called "Moral Majority" has proven to be neither moral nor competent. I think Americans in general are sick of these reindeer games.

[wussoch]

51. Rasmussen

That was my point, that exit polls (and Zogby) predicted Kerry in '04 and were both incorrect. Frankly, I don't know how a poll can lean left or right. If they simply portray the numbers honestly, then they (the pollsters) are just honest brokers on the way from raw data to polls for public consumption. If you are saying that Rasmussen himself leans right, I have no personal data on Mr. Rasmussen so I can neither agree or disagree with you. Also, I know that Rasmussen does a three-day moving average when publishing these kinds of poll numbers. Perhaps the numbers being cited in the beginning of the post were from a one-day sample rather than the more accurate three-day average.

My only point is, it is to the advantage of a campaign or a national committee to have accurate polling numbers to decide where to focus attention and funds to maximize success in elections. Accuracy is what counts and if Rasmussen is accurate, whether he leans personally right or left, then he is an asset to astute campaign managers and to the public at large.

We can at least agree that the drum and gong intro to the song "Time" is a musical miracle.

[Patchuli]

52. The exit polls were not wrong, Democrats won in 2004

The election was stolen. Again.

By right leaning, I mean that the aforesaid pollster polls more conservatives apparently.

[wussoch]

53. Stolen Elections

If the whole thing is rigged, why do you even care about polls? Polls represent (supposedly) the "tenor of the electorate." Actually, now I get it. Because you think the elections are rigged, then you have to seek out polls that support your position/candidate and deem them "accurate." On the other hand, accurate polls (insofar as they actually predicted a correct result... e.g. Rasmussen in '04) are of no use to you because you believe that Rasmussen leans right and you do not believe his result OR the result of the national election. Therefore, you have to seek out somebody like Zogby whose polling was incorrect with regard to the '04 election and go along with him to support your worldview that American elections are compromised. Perhaps this puts me in the minority, but I don't believe either election was "rigged." John Kerry was a terrible candidate. Gore was not much better. Hillary Clinton will be much worse. We cannot win elections with ONLY Democratic voters on a national level, and Massachusetts or New York liberals are poor choices indeed. Do you think the Repubs could win (or even credibly "rig an election") with Gingrich or Pat Buchanan as the candidate?

[Patchuli]

54. You don't "get" a thing about me

since you don't know me. I put much more stock in exit polls which are rarely wrong and have been used for years reliably. The election of 2004 was rigged via Diebold. I not only believe that repubs rigged it, I believe they've done it several times and will try it again. Touch screen machines need to go away and not be used again. Perhaps you should read RFK, Jr.'s article re: 2004 in Rolling Stone.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

Your opinions are your opinions regarding the candidates. However, Gore won in 2000, the Supreme Court interfered and installed Dubya. I have no desire to see Hillary Clinton even attempt a run. I also think she has no more chance that either Buchanan or Newter. I do think we will draft Gore to run and I think he has a solid chance of winning again. Just think, if the SC had not butted in, he'd be in his second term, not the Great Pretender that now squats in the WH.

Welcome to DU although I have my doubts as to your true party affiliation. You sound like someone out to discourage a side that's ready to win and restore sanity to our country.

[wussoch]

60. Sanity

The reason I doubt the election rigging was because we came off a two-term Clinton prior to Bush/Gore election cycle. Why was Clinton "allowed" to win twice? And I AM trying to encourage the restoration of sanity. If you want an alternative to Republicans/Bush, we need a viable candidate in '08, maybe somebody like a Bill Richardson. I don't know how effective the "stolen election" theory is as regards national politics and influencing the vote of independents or "liberal Republicans" (say, the Chafee/Snowe Republican voters). I am trying to encourage the philosophy of promoting an alternative agenda rather than living in the past and insisting that elections were stolen and this kind of thing. I am hopeful that change can come through thoughtful elaboration of policy differences. It certainly can't arise by consistently forwarding ideas that the majority of the country regards as "conspiracy theories." And Al Gore cannot win in '08. There is too much footage of him freaking out at various venues over the last six years, sweating and red-faced and so forth. Contrast Gore's diatribes (he used to have no personality or charisma, but suddenly he is a ball of fire) to the thoughtful presentation given by Bill Richardson whenever he speaks. I know that most (or at least many) of the members of this site are very liberal Democrats, and as such a moderate like Richardson is unpalatable to them. However, it is clear that at the level of Senate/House elections, as Lamont's win shows, it is possible to instill more liberal candidates. I am unsure whether we can field an appealing Democratic candidate for President in '08 unless some of the more liberal wing of the party can choose the reasonable goal of incrementalism (e.g. nominating a Richardson or Bayh) at the national level while maintaining the type of support for more liberal candidates for "lower office" (i.e. Senators, Governors, House Members). I mean, look at what happened in the primaries in '04... the liberal base of the party propelled Howard Dean to the forefront early. Then, as the rest of the party wondered about his "electability," they chose the most "famous" of the remaining candidates (Kerry). But when was the last time that a non-Southern Democrat won the White House? That was JFK in the early 60's, forty years ago. We can't go on shooting ourselves in the foot every four years nominating Dukakis-type candidates. I know it is tough to stomach because of the fact that a more liberal candidate is desired, but patience is required.

[Zhade]

61. Consider that CT uses lever machines and thus can't be hacked.

Speaking as one who was almost sued for putting some of Diebold's taxpayer-funded-yet-proprietary-and-secret code online - code that showed flaws and holes and exploits, as well as internal memos that prove the company knew about the flaws and didn't care, even encouraged them...

...you need to educate yourself.

[Awsi Dooger]

91. New York also uses lever machines

And the 2004 New York exit poll was way off, roughly 10 points too high for Kerry.

So what happened there? How could a 29 point exit poll turn into a 19 point win, if the exit polls are always right and the machines are levers that "can't be hacked"?

Why would the Republicans even bother stealing 10 points in New York? There wasn't a governors race or a competitive senate race.

Maybe, and I know this is heinous, the exit poll was wrong, dramatically overstating Kerry.

[Patchuli]

66. Simple answers to your ?

Why did Clinton win twice?

We voted the old fashioned way with levers. The machines weren't 'in place' yet. The backdoor program to flip election results hadn't been created yet. And even simpler, in 1992, people were as sick of H.W. as they are now sick of W. We were pleasantly rewarded with a country in peace and enjoying a good economy.

As for your opinions of Gore showing passion, well good on him! We need someone with passion and a great love of country to pull us back from the edge of disaster the GOP has taken us to.

Sorry, but there is way too much evidence that these last few election cycles have been rigged by republican-owned voting machines. Did you by chance read the article I mentioned?

[wussoch]

68. Fraud

Yes, I read what I could of RFK Jr.'s lengthy article. I am sure that fraud is rampant locally in many elections, in precincts controlled by both Republicans and Democrats. I did a Google search and found any number of articles delineating Democratic voter fraud and Republican voter fraud.

Simply put, I choose not to believe (without incontrovertible evidence) that either political party SYSTEMATICALLY fixes elections. If one really believes that elections are stolen, how can there be any faith left in our government or political system, regardless of who is in power? I don't know what to say about Diebold, except how could Congressional Democrats have allowed it to be instilled nationally if there were so many problems with it? I am assuming it was a federal (not state-by-state) contract and that it had to have Congressional approval in order to be activated... if there were questions, a filibuster could have derailed the whole prospect.

I think sober arguments and positions about POLICY win and lose elections... yes there are a number of ill-informed voters who see nothing but the (D) or (R) after a candidates name on a ballot and vote accordingly across the board, but there remains the so-called "swing voters" who presumably weigh the positions of each Presidential candidate and vote based on these considerations.

If everybody spent their finite energies on debating policy more effectively, rather than advocating stolen election theories and anti-Bush "Herr Chimperor" rhetoric, the public would be better served. I am still waiting for the Democratic Party to advance an alternative and specific list of policies to be undertaken if the House and/or Senate are recaptured, rather than the "things would be different if I were President" vagaries of John Kerry. A solely anti-Bush, anti-Republican agenda is not an effective long-term strategy.

[Patchuli]

72. I have no faith left whatsoever

in our government or political system as it is now. I don't know that my vote will count. I feel I am taxed without representation. I feel that I have lost basic rights as an American that I have had all my life until 2001.

We have also found out (after the story was suppressed until after 2004 elections) that the WH began eavesdropping years ago. What was to stop them from using it to spy on their political opponents ala Richard Nixon? Not a thing. As far as incontrovertible evidence as to fixing, hacking and voter suppression? It is there if you choose to see it. Ask the thousands of African Americans whose votes were not counted. How is it possible that some counties in Ohio had more votes than voters, always for Bush of course? Democrats didn't stop the machines because it was not known until later how they can be manipulated. Why doesn't Congress ask questions? Because Congress is a republican majority that didn't want to question why the GOP was winning. Swiftboating, smear tactics, fearmongering,terror alerts, handy Osama Bin Laden tapes in time for elections...

There are obvious answers to these questions.

Regarding voters, I wish people would study all the issues and vote for more than one issue. Abortion, gun control, etc. has garnered more votes for the wrong candidates than any other issues of importance. I also know people who have given up voting because they think it won't do any good. Voter education is important. HAVA is a joke...

I don't know why you are "still waiting" to hear the Democratic party's plan for America. Simply visit the DNC page...http://www.dnc.org/agenda.html

I don't think the strategy is "anti-Bush." I think the strategy is to get corrupt politicians out of power and rebuild what this rotten administration has destroyed in the past 5.5 years.

[wussoch]

75. Policy

Yes, I have seen the six-point plan. But those are not "policies," as such, they are goals. Goals that sound great, of course, and I am sure there are counterparts to each on the RNC website. A "policy" would explain HOW these goals are to be accomplished. For instance, you can't simply say:

"Democrats have a plan that is comprehensive-- from repairing our military, to winning the war on terror, to protecting our homeland security, to ensuring success in Iraq and freeing America of its dependence on foreign oil--and it will finally prepare America for the security needs of the 21st Century. And we honor the sacrifices our troops, their families and veterans by making sure we take care of them when they come home." (from the DNC website, http://www.dnc.org/a/national/real_security/)

... those are GOALS and NOT POLICIES. The misspelling of "desperation" as "desperatation" (which the Spell Checker of this website managed to catch, but apparently not the DNC's) a couple of lines further down the page doesn't help either. I can only imagine the response if there was an obvious misspelling like this on the Bush website. I cannot advocate enough that a party needs concrete, clearly stated POLICIES in order to win elections. This is what I am trying to advocate here.

If you subscribe to the theory that Republicans rig each Presidential election, then how can a Democrat EVER retake the White House, no matter how hard they try or what great policies they come to advocate? This is a position of hopelessness. I won't subscribe to it.

[Patchuli]

77. Now why would the DNC

release the game plan to someone like Karl Rove this early in the game?! So he can use it as a club? Think about it. You don't give someone like that the means to smear you. Much as I do think Gore intends to run but he's not committing far ahead so that the swiftboat smear machine can gear up on him.

A misspelled word? Big deal. How about a pResident who cannot SPEAK properly. Much bigger a deal.

"If you subscribe to the theory that Republicans rig each Presidential election, then how can a Democrat EVER retake the White House, no matter how hard they try or what great policies they come to advocate? This is a position of hopelessness. I won't subscribe to it."

That's why we must get rid of the machines! Paper ballots, hand counted. It works in Canada. It works in Germany. It used to work fine here. No secretaries of state in charge of elections who are ALSO coincidentally the managers for the republican pres candidate would help. No voter purging unless it is proven beyond a doubt. We here in CA are challenging the Schwarzenegger-appointed repub SOS over the Diebold. California voters do not want them and we won't tolerate them. I hope other states are willing to fight this theft of democracy as well.

[wussoch]

87. Why, indeed

By bypassing Rove, the electorate is also bypassed. There is no alternative in spelling out policy but to let your opponents know what your agenda is. You are expecting voters to "read between the lines" and discern for themselves what the policy of a Democratic Congress/President will be without being told explicitly... this is exactly the failed strategy undertaken by the Kerry campaign. You have to DEFINE THE ISSUES and then propose pathways for reaching your goals.

I think you underestimate the number of voters who are uneasy with the Bush Agenda but see no viable alternative... those who could be easily swayed by a thoughtful, common-sense party platform. Voter turnout is imperative and I really don't believe the current anti-Bush platform will draw extra independent voters to a mid-term election, which is typified (usually) by much poorer turnout than Presidential Election years. We cannot seriously entertain the notion that Bush's low approval numbers will keep the conservatives home come November, and his poor numbers are driven by conservative voters who will disapprove of Bush to the pollsters because they think his policies are not "conservative enough" (immigration, spending, etc.) but who will not sit home in this midterm election. And they won't vote for Democrats. The independent swing voters need to be convinced and told EXACTLY WHY the Democrats are a better choice for their children's futures.

[Patchuli]

88. The voters need to get off their butts

and become informed. Politics don't run the way they used to. Karl Rove will use any tactic to win elections. People have been "disappeared" that stood in the GOP's way. It is not business as usual as it was for many years before the neocons reared their ugly ugly heads back in Reagan's day. If you are a Dem, what are *you* doing to convince your party's leaders that they must outline their policy strategies explicitly, even though that risks our strengths being used against us? You are very handy at pointing out what's wrong. So, what in your opinion is the right way to handle an opposition who cheats? Do you not think that voters have some responsibility to know what's going on or must everything be spoonfed via an IV/TV tube? These swing voters are as capable as we are of getting on the 'net and figuring things out for themselves since the media is nothing but entertainment these days. Real news is on the internet if voters care enough.

If this Repub party was the same party my dad belonged to, we wouldn't need to worry so much about what dirty tricks they were planning. The neocons have taken over the GOP and completely changed the face of conservatism. Your old lines about what the Dem party must do don't apply as they once did. There is nothing "conservative" about the GOP these days. And if pissing billions of tax dollars and our precious American kids' blood away in the sands of Iraq is not convincing enough for these people, they are braindead. What has the GOP done to reassure this country that they are going to end this hideous war? Nothing...they want to "stay the course" no matter what the majority of America thinks. I note you do not mention that most of the polls show that the majority of Americans want U.S. out of Iraq, nor that the majority want Dems in control. Why is that? Or do you ignore polls *you* don't agree with?

[wussoch]

94. Iraq Polls

I don't recall disagreeing with any polls about Iraq. I am simply trying to suggest that another front of IDEAS needs to be opened by the DNC, along with the front which you are advocating. You are advising that the Democratic Party be SECRETIVE with regard to their agenda for fear of being countered by Rove et al. I am trying to say that voters need to be convinced of a viable alternative to Republican policies. It really behooves nobody to have an unpopular current government policy which is only sniped at, without any real new ideas being propounded. Since we have a Two-Party system, there needs to be a dialogue in the nation with regard to different choices in how the respective parties will lead the nation. "Stay the Course" vs. "Pull Out" is not a real dialogue. I agree that polls say that the majority of Americans think it was a "mistake" to have invaded Iraq. However, I think support for the invasion was somewhere between 70-80% (including many, many Democrats) when it was first launched. And I am not sure, but I don't believe that immediate withdrawal from Iraq cracks 50% yet (I apologize, but I just did a Google search and found nothing current and am too tired to look further for a link)... probably more along the lines of 25-30%. So what we saw after 9/11 was a "bloodlust" that favored the Iraq invasion... many of these people have since deserted that position, but don't favor immediate withdrawal. Polls are subtle, and obviously depend on the wording of the question, which may be either vague, specific, or leading.

Again, I am simply advocating for a coherent message. It is difficult to determine actually what the Democratic position is on the issue, with some suggesting immediate withdrawal (not favored by most Americans) like Ned Lamont, others (like Lieberman) more hawkish and others with nonsense positions (John Kerry... listening to this guy is simply exhausting). I want to hear a PLAN for bringing troops home while addressing the issues that would likely arise with the vacuum created by an immediate withdrawal... delineating new STRATEGY and TACTICS which differ from the current course. You seem to argue against the taking of concrete positions in any guise for fear of Rove's manipulations... I simply don't think you can win national elections without a message. I would like to hear one.

[digno dave]

64. stop being rational

nt

[Patchuli]

73. Is "rational" believing that the repubs don't cheat

and play dirty games?

[TheWatcher]

84. Stop being willfully ignorant and uninformed.

It's a little late in the game.

[digno dave]

89. Spoken like a true ideologue

nt

[wussoch]

92. nt

What does "nt" stand for? Sorry for the acronymic ignorance.

[Patchuli]

97. nt = no text

just so you know that was the end of the post. :-) I'll answer your other post in a bit. I want to chaw on it...

[mtnsnake]

93. Great post

and welcome to DU.

Voter fraud is to be taken seriously, but the extent to which this is used as a bandaid excuse for everything gone wrong is as counterproductive as it is inexcusable.

Voter fraud might have factored in such a close election as the 2004 one, but that election shouldn't have even been close. We lost to a moron, and the terrible campaign had as much or more to do with it than any stolen election did. I hope the same people who ran our last campaign stay the hell away from the next one.

[Imagevision]

96. Lieberman leads Lamont? - yeah well talk to me in after November...

[Snivi Yllom]

74. if you keep thinking like that

you are going to claim the same thing if Lieberman wins in November.

keep crying wolf when there is no wolf

[Cha]

81. Actually, I think they were correct

and Kerry won but the bushits stole Ohio.

[Imagevision]

65. I believe Lamont will win wider come November with all this repuke

concern about who our senators stay and depart. Sounds like republicans are running scared since Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman, the best is yet to come...!

[TheWatcher]

83. Hopefully You as well as this Poll will be wrong in November

And please, educate yourself where it concerne vote fraud and the past three elections (2 Presidential, one Mid-Term) that have been stolen.

You are very naive.

[digno dave]

62. Denial will get you nowhere

Lamonst needs to hammer hard at the terrorist and show the voters in connecticut AND THE NATION that he has a pair as big as anybody around. I'm sorry, but him saying things like "america has created too many enemies abroad" won't cut it. You don't get elected telling voters that no one likes their country.

[TheWatcher]

86. Well at least your subject line is true

But it is you who has that problem it seems.

[niyad]

2. plus or minus three could give us LIEberman at 43, lamont at 44

[Sam Odom]

10. Or...

Lieberman 49
Lamont 38%

[Awsi Dooger]

19. Actually, the margin for error is on every characteristic

Not the margin between the two candidates.

With a sampling error of 4% based on the confidence level, Lieberman's number here is 46.

So that means his support could range between 42 and 50. That's four points either way of the 46. Similarly, Lamont is between 37 and 45.

A Lamont lead of 45-42 is within the margin of error. So is a Lieberman advantage of 50-37.

Remember the margin of error only accounts for random sampling error, not bias in the questioning or other factors that can skew the result.

I'm sure many here will question Lieberman's apparent lead, especially sourced by Rasmussen, but it's a matter of the indies and Republicans having their say.

[aquart]

3. If Iraq and the economy are the issues, LAMONT WINS.

Who are they kidding?

Oh, and was this registered or likely voters?

[LA lady]

17. It says likely n/t

[skipos]

4. Just like the primary, Ned needs time to get his message out

while he gathers support and money from the Democratic Party. Meanwhile Lieberman will spout his Republican talking points and do himself in. I anticipate a neck and neck race.

[Cha]

82. So far liarman has been

using the rope quite nicely.

[Reckon]

5. imo you can't trust Rasmussen at all..

Hey Awsi Dooger, give Manny a swift kick in the rear and tell him to get back to work! :)

[Awsi Dooger]

13. Ha! Now that's an obscure reference :)

I agree, Reckon. I thought the troubles were over late last season and he would grow up. But Saban's summation today was fantastic, basically, "we don't have that around here, no let me go elsewhere because I'm upset."

[CTLawGuy]

6. Schlesinger has not started his campaign yet

and he will probably draw many votes from Lieberman once he gets started.

[Sam Odom]

12. What do you think ROVE is telling Schlesinger ?

"Yeah, we will back you 100% and you can have all the $$$ you need to beat Lieberman" :sarcasm:

[invictus]

23. Rover and Lieberman are personal friends

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-08-10T164937Z_01_N10461049_RTRUKOC_0_US-REPUBLICANS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-politicsNews-3

[CTLawGuy]

25. you don't think Rove would prefer a real Repub if he could get it?

Lieberman's good for him, just like we may prefer Lincoln Chaffee to Steve Laffey, but a real Repub is better for him, just as we'd rather have Sheldon Whitehouse than Lincoln Chaffee.

[Sam Odom]

26. Sure ! But...

This Repub couldn't win even if CT used diebold

[Awsi Dooger]

18. Lamont needs to campaign against Schlesinger

Treat it like a standard D vs. R race, at least partially. His fortunes are directly tied to the percentage Schlesinger receives, and I hope he realizes that.

I prioritize proper handicapping and if Lamont doesn't engage Schlesinger he's making a mistake almost on the level of Lieberman's blunders during the primary.

At least Schlesinger will be in the debates. Larry King mentioned inviting him last night. So the name recognition will soar and if Schlesinger isn't totally inept his percentage goes up, every additional point basically swiped from Lieberman.

Schlesinger's abysmal number is what surprised me the most. I anticipated something like Lieberman 43, Lamont 36, Schlesinger 12.

Notice there's only 7% undecided in Rasmussen's poll. That's low especially for a 3-way.

[w4rma]

27. That's true. Lamont should now focus on Schlesinger.

And if any statements also happen to apply to Lieberman, then that will work fine.

[yebrent]

33. IMO, he needs to run against Bush.

and tie both Loserman and Schlesinger to Bush. The danger of running against only Schlesiner is that in the voters minds, they could start to think there isn't much difference between Joe and Lamont, which we all know is false.

[Awsi Dooger]

34. I didn't mean run only against Schlesinger

Lamont can't afford to ignore Lieberman since Lieberman will continue the desperate attacks.

The ignoring we'll see is Lieberman in regard to Schlesinger.

Tough call but if I were Lamont I would run some ads using Schlesinger as the focus, but also tying it into failed Republican policies. That boosts Schlesinger's name ID and could also work among Democrats, certifying Lamont in areas other than the war. And as someone who is more than an anti-Lieberman candidate.

If it remains Lamont vs. Lieberman on the Iraq issue only, frankly I see a stubborn stalemate with the poll numbers not changing significantly.

[Euphen]

41. No, he should ignore Schlesinger.

Schlesinger will take votes away from Lieberman, not Lamont, and has no chance of winning anyway. Campaigning against Schlesinger would be a waste of resources.

[Awsi Dooger]

47. You campaign against Schlesinger to boost his viability

Lieberman is the one who should, and will, ignore Schlesinger.

If Lamont doesn't mention Schlesinger at every opportunity, he's a stone knucklehead. As you say, Schlesinger will take votes away from Lieberman. That's exactly why Lamont needs to get Schlesinger's name out there, inspire the typical Democrat vs. Republican themes.

You're not really campaigning against Schlesinger. It's simply the necessary handicapping strategy if you want to win this race. If Lamont doesn't understand that and ignores Schlesinger, I won't root for him nearly as hard in November.

[karynnj]

58. I disagree on making Schlesinger the issue - it could only hurt

Lamont needs to first and formost increase his own acceptability. He is and will continue to get attention now. He needs to win those Democrats and Independents who may be sticking with Lieberman because they know him. He already has anyone who hates Lieberman.

The last thing he should do is attack Schlesinger - and drive votes from him to possibly Lieberman. (Lieberman could gain by attacking Schlesinger as well as attacking Lamont.) In this campaign - though Lieberman is the independent - engaging him as the opponent does not give him additional credibility or visiblity - he has that as the Senator and as himself.

[SPCAworks]

55. most

strong supporters of LaMont have ALREADY voted for him... finding "new" Lamont supporters won't be that easy.

EVERY passionate progressive in Ct. voted for Ned. Now he's going up against the 70% of reg voters who DIDN'T go to the primaries.

[madfloridian]

7. Well, let CT revote and put Lieberman back in.

And then he won't take the seat away from Democrats, like you better be good to me or I will take my toys and be like a Republican.

I think you can trust the voters of CT, which I thought was a pretty blue state.....to make the right decision.

People here are letting Lieberman play them like a violin. This is about voters and their decision. If enough of them love him, they will re-elect him.

Can't you see the fear this is building up because there was actually another primary winner. If Lieberman wins, he wins. If he doesn't he doesn't. We should not allow him to hold us hostage.

[dolstein]

14. What do you mean by "re-vote"?

Registered independents haven't had a chance to vote yet. And there wasn't a contested primary on the Republican side.

[madfloridian]

20. Joking.

.

[leesa]

44. Re-vote. Joe lost.

[tridim]

8. Hehe.. Funny

Lamont just won the primary, the poll is wrong.

[yebrent]

30. the poll includes independents and republicans.

the primary did not.

[bigwillq]

9. It's too early to freak out

about these numbers.

Give Ned time to spread his message.

Ned's a viable candidate and has a better message, vision and direction than anyone else in the race.

[rocktivity]

15. Also, the sample is too small

A poll worth its salt uses close to a thousand respondents.

:headbang:
rocknation

[karynnj]

59. I agree - these aren't bad this early

Lieberman is the incumbent.

[snowbear]

11. The polls are going to go UP and DOWN and all around...

But why on earth anyone would take a poll this soon after an election..

And why anyone would believe the results this soon after an election were going to be the same down the road..

... is beyond me!

[thatsrightimirish]

16. we all know that

When Lieberman campaigns his numbers go down. He was blowing out everyone in the beginning and now he is under 50. It is especially bad for him because he is an 18 year senaotr facing off an unknown before 2 months ago. Lieberman is using the white house talking point to get re elected and why people stand up for him here is beyond me.

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Now it looks like a Green candidate will be in the race

Wonderful. I'm not going to pretend to analyze this:

http://www.wnbc.com/news/9659116/detail.html

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The Connecticut U.S. Senate race could become a four-way fight with the Green Party saying it has submitted enough signatures to place a candidate on the ballot in November.

Ned Lamont is the Democratic candidate after beating Sen. Joe Lieberman in the party's primary Tuesday. Lieberman is mounting an independent campaign and Alan Schlesinger is the Republican candidate.

The Green Party of Connecticut submitted 13,000 signatures Wednesday on behalf of Ralph Ferrucci, the party's candidate for the U.S. Senate.

[invictus]

22. Those poll numbers will be reversed by election day

Lamont 52%
Loserman 42%
Gambling addict 6%

[sampsonblk]

70. Heck yeah

Leiberman's had the support of the establishment Dems of late, but still couldn't pull out the primary. In the next few months, he will have none of that star-powered support and money. His numbers will decline sharply.

[bigdarryl]

28. Lamont has a higher unfavorable rating that lieberman WHAT THE FUCK!!!

What has Lamont done to recieve an unfavorable rating. these people in Conn. are nuts who were polled.

[yebrent]

31. the Rethugs will give Lamont an unforvarable rating, but not Loserman

the poll includes all potential voters, not just Dems.

[CTLawGuy]

63. Bush loving republicans probably can't stand him

thats' probably the source of his unfavorables.

[calico1]

29. It's early.

A lot of people who don't vote in primaries don't really pay attention until afterward. Lamont has time. Remember he was way behind a few months ago.

[yebrent]

32. exactly

and with the CT Democratic machine, national Dems supporting him, and likely more money than Joe, he could easily make up the ground. I was expecting about a 10 pt. spread, so I read this as good news.

[Clarkie1]

35. I hate to say this but a lot of those Schlesinger folks will vote for Joe

when push comes to shove in the voting booth if they know their 1st choice doesn't have a chance.

At least, that's what I think a lot of them will probably do.

[Sam Odom]

36. Isnt that what we tell the Greenies to do ? N/T

N/T

[Clarkie1]

37. Yes.

And they don't always follow directions...hopefully the Republicans won't either.

[Awsi Dooger]

38. True, Lamont's fortunes are tied to Schlesinger

In many ways, this race is much tougher than the primary for Lamont. In the primary Lamont could focus on Democratic themes to close and overtake. Now, he's at the mercy of the Republican voters.

I wouldn't be surprised if that 41% from the Rasmussen poll is just about where Lamont ends up in the vote, probably somewhat lower. Anyone who thinks he's headed close to 50%, or higher, is just not looking at the dynamics of this race, with 2/3 of the voters indies and Republicans, and Lieberman taking 30% or slightly more of the Democratic vote.

Lamont needs Schlesinger to slowly improve his position and swipe from Lieberman. I've been monkeying with an Excel model today and Lamont never wins unless Schlesinger basically triples his support, up to the 18% range.

We need a 3-way debate on Larry King where Schlesinger is the star. I wouldn't care if Lamont recited nursery rhymes. Schlesinger pulling from Lieberman is more vital to the outcome than anything Lamont does.

[Clarkie1]

48. Interesting analysis.

I think it's correct, assuming that Lamont won't be able to pull any more of the Lieberman Democrats over to his side...but is that a wise or correct assumption?

[Awsi Dooger]

49. I think Lamont can pull more Lieberman Democrats

Especially if Lieberman continues the wingnut rhetoric designed to solidify his Republican base. Bizarre to write that, but it's no doubt the reason for the comments since Wednesday, and what this race boils down to.

But Lamont's potential among Lieberman Democrats is probably limited, maybe 5 or 6% if I had to guess. Let's say 10% for a high. That translates to 2-4% of the total vote.

Lamont can benefit much more than that via Schlesinger improving the party line loyalty among Republicans.

[ChipsAhoy]

39. More Lying Polls

Those are the same polls that had Gore and Kerry winning and all of us hoping and wishing. I don't believe in the poll numbers anymore.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

40. Time to take out the trash

Lieberman needs to get out of this race. It is time for Reid to stand up in the senate & limit Lieberman's role as a democratic senator until he gives up the race. I think they are to afraid of him in the senate. Wake up Reid CT democrats were not afraid to say we do not want you anymore.

[ChipsAhoy]

42. YES!

Time for a wake up call!

[SPCAworks]

57. and that

would be... not so smart.

Just IF Lieberman wins... you want him to caucus with the Dems. Alienate him and he becomes 100% turncoat.

[Clark2008]

56. And, in May, Lamont was an asterick.

Means nothing 90 days until the election.

[AX10]

67. Seeing that Joe is an establishment incumbent, it's not all that bad.

90 days is along time away. Lamont can win.

I if GOD FORBID Joe manages a "win", I will make it very clear that he IS NOT MY SENATOR!

[Imagevision]

71. Lamont will kick Lieberman's ass worse the next go round

[rocktivity]

76. The sample's too small

Real polls sample roughly one thousand people and keep their margin of error below three per cent. And it's easy to manipulate the results by manipulating the kind of respondents you use. By deliberately using smaller samples, it's easly to make Lieberman look better and depress support for Lamont--after all, repetition of lies can take on the appearance of truth.

Now check out this Zogby poll in which Dems nationwide were asked about Lieberman vs. Lamont. It samples around 1300 people and has a 2.9% margin of error.

:headbang:
rocknation

[tom22]

78. I think those are fabulous numbers for Lamont.

They are the high watermark for Lieberman. it will only be downhill from here. he ran one of the worst campaigns I have ever seen in CT in the primary. He won't do any better in the general. Lieberman was ahead substantially in May. He died during the campaign. The only high moment was the endorsement by Clinton. That won't happen this time around. Connecticut is a blue state and our elections don't get stolen. Ned's numbers will only get higher. Even Republicans in this state despise the war. we are doing well and will do better.

[tom22]

79. PS those numbers must be within the margin of error. Lieberman

will be badly frightened by this poll. I thought the first poll would show him up by 20 points. Instead it shows him tied. The war is not popular in this state and Joe is the war candidate. His campaign will be sure to alienate voters opposed to the war. I say the numbers can only get better.

[Awsi Dooger]

80. There should be more polls soon

You've gotta believe the major pollsters jumped in to get a slice of their own.

I would caution not to expect a significant shift. The dynamics are entirely different here than in the run up to the primary. Lieberman's win may thrill Democrats nationwide but as an 18 year incumbent he's going to have a significant base in Connecticut. Lieberman's net advantage over Lamont among Republicans and right leaning independents will be massive and that's not going to dwindle unless Schlesinger picks up the pace.

Lamont backers need to be rooting for Schlesinger. It's not unlike a horse race with a rabbit, and the stretchrunner needs that rabbit to do his job and alter the way the race unfolds.

[tom22]

85. I find it hard to believe the Republican numbers won't go up

Joe has to run left to increase his numbers and he proved that it impossible for him to pull it off in the primary. He will try and alienate the hardcore Republican base. Jodi Rell will probably win a landslide vote in the gubenatorial race. There won't be that many party switchers. Schlesinger will poll twenty percent at least.

[Awsi Dooger]

90. Schlesinger at 20 would be fantastic

I have an Excel election model I've been tinkering with and Lamont wins with Schlesinger in the low 20s. The tipping point is roughly 18%. Beneath that and Lieberman has the edge. Admittedly it's a work in progress and I'm not overly confident in some of the percentages I'm using, like the split among independents. There are variables here I've never experienced before.

[bigwillq]

95. Hey, I would like to see

some of your results. That's so cool that you are doing this.

Do you do it by a city-by-city breakdown? IF so, I would love to see that.

Wow. Cool shit.

:hi: