Lamont Regains Some Momentum, Trails Lieberman 46-39

A new poll by the Hartford Courant shows some momentum for Lamont.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman leads Ned Lamont by eight percentage points in the Senate race, although a majority of voters agree with Lamont on the war in Iraq and the need for change in Washington, a Courant/University of Connecticut poll says.

Lieberman leads Lamont among likely voters 48-40 percent, with 8 percent undecided and roughly 15 percent of both candidates' supporters saying they still could change their minds before Nov. 7.

The poll by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that 60 percent of voters believe going to war was wrong, and a slim majority favors a deadline for withdrawal, issues Lamont used to defeat Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

But Lieberman, who stayed in the race as a petitioning candidate, enjoys a 57 percent approval rating and has managed to capture 67 percent of Republican vote, while keeping 35 percent of Democrats in his camp. Unaffiliated voters prefer him over Lamont 45-37 percent.

With the GOP leadership tacitly backing Lieberman, Republican Alan Schlesinger is favored by only 4 percent of voters.

Lieberman's been up on the air a lot more than Lamont recently, so Lieberman's apparent bleeding of support lends some credence to the theory that he's peaked.  And then there's this.

By a margin of 53-29 percent, voters said they generally favored challengers and the promise of change over incumbents and experience.

Lieberman's an excellent politician, and Lamont's a novice, so it makes sense that Lamont couldn't easily get his message of change out.  It's nice to see that beginning to shift.  I never believed the Zogby poll of a 20 point lead, but it does seem like Lamont has started to get momentum back.

Tags: Connecticut, CT-Sen, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)

Comments

35 Comments

Republicans

All polls notwithstanding, is it really possible that the Republican candidate will end up with less than 10% of the vote?  Is the guy that bad?  

Is the Republican voters' desire to keep Holy Joe really that strong?  I mean, have they voted for him before?

And another thing.  What the hell keeps more than 50% of Connecticutt voters attached to Holy Joe?  What did he ever do?

by James Earl 2006-10-10 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans

Lieberman was the AG in Connecticut before he became Senator.  He made a name for himself jumping on whatever the current issue was, promising action in front of the Teevee cameras.  Never actually doing anything he promised, just said he would.

Joe's election to the Senate in 1988 was less about him, and had alot more to do with many residents extreme dislike of Lowell Weiker.  At the time the economy in the Northeast tanked, and the housing bubble burst.  Weiker later was blamed with passing the income tax here, and is still hated by many.

For the last two elections Joe hasn't had a serious challenger, and was re-elected as most incumbents are.

by 1970cs 2006-10-10 11:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans

I should add, although Weiker was a Republican Senator, he often crossed the aisle, probably voted with Dems half the time.  He is also very much against the Iraq war, and strongly supports Lamont.

by 1970cs 2006-10-10 11:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans

"All polls notwithstanding, is it really possible that the Republican candidate will end up with less than 10% of the vote?  Is the guy that bad?"

In a word yes, he faces civil charges of nearly $ 500,000.00 in unpaid gambling debts he also faces possible criminal charges for gambling under an assumed name.  The state GOP asked him to resign his nomination when he refused, they disowned him they have given him no money and no one has endorsed him either.  

by THE MODERATE 2006-10-11 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans

He is that bad, but the interesting question is how many Republican voters will use him to cast a protest vote against both Lamont and Lieberman - since there is no risk that he will win. Obviously, Nader in Reverse, the bulk of those protest votes would come out of Lieberman's vote tally.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-11 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans

MY guess is that is the 4% who is suporting him now, I doubt his percentage points will get much higher but who knows.

by THE MODERATE 2006-10-11 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Republicans

I really do think he will poll better in the election than he does on the phone. Over and above those that come to the election intending to vote for him, there are some who are going to vote for the Republican when it comes to the crunch.

... whether it is 1 in 50 Republicans or 1 in 10 will determine whether that's closer to 0.5% or 2% of the total vote.

by BruceMcF 2006-10-11 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

Well, good, because Ned Lamont is a spectacular candidate who comes across as well as anyone on television.  Every time I have seen him do an interview (saw him on Hardball today) he has been super impressive.  He's articulate, confident, and has the right issues.  He's also decidely not mealy-mouthed and non-commital like certain other candidates (McCaskill, anyone?).

So the only thing that makes sense for him to have been down so much is problems with strategy and perhaps bad decisions and/or disorganization within his campaign.  I am not indicting anyone in particular, but it is frustrating to see an anti-Iraq War Democratic nominee LOSING to a still pro-Iraq War uncharismatic Lieberman, especially in this climate.

This latest poll is great news, but I still believe that there's a fundamental problem within his campaign and it needs fixing NOW.  Also, why, oh why is the Lamont campaign still begging for money when one of the good things about a Lamont candidacy (so we were told at the beginning) was that he was wealthy enough to self-finance?

I wish Lamont luck, but I have much higher hopes for Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, and Sheldon Whitehouse.  I think Tester and Brwon in particular could change the way the Senate does business.

by jgarcia 2006-10-10 08:41PM | 0 recs
Oh please

...He's also decidely not mealy-mouthed and non-commital like certain other candidates (McCaskill, anyone?)...

Oh please.

Timmeh!

...MR. RUSSERT: Ms. McCaskill, Speaker Hastert said this: "The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros," who's given millions and millions of dollars to Democratic causes. Have any Democratic operatives been involved in spreading this information?

MS. McCASKILL: Tim, as a former prosecutor, I had to handle dozens and dozens of heartbreaking cases where children had been sexually abused, where predators had been doing their work. I know this: that when a 50-year-old man is asking a teenage boy on the Internet for his picture, the response needs to be something other than, "I better go tell the chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee."

Clearly what has happened here is an arrogance of power. It is about holding onto power instead of doing the right thing. And Washington is not working.  This shouldn't be about power. This should be about protecting kids and calling the authorities, calling the Ethics Committee. They didn't even tell the Democrats on the Page Committee. This was about a cover-up.

I think it's wrong. I think it is a great example of how out of touch Washington is, and how they've got their priorities all wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: Should the speaker resign?

MS. McCASKILL: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: But Ms. McCaskill, you did say, and I want to quote this, "This war will not be won on the battlefield, it will be won through sophisticated criminal investigations." Is that your view, that we don't win militarily, that criminal investigations will win the war on terror?

MS. McCASKILL: I believe there are two issues here. One is the war in Iraq, a failed policy where we're mired in a civil war, where we are losing lives every day and innocent Iraqi lives; and then our effort worldwide to begin to be effective against terror. Terrorist cells are popping up. We are creating more terrorists around the world with this failed policy in Iraq. We need to focus on worldwide surveillance, human intelligence, wire surveillance, Internet surveillance, support our intelligence community--clearly, we've had trouble with good intelligence in this administration--and go after terrorists, capture them and hold them accountable. But to mix the two is confusing the American public, trying to confuse the American public, and trying to roll all this in into an election year effort to make Democrats, who want our country to be safe, look weak. And we're not weak.

MR. RUSSERT: But you came out against the president's eavesdropping program.

MS. McCASKILL: I said we should give the president the tools he needs. Only in Washington would they delay and obfuscate for 10 months instead of passing the law that gives the intelligence community the tools they need to catch terrorists.

MS. McCASKILL: Well, you know, we respect the military in Missouri. It is a historic moment in our country, never before in our country, have we seen generals, retired general after retired general that had been on the ground in Iraq, that came out publicly and criticized the commander chief--in chief at the time of conflict. That is unprecedented in our country. Listening to them and realizing that we have not been leveled with, the American people.

And Senator Talent has sat on the Armed Services Committee for four years and is not asking the questions about accountability. We should be saying, "How do we get out of this mess?" Not "This is a good policy, a sound policy, we need to continue down this road."

MR. RUSSERT: You were asked how you would have voted in the Senate in 2002, and you said, "It's not clear to me how I would've voted."

MS. McCASKILL: Well, I'm certainly not going to Monday morning quarterback the senators and congressmen that voted for this war. I've never seen what they saw. Knowing what we know now, absolutely not. And frankly, I'm surprised that Senator Talent would say that knowing what we know now, knowing what is going on in Iraq right now, knowing that we are not more secure and more stable as a result of this conflict, that he agrees that we should repeat that mistake if it came along again.

by Michael Bersin 2006-10-11 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh please

you proved my point.  those are a lot if unnecessary words that drown out her point.  Lamont is WAY more succinct (and, quite frankly, so was Talent during that interview...I saw it).  Lamont's cocksuredness, succinctness, brevity, and making his salient point makes him much much more articulate than most of our candidates runnning.

by jgarcia 2006-10-11 10:41AM | 0 recs
Not exactly

...non-commital...
- yeah, while you're at it, get everyone else to play your version of "Calvinball" political punditry.

It's 27 days to the election - you need to spend your time and energy frying different fish.

by Michael Bersin 2006-10-11 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Not exactly

I respectfully disagree.  THIS is now the time to get our own candidates to clean up their acts and get their shit together.

Claire still has 27 more days to get more forceful.  But if no one tells her, she'll continue being too muddled.  Same thing with Pederson (although compared to him, even Claire looks like a female version of JFK).

I think what we need to be doing now is getting our candidates to do better where they can improve.  That is not attacking.  The failure to tell your candidates where they can improve often results in defeat (see, Kerry, John, 2004).

by jgarcia 2006-10-11 12:03PM | 0 recs
Message Discipline

Message Discipline (as in, you don't have any).

...I think what we need to be doing now is getting our candidates to do better where they can improve...

Your opinion is in a distinct minority when it comes to the debate.

Now, if you have been deeply immersed in the minutiae of this particular campaign, please do enlighten us. We're all waiting for details. On the other hand, if you're sitting in your Barcolounger and pontificating from afar based on your remote control research cruising the cable news network talking heads, I'm not particularly interested.

This place is visited by many people, including a lot of really lazy people who work in what used to be our somewhat competent media (see, the last six years, at least). There are traditional media stenographers afoot who will seize on anything to make the opposition's spin and talking points stick.

Claire McCaskill wiped the floor with Jim "no" Talent on Timmeh!'s television show. No if, ands, or buts.

Now, do you understand?

by Michael Bersin 2006-10-11 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Message Discipline

she utterly failed to answer in any way, shape, or form, Talent's false and misleading accusation that she came out against "interrogating terrorists."  She let it stand.  A charge that is not refuted tends to stick.  She should have said that the US is a nation that does not torture people and we are more civilized than that.  Or whatever, just answer it.

Btw, you got nasty with your last post.  And I cannot take you seriously if you think she wiped the floor with Talent.  It was pretty even.  We don't win much with a pure pep rally situation and yes-men.  In this climate, in MO, she should be up by five points, and you know it.

by jgarcia 2006-10-11 05:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Message Discipline

...Btw, you got nasty with your last post...
And what are all those nice republicans going to do? While we're at it, let's all hold hands and sing songs of brotherhood.

...And I cannot take you seriously if you think she wiped the floor with Talent...
What? You attack the populist political sensibilities of the good people of Missouri?  

...In this climate, in MO, she should be up by five points, and you know it...
Please, by all means, do enlighten us about the present political climate in Missouri.

Thus endeth the lesson, grasshopper.

by Michael Bersin 2006-10-11 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Message Discipline

In this climate, in MO, she should be up by five points, and you know it.

Evidently, at this point, Claire McCaskill is up by 9 points.

There goes your career as a pundit on the Faux News Network. My mistake, that's Roger Ailes on the phone - he needs another handwringing punching bag for one of their concern segments...

by Michael Bersin 2006-10-13 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

where does Ned need to be in order for his ground game to be the clincher in the race? I actually am just curious and figured I would ask here- I have seen some say that he can be down by a few pts and still win becuase his ground game is superior than lieberman- is that true?

by bruh21 2006-10-10 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

What I've heard is that Lamont had a great ground game on primary day and Lieberman's sucked and since then he's lost the support of the unions, which was his only real ground support.

If true, that's terrible for Lieberman as not only did he not have their help anymore, but they're supporting Lamont.

by Quinton 2006-10-10 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

I think lamont needs to be down by at least 5-6, if he feels the CT democratic party GOTV would push him on top.

Now, i dont know how strong the GOTV efford will be on lamont's side, but the fact that lieberman doesnt have one at work, has got to be great news for lamont.

Now,ive heard that lamont has been working and tuning up his GOTV machine and to his credit, all his gatherings and meetings have been very impressive and my thinking is that Lamont will put a lot of his own money on GOTV and if its a smart GOTV that targets well and generate decent numbers to the poll, i think he could pick up at least 2-3% just for his GOTV and the fact that lieberman will not have a decent ground game.

Now, ill give the GOTV 2-3%, which wont be enought if lamont is down by at least 5-6%, but the wild card here is lieberman's position on the ballot and according to expert, a bad position on the ballot could cost at least 2%, therefore, im banking on the position of lieberman + lamont's GOTV to generate at least 5%, therefore, lamont has to be down at least 5%.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-10-10 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

Also, lets not forget a depress republican electorate and you have to suggest that they wont go to the poll in record numbers or at least,they wont do better then the previous year and im praying that this year would be one of the worst year the GOP will ever see, so this is another reason why it might not be so gloomy if lamont is down but he cant be down by more then 5-6.

Anyway, any news on lieberman GOTV and whether republicans will help him create one??..i just cant imagine republicans offiicials going out of their way to help lieberman when they are having so much problem..I know that jody seems to be a shoe in but what about shay and the other 2 incumbents??...you'd think that they wouldnt be time to help lieberman with all their troubles this year.

I heard that lieberman was recruiting people to go to the voting booth and educate people where to look for lieberman??..isnt this illegal, we dont wan lieberkids harrassing people by telling them to vote for liebverman.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-10-10 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

i can't speak to CT, but I can tell you generally what one can and can not do at the polling stations varies. In PA where I worked as poll monitor- what I remember is that none of the partisans could go into the actual voting area with the voters. however, we could hand them flyer stating where on the slot - with the correct order of the candidates- to vote. so he would need peo at areas where he expects to be running well to have them handing out flyers of where he is on the ballot.

by bruh21 2006-10-10 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

I worked polls in CT in the primary, and the rules are pretty much equivalent.  Volunteers for campaigns wait a bit outside the door and talk to people as they're coming in.

On another topic, not to be a downer here, but I think that the power of the "ground game" is overrated--unlike in the 1990s, these days candidates can and do use robocalls for GOTV.  This is why, depite our superior number of volunteers in the primarly, Lieberman did at least a good a job of getting his voters to the polls.

by Go Vegetarian 2006-10-11 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,

ps remember however that my statements are true for what we did in PA- I don't know about CT

by bruh21 2006-10-10 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum,
In Illinois, there is no electioneering within 100 feet of the polls. I beleive most states have similar laws.
by antiHyde 2006-10-11 02:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum, Trails Lieberman

Lieberman is a wolf in independent clothing.

His campaign is run by republican operatives, funded by republican money, staffed by republican sympathizers and his policy positions are more and more aligned with republican policies.

Why doesn't Lamont, the DSCC or a third party group come right out and call him on it in advertisments?

Vote for a sheep and get a wolf.  Vote for Lieberman and get a republican.

by adaplant 2006-10-10 09:09PM | 0 recs
Indie clothing is the uniform of the wolf

Wake a roll call some time of all the moderate, independent, maverick types.

These people carpet bomb American society with so-called maverick bullshit and then ruin everything for their supposed friends.

The center is the biggest lie in American politics.

If you really are in the center, you must have a damned brick for a brain, because few issues are truly centrist.

Centrism is how you get bright ideas like, "Let's fire Rumsfeld but keep turning soldiers into hamburger helping people who hate us."

I'll give Liberman this -- unlike a lot of centrists, when the gloves are off, the mask comes off too.

At the minimum, that makes him better than John McCain.

by jcjcjc 2006-10-10 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains

Man, while this poll has definitely got my hopes a tiny bit higher about this race, as a betting man, I'm still putting my odds on Lieberman.  Lamont's disappearance after the primary was a bad thing.  It let Lieberman run the press and set the tone of the debate.  And there is no way I am going to say that Lieberman doesn't have a ground game.  There are plenty of Republicans who like Joe Lieberman and would probably go to work for him.  

by KC 2006-10-10 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains

I agree that lamont made a huge mistake by relaxing after he won the primary, and till this day, i still cant forgive the lamont's campaign for this...Didnt anyone tell those guys that whwnever you have a giant on his heels, you have to go for the kill?? Lamont had lieberman dead on primary night and he let him get up by allowing him to controll post primary airwaves.

The excuse that im hearing was that lamont had to take a couple weeks off to relax and to retune his message...i just cant accept that....Also, they were rumours that lieberman had bought ad for post primary and this was before primary ad and the specific ad was tailored in a way to make the viewers understand that lamont hasnt done anything and that he's still in it...my question is, why didnt lamont buy some time for post primary night to counter lieberman ad?? lamont should have gone on the air the same night to make sure people know that lieberman lost and that lieberman should drop out of the race.

Lamont made a rookie mistake and i hope he gets throught the weather, but if he doesnt, i hope this would be a lesson to every rookie challenger out there and they should known that whenever you have a career policians on the ropes, you dont give him breathing room to controll the debate...now lamont is habving a tought time to regain controll.

by Maria19Rodriguez 2006-10-10 10:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont Regains Some Momentum, Trails Lieberman

I am not depressed by the numbers we have seen for Lamont.  I may be too optimistic, perhaps.  I believe that the polls will continue to underestimate the likely Lamont performance because they can't factor in certain intangibles: 1) Lamont supporters' fervor, 2) Lieberman's weakness in the ground game, 3) Lieberman's bottommost placement on the ballot, and 4) the accellerating disaster in Iraq, even in the last three weeks of the campaign.

by Dumbo 2006-10-11 02:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont's (D) problem

I've no doubt that many Dems who are going to vote for Lieberman are Jews who like his unwavering support of Israel.

Many here must remember the very ugly op-ed piece in the Washington Post by a rabbi blaming Jews for Lieberman's loss.  Seemed that while a majority of Jews voted for Holy Jew, a sufficient number voted for Lamont to help defeat the hypocrite.

Let's not get into that stuff shall we?  

If I had my druthers, I would play over and over Lieberman condemning negative campaigning and then show Holy Joe doing exactly what the chameleon condemns.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-10-11 03:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont's (D) problem

For the record, exit polls from the primary showed Lieberman winning the Jewish vote by about a 60-40 margin.  A win, but not a total blowout.

by Go Vegetarian 2006-10-11 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont's (D) problem

exit polls from the primary showed Lieberman winning the Jewish vote by about a 60-40 margin.  A win, but not a total blowout.

A plurality of African-American voters nominated a Jew to replace Harold Ford in one of the carved-out minority districts in Tennessee to the consternation of some African-American notables.  

I consider such voting a tribute to the voters of the district as would be the election of Ford as senator from Tennessee.

You can't stop Lieberman from plying his bigoted politics from the wrong side of the street but you can shine the light on the scum that do their best work in the darkness.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-10-11 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Lamont's (D) problem
Wow, my original post must have been troll-rated by someone who misunderstood it. It was not meant as a condemnation of Jews. Just an observation. For the record, many of my Jewish friends are queasy about supporting the Democratic Party because of this. One told me that he voted for Bush over Kerry because he thought Kerry would not defend Israel. This man is repulsed by everything else about Bush and this is his first Republican vote. This is not something that can be swept under the rug by calling it bigotry.
by antiHyde 2006-10-11 09:07AM | 0 recs
Lamont will run final portion well


  1. Better ground game GOTV.
  2. Democrats and Reps come home at or near Election Day; even Schlesinger may get an uptick.
  3. Lieberman's support is based largely on decades of accumulated name ID. When Dems discover how he screwed over the party, they will tend to desert him.
  4. Ballot position is a monster in this particular race because of Reason #3 above. Vote for the first Dem you see. Move on. Nothing more to see here.
  5. If the race transforms completely into a Dem (Lamont) vs. Rep (Lieberman) race, who wins this year in a blue state?

I think he'll get four to six points or so out of that eight point lead on the natural. Outside online help can put him over the top.

But if we sit on our butts, watch OUR guy twist in the wind, what sane person will want the Netroots Kiss of Death ever again?

We owe to ourselves, and to OUR guy, to make this race Job One. Nobody can handicap these races flawlessly, so when in doubt, do what's right.

Beat Holy Joe.
Beat him bad.

by stevehigh 2006-10-11 06:54AM | 0 recs
Hugely important race
Lieberman is going to be a bigger problem than many people seem to realize if he gets reelected.
He's going to claim a mandate as a slayer of partisanship, and use it to bash the Democrats when they attempt to govern from Progressive positions on issues.
Lieberman will be the vanguard of the conservative movement on holding as much policy ground as possible as long as the Democrats control either house of Congress.
by johnalive 2006-10-11 10:25AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads