Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

There was a new Quinnipiac poll released today that included responses from people who had seen the Monday debate, and every single piece of it is bad news.  Lieberman increased his lead from 10 to 17 points, leading 52-37.  Lamont's negatives are up to 36, with positives of only 29.  And Lieberman's positive is 49, and his negatives are only 28.  The debate didn't change many peoples' minds, and though Schlesinger went from 4 in August to 6 in October, it's not clear if he picked up Republican support from Joe or Ned.  In the first district, where Lieberman held a 1 point lead a few weeks ago, Joe has opened a 16 point gap.  It's just brutal, and you can feel the glee emanating from Dr. Doug Schwartz, the Quinnipiac University Poll Director, who mostly despises the Lamont camp for some reason.

"Ned Lamont needed to score a knockout in the debates to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, but he apparently didn't lay a glove on him," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.

"Lamont's negatives are up and he has fallen farther behind in the matchup against Lieberman because of his drop among independent voters and men.

"Observers had speculated that Alan Schlesinger would benefit from the debate exposure and take Republican votes away from Lieberman," Dr. Schwartz added. "Instead, he took Republican votes away from Lamont."

In fact, looking at the numbers from August, mostly what has changed is that Lamont has bled some Democratic support.

Ok.  So why am I not really upset?  Politics is emotional for me, and I go up and down as much as anyone, though I try to keep my analysis accurate.  Well there are a couple of reasons.  One, I've developed a kean respect for Senator Lieberman over the past few months.  The man is completely brilliant, probably the best politician I've ever seen up close.  When he wants something, he goes and gets it.  He's not just a great politician, he's an extremely skilled sociopathic charmer, able to appeal to one's worst instincts while making you feel like he's helping create resolute moral tone.  Lieberman is the consumate small state politician; he has the press here wrapped around his finger, and he is able to create an aura of trust and geniality wherever he goes, even as he calls for regime change in Iran and sends his voters' children to be maimed for his own pride.  It's a stunning feat.  So the challenge is great, and it's not supposed to be easy, because convincing the public that they have been voting for a psychotic man divorced from the consequences of his brutal actions is really tough when that creepy package is delivered in a Happy Meal.

Another reason, and this is more hard-nosed, is that Lieberman has dramatically outspent Lamont on TV, and that's about to change.  The Q-poll doesn't measure intensity of support, and my suspicion is that Lieberman's support is not strong, it is soft.  Most of his voters cite experience as their main reason for supporting him, but that's not the optimal quality to have in a change election year.  The Dodd ad you see above is a salvo aimed at chipping away at the Lieberman softies, and bringing them over to Lamont.  Even though Lamont won the primary, he still faces a question of viability from voters - is he real?  Lieberman has been around for so long, and he was the VP candidate, that it's tough to see Lamont as positive or negative.  People just don't know him.  But Connecticut voters know Chris Dodd, and they like Chris Dodd, who has been around longer than Lieberman and is quite popular.  So this ad, and the ad blitz that's coming, should begin to probe into the soft Lieberman supporters who know him as the guy who was once the VP candidate, but not much more than that.

And then there's Schlesinger.  It's too bad there are only three debates, but he's starting to get air time on local news and he's being quoted in news articles.  It's unlikely he'll stay at 6 percent, since there is a hardcore Republican fringe that hates immigration and Social Security as much as he does and will vote their hearts on election day.

So that's my sense.  What do you think?  I'd appreciate perspective from Connecticut residence, though of course everyone's welcome to chime in.

UPDATE: Colin McEnroe weighs in.

These numbers are not right.

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

Comments

84 Comments

Lieberman is helping the republicans

I wonder what will be said if the republicans take this seat?  Will Lieberman say he is sorry, will Dodd, and Ford and the rest who have got to CT to help Lieberman say they are sorry.

Why don't they see this as a face slap to the Registered voters of CT?

by dk2 2006-10-20 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman is helping the republicans

If Lamont doesn't take the seat, the Republicans will have it one way or the other. If Lieberman gets it, he'll either defect to the GOP or continue to be a thorn in the side of progressives until he dies.

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-10-20 09:49AM | 0 recs
He'll replace Rumsfeld...

...and Jodie Rell will pick some someone like Chris Shays to replace him.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-10-20 09:51AM | 0 recs
Far From From CT

This new TV ads seems to me to work better for Dodd than it does for Lamont.  Dodd has gravitas, the stately hair of wisdom and experience, the girth of a man of substance and a deep voice of authority.  Lamont by contrast is like the little adoring Boy Scout, standing there waiting for the approval of an adult.

It seems the whole ad was constructed as a set up for the clever riff on "So do I", that has been used so well in the Lamont ads, but it is not enough to carry this one to any real effect.  Dodd by himself, speaking to the voters of CT might have worked better.

Overall, as an outsider but occassional contributor, it seems the Lamont campaign has failed to get through the he-is-such-a-good-man veneer Lieberman has hidden behind for his entire career.  Lamont needs to go straight after that persona and do it with substance and hard-hitting, to get beyond the image of the idealist but naive-seeming Boy Scout Lamont has presented so far.

by Arthurkc 2006-10-20 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Far From From CT

Lamont has run hard-hitting and aggressive ads and statements every day for a month going after Lieberman's nice guy veneer.  It'll work.  Just give it time.

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-20 08:37AM | 0 recs
Matt

here is an idea to counter "Negative Ned". How about Lobby-me Lieberman?

by NuevoLiberal 2006-10-20 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Is it just me, or has lamont become more muted since wolfson got there?  that energy that marked the primary has GONE.

wonder why?

by sjs1959 2006-10-20 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

What is with the defeatism?  It's really quite pathetic.

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-20 08:37AM | 0 recs
I agree

Thanks for the reminder.

It really is not over until its over, and there are still more than two weeks left.

If Lamont goes on the air heavy and has the superior ground game, and Schlesinger can pull in a decent minority of Republican voters, it could be enough to close the gap.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-10-20 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Defeatism = bad.
Realism = good.

It isn't over for Lamont, but if you can't recognize the warning signs, look out.

by space 2006-10-20 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll
I sure hope ur right about support.  I think the media (national especially) storyline of Lieberman as a battled independant makes it very hard for lamont to break through in the media.  His only way of changing the framing is through direct communication with the voters - like the debate and commercials.  
A poll about people's reaction to the debates would be quite illuminating i think...
by DanD 2006-10-20 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

As i said immediately following Lamont's primary victory, he is lost the very moment he won the primary.

The reason is very simple. The media defined him as a wild 'cut and run' liberal with the aid from GOP.  GOP has no credible candidate and a gambler is going nowhere in spite of his debate performance. I highly doubt people will take him seriously.

It's a failure of netroots' rigid ideology of pushing so called 'progressive' value. Lamont's stunning defeat only means one thing: Netroots can win primary but they can not win a general election because of the extreme leftist views on national security, taxes etc.
 

by iceberg 2006-10-20 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

An eight-month campaign is not won or lost at one moment.  

"It's a failure of netroots' rigid ideology of pushing so called 'progressive' value. Lamont's stunning defeat only means one thing: Netroots can win primary but they can not win a general election because of the extreme leftist views on national security, taxes etc."

I guess Tester's not going to win in Montana, eh?

Take it to redstate, iceberg.

by RickD 2006-10-20 08:32AM | 0 recs
the kiss

It seems to me that the big thing Lieberman achieved was a take-down of that kiss image.  At first when Lamont hit him with that approach, Lieberman seemed really defensive, but he pivoted to a much more aggressive stance.  And now he doesn't even flinch when that tactic is used.  Especially in the recent debate with 5 candidates on stage--it just seemed like that initial stark image had been effectively debunked.  After that, I think Lamont has been having  hard time making the case as to what the choice is exactly.  

Also, I think Lamont suffered a bit from a lack of authenticity in the debates.  Of all I have have heard from Lamont over this camaign--interviews, speeches, etc.--I've felt he was at his most authentic when talking about Teddy Roosevelt as a political influence.  For some reason, he went into the debates without that authentic narrative.  I just wonder if a fundamental error in the debate strategy was to overprep Lamont in a way that suffocated his real voice.  I don't blame anyone, here.  This has been a really tough challenge.  And like you said, Lieberman has that Happy Meal thing going for him which is hard to beat.

I hope there's still one more untapped reserve of idealism left in CT voters--that they suddenly wake up and realize that Lieberman is the problem.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-20 08:28AM | 0 recs
Authenticity

I agree on that point. One thing I noticed in the debates was Lamont still seemed like he was giving a prepared stump speech, whereas the other candidates (particularly Schlesinger, but also Lieberman), seemed as if they were speaking directly and off-the -cuff. Simply more naturally.

That said, I don't know if the debates have had anything to do with this. I think it's more about the money and machine politics of a state like CT. Lierberman redefined himself after the primary loss. He had the money to do it, and Lamont's inactivity after the primary ensured that Lieberman was successful at it.

by LiberalFromPA 2006-10-20 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Authenticity

I hope that's the case, because that would mean that a few weeks of "machine"  politics in favor of Lamont, and we should be back on top.

I also think that Lamont really benefited from being in the national spotlight.  He did great when he was the big national story--absolutely great.  But when he was sharing the "big story" status with 'macaca' and Foley etc.--I think some of the steam let out of the race and maybe voters just reverted to form a bit.  

Who knows.  I still think Lamont can pull it out and that historians will be writing about this race for a long, long time to come.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-20 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Authenticity

I agree that Lamont hasn't come over well in the debates -- including those in the primary.  He still has the deer in the headlights look about him.  

Another thing I have noticed is the way he constantly says "I think" -- it takes away from the air of authority he needs to cultivate.  It makes him sound deferential.  He needs to loose those two words and just state his positions as though they are "fact." In fact, it would be better if he replaced "I think" with "the fact is."

Finally, the elephant.  I wonder to what degree anti-war independents (and there are a lot of them) were turned off by the Jane Hamsher - Lieberman in blackface fiasco a little more than a week before the primary.  Add that to Joe's pandering to latent racist Sharpton fears....(are you a Bill Clinton Dem or an Al Sharpton Dem?)  

by daimones 2006-10-20 12:16PM | 0 recs
Deer in the headlights

I tried to watch the debate replay last night objectively. Deer in the headlights fits as well as anything in regard to Lamont. He's simply not special enough and there's no use overanalyzing this race or being frustrated by it. Mediocre candidates are not birthrighted to win simply because we despise the opponent.

Matt detailed Lamont's poor favorable/unfavorable number. I've also seen a poll indicating the majority of Lieberman's supporters are voting for him while Lamont's backers are primarily anti-Joe. That's a common trend among recent Democratic elections, and it is so moronic and fundamentally flawed and non-foundational I can't believe we allow it to flourish.

No one is magneted to, "I hate this guy, please join me!" Just like a crowd is not going to follow you if you tell them the ugliest person you've ever seen is down the street. But tell them a Jessica Alba or a George Clooney is there and you've got an impromtu sprint.

Perhaps this will be a not-so-cheap lesson to the progressive netroots, to identify superior candidates who can earn high approval and vote-for numbers, and therefore victory. More Jon Testers.

Luckily the recruiting committees did isolate many terrific candidates this cycle. While watching the House debates on C-SPAN I often don't know the poll numbers, but get an impression of how competent each candidate is. Almost without exception, once I check the polling it makes sense in regard to the caliber of our nominee. Let's not pretend our inferior candidates will pull miracles. A wave does not rescue a drunken bum. It makes him drown perhaps a bit closer to shore than normal.

by Gary Kilbride 2006-10-20 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

This is one of the nicey nice ads that a guy who knows he lost but doesn't want to cause too much bitterness might run down the stretch.

Absolulely zero chance it effects this election enough to make a difference... Although I want to vote for Dodd now..

by CH Truth 2006-10-20 08:28AM | 0 recs
Blew it.

What the hell is going on up there?  It seems like all of the momentum died after the primary, the big name Democrats sat on the fence for too long, and Lamont just isn't hitting hard enough.  I understand the part about Lieberman controlling the media, but really, it comes off sounding like a cheap excuse.

Also, that Dodd ad could be so much better, as Arthurkc said.

by RisingSign 2006-10-20 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Blew it.

the big-name Democrats don't give a crap about Lamont.  That's been clear from the get-go.  They're far too worried that Joe will win and defect to the GOP.  

by RickD 2006-10-20 08:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Blew it.
"the big-name Democrats don't give a crap about Lamont."  Perhaps you saw this at the begining but for some reason many bloggers here did not and thought the party would rally around Lamont.  My guess is Lieberman wins by about 10%, he will causcus with the Democrats, it would not surprise me at all if he even serves as a Democrat not even as an independent, and yes he will keep his senority and become a committee chair if the Democrats takes the Senate
and that primary will be a footnote in history.
by THE MODERATE 2006-10-20 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Blew it.

Hey, I still hope Lamont can pull it off, but I imagine that the Senate Dems are already imagining a way to appease Lieberman and keep him on our side of the aisle (to the extent that's even possible).

by RisingSign 2006-10-20 09:17AM | 0 recs
sat on the fence too long

Dodd is two months late with this ad. DC Dems did nothing for Lamont after the primary. Now the MSM narrative is that Lieberman is winning--it's too late for this to help.

I am despondent about this race. I never dreamed that Lieberman would be viable in the general campaign if he lost the primary. At least if he'd won the primary he would owe more to Dems. Now he will flip to the GOP for sure.

I am praying for a miracle whereby we pick up 7 other seats so that Lieberman doesn't matter.

by desmoinesdem 2006-10-20 08:43AM | 0 recs
If Lamont Loses, Here's why

It's really basic - regular people (not activists, not poli-nerds, not the blogosphere) do not care for partisanship, and are very attracted to people who project themselves as above the fray.

Not only do they not despise Lieberman (they could care less), but they really see him (silly as that is) as "independent."

This is why Perot was strong, this is why Ventura won, this is why a mythical fire-breathing hard core partisan Democratic national candidate would fail....unless you want to imitate Rove's base-only 50% plus one strategy.   Which is not stable long term....

This is why the "center", real or imagined, will always be the best place to be i.e. winning races.

by Andmoreagain 2006-10-20 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Lamont hasn't changed, the campaign hasn't changed, the people in CT and countrywide hate this war. The polls are never going to be accurate because it's a strange contest. It's good to tie Lieberman to the war and Bush. It's true and it works.  

The only change to the campaign I would like is to bring in the establishment Dems for ads and earned ads in the pro-Lieberman papers. All those Dems who said they support Lamont should show up.

by mrobinsong 2006-10-20 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I just cannot believe that only 7 percent of Republicans will vote for their Party's nominee, instead abandoning him for a guy who used to be the VP nominee of the other Party -- especially since Schlesinger appears to be serious and articulate.

The polls are wrong.

by Kimmitt 2006-10-20 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I don't believe the Q-Poll and it's clear that the polls are all over the map. It's a bit disheartening to see Matt admiring the art of deception and manipuulation in politics. Sociopathy is a disease of the soul, a lack of conscience. I see no cause for admiration in it. I will support candidates who have conscience and who run because of conscience whether they are first or last in the polls.

by cmpnwtr 2006-10-20 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I don't admire it, but I do respect it.

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-20 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I cant respect it either. If he wasnt so boneheaded, he wouldn't have lost the primary. Leading by 10 points with the backing of the ruling party and the lack of real opposition from your own party and you are an 18 year incumbent is not impressive to me. He has committed missteps throughout the campaign. Sure, he has done a pretty good job at recovering from the primary debacle. But he is still providing a lot of moments one could use against him. It's too bad the Lamont campaign hasn't used that to make the points obvious to the general populace. They got another month.

I am still optimisitc. But I still have to vent.

by Pravin 2006-10-20 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I thought you said the Q-Poll was taken before the debate?

by js noble 2006-10-20 08:57AM | 0 recs
I think Lamont is screwed.

Maybe Lamont can close the gap somewhat, but he's still going to lose.

And the reasons is not because of TV ads. It's because national democrats who might make a diefefrence are shunnihg Ned and won't capaign for him. Chris Dodd being the lone exception.

How about a visit from Bill Clinton? Barack Obama? Al Gore?

Al Gore showing up and campaigning for Lamont especially would send a message.

Democrats see Joe as a "safe bet." And many are sticking with him becaus ethey blieve he's going to caucus with the Democrats and not sell them out.

Sadly, Lamont hasn't attacking Joe for that enough. And Lamong is LOSING among Democratic women@!

Where's the abortion ad? Where's the Ad with Michale Schaivo blasting Joe for messing with his family?

I love Bill Hillsman, but he's got no killer instinct. Or maybe that's all Lamont's fault?

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-10-20 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I think Lamont is screwed.

The no-emergency-contraception ad would be really effective, I think, but of course that's easy to say when I'm not the guy making decisions.

And yeah, one ad with Clinton, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Dodd, and Gore all just saying: "I'm Bill Clinton, I endorse Ned Lamont. If you oppose this failed war and the failed Bush administration, vote Lamont," would do tremendously well, I think.

by BingoL 2006-10-20 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Let me suggest some perspective from Connecticut.  Ned's campaign has been pretty much gone dark since the primary.  And because of this, the media has not been pressured to make Lieberman develop a narrative for his independent campaign.  Which he cannot do--he's on the wrong side of the issues and he can't maintian this precarious position of pulling votes from both Democrats and Republicans.  This seems to be changing with the debate and the post-debate media, which has clearly gone against Lieberman.  But will there be enough time for this to sink into low-information voters, who Lieberman is absolutely depending on to maintain his lead?

One question I have is this:  how has the Republican leadership been able to suppress Republican support for Schlesinger to this degree?  The gambling story has been off the air for a long time, and it's hard to see how even that story could drop his numbers to single digits.  Even low-info Republican-ID voters should have Schlesinger at least in double digits, right?  

by justinh 2006-10-20 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I've asked this question on other blogs and haven't gotten an answer yet:  I don't understand polling procedure, but it looks suspicious to me that this poll started before the debates and ended (my guess, after ridicule) after the first debate.  It included a question re: the first debate.  Isn't there something off about combining pre and post debate info?

And, I'm not giving up on Ned.

by gchaucer2 2006-10-20 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

My guess is the pollester had scheduled the poll during a three day period before the debate was scheduled, or before they realized it was.  They probably did not think the debate would have much impact on the voters and I think they are right so they did not change there dates.

by THE MODERATE 2006-10-20 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

This poll smells fishy to me, especially since its producer is so obviously biased. I'm gonna wait for the next one before I accept that Lieberman's lackluster performance at the debates actually helped him this much.

by Covin 2006-10-20 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I think the Q pollster has been far off other polls.  The reason I think is bias by the  pollster.  I don't believe this poll.  Ned is behind but not by that much.

Second I think that if people want Ned to win they need to pressure the big guns and particularly the Big Dog to go campaign for Ned and cut a commercial for Ned.  

Ned started laying back on primary night when he didn't demand that Lieberman withdraw and he's laid back for too long.  People should call Hillary's office and even Bill's office to insist that the netroots will be very grateful if they are more obvious in helping Ned.

by debcoop 2006-10-20 09:27AM | 0 recs
Respecting lack of conscience?

"I don't admire it, but I do respect it."

by Matt Stoller on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:58:21 PM EST

Respecting lack of conscience, lack of integrity??
Strange.... There's too much of that in the world of politics. That's why the repugs are in power.

by cmpnwtr 2006-10-20 09:04AM | 0 recs
responding as someone

who thought that was a great line in this post:

I think you're being too simplistic in you reading of that remark.  It reminded me of the way ConEd workers talk about electricity:  Either you respect it or electricity will kill you.

I don't think any of us admire Joe Lieberman in the sense of wanting to be him.  But if we are honest with ourselves, we have to acknowledge that Lieberman has a set of skills here that must to be respected--or he will kill us in this election.  

Frankly, what I'm tired of is the kind of Progressive campaigns where everyone thinks that we're going to surf to victory on our passion and moral stance alone.  The Lamont team tapped into passion, but they also leveraged a great deal of political skill--and it's that realistic fight that I saw acknolwedged in the line about "kean" respect for Lieberman.  Not a confession of wanting to become like Joe, but an actual true acknowledgement that this is a real race that is taking real hard political moves to win.  And when we do win, it will be because we rose to that challenge.

I think on occasion we all take shots at Stoller's writing, but in this instance--that passage is worth re-reading as it is making a very, very valuable point that Progressives should take to heart if  we want to be in this for the long haul.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-20 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I grew up in CT, my parents still live there. My mother's involved in Hadassah (the group, not the wife), and they're very much a part of the Jewish community. My mother despises Lieberman, though my father's been on the fence (despises Lieberman, but finds Lamont's ads lightweight and a little insulting).

My mother got a call from another old Jewish lady, who was doing something for Lieberman, and said: "Well, we all love Lieberman, so I'm--"

And my mother said: "I don't love him. I hate him. I love Dodd. I still haven't forgiven Lieberman for what he did to Weicker."

But it's the old Hadassah ladies, I think, who, being so proud to see a nice Jewish boy (read: the consummate k'nocker) as the VP candidate and such, simply can't vote against him.

Dodd's a great way to peel off some of that support. But you know who'd drive a stake through the heart of Joe Lieberman? Rabbi Harold Kushner, of When Bad Things Happen to Good People. Sure, he's in MA, but that's close enough.

Even better would be Elie Wiesel. He supported the war, and I hope he's regretting that and willing--unlike Joe--to admit his mistake. He came out against the Torture Bill, if I remember right. I don't knowif he ever endorses, though.

Well. I just got off the phone with someone at his foundation: Wiesel tries to stay apolitical, speaking about issues, not specific races. But damn, wouldn't that be nice, if someone from the Lamont campaign contacted him with a request for an endorsement--or not an endorsement, but a renunciation of some of Joe's positions--Iraq, torture--to be used in an ad. That'd shift the Jews overnight.

Still, maybe Kushner would be easier ...

by BingoL 2006-10-20 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

This campaign has had me totally befuddled since the primary ended, so I appreciate any "inner" information like this - thank you.  And your Kushner/Wiesel idea is intriguing, and perhaps falls along the same lines as that anti-torture billboard the religious group put up recently.  (By the way, has anyone heard whether that billboard has had any noticeable effect in CT, positive or negative?)

by SteveMD04 2006-10-20 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Well, I'm here in CT and I must say I'm a bit rattled by the Q-poll...I'd heard the news would be depressing, but I didn't expect it to be this depressing. At the same time I'm hearing what those here and elsewhere are saying about how Doug Schwartz cannot be trusted and how a pre-primary Q-poll was off by double digits, and it makes me want to avoid polls altogether from now until the election. Q-poll's services have been relied upon quite a bit around here for years, and it sickens me to think I can't even trust this.  I can at least say this...I'm pretty confident that there is not only 6 percent of this population that will vote Republican down the party line on election day.

I'm hopeful, but I have to say that I've also heard that it's these small town DTC's we have here that are backing Joe like lapdogs, and they can sure add up...you know, he's been around for a long time, he's done lots of favors for people, and lots of people feel warmly towards him, if not downright obligated. One of our local legislators who is supporting him had a quote on Joe's site that went something like: "I'm supporting Joe because I'm his friend and I owe it to him". Great endorsement. I believe that in the end, if Joe wins, it would surely be partly because of his sleight of hand with voters, but I really think it would be largely due to good ole fashioned political maneuvering.

That said, I do believe that we can win this in CT, and I am still expecting a Lamont win in November. This race has historically been difficult to capture in polls, and I see no need to allow one poll, possibly an inaccurate one, to dishearten me.

by lkmcland 2006-10-20 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I think the QU poll is accurate.  The outlying numbers in the primary that everyone is discussing refers to the 54-41.  Most other polls were showing a fairly similar 10-point spread.  (My gut tells me Ned is down by 14.)  Although Schwartz has an editorial bias in favor of Lieberman, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that this affects the numbers/methodology of the polling institute.

I get the same sense about why people are continuing to support Lieberman.  And nothing is going to change their minds.  I'd say the low-info voters are the ones Ned needs to reach, and I hope the coming ad blitz does the trick.

by justinh 2006-10-20 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

It is really inexcusable that many Democrats are sitting back and letting Lamont get hosed.

I don't think the numbers matter that much, frankly.  It is about appearances.  Lieberman has been able to maintain the fiction that a vote for either him or Lamont would be a vote for a Democrat.  He has been able to maintain that fiction because, while Lamont has gotten isolated support, there has been no clear consensus within the party to back Lieberman.

I don't care if Lieberman is ahead by 5 points or 25 points.  That support would vaporize overnight if the party leaders unequivocably supported Lamont.  If there was massive condemnation of Lieberman.  There would be a tipping point as the conventional wisdom shifted that Joementum is NOT a Dem.

I really, really, really find it demoralizing that the leadership is so stupid, cowardly, incompetent, or self-absorbed that they can't even punish a primary loser who has no shame about bashing his own party.  I really hope that any Democratic officials or staffers who read this understand that letting Joementum kick sand in your face has consequences far beyond CT.  

People don't want to vote for a party with no spine.  They don't want to contribute.  Or volunteer for their campaigns.  Or defend their actions.  Or be registered in the party.

by space 2006-10-20 09:14AM | 0 recs
For what it's worth

Look, I was the last person on the Lamont bus, so if you want to discount everything I say here, feel free.  But tactics matter, and that's what caused where we are now.  

Lamont started losing the night of the primary through the following two weeks, during which time:

  • Lamont didn't push for Lieberman to leave the race
  • National Democrats didn't push for Lieberman to leave the race
  • Lamont didn't effectively paint Lieberman as a "sore loser" and peel off as much of his Democratic support as possible.
As to how much of this is Lamont's fault and how much is the fault of unnamed national Democratic leaders who may have promised him that "if you stay quiet, we'll edge him out," well, we don't know.

We also don't know how much of Tom Swan's "we don't want the 2008 candidates here" was the truth, and how much of it was face-saving talk when met with their reluctance to piss off Lieberman.

Listen: if this were any other Dem challenger who only had a 55-36 percent lead among Dems against an eighteen-year-incumbent, we'd all be abandoning this race right now and focusing elsewhere.

But this race is different, both in terms of what it means to the netroots and to the country.  The Dodd ad is a good start to bringing Democrats back in the fold; I think the rest has to turn on Lieberman's character, or lack thereof.  Hit him where he thinks he's strongest.

by Adam B 2006-10-20 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I'm a voter in CT, and I agree with the earlier comment about the Lamont campaign going dark after the primary.  It seemed that nothing came out of the Lamont campaign for weeks, while it was nothing but Joe in the news, and Joe in the ads.  I detest Lieberman, but my guess the reason he is so far ahead is because he's banking on his name recognition and the fact that most of the public doesn't follow politics THAT closely.  So they don't see the hypocrisy or the self-righteous moral superiority, or any of the other characteristics and behaviors that infuriate so many Democrats.  "He's experienced.  He's done a lot for the state.  I don't know anything about Lamont."  Some of this might have been offset by a more aggressive Lamont campaign in late August and September, but now it seems late.

by CTvoter 2006-10-20 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

CTvoter,

I think you're exactly right.

by justinh 2006-10-20 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I agree with the bit about electricity. You have to respect a skillfull opponent's skills if you want to defeat him.

You could say-- some of  you do say-- that various DC Dem officials with national profiles have avoided this race since the primary because they're apathetic, or hate the netroots, or want to preserve their personal friendships with the sociopathic Joementum.

But many DC Dems have a more creditable reason: there are a lot of elections coming up in a lot of states, many of which give Dems the chance to defeat Republicans. Every minute Russ Feingold or John Edwards spends on CT-Sen is a minute Feingold or Edwards isn't spending on TN-Sen or VA-Sen. Much as I want Joe to go, I'm not sure I'd want to direct national energy to CT if it meant directing energy away from those races at this time.

by accommodatingly 2006-10-20 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

What everyone seems to be missing is that Lamont's debate persona is awful! He looks tense, beady-eyed, and unable to smile or laugh. This is why his numbers tanked, and it's nothing to do with the substance of anyone's positions. It's a damn tragedy that Lieberman's main talent is to appear relaxed, friendly, avuncular and mellow.

by Lew Beach 2006-10-20 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll
Lieberman comes across worse than Henry Gibson http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002099/.
In his best moments, he comes across like
Ben Gazzara http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001262/
by Pravin 2006-10-20 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I think we have to win this race - period.

However, I live on the wrong coast to help in the usual way, so I was wondering...

Has anyone heard or seen whether MoveOn or the Lamont campaign itself has set up the "remote phone banking" setup for his campaign that they have in place presently for a slew of other campaigns?  I could give a half hour to an hour each night between now and election day to dailing for Ned, if I knew where to get started.

by palamedes 2006-10-20 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Phone banking for Ned

I've heard only of the remote phone banking going on at MoveOn.org, could they possibly be working with the Lamont campaign too? I haven't checked it out to see. They are doing many House races and some Senate races:
http://pol.moveon.org/phone/volunteer/c4 c.html?rc=mydd

But if not, why not contact the Lamont people and ask if you can do this? Maybe they can right now, or maybe if enough people across the country contact them, they can set something up:
http://nedlamont.com/contact

For those in CT, the Lamont campaign will mail post cards from you to your neighbors, friends, family, etc., encouraging a vote for Ned. I've used it, don't know how effective it will be, but I think it's an inspired idea.
http://www.familyfriendsandneighbors.com

by lkmcland 2006-10-20 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

"Frankly, what I'm tired of is the kind of Progressive campaigns where everyone thinks that we're going to surf to victory on our passion and moral stance alone."

What the American people have judged of progressives  is that we don't have a moral stance. And they are right.  When we are clear what we are about, and present that clarity, people will trust us. What I don't admire and I don't respect is skill at the service of amorality and lack of integrity. That simply breeds the kind of cynicism that is prevalent in the political culture at the present time. Joe Lieberman should go because he is amoral, he is about ingratiating himself to power for power's sake. There are no skills to be respected that are put at the service of that kind of ethos, or lack of it.

Where the progressive camp has failed is to articulate a moral vision of relational community where the right has propagated a pseudo-morality of isolated individual propriety or individual "salvation" without community or any sense of responsibility to community. An ethos of community is firmly rooted in the prophetic biblical prophetic tradition, as well as the other major religious and secular traditions of the globe. If we can't articulate and practice that ethos in the political realm, if we can't hold accountable hacks like Joe Lieberman, that we should fold up our tents and go home.

by cmpnwtr 2006-10-20 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

What the American people have judged of progressives  is that we don't have a moral stance. And they are right.

Nah.  That's a load of hooey. The American public is just beginning to see the Progressive movement. They barely know wht the word means.  I'd say switch the channel to something other than CNN if you want to rid yourself of the Republican spin that Democrats "stand for nothing."

Standing for something and running good campaign tactics--from the candidate down to the grassroots--is not in any way a contradiction as your comment implies.  We aren't immoral if you we run good campaigns.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-10-20 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Actually Lamont has been pretty clear what he stands for. What his campaign has failed to do is counter the 18 year old incumbency factor of Lieberman aggressively enough.

Lamont has been clear what he stood for. He just needs to be persuasive enough to stop people from remaining in denial with old uncle joe.

by Pravin 2006-10-20 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

It proves netroots' ability to win primary based on rigid ideology.

It also proves netroots' inability to win general election based on rigid ideology.

Face it. Hillary, as a centralist, will win.

by iceberg 2006-10-20 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

We haven't lost anything yet. The poll has several problems, most of all that it doesn't include the second primary, and the inclusion of the first is highly questionable, given the public statements we've seen about the timing of the release of this poll.
 
That said, you don't see the fallacy in your third statement? If the netroots can win a primary based on ideology, Hillary can't get past the primary season. Better believe that progressives are numerous enough and disgusted enough with Hillary's constant rightward triangulation to stick that knife in. That kind of Liebermanesque faux-centrism we can do without. Bill Clinton has a moral center. Hillary Clinton, in her public actions, would seem to be a more politically astute Lieberman.

Aside from that, I still haven't seen Hillary say she's interested, quite frankly. It'll be such a shitstorm for her in this mostly conservative traditional media environment, and she won't get the kind of netroots backup that John Kerry saw.  And her Senate constiuents genuinely seem to like her.

I know, don't feed the concern trolls...

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-10-20 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Deval Patrick Says hi.

From your neighbor up north: Deval is crushing Kerry Healy in the general. Deval was a grassroots/netroots progressive candidate who was not expected to even make it out of the primary. He won the primary in a landslide.

How do you like them apples?

by Copley 2006-10-20 10:02AM | 0 recs
Hates "immigration"?

there is a hardcore Republican fringe that hates immigration

Around 75% of voters - across the ideological spectrum - oppose illegal immigration.

But, feel free to portray widely-popular opposition to illegal immigration to illegal immigration as hatred of immigration, since that's obviously a sure way to win elections as the Lamont results show.

by TheLonewackoBlog 2006-10-20 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hates "immigration"?

I agree. I am a Lamont supporter, but I am not with the current status quo on illegal immigration.

by Pravin 2006-10-20 10:21AM | 0 recs
You cannot throw in the towel based on a Q-poll.

It is my un-informed opinion that the Lamont campaign was saving the media blitz for this period, when it will do the most good.  

I think saving Dodd was fine too.  It is easy to wear out any visual endorsement, and this gives Joe less time to try to smear Dodd.  I thought it took stones for Dodd to do the ad.  I salute him for it.  

What the ad does is it allows Ned to look green but that's OK next to a senior senator.  It puts him in perspective in a good way I think.

Not sure what 'Lamont..' on the caller ID does to skew who picks up the phone, but for every door and phone call I've done, it all brings things much closer to even than these polls have said.  

If Ned goes balls out in front of the camera, or at least as good as he was on Colbert, he'll do better.   He does come off as honest if not polished.  He does better every time he's up.

by drowsy 2006-10-20 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

My earlier question may have been buried in my comment, but here it is again: How has the Republican Party been so successful at suppressing Schlesinger's numbers?  The gambling story has been off the radar for months, and even low-info Republican-ID voters should at least have Schlesinger in the single digits.  So what's going on?  For a major party candidate, 6% is a mystery--Schelsinger didn't have a dead hooker in his trunk.

by justinh 2006-10-20 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

I mean should have him at least in the "double digits."  Oops.

by justinh 2006-10-20 10:02AM | 0 recs
Republicans are lemmings.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-10-20 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

He's gotten zero press and no TV exposure in a (supposedly) blue state -- the question is, how would the low-info voters know about him? If he's really going to have actual ads on TV, as he's claimed, this will probably change.

by lightyearsfromhome 2006-10-20 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

Low-info voters would know about him simply as the "Republican candidate" when polled.  So, even without media, I'm perplexed by his numbers being this low.  (But if he does manage to get on the air,  I imagine you're right about his numbers going up.)

by justinh 2006-10-20 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

No but he does have some legal issues facing him, he has civil charges about some large unpaid gamling debts and he faces some criminal charges about gambling under a false name.  The GOP did not vest him and when these charges became public the GOP tried to force him to step down and he refused the GOP establishment has disowned him and to most voters in Connecticut that is all they know of him.

by THE MODERATE 2006-10-20 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

I really don't think he faces civil charges, and certainly not criminal ones.  And although the GOP made public his gambling habits, it wasn't a sustained front-page story.  And as we have seen lately, Republican candidates have been involved in real corruption scandals, even facing indictment, yet have higher polling numbers among party voters.

by justinh 2006-10-20 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

All I said was he faces the charges though I should have said they were potential ones, and it could be added he is also being investigated on tax charges as well.  The candiate story is he did not knowingly break any laws and that while gambling under a false name is a crime it is one which is often broken.  And you are correct there are more serious offenses by people who are polling higher, but in this cituation his party has disowned him no major Republican offical either state or national is backing him and because they have also not given him any money he is on a shoe string of a budget he has not been able to fight the charges.  All the average Republican or Independent voter has heard of the guy is about his gambling issues.  The state GOP who has money and a popular Governor running for Re-election is saying is we asked him to bow out of the race so we could find a more suitable candidate, I suspect Shays or Nancy Johnson, and he rufused and we are washing our hands of him.  The DNC on the other hand finds it amusing that he is in double figures and they are not going to help him either.

by THE MODERATE 2006-10-20 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The Biggest Mystery

There's no mystery at all. The Republicans HAVE a candidate and his name is Joe Lieberman!

Most Republicans know that they can't elect a conservative Republican in CT. Gov. Jodi Rell is a moderate, who would probably be a Democrat if she ran anywhere outside the N.E.

Lowell Weicker, Lieberman's predecessor was actually more liberal than Lieberman (it was a mistake I deeply regret voting for Lieberman to unseat Weicker, but I wanted to get rid of Republicans any way possible).

So, Republicans have made a conscious decision to back Joe. They'll be celebrating on election day, when otherwise they would be defeated.

1/2 of them think Joe will switch parties (which of course might happen). The other half just want to put a fork in a "librul".

But, Lamont only has himself to blame for taking that friggin' vacation after the primary and allowing Joe to rebound from his primary defeat.

He's acted like the invisible man for months and now it's too late.

Even if that poll is wrong, Lamont is down by at least 10 points. He probably needs to be within about 5 points on election day so that his superior ground game, plus Joe's soft support, and any last minute surge by Schlesinger either due to his debate/advertising/position at the top of the ballot can combine to put Lamont in office.

Right now it doesn't look like he's going to get there.

by Cugel 2006-10-20 01:15PM | 0 recs
Kerry pulled even with Bush after 1st debate

...in 2004.

He was down by 6 points in the previous poll, and by 12 in the one before that.

The Denate moved people to Lieberman, that's all. I think the next two debates were better for Lamont and may actually swing things a little more back to Lamont. But I still think LIeberman's in a commanding position going down the stretch.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2006-10-20 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

I've given all the money I can, I live 1200 miles away, and I'm working for the Dems in my area. Is there anything more we can do?

If there is, let's do it but otherwise...

...we're dead.

by MNPundit 2006-10-20 10:28AM | 0 recs
Check out Colin McEnroe's column today on the poll

"These numbers are not right, in my opinion.  I'm working on a new piece about Schlesinger for Salon, and I'll explain more in that."

http://blogs.courant.com/colin_mcenroe_t o_wit/

by Joe Scordato 2006-10-20 10:35AM | 0 recs
Taking a freaking break from politics today

I am actually still very optimistic. I will never give up hope until the end. But that doesn't change the fact that I am pretty upset today and close to devastated by this news even taking into account the timing of the poll. If I don't detach myself from this, I will be posting comments all day.
The last time I felt this awful was when Bush got reelected. But I could at least forsee Kerry blowing that. I am just pissed off and disappointed at how Lieberman can look so silly in his appearances to us, but somehow , it translates better to your average voter. I am just pissed that DC Dems do not give a shit about long term strategy. They may not need us directly for each and every election. But it is in their interests to have a passionate base that would go to fight for them. Do you think I will care if the Clintons get unfairly attacked again by the likes of the idiots who made that PAth to 9-11? Do you think I will care if Pelosi or Boxer gets demonized by the right wingers? Let them twist in the wind. F*** 'em. When Reid gets attacked by the right wingers, let him fight his own battles. Karma is a bitch of a payback.

Monday, I will resume afresh with a more positive attitude. Are there any democratic senators left from Georgia(i never got involved locally in Georgia. All I know about are the civil rights leaders)? I am a lousy phone banker. But if there is any help people need crunching demographic numbers or analysing data, I am there. This is probably the busiest time for me ever in my professional life, but I value a  Lamont win to be crucial to the direction of politics in the Dem party. I am going to drown my sorrows and go to the Steelers game this Sunday and hope they give me some mental relief with a win.

by Pravin 2006-10-20 10:47AM | 0 recs
I know

I know what I will do. I don't have to call just GA politicians. I will start calling the offices of prominent democrats all over the country and bug them why they are not endorsing Lamont to a stronger extent. My dad actually donated to Hillary. Maybe I can use that as an excuse to lambast her office(as if they will care. but maybe if a bunch of us do it, it may have some indirect effect). We need every little edge we can get.

by Pravin 2006-10-20 10:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Matt, if you're still in CT and would like an excellent example of the diversity of the electorate in the state, take a walk around Chesire.  There you will find a town with many  blue collar longtime residents, a prep school, and upper middle class suburbia.  

by 1970cs 2006-10-20 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: New Q-Poll

Many comments on what Lamont should have done after the primary, but, well, that was months ago.  I'd like to see people thinking what they/Lamont can do now.

For one, don't buy that poll.  It's way too big a change for what's happening on the ground and the coverage of the debates in the press that I've seen.  

And that poll includes data from before and after the debate, which makes it quite conflicted, shall we say.

And enough with the negativity already, be objective at least, you know, we're losing based on one crappy poll, but as someone noted above, polls aren't votes.

Schlesinger is going to get more votes than any of the polls suggest, and Lamont is going to kick Liebermans traitorous ass!

Now get busy.  I've been pushing Senator Boxer daily to make up for campaigning for Lieberman, if she shows up some way in CT, you can thank me and anybody else who wrote her.

by Duckman GR 2006-10-20 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Dodd is a very smart and calculated politician.  Whatever his reasoning was for making this commercial, the main one has to be he believes that Lamont can win.  I can't believe he would lend his public support if he thought otherwise.

by 1970cs 2006-10-20 01:32PM | 0 recs
One thing that doesn't make sense


  Consider four senators. Like Joe Lieberman, they're incumbents up this year -- George Allen, Jim Talent, Conrad Burns, Mike DeWine.

 All four occupy more or less the same ideological space Joe Lieberman does.

 And all four are in trouble -- locked in tight, close races. Despite all four being in red states.

 So why isn't this backlash affecting Joe Lieberman -- in a state much less conservative than Virginia, Missouri, Montana or Ohio?

 It just doesn't add up. What kind of pixie dust does Lieberman sprinkle on himself?

by Master Jack 2006-10-20 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: One thing that doesn't make sense

For the same reason that Romney is Gov in Massachusetts, or Jodi Rell is the Rep Gov in Connecticut.  Or why are both Senators from N.H. and Maine are Republican.  Or why Chaffee is a Rep from the state that has a 75% disapproval of Bush.

None of the New England states are red.  New England in general is fiscally conservative, socially liberal.  

by 1970cs 2006-10-20 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

Matt Stoller:

So you say Quinnipiac University isn't a reliable source of polls, and a couple days ago you said Zogby isn't a reliable source of polls... who, in your opinion, is a reliable source of polls?

And if we are to believe you that this particular poll isn't reliable, is it seventeen points worth of unreliable?

Let's say you're a Lamont supporter. Which is a more productive attitude as poll after poll shows him alternately behind or way behind? "Lamont isn't really losing?" Or, "Lamont is losing. How do we fix this, QUICK?"

by mcc 2006-10-20 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Dodd Comes In for Lamont, and New Q-Poll

"deer in the headlights" was a little harsh. These debates have not killed Ned, although Joe was never going to say anything you could nail him on, because he talks so damn well out of both sides of that big mouth.

But Ned does look wrong. Look at that shirt and tie combo next to Dodd. Like Clinton told Dean - at some point you have to stop being an insurgent and look Presidential. Ned needs to talk slower and look older. It could still be done. Sometimes gravitas is just a more age-appropriate color scheme and a slower debit of syllables.

Also, I thought this was a great way to END "and so do we", which is another thing that looks too young (and is now hackneyed). It was a shtick, it's over.

One more thing. If you have to show Ned now, show him ALONE. No more senior Dodd holding his hand. No more Joe. No more "people", no more pianos, no more movement. Hold him still and write him a better speech.

And he should say right out loud that Joe is a traitor who will never be rewarded by either party  now. He's brought home his last piece of pork. Suppose he gives the Senate to the Repukes. They'd make him chairman of nothing much and I bet he wouldn't even finish his term. Even they would have no further incentive to reward Joe. In such a case the Dems should swear not to take him back.

I'm uncomfortable with characterizations of Joe as brilliant. He was stupid enough to let Cheney take him down. He was mean enough to pile on Clinton. He's narrow minded enough to write off Muslims and Palestinians and Middle East solutions - and he never has to tell you why he's doing it.

Connecticut, it seems to me, is a state full of insiders. People would like to hear something about the economy IN ADDITION TO Iraq. I know this is heresy over at dKos just now, but in CT "Joe saved Groton." Ned should flat out say, Joe will no longer be able to protect you. If the Dems win, they will isolate him. If the repugs win, they will isolate him.

Having declared himself an independent, he can never really belong to either party ever again. Joe has limited himself to one term, max. But his support is saying that while people understand that the national campaign is about Iraq, they wonder about giving up a guy who seems to be able to get things done for his state. It must be made clear that that is over no matter what the outcome of this election. Voters should thank Joe for his service and send him home, which is where he's going after this term, regardless.

And having said all this I still think: put Ned in a dark gray suit with a blue tie and a white shirt. Don't shoot right into his eyes, let him come up and make brief eye contact and then break it. See if you can get his brushback in front to relax down just a little, come down a little over his forehead, cover just a little of it. Shoot him with his mouth closed most of the time and show him with his voiceover. You've got to put a furrow in his brow. He's got to say that he knows people think Joe can produce for them, and he's got to tell them "sadly, no." Then tell them that it's time to get on board, the train is leaving the station, choose wisely.

by frenchman 2006-10-20 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: My random comments

Thanks, aldon! I can always use a Dean infusion.

by joyful alternative 2006-10-21 04:56AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads