No doubt that any gains by Schlesinger will hurt Lieberturncoat.

Is Schlesinger on the air? Lamont's best hope at this point is a notbale rise from the right by Schlesinger.

Right now, a lot of Lamont's ads are likely inadvertantly leading to the perception amongst Republicans that Joe is a conservative. He's not liberal or conservative - he's an opportunist.

His campaign wasn't even called Lieberman for Connecticut, but the opposite. That should say enough.

Lamont's people have made the (correct in my view) calculation that they have a better shot at convincing the decent number of Democrats and independants supporting Joe to switch than to dissuade the Republicans from voting for him.

Thus, tying Joe to Bush.

But, I disagree that Lamont hasn;t been hitting Joe on the oportunism thing. His latest ads attacking Joe's voting record are in that vein.

Wow, i must say that i was very impress with alan schlesinger and he exeeded my expectation...Im very confident that if every voters gets to see this debate, they will regard alan in a much better light then before...This guy is verycredible, he was funny, emotional and he was the only candidate that offered plans...Wow, im Lamont should be jealous and he really outshine both liberal.

Saying that, Lamont has to be pleased that schlesinger showed up because if everyone gets to watch the debate,it would surely help lamont.

I'm not so sure Schlesinger won the debate - sure he was funny, outrageous, larger than life - but the other two were playing a tactical game and it all depends on which of them has read the electorate more accurately. Joe's calculation is that his experience is the key to victory rather than being left or right. Ned is hoping that change is the single most important factor. If you look at the Quinnipiac polls the electorate seem to want it both ways saying that they think both change and experience are important.

As I mentioned over at DKos:

Here's my immediate reaction to the debate:

  1. Slesinger will win a few votes from Republicans who actually watch the debate.  While he came across as a bit extreme (like, say, quite a few in the blogosphers :: ducking :: ), he also attacked Joe (and Ned) on points where there's been a lot of talk but little action over the years - it's stuff that conservatives lap up like a milkshake.

  2. Lamont is still a novice debator, and it didn't help his cause today.  That said, it's actually good that he didn't speak too much in the beginning, because he was able to attack Joe relentlessly in the last third of the debate without Joe having adequate time to respond.  However, the broadcasters should've simply cut the mic for any candidate who went over time.

  3. Lieberman is a smooth, experienced candidate and debator, and while he may have lost some supporters to Slesinger today, he probably won some fence-sitters.  Joe came out from the beginning playing the part of victim, and rode that quite well during the debate.  He fell apart in his closing statement (which was Lamont's strongest part, methinks), but otherwise it was another day at the office for Joe.

  4. Lamont only peripherally brought up Iraq and the so-called "War on Terror," to his own detriment.  I admire that Ned tried to show that he's not a one-trick pony.  But not keeping Iraq in the sights is a lot like, to put it in Sharpton's word, "abandoning the one what brought you to the dance."  In my own world, Lamont should show that he's not just the anti-war candidate, but he needs to keep said card as part of his hand.

  5. Slesinger knows that he has supporters who are fence-sitting, and he knows how to play to them.  Actually getting network media coverage that'll air statewide is good for his capaign, and bad for Joe.

  6. Lieberman couldn't defend his voting attendance, which opened the door for a Lamont attack - and a good one, at that.  The voting attendance thing is a big deal with anybody who likes politicians to stick to their word.  Yes, Lamont sounded a bit uppity and frazzled during this attack, but he kept on-message and scored a hit when Joe couldn't retaliate.

Final verdict: no big change in the outlook.  Slasinger will pick up some fence-sitters and Joe supporters, and Joe will pick up some fence-sitters.  But Lamont will stay pretty much where he was.  So Lamont needs nearly flawless GOTV, or he's gonna lose this one.

And in terms of disclosure: I lived in CT for ten years (1993-2003) before moving to my current locale (DC).

Just my $0.02 - your mileage may vary.

Show Lamont saying "and I approved this message, then  cut to...

Bill and HIllary saying "So do we," then to Barack Obama and Chris Dodd saying..."and so do we," then cut to...well...you get the picture.

I know I would really have to choke on it to vote for a Republican--whatever the circumstances. I would either vote for the lowlife Democrat or not at all.

True, Lieb's ballot designation says "Independent," but how could a partisan Republican not know he ran for president and vice-president as a Democrat and held office as a Democrat for, what, 35 years?

I just couldn't bring myself to vote for someone I knew to be a died-in-the-wool Republican, and I am sure there are partisans on the other side who feel as I do.

So, on the natural, Schlesinger's vote should rise. A good debate performance and natural disgust at the big-time Lamont-Lieberman mudslinging should increase Schlesinger's share of the GOP vote, which is currently a large chunk of Holy Joe's leads in the polls.

The big questions are, does this debate change the atmospherics? What do the bigfoot reporters think?

Does this story remind anyone except me of the Joe's most famous shitty debate performance--against Dick Cheney?

The media has turned against the GOP like a pack of wolves. Can we throw the ravenous bastards Holy Joe to devour as well?

I think we damned well better do so because I guarantee no one will think the "Netroots" is worth a pinch of shit if we don't beat Holy Joe. If he flips, we lost a sure seat for the party with our cockamamie primary challenge.

Tell me true, do you really wish Schumer had failed to get Hackett out of the Devine race? Are you happy about Lamont-Lieberman?

I think the pros just might be a little smarter than we give them credit for, and I know they will claim it.

For my part, I am ecstatic about this debate report and hope to God the press will spin it the same. It is far, far better to be lucky than smart.

Beat Holy Joe.
Beat hime bad.

Schlesinger ran with the debate. Good for Lamont.

One advise for Lamont: In his AD's towards the end he looks funny and non-serious when people behind him say 'so do we'

I would argue that it is hurting him because Lamont looks childish. This is serious business and he should look confident and serious when the people say 'so do we'

I only saw the very end of the debate, but I was very impressed with Schlesinger's closing statement, I hope it sways enough voters from Lieberman to help Lamont.

Are there going to be any more debates? Because 2 or 3 more like this and I think a Lamont win is a fairly good chance.

I agree with other commenters here that we need the big name Dems to come in and support Lamont, if only on TV.

I've been to the major rw blogs - Instapundit, LGF, RCP, Malkin, Powerline - either they don't care about the debate, or their strategy is to minimize the impact by pretending it didn't happen.

Only a few people see the debates.  The winners are the ones the columnists and reporters say won for the most part.

Seems to me Schlesinger was a clear winner as others have said but my opinion counts for nothing.

Lamont disappointed in my view.  Not in substance but in style.  Ned needs to show some fire in the belly like Schlesinger did.  

Why oh why oh why won't Lamont use Harry Truman's line on Lieberman when he complains about all the attacks.  ("I just tell the truth and he thinks it's hell.")

Go, Alan! :-)

Best,  Terry

If Lamont can't get more than 75% of the Dem votes he is done. It is do or die for him over the next 2 weeks. He needs to solidify the Dems behind him. That's the only way he has a chance.

If all the Congressional Dem candidates get together and make a case for voting straight Dems that could make a difference.

...Schlesinger is taking his revenge on his party for throwing their support behind Joe, hurting Joe's R support and throwing the election to Lamont as punishment for making him a laughing stock so far and standing up for his "convictions" however onerous they may be at the same time.

Here's one interesting comment from another Blogger:

"Voters are actually quite politically savvy in high-profile races. I'm from California, and the results from the 2003 special recall election for governor are instructive. There were 135 candidates on the ballot to replace Gray Davis, including many very-high profile Democrats and Republicans. Attempts by both parties to clear the field ahead of time were unsuccessful, and there were fears that all the big names would split up the vote with each garnering at least several percent even if they "dropped out".

But in the end the voters concentrated on the big three (Schwarzenegger, Bustamante, and McClintock) who remained in active contention, and pretty much ignored the rest. The same thing will happen in Connecticut.

If the last polls taken before the election show Lieberman with a safe lead of 10% to 15%, then some conservative Republicans will go ahead and cast their votes for Schlesinger. And that could boost his total into the 10% to 12% range. But if the polls show any uncertainty over the outcome (e.g., at least one poll shows Lamont closing to within 5% to 8%) then almost all Republicans will vote for Lieberman and Schlesinger will be left with 5%."

I wonder if that's really true? Many people just aren't that aware of polls or don't really care. Either the Republicans are going to vote for Lieberman because he's the lesser of the two evils and actually has a chance to be elected, or they're going to vote their convictions and support Schlesinger. I doubt whether they will parse their vote depending on the polling.

Schlesinger hasn't caught fire because he's gotten no support from the national GOP and because, let's face it, he's a bit weird. But Jim Bunning won in Kentucky and he's a LOT weird, so that shouldn't be a limiting factor in wing-nuttia.

It's really down to a question of perception. Lieberman is the best Republicans can do.

What's hilarious is that if they're being honest nobody really knows what Lieberman will do if elected.

He's betrayed the Democrats again and again. Why on earth would any Republican trust him? Think he won't caucus with Democrats just because most of his support comes from Republicans and he "owes" them?

Look at it from Lieberman's position: why not? "I'll do whatever I frigging well want. I'll get my pound of flesh from Andy Reid or I'll flip majority control to the Republicans."

The Democrats have already made their peace with Lieberman "yes we know those uppity Democratic primary voters dissed you. I agree it's terrible when the peasants get out of line like that, but that's hardly OUR fault! We're ready to welcome you back with open arms! No hard feelings. Committee assignments? No problem!  We're all friends here in the Senate club. We aristocrats have to stick together or the unwashed plebians will ruin everything."

I videotaped the debate and posted my video highlights on my blog/ The photo I used of Lieberman tells the whole story.

Joe had his ass handed to him today, plain and simple. Although Lamont didn't give a knockout performance, Lieberman was caught off-guard by Schlesinger's attacks. In the end, team Joementum took only a few questions and ran out of the place while Ned and Alan hung out and answered every question thrown at them.

I was able to interview the real Republican on video and I'll have that posted soon...still processing everything right now.
 

Schlesinger was the key to defeating joe!.