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?

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.

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

wonder why?

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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?  

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.

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.

"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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.
  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

"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/

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.

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.  

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.

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.

Full Disclosure:  I'm staff with the Lamont campaign, so I've got a bias.  I'm also a techie, and not an inside strategist.  My comments here are my own, and do not necessarily reflect any views of the campaign.

Today, Gov. Dean came to Connecticut to stump for the Democratic ticket.  Yes, I'm a rabid old Deaniac, and I thought Gov. Dean was great, in spite of how tired he must be from all his travelling.

For some good clips of Gov. Dean addressing a group in Connecticut, check out this YouTube Clip.

The quote that I really liked, about a minute and a half in is:

If anybody had doubts about who was in charge in Connecticut, I think the Democractic Primary showed who was in charge in Connecticut, it's you, it's you, it's the voters.

We can all wring our hands and blame Wolfson, beltway insider consultants, or whomever else the boogey-man-du-jour is, or we can realize that all of us are the campaign.  We all need to be contacting our Family, Friends and Neighbors.  If we are in Connecticut, we need to be out canvasing.

As to the ads, I'm not going to second guess the communications team.  I don't know the strategy, but I'm not all that concerned about Joe blowing a lot of cash immediately after the primary on ads.  I'm not especially concerned that the polls are all over the place.  We've got two and a half weeks to go.  Communications will put out the ads that need to be put out.  Field will get boots on the ground, and I hope many of you will be out there.

As one last aside, my wife and I drove Gov. Dean around today.  At one stop, he took a few moments to answer a few questions, which I've put up as a video on blip.tv.

It is classic no-nonsense Gov. Dean.  Take a moment, watch the video, and then get back to work.

  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?

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?"

"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.