MyDD :: Whats the Deal with Ned Lamont

Whats the Deal with Ned Lamont

by heyAnita, Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:09:23 AM EST

Alright, so there's a Q Poll +after+ the debate that shows Lamont +dropping+ on Lieberman?

Whats the deal, with Lamont? Why is it, that, the republican votes that were willing to abandon +Ned Lamont+ , the ones that were indy and angry - now go to the republican instead of Lamont?

What is wrong with this guy? Is Lamont too green to be a senator?

Tags: lamont lieberman connecticut (all tags)

Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Whats the Deal with Ned Lamont (none / 0)

Lamont is not too green. It's the strategy that is failing him. He needs to be bolder and fight any Lieberman attacks and turn them back at him.

I am in shock. What kind of idiots live in CT that watch the debate and still support Lieberman?

by Pravin on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 09:58:21 AM EST

Ban Goddard from Breaking Blue, Already (none / 0)

Nothing is failing Ned. Goddard is wrong -- at least part of the poll was taken before the first debate.

Keep in mind that none of it was taken after the second.

Goddard is persistently negative, frequently without cause. He should be not be permitted to spew on Breaking Blue.

by lightyearsfromhome on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:04:14 AM EST

Re: Ban Goddard from Breaking Blue, Already (none / 0)

Hang on, I'm wrong about that.

From October 17 - 19, Quinnipiac University surveyed 881 Connecticut likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percentage points.

So, it doesn't fully take the second debate into account, at a minimum.

I dunno, guys. If Joe wins, I think CT must be a red state after all.

by lightyearsfromhome on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:08:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whats the Deal with Ned Lamont (none / 0)

Among Lieberman supporters, 47 percent cite his experience as the main reason they are voting for him, with 9 percent citing his stand on the war in Iraq.

Or people in CT are just ignorant morons. Bloody hell.

LamontBlog claims the Q-poll was inaccurate by double-digits just before the primary. One may hope, I suppose.

by lightyearsfromhome on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:10:30 AM EST

Re: Whats the Deal with Ned Lamont (none / 0)

I have always tried to respect the power of the electorate even if I disagreed with it. TImes like these, it gets tough. Gotta stay strong.

A bunch of idiots do live in CT. What a fucking embarassment.

Lamont people need to use that experience factor against Lieberman asking voters that too much experience can be a bad thing when that experience leads to making strategic and not just philosophical blunders like the Iraq war. Lamont has to demonstrate to these idiots very clearly how all that experience was still not enough to buy Lieberman any wisdom when it came to analyzing a situation and coming up with a sollution to it.

by Pravin on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:30:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Do I live in a fucking parallel universe? (none / 0)

I talked to a couple of friends in CT. They do not know a single person who likes Lieberman. What the fuck is going on?

It is frustrating that we cannot even help Lamont because the liaisons we have to the Lamont campaign are clueless. We keep getting all these positive reports from all these blogs(and that includes Kos and Firedoglake), and the only one that was on target is Huffington's lament about the Lamont campaign being too passive. Sirota is good at exposing Lieberman's faults, but his interpretations of media coverage of Lamont has frequently been too rosy. Whenver he says, Lieberman has been nailed by the media, I go and read the article he references, and the article's tone doesn't seem as damning as Sirota probably thinks it is. We know the context of the articles but the average reader will go by the tone of the article which tries to be foolishly indifferent instead of objective.

We get reports of how Lamont has been getting more aggressive in responding to queries in debates. Well the excerpts I saw still did not show an aggressive enough Lamont. He really needs to smack Lieberman down. Negative campaigning WORKS! Do it now.

The bloggers have failed when it comes to covering the post primary Lamont campaign. Before the primary, we seemed to have a good indication of what was working and what was not. After the primary, it seems like we have no clue as to many of the inaction/actions going on. We cannot even get reliable information on what a poll covers. The only things we know about are things we can guess on our own (like the deliberate inaction by the dem establishment).

I just cannot believe these morons in CT are falling for this incumbent factor. That is my biggest pet peeve with the electorate. Too many chances for politicians. I am fucking pissed.

My weekend has been ruined.

by Pravin on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 10:18:38 AM EST

Re: Do I live in a fucking parallel universe? (none / 0)

I would not say negativity really works - but maybe, just maybe speaking truth to power.. ?

I mean, the reason I posted this thread was because here we are on towards the debates (are there any more of them) with Lamont falling on his face and the republican Alan Schlesinger gaining ground?

I think that I am concerned whether or not Lieberman will see his status as (I) as a ticket to shatter the fragile hold the democratic party will have on the senate. lieberman has, on the key issues of the day been more or less completely under karl rove's wing.

.. and when I win the lottery, gonna donate half my money to the city so they have to name a school or a park after me - camper van beethoven

by heyAnita on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:32:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whats the Deal with Ned Lamont (none / 0)

There hasn't been a poll released yet that was taken after the debates (and ONLY after the debates).

Don't freak out. See how things look when the next set of polls come out.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

by KB on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:22:55 AM EST

Part of the problem! (none / 0)

Democrats like Harold Ford Jr. and many more continue to support, endorse, canpaign and all other sort or nonsense for Lieberman. They total are disrespecting the Registered Democratic voters that voted for Lamont in the Primary, I wouldn't like that in my state, would any of you? It is a shame, and a horrible aface to the CT Registered Voters for the rest of us to allow this to happen. All the time this race will be a huge feather in Bush's cap if Lieberman wins this race. It will be plastered all over the Democrats in Nov 2008.

The republicans might as well stick their tongues out at us if Lieberman win this race.

I will be ashamed if he wins instead of Lamont no matter how new and green he may be.

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:23:16 AM EST

The Dodd ad is weak (none / 0)

If Lieberman wins, Hillary better watch out. I am going to do my best to see she loses in Georgia.
I knew her big photoop with Ned Lamont was not going to be helpful. While I criticize Lamont's people for the blunders in the post primary process, it is a fact that most candidates don't run perfect campaigns(even so called genius Carville needed the Perot factor in 1992) and it is a fact that you need genuine party support to beat an 18 year incumbent who has the official backing of another party. Those fucking republican voters are going to vote out of spite not because they like Lieberman.

Lamont's blunder was not putting dem leaders on the spot to back up their weak ass endorsements with action. And that Dodd ad??? It's like someone dragged Dodd over to shoot that ad. He doesn't look very comfortable in front of the camera. And Lamont, stop with that "i approved this message" shit. It is fine for some ads, but not every single ad.

by Pravin on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:31:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

putting dem leaders on the spot (none / 0)

It's unclear whose fault that is. Some articles have quoted Tom Swan as saying they weren't wanted in CT, that he didn't want to just be a thing for 2008 candidates to use to prove themselves.

by Adam B on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 11:46:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Dodd ad is weak (none / 0)

I don't think Carville needed the Perot factor.
Perot took evenly from both sides, and Bush was going down with or without Perot

by v2aggie2 on Sat Oct 21, 2006 at 12:28:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Dodd ad is weak (none / 0)

I did not mean to say only potential Bush voters were the only ones voting for Perot. I was one of those considering voting Perot and I certainly would not have voted Bush. So I agree with you on that.

What Perot did was give credence to the attacks on Bush. When two candidates gang up on one, then whatever points each would have made individually against the one candidate, become stronger when both candidates attack the incumbent. It was essential that Perot be a legit 3rd party candidate for this to work. Not every 3rd party candidate will automatically help with creating a tag team attack force on the incumbent if they have no backing.
Also Bush had to spend time not only attacking CLinton, but also Perot. I doubt Clinton people spent much time targeting Perot. If Perot and Bush went after Clinton instead, and the media wanted to see Clinton fail the same way they went after Dean, there is nothing Carville could have done to win that election. So it's a combination of the tag team effect in reducing Bush's credibility, and the resources Bush had to spend above what Clinton had to spend in attacking Perot.

by Pravin on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 07:53:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Dodd ad is weak (none / 0)

In the end, though, it says more about Bush's weakness.

Yes, 2 people were going after Bush.
But that is the result of being unpopular.
That's why Bush was going down either way.

by v2aggie2 on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:13:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whats the Deal with Ned Lamont (3.00 / 1)

The deal is that he is not agressive enough. He needs to make clear in his ads the danger of voting for Liberman, namely that it could spoil a long awaited Democratic Senate majority either by Lieberman caucusing with the Republicans or simply by voting with them. His ads about Lieberman not keeping promises are lame. Insiders and political junkies are into that stuff, not voters.

by accumbens on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 12:01:17 PM EST

I agree (none / 0)

he comes across as wilting (or at best passive) to Lieberman's charging bull approach. That don't cut it in this day and age.

by NuevoLiberal on Fri Oct 20, 2006 at 05:16:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.