MyDD :: Thoughts on High CT Turnout

Thoughts on High CT Turnout

by Matt Stoller, Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:16:29 PM EST

Colin McEnroe has the line of the election:

Also, people report it is even harder than they thought to find Joe Lieberman on the ballot. One correspondent: "You'd have to be stupid to vote for Lieberman. And then they make it hard for stupid people to find him. It's not fair!"

Kos has pointed you to this article in the Hartford Courant about extremely high turnout in Connecticut.

High turnout is probably good for us, and it looks like the Secretary of State is projecting a midterm record 66% of registered voters will show up to the polls today. Seniors are Lieberman voters, and they are going to vote no matter what, so having others come out and vote is a good thing. I know that turnout is very high in the urban areas, and that's good for us. I don't want to say throw out the polls, but it is clear that the likely voter screens are probably in error. This is also probably very good for the three Democrats running in hot Congressional races.

On the other hand, such high turnout suggests that voters aren't going to go straight party line Republican. The only reason turnout is so high is because of the Lamont-Lieberman race; if they are going to the polls they aren't going to waste their vote on Schlesinger, though I suppose it's possible for some voters to go straight ticket Jodi Rell since the real low information voters are obviously coming out.

This has been a tortuous thought experiment brought to you by Matt Stoller. Consider this a new voting open thread.

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

Permalink :: 15 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

I agree the high turnout should help. What still has me boggled are the poll numbers for Lieberman among independents. As a CT resident, I do feel we are a progressive state, even our republicans can be pretty progressive.

Why are independents running so strong for Lieberman? Or is this another area where we will find out the polls were wrong?

More on the tortuous thought experiment...

by rmcclintock on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:10:40 PM EST

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

Isn't it possible that Republicans are actually turning out, not because of the Senate contest, but because of the tightly contested House races? In that case, they could well vote for Schlesinger while they're there.

by tjekanefir on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:11:18 PM EST

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

The big question is, who are the 30% not voting?

by 1970cs on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

Just voted in Milwaukee,WI. Not very busy. It is very easy to vote. No poblems. I voted by paper ballot. I am very concerned about Doyle though. I was the 533 person to vote; I think that is a little low. I do not know if Doyle will be able to pull this off. I am praying to God that he does.

Jeremy Bentham sucks!!

by Forward with Feingold on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:11:58 PM EST

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

I'm in Madison, and I voted at my precinct at around 1:15(CT), and I was around the 800th voter... last midterm at about this time there were 200 voters.

The ban will fail, the death penalty will not be reinstated, Doyle will be re-elected, Kagen will be elected, and all will be well... except Falk may lose. I think she's the only one to worry about, aside from Kagen.

by KainIIIC on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:57:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

I've said this several times before, so I apologize if you consider this trolling, but Republican voters are not going to vote for a 'liberal' they've voted against -- repeatedly -- in past elections just because Rove and Bush rubberstamp him, especially with an honest-to-god actual Publican in boldface at the top of the ballot. Not gonna happen.

by lightyearsfromhome on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:19:46 PM EST

Yes, it will happen. (none / 0)

You misunderstand those voters' intent...they're not voting FOR Lieberman, they're voting AGAINST Lamont. Republicans may be stupid, but they're not dumb. They know that voting for Schlesinger because of the R after his name is politically foolish, as it only affords Lamont better odds of winning.

They want to stop Lamont at all costs--he's the symbol of the newly risen, anti-Iraq, netroots-powered progressive left. His defeat is priority #1, and getting stuck with Lieberman is their ONLY alternative.

It's naive to think GOP voters will refuse to vote for Lieberman when the time actually comes. If you were in this situation, would you hold your nose and vote for an Arlen Specter if it was the only viable way to keep Pat Toomey out of the Senate?

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, it will happen. (3.00 / 1)

Yep, if you look at freerepublic, you will see a rabid hate for Lamont that defies reason. They call him Red Ned, talk bad about his family.
And Lamont has not even said a bad thing about republican voters unlike Lieberman who keeps making comments about fringe voters who didnt vote for him in the primary.

I doubt a voter who intends to vote for Lieberman will just vote Schlesinger just because it is a little tough to find his name. GIve me a break. I mean, if it was a close elction, sure it may be a factor. But I doubt it affects even half percent of the voters.

by Pravin on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:39:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

Any predictions of the CT-Sen race are going to involve a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic. It's just too complex. We'll just have to wait and see what happens...

by Bobby McGee on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:45:26 PM EST

Not So Much A Thought Experiment (none / 0)

(except in the Dr. Frankenstein sense), more a train-wreck.

But, points for trying.

by Paul Rosenberg on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 03:48:37 PM EST

lol (none / 0)

Oh, he's just giving voice to the little engine that's grinding away in the back of all of our minds, trying to process optimism and paranoia both out of the same meager clues to reality. It probably takes more mental discipline than any of us have to actually switch it off until 9 or so tonight.

Tim Wolfe

by bruorton on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

Well, I thought the huge turnout in 2004 meant a big win for Kerry. I mean, who would stand in a big line to vote for Bush, right? So, I'm not getting my hopes up. That being said, this is the weirdest race I have ever seen. Nothing that comes out of this would surprise me because I have no idea what to expect. But I got burned once assuming that big turnout meant lots of votes for us. Fool me twice ... can't get fooled again.

by Copley on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:18:09 PM EST

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

I voted in Norwalk today, very busy polling place. My thoughts? Cautiously optimistic. I ran into some normally apathetic friends who came out and voted early for Ned. People are fed up with the bullshit. We'll see...

by crackpot on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:28:31 PM EST

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

Actually, I am worried that high turnout hurts Lamont. I remember when one of our wishes was the polls and sruveys will be rendered meaningless because Lievberman has soft support. But if there is a record turnout, I dont know if it's just because the Lamont voters came in enmasse defying every single expectation. I still have hope, but I fear the Lieberman machine is getting people to the polls. I hope I am wrong.

by Pravin on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:35:29 PM EST

Re: Thoughts on High CT Turnout (none / 0)

Turnout is high here in parts of Oregon, particularly in Multnomah County (around Portland). So far about 50,000 more Dems have voted than Republcians, which far outpaces the margin in 2004, in which about 13,000 more Dems voted than Republicans. Dem performance so far is like we haven't seen in years, beating Republicans in registration/performance pretty well, which is amazing. Dem registration is 3-4% higher in OR than Republican, but higher Republican performance usually tightens it, and costs us Dems some state legislative seats. That Republican advantage in performance doesn't seem to exist this year.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Nov 07, 2006 at 04:48:44 PM EST

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.