of how much of this is a Lamont bounce versus just being a bounce for the Democrats as a result of the CT primary getting so much press?  

I am not a numbers person, but I wonder if this is like a typical bounce after a Party Convention, where the sheer mass of exposure bumps up the party in people's minds.

Great news either way...

"Should they even be allowed into debates with numbers like that?"

Line of the Day.

Sorry, I don't approve of Google bombing, even regarding something as laughable as Connecticut for Lieberman.

I am starting to think the press acting as they do is a good thing. In someways, it will allow any surge to go under their narrative radar screen. They are missing out on what's going on with Iraqi, and so are the Republicans who continue with the same script as if its 2004- their problem: 60 % of the public are against Iraq, and the numbers you put up, demonstrate that there is a disconnect between them and where the American people are. If they persist on staying the  course- the American people will just keep hearing them make our case for us.

"it is starting to become difficult even for a pessimist like me to think of Larry Sabato's latest House and Senate predictions as anything but extremely cautious and pro-Republican."

Let's keep expectations low, work hard and blow the Repubs out of the water on November 7!

47% favorable number for the Democratic party. That's been the category I've been focusing on all year, much more than the generic congressional margin or Bush's approval rating. We're severely hampered unless that number spikes through a cohesive message. That's the teflon, margin for error.

Sheesh. Only 45% of independents have a favorable impression. Hell, even among Democrats it's 78%, compared to 82% of Republicans who approve of their party.

You can't understate how significant that approval number is, in terms of impacting the close races. Voting against can only take you so far. It is a natural regulator and I don't think the net roots gang realizes that.

It reminds me of here in Las Vegas, where the guys who bet against teams do nothing but trade dollars or worse. Never understanding why they can't get ahead. When you bet against you're always dependent on the team you inherit on that given day. It's random and flimsy. Winning streaks are longer and more dependable and more robust than losing streaks in sports, and the same principle will apply to politics. Find candidates and principles you back and can trust regardless of the opponent and that will take you much further than identifying the opponent of the month and desperately plucking someone from the balcony to oppose him. Manipulating the message to fit that race, and point in time. Don't lose sight of that, just because it worked by 4 points in an August Connecticut primary.

The unconcerned masses will never tag along if you tell them you're racing down the street to shout at a bum. Meanwhile, an admirable and popular celebrity will have them pushing you aside to get in front of the line.

We routinely forfeit a significant net in the exit poll question, "was your vote for your candidate, or against the opponent?" That aspect has hidden pull. The swing voters, especially in a high profile race where both candidates are well known and have been defined, will naturally sense and drift to the candidate who is backed by positive vibes and energy. For example, no chance Lieberman would have won the late deciders 54-44 if the basis of the Lamont candidacy was pro-Lamont and not anti-Joe.

Months ago one of the major columnists on MyDD wrote, "We do stand for something. We stand against Bush." Frankly, that may be one of the scariest comments I've ever seen during a so-called movement. So where does that take us in March 2008, when Bush is all but irrelevant? Our handicapping will be beyond inept, Lieberman caliber, if we think we can merely oppose Bush's tenure in 2008.

Are we trying to build something, or merely win in 2006 when the dynamics of a second term midterm and the anti-war atmosphere are heavily in our favor? I guess that's what I'm asking. There is nothing more dangerous than winning and not understanding why you won. Transfer the false belief to a different set of circumstances equals 48% again.

Sorry for the extended rant. I'm just ticked at that 47% number. Some polls have it 50ish but we desperately need that everywhere. Can you imagine the GOP being stuck in that 47 range if a Democratic president and congress had mangled the country and planet to this degree?

Let's hope we can maintain the momentum and that our party leaders adopt some stronger talking points.  I'll toss out a few:

Democrats are moving forward, not left.  

Stay the course doesn't work when you're facing an oncoming train.

Republicans want you to be scared today, frozen in the headlights, so you forget about tomorrow.  

Democrats want us to be strong today so that we can move past our fears and dare to make a better future.

the Lamont - Lieberman general election.  My contention is that it's too soon to do that.  I think they are doing it on purpose to jigger the results.  Rasmussen is a Republican polling firm.

There is not enough time to let the race "marinate" and let people think about the race in a new light.  Kos is reporting that so far the results are even.  That helps Lieberman.  Later would probably show Lamont in the lead.

This is designed to help Lieberman.  I would be suspicious of the outcome

Matt--Maureen White was finance chair under Howard Dean as well --- as recently as a couple of months ago.  And unlike her husband, she admires Howard and thinks his work with state parties is enormously important.

a little too confident for me. in national polls we've always held the lead with the American people on all the main issues we care about (if not the candidates). it's in national election strategy and execution that we have sucked. we're not going to win on the coattails of magic polls, or the grand theory of undecideds breaking for the challenger, but through work and organization and being smart and tough, with good candidates in the right spot. Like it or not, the last time we got to check, the GOP was smarter and tougher, more organized and closed stronger than we did. But we're clearly light-years ahead of where we were then on all counts--just hope it's enough. Anyway, way too early to celebrate though fun to think about. But all that really matters is that we get 15 House seats, or 6 Senate seats or preferably both. 48-30 is a nice snapshot, but still 2.5 months out and that poll doesn't really count the things that matter. Can we get 15+????

 The Democratic leaders on the Hill need to come out forcefully and not just support Ned Lamont, but denounce Joe Lieberman. Loudly.

 Lieberman's engaging in Republican rhetoric now. Connecticut is a Democratic state. There are still many Dems who support Lieberman out of inertia, but a unified, strong public dressing-down of him would shake most of these Dems from their delusions, and coalesce support for Lamont from Connecticut waverers.

 Joe Lieberman's reputation, such as it remains, needs to be permanently destroyed. He's a REPUBLICAN. Republicans are UNPOPULAR. Especially in New England. There's no downside to napalming Joe's career now; he's not a Democrat anymore, in any way.

So it turns out that allowing the Media to be owned by 5 conglomerates whose board of directors are filled with folks who donate to Republican candidates has not worked out well for Democrats.

Its time for Democrats to kill the messenger.  Stop repeating their talking points for them.  Ignore their message, much like the Republicans ignore anything Democrats say.

The Wall Street Journal and Fox News are our enemies...its about fucking time we started treating them as such.  Democrats should be attacking the credibility of these organizations ad nauseum.

The Media is the primary reason Democrats have lost so many elections...they have been framed as do nothings, despite the fact that Republicans control all three branches of government and have yet to be held accountable.

"And Republicans are at 30%? Should they even be allowed into debates with numbers like that?"

No Lieberman, Party of One, in a Lamont Debate. In other words, no debating when you are the winner. OK. Debate the Green Party.

  A friend of mine whose opinions I usually respect is buying the DC line on how the netroots supposedly "sabotaged" the Democratic Party with the Lamont election. He's bemoaning that Lieberman's now going back to the Senate as an independent, or worse, as a Republican.

 I thought about his arguments, and decided they don't hold water. Here's the breakdown:

 1. If Lamont never mounts his challenge, we wind up with Lieberman breezing to victory as a nominal Democrat and continuing to be a major pain in the ass for the next six years. Plus we have no real discussion on the Iraq war.

 2. The Connecticut race is now effectively a real Democrat versus a phony one. So the race will now constitute a REAL debate on Iraq and our foreign policy in general -- a debate we, as a nation, have never really had. Ned Lamont doesn't have any Senate votes to explain away. He can be clear and forceful in his position, and we'll have an election in which the real Democrat can fully differentiate himself from his opponent. This has nothing but upside for Lamont and the Dems.

 3. If the worst happens and Lieberman gets back in, we'll have the exact same situation that we would have had if Lamont had never run -- except that Lieberman, no longer being a nominal Democrat, can no longer sabotage the party's message, and he'll be just another annoying Republican wingnut. Plus his remaining credibility will be shot to pieces anyway.

 4. And at the very, very least, the Lamont race has served as a great proof-of-concept for people-powered politics. Now any grassroots threats to eject Republican enablers from the Dem ranks through primaries will have real teeth.

 Lamont's victory has opened up a whole new world for all of us. And I'll echo Chris Bowers' pre-election comment: If Ned Lamont is such a disaster for the Democratic Party, why did conservative Republicans all line up so solidly behind Joe Lieberman?

I can't stress enough how important it is for Democrats to hammer home how Scotland Yard's foiling of the airplane terrorist attacks proves that fighting terrorism is best done through diligent police and intelligence work, with cooperation from allies (Pakistan in this case), and not through disastrous invasions of Middle Eastern countries that never played a direct role in the plot. Republicans are going to try to milk this plot as long as they can because they think voters will reflexively turn to Republicans in the face of terrorism. The only way to prevent that is to come STRONG with the counternarrative that British and Pakistani agents are fighting this war effectively, but America is not. Republicans have said, on many times, that Iraq is the "central front in the War ont Terror." This plot shows how wrong that is. The central front is, as it has always been, in the mountains of Pakistan where the man who masterminded 9/11 still sits unscathed.