Skip to main content

The Q-Poll has trends and therefore is the one to watch. No poll predicts turnout.
Connecticut likely Democratic primary voters back challenger Ned Lamont 51 - 45 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman in the U.S. Senate race, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

This compares to a 54 - 41 percent Lamont lead among likely Democratic primary voters in an August 3 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.

In this latest survey, 4 percent of likely Democratic primary voters remain undecided, but 90 percent of voters who name a candidate say their mind is made up.

Among Lamont supporters, 54 percent say their vote is mainly against Lieberman. Lieberman's support for the war in Iraq is the main reason they are voting for Lamont, 36 percent of Lamont voters say, while 54 percent say it is one of several reasons.


This remains a solid lead for Lamont, but there are several factors with summer polling:
  • Likely voter models are tough to put together
  • CT Democratic primaries historically skew liberal
  • Intensity is unmeasured, as is GOTV
Observations:

  • Lamont's favorable/unfavorable: the unfavorable remain relatively low at 42-18%, so negative ads haven't worked

  • Lieberman's have slightly improved at 40-34%, but he's the incumbent and is below 50%
  • How much does Lieberman's support of the war in Iraq influence your decision to vote for Lamont - Is it the main reason you are voting for Lamont, is it only one of the reasons, or is it not a reason at all?

    LIKELY DEM PRIME VOTERS
    NL voters

    Main reason             36%
    Only one reason   54
    Not a reason at all    9
    DK/NA                      1

  • The above means for 90% of voters the war matters (the national press conclusion), but that other factors matter for more than half the voters (the local conclusion, generally ignored by the national press).

For Governor:

In the Democratic primary for Governor, likely voters back New Haven Mayor John DeStefano
48 - 41 percent over Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy, with 10 percent undecided. This compares to a 48 - 38 percent DeStefano lead August 3.

In this latest survey, 28 percent of likely Democratic primary voters who choose a candidate say they still might change their mind.

From July 31 - August 6, Quinnipiac University surveyed 784 Connecticut likely Democratic primary voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.

No self-congratulations today. Support your candidate, and do the work first. We'll talk tomorrow night.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:47 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  NOOOOOO!!!! (5+ / 0-)

    C'mon Ned.  You need to blow out Lieberman.

    If Lieberman wins, arghhhhh.  The message is horrid.  The incumbency protection racket works and the current batch won't start listening to their constituency.

    -6.5, -7.59. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

    by DrWolfy on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:42:18 AM PDT

    •  you can't predict that well from a summer poll (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, CocoaLove, Scarce, Wary, jlove1982

      that's the message.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:43:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  late voter registrations? (0+ / 0-)

        One of NPR's lead stories this evening has mentioned the thousands of new voter registrations that have come in the past few days.  They are talking about these voters as being previously unaligned and now registered Democrats and speculating about how they might affect the primary (I even heard one commentator speculate that they might account for a bump in Lieberman's prospects).  Do you have any sense of whether these late registrants may be favoring Lamont or Lieberman (also whether some of them have changed registration from Republican to Democrat to vote in the primary)?

        "when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again ..." - Bush aide

        by Rusty Pipes on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:37:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  relax (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Chris Bowers, iCaroline, Scarce, Wary

      The previous poll has Lamont at 54 percent with a margin of error at 3 percent.  Now he is at 51 with a margin of error at 3 percent.

      See?  Statistically speaking, Lamont's support is unchanged.  

      I predict Lamont getting something like 52-53 percent of the vote, based on this data alone.

      When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

      by onanyes on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:42:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah - just nervous I guess (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annefrank

        Particularly about what message a Lamont loss would send to the DC cocktail circuit.

        We absolutely NEED Ned to win.

        -6.5, -7.59. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

        by DrWolfy on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:01:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's not true at all (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Anthony Segredo, hester, gogol

        54 with a 95% confidence level MOE of 3% means that there was a 95% chance that the true opinion of the total population was between 51 and 57%.

        51 with a 95% confidence level MOE of 3% means that there is a 95% chance that the true opinion of the total population is between 48 and 54%.

        Statistically these are very different things.  Yes, you can argue that the true opinion of the population is between 51 and 54% which is in the 95% confidence level of both polls.  

        But take a number line and highlight the range 51-57 in one color and then underneath the range 48-54 in another color and tell me that you think both lines are identical statistically.

        There is a very high chance that Lamont's support is slipping.  Lieberman is a true professional and didn't get elected to the Senate 3 times because he's lucky.  He's good.  And he knows how to close.  

        My fear is that this is a microcosm of every single race this year - Lieberman is essentially a Republican and we know how good the Republicans are at closing.  We can have all the polls showing that Democratic challengers are doing well up until the election and still be very disappointed on election day because the one poll that mattered didn't go our way.

        -Fred

        Democrats *do* have a plan for Social Security - it's called Social Security. -- Ed Schultz
        -3.13 -6.05

        by FredFred on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:09:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Question is (0+ / 0-)

          wether Lieberman is closing the gap fast enough... it might be that he's democrat enough to see his remonte come up just short on election day...

          Gore-Warner in 08!

          by Frederik on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:02:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  great points... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gogol

          this is my concern too.  the "dems are winning" meme is playing out in the media too early, and the media loves a good "underdog" reversal: namely, the gop rising in stature around october

        •  FredFred (0+ / 0-)

          I'm statistically challenged and am not disputing the slip in this poll, but I seem to recall that Joe didn't have anyone running against him the last two times. Still, no time to get complacent, that's for sure.

        •  here is another way: (0+ / 0-)

          54 with a 95% confidence level MOE of 3% means that there was a 95% chance that the true opinion of the total population was between 51 and 57%.

          51 with a 95% confidence level MOE of 3% means that there is a 95% chance that the true opinion of the total population is between 48 and 54%.

          Statistically these are very different things.  Yes, you can argue that the true opinion of the population is between 51 and 54% which is in the 95% confidence level of both polls.  

          True.

          But take a number line and highlight the range 51-57 in one color and then underneath the range 48-54 in another color and tell me that you think both lines are identical statistically.

          of course not, but the question is still: is there conclusive evidence that there thas been a change?  Not as far as I am concerned; it is possible (likely) that the first poll was merely an outlier.

          Using a test for the difference p1 - p2:

          (.54 - .51) +-2*sqrt(2pq/n) = .03+-.047 which yields a confidence interval of (-.017, .077) which still contains zero.

          So if H0 = no difference, H1 = difference
          We fail to reject H0

          Again:  no conclusive evidence that Lamont slipped.

          When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

          by onanyes on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 10:12:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course there's no conclusive evidence (0+ / 0-)
            It's a STATISTIC. It's never conclusive, no matter what the numbers are.

            And it's possible the first poll was an outlier ... or the second poll ... or both.

            But from these results, it's very, very likely that there's a shift in favor of Lieberman.

            The only thing we know conclusively is that most readers don't understand statistics, and never will.

            [Thanks, FredFred, for giving it the old college try.]

            None Dare Call It Stupid!

            by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:20:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  actually (0+ / 0-)

              it is more likely that some of the undecided broke for Lieberman and that Lamont's support stayed more or less constant.

              Remember these polls only included 890 likely voters and hence there is a very large variance.

              Polls with such small numbers give very fuzzy snapshots.

              When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

              by onanyes on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 01:30:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Surely you jest. (0+ / 0-)
                Lieberman's 4 point gain is the undecideds coming home [note, undecideds dropped by 1 point from the previous poll] ... while Lamont's 3 point loss is attributable to statistical noise?

                If you have a case for that being "more likely" than the plain reading (Lieberman gains at Lamont's expense), I'd probably find it amusing.

                But my impression is that you don't understand statistics, and that you're taking this poll result way too seriously.

                None Dare Call It Stupid!

                by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 01:48:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  uh (0+ / 0-)

                  There is noise in Lieberman's support as well; 3 + 1 = 4.  Lieberman's gain was just outside of the margin of error, Lamont's loss was right within.

                  So, one can conclude that Lieberman picked up at least some support, though one cannot conclude that Lamont lost any.

                  I am the one that doesn't understand statistics? :-)

                  you're taking this poll result way too seriously.

                  Wrong.  My POINT is that there is too much variance in the polling to take the difference in the polls too seriously.

                  When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

                  by onanyes on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:41:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Calling for Lamont, got a lot of Lieberman . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      deminva, BentLiberal

      I made about 100 calls last night for Moveon.org's virtual phone bank project.

      This is not a scientific process and MoveOn may very well have been calling a "wavering" list to try to identify which voters to turn out.  

      That being said . . .

      • Most voters were incredibly sick of getting calls, some folks were openly hostile, one woman was almost cryin and asking me to remove her from "my list" (ok, so maybe she was a little weird.
      • I got a surprisingly large number of hard Lieberman's.
      • I got a fair amount of hard Lamonts

      The moral I took from this is, this is really not over and Lieberman could easily win if Lamont supporters get complacent.

      If you can get to CT.  go to CT.  If you know CT.  voters that you have influence over, call them and persuade them to get out and vote for Lamont.

      "What really good that could happen to you?" -M.I.A.

      by dbratl on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:59:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, Don't Relax: Do something constructive (0+ / 0-)

      to help Ned win. Focus that handwringing into something!!!

    •  Lieberman (0+ / 0-)

      You can't expect a white millionaire that belongs to exclusive golf clubs, that has bloggers throw out embarassing photoshop pics of his opponent,  and has no real track record in politics, to actually lose do you?  He has it in the bag, he has used every right wing conservative trick to win, and you and most of the Kos kids have fallen for it, and supported it.  It works for Republicans, it can work for you.

  •  Yes, tight. But also huge. (11+ / 0-)

    Let's get some perspective, folks.

    A sitting Senator that wasn't found in bed with a sheep doesn't get run out of town. It doesn't happen.

    And we're showing a 6 point lead!

    We're going to win, and even if it's not the 14 point whoopin' some of us have been droolin' over, it will be an enormous victory.

    Thanks to all the Kossaks up there who have made this possible. We're going to win. And the empire will start to fall.

    "One does not discover new lands without consenting to leave sight of the shore for a very long time." -Andre Gide

    by pat208 on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:42:39 AM PDT

    •  Lunchtime news clip of Lamont on tV (0+ / 0-)

      I work in NYC - had lunch at the Apple Cafe that has TV monitors all over the walls.  On NY1 News channel, they show a clip of Lamont with a smiling child in one hand, and his arm around....

      Jesse Jackson, with the other.

      What a photo op.

      Lieberman would kill for that kind of endorsement.

      And BTW, I]m sorta glad I don't live in CT.  Face it; I have no knowledge of Lamont or what he is or what he will do -- BUT I do know he's not Lieberman.

      Is that any way to vote for a candidate?

  •  One other thing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theark

    Q-poll is a great outfit, but this poll included sturday and sunday calling - notoriously unrelieable...

    Did you see Joe's speech yesterday?

    Here is what he should have said...

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ---George Orwell -6.63; -6.51

    by TheKickingDonkey on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:43:59 AM PDT

    •  the aug 3 poll (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera

      From July 25 - 31, Quinnipiac University surveyed 890 Connecticut likely Democratic primary voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.3 percentage points.

      They're each one week.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:45:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My bad... (0+ / 0-)
        Mea Culpa...

        In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. ---George Orwell -6.63; -6.51

        by TheKickingDonkey on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:47:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The bad news (7+ / 0-)

        Is that the poll doesn't reflect reaction to Lieberman's eleventh-hour speech, which was pretty good  (if you had no memory of his previous positions).

        Still, I'm hoping for the best (and will make more calls today). I have to believe the Lamont supporters are more passionate and will have a better turnout.

        I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..

        by lesliet on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:21:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Last night I heard Chris Matthews (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theark

          passionately implore Connecticut voters to use their hard-won right to vote, because in this primary they have the chance to make known their views on Iraq.  He said that gerrymandering had made it almost impossible for voters to have such an opportunity.

        •  wow...Lieberman said: (0+ / 0-)

          I am the only Democrat in America to run against George Bush in a national election twice. I even beat him and Dick Cheney once, if all the votes had been counted.

          If only they had mentioned this when the votes could still have been counted...

          •  Uh...Joe? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Michigan Paul, iCaroline, Wary

            Then WHY DIDN'T YOU SUPPORT YOUR RUNNING MATE DURING THE RECOUNT!!!!

            Sorry to shout. But this makes my blood boil. Randi Rhodes will tell anyone who will listen (and anyone who won't) of Lieberman's nonchalance when she confronted him in a phone interview with voting problems in West Palm Beach in 2000--as the voting was happening! Since Randi voted and was broadcasting in West Palm at that time, I'll defer to her on this one.

            Lieberman displayed no passion in 2000, just as he isn't displaying any now (sorry Joe, whining about keeping your job does equal passion). That's another thing I'd think would be in Lamont's favor--he's got the fire in his belly.

            "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight. You've got to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight." --Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers In A Dangerous

            by AustinCynic on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:45:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lieberman (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Anthony Segredo

              Of all the mistakes the Gore campaign made... picking Lieberman as running made was one of the worst. They should have picked Sen. Graham (no hindsight here I said it in summer 2000 too) or an other one from a battleground state and not someone who came from safe Connecticut

              Gore-Warner in 08!

              by Frederik on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:11:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I hate this bullshit line.... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Anthony Segredo

            Leiberman did not run against Bush.  Al Gore ran against Bush.  Technically, he ran against Cheney.  And even if you give him the rhetorical allowance for 2000, he did not run against Bush in 2004, he ran against others running for the chance to run against Bush.  And he lost in that attempt.  John Kerry ran against Bush, not Leiberman.

            Lie in small things, lie in big things - no diff for LIEberman.

            Please, good people of CT, show the world tomorrow that Americans are not sheep, that we want change, that we will act to get it.  The weight of the world is on your shoulders, show them you can take it.

            Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

            by landrew on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:20:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, and he made nice with Cheney (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Anthony Segredo

              Unlike his debate with a fellow Democrat Ned Lamont, in his "debate" with Dick Cheney, Lieberman was as mellow as a pussy cat.  He complimented Darth Vader, and happily made note that Darth Vader was making lots of money in the Clinton boom years.

              With Lamont, he fought hard and dirty.

              Thats the kind of man Lieberman is.  We need to kick his ass and kick his ass good.  If only I was in Connnecticut and stuck here in the Midwest.

              "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

              by Michigan Paul on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:32:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  fall back (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Michigan Paul, theark

                [snark]Why would he go to the limit against Cheney? After all, in 2000 he had a fallback position by running simultaiously for Veep and for Senator of Connecticut... which btw would have meant a democratic loss of the seat if the Gore ticket had won...

                now in 2006 he doesn't have a fall back position... it's his own hide which is on the line now.

                Gore-Warner in 08!

                by Frederik on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:13:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  He also said, (0+ / 0-)

            "We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril." I think when he talks to reporters off the cuff, his true colors emerge.

            A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. - Edward Abbey

            by Batbird on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:18:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely! (0+ / 0-)

            ...but he wasn't "in the fight of (his) political life" then because he still had his Senate seat waiting for him.  The voters of America were more furious than old Joe because at least Joe had his job.  Joe, Joe, Joe.  

  •  Work, work, work (9+ / 0-)

    If you are out of state and want to help Ned Lamont you may be able to phone bank through MoveOn.org.

    MoveOn Phone Bank for Ned Lamont

    Sign up!

  •  My conclusion from this poll... (5+ / 0-)

    is that Ned Lamont will lose horribly tomorrow if he does not get complete and total turnout of his supporters.  

  •  Looks like Lieberman's poor pitiful (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TX Unmuzzled, mjd in florida

    . . . me routine is getting some traction. It's going to be a nail-biter but I don't think anyone in Ned's campaign ever thought differently. I sure hope anyone that can will do whatever they can for GOTV for Ned.

    Stability is not the goal of the Bush administration in the Middle East, it is the target. - Thomas Ricks

    by peraspera on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:48:13 AM PDT

  •  You have no idea... (10+ / 0-)

    ...how nerve-wracking it is to read these poll numbers. Joe's smothering CT with flyers - you have to watch out.

    It sucks that now, I can only watch what goes on the next 2 days from work.

    Deny My Freedom
    "Inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen." -Al Gore

    by PsiFighter37 on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:49:42 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. (8+ / 0-)

    No self-congratulations today. Support your candidate, and do the work first. We'll talk tomorrow night.

    This is the final push.  Making phone calls tonight.  Sadly, I'm not available for anything more than casting my vote tomorrow.

    And as a reminder, You can sign up here to make phone calls through MoveOn.  It's easy and quick.  You can start as soon as you sign up.  The calls are two questions.  You can do it from anywhere.

  •  Hate to be the one to say it... (0+ / 0-)

    but looks to me like a narrow Lieberman win.

    If one side basically needs a huge GOTV effort, that doesnt bode well IMO.

    But will keep fingers crossed, as well as toes, and any other body parts I can bend for good luck.

    •  it doesn't really look that way at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, Osiris

      it looks like a normal tightening, but it also is an unpredicatable poll in summer.

      Lamont's voters are very motivated.

      I can't predict a Lamont win, but Joe's people cannot be happy with this poll, whatever spin they put on it. They'll say they need another week.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:53:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  a result like the poll means an independent run (0+ / 0-)

        the overwhelming lust of the Republicans to keep control of Capitol Hill no matter what it costs the United States of America in blood and treasure...

        by Osiris on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:30:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  of course it doesn't (0+ / 0-)
          it's a poll. The dynamic of that won't be clear until Tuesday night.

          "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

          by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:41:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  DemfromCt (0+ / 0-)

            I meant if on Tuesday night the margin of victory (the result) reflects the current poll numbers then Lieberman will run again.

            the overwhelming lust of the Republicans to keep control of Capitol Hill no matter what it costs the United States of America in blood and treasure...

            by Osiris on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:47:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ah.. that's another story ;-) (0+ / 0-)

              I don't expect the poll to have nailed the result.

              sorry for the misinterp.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:51:49 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Both sides need a huge GOTV effort. (0+ / 0-)

      That's really what it comes down to tomorrow.  And the people who are gonna vote are the ones who are motivated.  I think the question is, do Joe's supporters care enough to come out in droves?   Ned's do.

    •  I hate to say it.... (0+ / 0-)

      but I fear that you might be right.  Lieberman has a machine behind his campaign.  I have no doubt that the GOTV effort on his behalf will be huge.

      •  Something to consider, though (0+ / 0-)

        Observing this from my perch in Austin, it seems to me that Lamont voters are much more motivated than Lieberman voters, despite the big machine behind the incumbent.

        One of the Connecticut-based pundits (it might have been Colin McEnroe) said that even among Lieberman supporters, you won't find many people saying "I'm voting for Joe becasue he did x for me." Rachel Maddow was talking to a local reporter travelling with Ned Lamont this morning. The reporter observed that even at the Groton submarine factory, which Lieberman fought to keep open, the workers are wondering where Joe was all those other years he served on the Armed Services Committee.

        So despite all the very appropriate warnings for the Nedheads not to rest until tomorrow's votes are counted, I have to wonder--are Lieberman's supporters going to be passionate enough to turn out?

        "Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight. You've got to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight." --Bruce Cockburn, "Lovers In A Dangerous

        by AustinCynic on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:59:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a very good point... (0+ / 0-)

          ...especially when you consider that Joe's "workforce" is motivated by $60 a day and the Nedheads are out (as far as I know--correct me if I'm wrong) only because they have the passion to support Ned.  I hope that enthusiasm turns more hearts than the rote chantings of the paid Lieberyouth...

        •  we said the same thing about busby voters, no? (0+ / 0-)

          we always seem to think that this is the time we excel at turnout, and thus far we have been beaten at it consistently.

  •  From Colbert and The Week appearances (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    iCaroline, greeseyparrot

    I'm not surprised that Lamont is being closed on.  He had some good opportunities on the Colbert Report and on This Week to knock a few out of the park and he handled the questions merely adequately.

    Laont is a political newbie and it shows. I'm still hopeful that his positions will outweigh his lack of experience against Lieberman's frankly very good camera presence and his positions.

    Close the deal, Ned. Close the deal.

    RULE OF LAW. That's all the reason you need to oppose Republicans.

    by nightsweat on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:51:29 AM PDT

    •  that's the equation (5+ / 0-)

      Lamont hasn't made any major gaffes and he doesn't have to 'beat' Joe as much as be the viable ablternative.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:55:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not so sure (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greeseyparrot

        "Not as bad" is a good thing when you're already at the market and choosing between soap flakes, but this is the headline race, and if Lamont is seen as being merely "Not as bad" and a "viable alternative", he may not get out the vote enough to win.

        I think he needs to be seen as a dynamic, positive force to get enough people to the polls to win.

        RULE OF LAW. That's all the reason you need to oppose Republicans.

        by nightsweat on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:38:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Joe Lieberman lies about his positions. (8+ / 0-)

      He's been in the Senate for eighteen years and hasn't done a thing about health care.  When he first got elected, I had a chance to talk to him, and I told him about the problems with health care in the U.S.A.  If he's really interested in values, then health care should be a top priority.  He promised me he would do something about it.  What did he do?  Nothing!  We started to get on to his real self when Clarence Thomas was appointed to the SC.  Lieberman refused to say how he would vote.  We called his office. When his turn came, he waited to vote until it was definite that Thomas would be approved.  Then he voted against him.  He did something similar with Alito by voting with Republicans for cloture and then voting against Alito.  Joe Lieberman is a professional liar.  When he loses he can go into the massage business with his friend George W. Bush.  That's about all this pair is good at, besides using politics for personal profit.  

    •  weak appearance on colbert? (4+ / 0-)

      I thought he was outstanding. He came across as likable, good natured, stayed on topic and politely hammered Lieberman.

      If the casualties of principle are not healed, the physical casualties will continue to mount.----Martin Luther King

      by goobop on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:29:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the definition (0+ / 0-)

        of "adequate".  I agree with nightsweat.  Hee came off as nervous and a little too eagar, I thought.  Spoke in fits and starts.  He doesn't sound as smooth as Lieberman.

        I still think Lamont will win, though.

        Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

        by Cream Puff on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:33:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Cf to Julian Bond the previous week (0+ / 0-)

        Julian Bond was outstanding on Colbert, as was that Congressman from Florida. He played along and got his points in several times in different ways.

        I don't think Lamont made any mistakes on Colbert, but I don't think he took full advantage of the opportunity.

        RULE OF LAW. That's all the reason you need to oppose Republicans.

        by nightsweat on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:04:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lamont was great on Colbert (0+ / 0-)

          I thought Lamont was great on Colbert.  I think it was the article in the Hartford Courant that quoted a Colbert Report staffer who said that Ned got the most positive reception of any guest in the history of the show.

          I thought Ned came across as sincere, passionate, articulate.  

          It takes courage for any candidate to appear on that show, especially so close to an election.  

  •  Lets get out and vote for Joe... (10+ / 0-)

    This is important folks...

    Joe is a "Team Player" and I need him in the Senate.

    Without Joe blindly supporting my war I might have had to explain to the American People why I needed to attack Iraq so fast. But Joe got onboard.

    With Joe in the "gang of 14" we might have had to debate Justice Alito's extreme views, but Joe got onboard.

    Without Joe attacking every Democrat that questioned the war, I might have had to answer those question, but Joe helped when it counted.

    Joe Lieberman for Senate 06
    Get Onboard, we have more work to get done

    Parody is free speech! This is free speech! This is Parody!

    by President of the United States on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:56:10 AM PDT

  •  A gender gap has opened up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, Lochners Bakers

    Men: 55-42 Lamont (55-40)
    Women: 47-47 (53-43)

    (Aug 3rd poll)

    •  What are the trend lines? (0+ / 0-)

      There's a small gender gap (which might, in this world really be an income gap, but still). But is it new? Do you have linkz to gender breakdowns of previous polls?

      It is time to bring back this time-honoured tradition: We never go to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

      by PoliticGeek Pro on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:59:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why the gender gap? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      iCaroline

      It doesn't make sense to me (a man). I thought women were more anti-war? I thought women would be more offended by the "short ride" comments? I thought women were more often lacking proper health insurance?

      Is it due to women being more likely to "play it safe"?

      Is it due to the "short ride" comments being less prominent in the public than a few weeks ago?

      There has to be some explanation, this is not likely to be sampling error.

      It is time to bring back this time-honoured tradition: We never go to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

      by PoliticGeek Pro on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:08:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Jeez! But Lamont is so much better-looking! (0+ / 0-)

      end snark.

      -2.75, -3.90 -- Please don't eat the moderates.

      by iCaroline on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:34:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time to close the deal CT voters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, greeseyparrot

    Get to the polls and drag along everyone who you talked to about this race.  We can't skip a single vote!  We can win this thing!!

    Your ad could be here.

    by TheC on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:58:20 AM PDT

  •  6% I'll take it. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gladkov, peraspera, greeseyparrot

    Heck I'll take 6 votes.

    Bottom line is 6 months ago nobody knew who Ned Lamont was and here he is 6% ahead.  Even if the undecided voters break 3-1 for Joe tomorrow he still loses by 52-48 which is outside the MOE.

    DON'T VOTE FOR THE GUY WITH LIE IN HIS NAME, VOTE FOR NED INSTEAD!!! -8.50, -7.59

    by DisNoir36 on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:59:13 AM PDT

    •  My thoughts as well. (3+ / 0-)

      A six point lead with only four percent undecided isn't something Lieberman can be happy about.

      It is difficult to win an argument when your opponent is unencumbered with a knowledge of the facts. Dr. Nordstrom's First Rule of Debate

      by DemInTampa on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:05:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, the 'Netroots' MUST deliver a WIN (10+ / 0-)

      We've had too many close calls, too many surprising losses -- no, it's not enough to "get this far," so to speak.

      We must start delivering WINS. It may not happen tomorrow, but we'll be the crazy, angry netroots until we start delivering victories for the candidates attributed to us.

      •  We will be the crazy netroots regardless (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hester

        The beltway power elite consider us a threat so the attacks will increase no matter what. In the long run it's not likely to matter much becuase they don't play much of a role in the grassroots and the netroots connecting. We just have to keep trucking no matter what comes.

        Stability is not the goal of the Bush administration in the Middle East, it is the target. - Thomas Ricks

        by peraspera on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:51:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's assuming Q likely voter model is accurate (0+ / 0-)

      That is the big if here and why folks are still so nervous.  If Lieberman gets folks to the poll that didn't qualify for this likely voter model, then he may have a hidden well of votes.  Of course, the same could be said for Ned.  This will be a nail-biter.  My hope is that the ones who don't qualify as "likely voters" are the ones that are disgusted with Joe and would rather not vote at all.  They won't help him any.

      Your ad could be here.

      by TheC on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:21:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Their likely-voter model is at least consistent (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zeke L

        ...with their previous polls.

        What the poll does show is that, for the first time, after months of sinking, Lieberman has improved his standing.

        As Kos often says, never underestimate the Republicans' ability to close out an election.

        When Jesus said, "Love your enemies," he probably didn't mean kill them.

        by porktacos on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:17:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can't Believe That Voters Who Have Decided To... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera, mjd in florida, Nasara

    support Lieberman because of incumbency will be all that motivated to turnout en masse for "Status Quo Joe". Do they really want to send a message to the country that when it comes to blue states, Connecticut's shade of blue is quite pale.

    Good Government. Traffic Lights Aren't All That Weird. Vote Democratic!

    by HL Mungo on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 05:59:58 AM PDT

  •  I thought we already won!? (17+ / 0-)
    Man, sometimes Democratic grass-roots activists remind me of those nitwits in horror movies: the bad guy takes one in the gut and falls down, and everybody applauds, hugs and breathes a sigh of relief. Then, just as they walk away high-fiving each other, the psycho rises up and sticks a spaghetti spoon through the 3rd male lead's torso...I keep screaming at the TV, "DON'T STOP ATTACKING HIM UNTIL HIS HEAD IS CUT OFF, BURNED, DISMEMBERED AND SENT INTO SPACE ON A ROCKET (Which explodes)." These ghouls ALWAYS rise up and get revenge unless we mercilessly put them down, hold them down, and keep kicking, shooting and chopping until we actually see his spirit rise out of his body or  until the credits start rolling (even then -- watch out for the sequel)...

    --------
    Daily Kos is the worst blog I've ever wasted my entire life on so far...(refresh)...

    by PBJ Diddy on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:02:30 AM PDT

  •  I dissagree about the negative attacks (5+ / 0-)

    having no effect.

    I suggest that you take a look at the favorable/unfavorable for Ned among middle class (30-50K) voters.  It went from 50 favorable, 12 unfav and 13 mixed to 32/24/23 respectively.  Maybe that doesn't seem like a big switch to you but here in NY a switch from 50/25 to 32/57 gets our attention.

  •  What does gasoline cost. . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OLinda, peraspera

    In Hartford today?

    Given this morning's BP story out of Alaska, I have a hunch Connecticut voters might be waking up to "record gas prices" stories tomorrow morning -- before heading to the polls. Never know. Could end up making the difference in a race like this.

    I'm totally convinced that elections are about motivation and passion. There is a hunger for change in America, and I don't think that bodes well for Lieberman. The people are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore.

    Connecticut voters are among the most intelligent in the country, and they're going to prove it tomorrow.

    The Republican Party: Keeping America Fact-Free Since 2001

    by IndyScott on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:06:15 AM PDT

    •  hate to be negative, but... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coral, FredFred, Osiris

      I'm totally convinced that elections are about motivation and passion. There is a hunger for change in America, and I don't think that bodes well for Lieberman. The people are mad as hell, and they aren't going to take it anymore.

      This is what I thought... before 2000.  Or 2002, or 2004.  I've been disappointed way too many times.  Surrounded by people with motivation and passion and a hunger for change, watching GW Bush get more and more power.  I feel sick to my stomach.

  •  Canvassing update (30+ / 0-)

    Hi guys!  I canvassed all day yesterday.  I could really use a virtual foot rub.  So, while you are massaging my tootsies, let me just say that I still thing Ned is going to win tomorrow.  There were a lot more poeple home yesterday than on Saturday and while we found a few more Lieberdroids and undecideds, the pro-Lamont voters are highly motivated.  You know that look that people get when they want to beat the crap out of someone?  That "let me at 'em!" look?  THAT'S the look I saw over and over again when people said Lamont.  They said it forcefully, confidently, sometimes following up with, "You better bet I'm going to be there on Tuesday."  I don't think Nutmeggers liked it much when Joe told them to shut up and support the President.  Just a hunch.  Well, actually, several people mentioned that exactly.  Some referred to Joe as "That beady, eyed, weasel, bastard, expletive deleted."  Oh, yeah, there is discontent in Connecticut, all right.  Bloggers didn't have much to do with it.  
    I found out some characteristics of the typical Lieberman voter.  They tend to be older, infirm or disabled and not likely to be wired.  Or wealthy.  Undecideds tended to be in working class neighborhoods and may not be wired either.  
    Ned has a lot of support in working class neighborhoods though.  People ARE paying attention.  Maybe it's gas prices.  Maybe it's the war.  Whatever it is, people are tuned in.  
    So, Kossacks, don't let the recent poll get you down.  Joe did make up some lost ground but not enough I think.  Ned is a good candidate, people know it and they are ready for a change.  

    -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

    by goldberry on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:07:03 AM PDT

    •  Oops. Thanks are downthread one. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamfan, sunbro

      Stability is not the goal of the Bush administration in the Middle East, it is the target. - Thomas Ricks

      by peraspera on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:14:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are my hero (6+ / 0-)

      You really are. I read in another thread that you're from NJ, as am I, but I just can't get away; no one to watch the kiddies. One question: I know the pavement pounding effort has been tremendous, but is Lamont's campaign countering TV ads and flyers with their own?

      Oh, and how's this for irony: our family vaca is coming up two weeks from today. Guess where we're going? Mystic, CT! So my feet, and those of my family, will be on the ground...after the fact.

      Something's happening here today -- a show of strength with your boys' brigade. Paul Weller

      by jamfan on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:17:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  robo calls (6+ / 0-)

        To be perfectly honest, I didn't watch any TV while I was there so I can't report on the ads.  I think one of my canvassing partners said he had gotten a few good responses to the ads.  However, I did canvas one neighborhood around Wesleyan that was targeted by Lieberman with robo calls.  Let's just say that that strategy didn't go over well at all.  One man, who had a chronic illness, started getting 4-6 robo calls a day from the Lieberman crowd, starting in early July.  His companion said they got one live call from a Lamont phone banker and just the fact that the person was live gave them a chance to vent their frustration. The phone calls are really not appreciated, no matter who is calling.  But if you feel the need to do it, a real person on the other end is going to get you more votes, probably for the same reason that people hate to go through a voice menu before  they finally get to speak to an actual customer service rep.  Actually, that is probably EXACTLY why Lieberman didn't do well with the phone calls.  They were like that impersonal voice menu when all you really want to do is chew out the customer rep about poor service.  

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:25:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Lamont voters may be motivated... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro

      but Lieberman voters will be getting free rides to the polling station---don't get overconfident.

      •  Ummmm... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peraspera

        Actually, when I came across a voter who needed a ride, I took down their phone number and handed it in with the canvassing at Meriden HQ.  I was under the impression that the campaign staff would find rides for people if they needed them.  

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:27:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure they will.... (0+ / 0-)

          but the effort is a lot bigger on Lieberman's behalf.

        •  what is Ned, broke? (0+ / 0-)

          He's been getting tons of money from us and he has plenty of his own.  Are you telling me that he's not arranging to have vans and cars available by, you know, RENTING them for the day?

          •  Can't say (9+ / 0-)

            They had a huge staff meeting yesterday.  Volunteers were told to stay away for a few hours.  When I came back after canvassing, HQ was eerily quiet and calm.  Everyone there has the look of good students who studied for the exam and know they can ace it.  Earlier in the day, there were stacks of signs everywhere.  When I came back, they were gone.  I've been told by campaign veterans that Tom Swan is running the best campaign they've ever seen.  
            There are always things that can't be foreseen.  There may be cracks in the organization that we will be analysing later.  They probably could have used a bit more help this weekend, for example.  Maybe they could have nailed down a bit more committment of time from some of us.  But I think these people know what they are doing. They didn't tell me what their transportation plans were but when I told them about people needing rides, they said they would take care of it.  

            -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

            by goldberry on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:37:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  (virtual foot rub) (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sunbro

      Wonderful to hear!  You rock.

    •  which town? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      orchid314, HeavyJ, mjd in florida, theark

      just curious.

      i was also out canvassing, in norwalk, and i got a much more mixed reaction.  a number of people were still pretty undecided.  this was especially true with black women, who were at home sunday afternoon after church, as someone mentioned upthread.

      they were generally receptive to more information, especially on healthcare, education antd the like.  maxine waters' support (who was out campaigning in norwalk yesterday) was a great selling point too, i found.  these ladies have a high regard for maxine's BS filter.

      but there's lots more voters to talk to!

      everyone come on up to CT for tuesday. this afternoon even, if you can manage it.

      that's true even if you think ned is going to win for sure. (which you shouldn't because we have to work for it.) for every extra point joe loses by, you make another 50 corporate lobbyists cry inconsolably for weeks.

      politics is a war of ideas; those who do not embrace this are no realists

      by zeke L on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:41:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My towns (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theark

        Middletown and Meriden.  I hit both middle class and working class neighborhoods including a housing project.  
        The thing that astonished me was the positive response we got even from the undecideds.  Everyone was very friendly, took our literature, listened to our spiel.  There were no slammed doors, no bad vibes anywhere.  The voters are really paying attention.  They know this vote is important.  All the undecideds need is a little encouragement.  In my towns, there were FAR more positive for Ned responses than there were positives for Lieberman.  We canvassed about 300 houses of likely voters over the past 2 days (some of these houses had multiple voters).  The number of pro-Liberman voters couldn't have been more than about 10.  The number of pro-Lamont far exceeded that.  

        -3.63, -4.46 "Choose something like a star to stay your mind on- and be staid"

        by goldberry on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:15:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  re:Tightening and Silver Linings (10+ / 0-)

    I expect I'm not alone in my disappointment that this new Q poll doesn't show Lamont leading 60% to 39%.  Then again, my desires for poll results are virtually never reasonable.

    But this poll sends a very important message:

    Lamont voters, get your butts to the polls!

    Now, maybe this poll's likely voter model is off, Lamont's support is more intense, the real margin is double digits, etc., and Lamont will win big.  But I think this poll gives the Lamont campaign a great talking point for today.  

    No complacency!

    I can fuck with your signature, too, deminva! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! -- Kos

    by deminva on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:11:01 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for your shoe leather and the morale boost (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greeseyparrot, sunbro

    We owe you foot massages for life. Our country really needs a Lamont win.

    Stability is not the goal of the Bush administration in the Middle East, it is the target. - Thomas Ricks

    by peraspera on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:13:09 AM PDT

  •  the other problem with this pol (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    is, if Ned DOES win, but gets 6% or less, it gives Lieberman the cover to say "well, if the primary had been held on Thursday we would have won, so I'm going to run as an indy".

    You know that this guy will grasp any straw that he can.  After all, this is a guy that stayed in the Prez race after getting all of 9% in New Hampshire and finishing 5th.

    •  any victory is a victory (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vivacia

      seems it will be close.

      but any victory is an incredible accomplishment.

      my fear is that the lamonters have been coasting as Joe's people have  ramped it way up.

      and that there are not enough news cycles left to correct joe's misinformation in the past few days.

      an ambulance can only go so fast - neil young

      by mightymouse on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:06:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  three way poll? (0+ / 0-)

    Does anyone know if there has been a three way poll released lately? The last one I heard of showed it 40-40-18.

    •  Nooo, please, no 3-way numbers! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gogol

      A 3way poll could affect strategic voters, but most likely would help Joe more than NEd.

      If it showed Ned beating Joe in a 3-way, then the poll would help Joe get some votes from people who really want Joe and would have just "sent a message" with a Ned primary vote.  It might also motivate some independents to turn up and vote for Joe.

      If it showed Joe ahead, it might motivate Ned supporters a bit more, but it's hard to imagine it making as much of a difference.

      If it showed the Republican with any kind of a foothold, then risk-averse Democratic voters would swing hard for Joe, the seasoned politician with strong independent and GOP support.

      So bottom line: Lamonsters should be glad there is no recent threeway polling out there today.  Such polling would be obsolete anyway, once hte primary results are announced.  That will change hte whole dynamic.  If Ned wins big enough, it will force Joe to give up his independent bid.

      •  Eh (0+ / 0-)

        I don't think it would make too much difference. I guess it could signal voters if Joe was losing the three way, that they don't have to vote for him just to have him stick in the Democratic Party.

        The only real difference i think it would make is that if it showed Ned with a 5+ lead, it would put more pressure on Joe to drop out.

        Besides, I am dying of curiousity!

        •  3-way later this week (0+ / 0-)

          I don't follow these things, but I'm sure there will be a 3-way poll that goes into the field 5 minutes after Lieberman's announcement if Lamont wins and Lieberman announces he's staying in the race.

  •  The scary, scary, SCARY thing is . . . (19+ / 0-)

    . . . if, somehow, Lieberman were able to pull this out of his ass, he would NOT show any inkling of contrition, nor get any 'message' about what made this close in the first place, nor 'turn over the new leaf' he seems to have -- just within the past 5-or-so days -- re:  standing up to Bush . . . no:  he'd go Right (wing) Back to kissing Bush's and the Wingnuts' bums.

    BenGoshi
    _________________________________________________

    We're working on many levels here. Ken Kesey

    by BenGoshi on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:27:44 AM PDT

  •  Solid Lead? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral, peraspera, itskevin, greeseyparrot

    Given the internal trend of this poll toward a tighter race and the fact that the results are just on the edge of the possible standard of deviation, Lamont's lead could in no way be termed as "solid".   I think its best described as "fragile" at this point.

    Q-polls are good and usually do not eat up the entire deviation.  Yet, this is a primary and things are a lot more unpredictable.  

    Based simply on reports from people on the ground in CT, my guess is Lamont wins by 3 points.  Based on the recent “inside” reports concerning what Lieberman will do when he loses, my guess is that this margin will not be enough to discourage his Indie bid.  It would appear Lieberman will only come to his senses if Lamont’s margin is in or close to double digits.      

     

    •  "solid" doesn't mean set in stone (0+ / 0-)
      The numbers are the numbers. Ned leads. The lead has shrunk, but still exists. The numbers don't predict squat for tomorrow.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:16:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In order to get joe out... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mae

    and drop his independent bid, Lamont would nead a blowout victory à la Tester in Montana...

    Alas that won't be happening, regardless of who wins, Ned or Joe, it is going to be nailbiter... and they'll probably end within four points of eachother.

  •  when cokie roberts represents the MSM (3+ / 0-)

    and claims that a Lamont victory spells death to the democratic party, she mistakenly forgets to add the words, "as I know it".

    Lamont will win. The DLC will die. the NEW Democratic party will have a decade of hard work in front of it - fixing the crimes, the domestic destruction and the international quagmires created by the neocons.

    Building is always harder than destroying, as Bush has shown.

    In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

    by agnostic on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:37:32 AM PDT

  •  Lamont is a political newcomer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peraspera

    and will have to get a track record of accomplishment behind him before people really vote for him for the right reasons. In the meantime, for a good percentage of voters, he's the anti-Lieberman candidate. That can only work once (or twice if Joe foolishly enters as an Indy in the November, which he likely will in a close race).

    But I think Joe's Dem support will be siphoned off regardless of the margin of victory for Lamont.

    It ain't over 'til it's over, but I heard the "fat lady" warming up this morning. (

    "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

    by RevJoe on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 06:44:24 AM PDT

    •  Lamont's candidacy. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zeke L, vivacia, iCaroline, sunbro

      I don't see Ned Lamont as the anti-Lieberman candidate.  I see him as a fresh face and an appealling alternative to a Senator who's really done almost nothing for his constituents.  All he's done is grease the big wheels who can get him elected.  He writes off the rest of us, except when election time comes around.  As for experience, none is better than experience that corrupts.  Qualifications and integrity are more important than experience.  

      •  My point is (0+ / 0-)

        that the polls confirm that among some people, Lamont is seen as the anti-Lieberman, anti-Iraq War vote. I am not saying that Lamont is a one-issue candidate without his own principles and ideals. On the contrary. But he is perceived by some as simply "not Joe Lieberman."

        My further point is that after Ned estblishes himself, which won't take long, he will gain respect from most of these people for the positions he holds. He'll be his own man in a short time, and will have deeper support based on his ideas and not simply "anti-Joe" ideas.

        "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

        by RevJoe on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 12:15:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nothing wrong with this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zeke L, hester

      Right now it IS a referendum on Lieberman, just as I hope the midterms will be a referendum on Bush and his war.

      It's perfectly acceptable for voters to kick someone out of office by voting for his/her opponent. It's called accountability.

      Now, if Lamont had been some neo-Nazi type, no.  But he is emphatically NOT any such thing.  He's a Democrat, he's smart, and if Connecticut is willing to give him a chance, cool.  If he becomes a Senator, then the people of Connecticut can hold him accountable for his own actions and votes.

  •  Private"Poll" (7+ / 0-)
    My wife and I, here in CT, were phonebanking for Ned last night.  We spoke with maybe 50 people who gave their preference, and Ned was ahead by about 2:1, with maybe 10% undecided.  Though "leave me alone and stop calling" had as many votes as both of 'em combined.
  •  In early polls (0+ / 0-)

    people sometimes are bolder and claim they will vote for the challenger.  Then when they get in the ballot box, they get nervous and the comforting feel of the status quo takes over.

    So I'm waiting anxiously to see what happens.  It will be incredible if Lamont wins.  I'm worried, but hopeful.  If I were anywhere near Connecticut I would be out there offering to drive people to the polls.

  •  9% (0+ / 0-)

    One might highlight that number from the Q-poll.  Only 9% say their decision to vote against Lieberman is not related to the war?

    90% of Lamont voters have the war as at least one of the reasons they are voting against Lieberman.  Let's not kid ourselves that is huge.  There is no reason to run away from the war issue as a defining one for this race.  It is a tremendously helpful issue for Dems.

    We tolerate varied opinions on how to get out of the Iraq mess, but don't tolerate those that cannot recognize just what a mess the foreign policy that led us there is.  A simple winning, inclusive message.

    -4.75, -6.31 "Violent means will give violent freedom." - Ghandi

    by DemUnity on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:01:44 AM PDT

  •  Interesting conversation with my dad yesterday... (11+ / 0-)

    We live in CT and everyone in my family is a liberal jewish democrat. My dad returned from vacation and asked me if I was voting in the primary and I said yes. Upon further investigation it appears that my dad is undecided, even though he is aware of Joe Lieberman's many questionable positions on issues of importance to progressive Americans, of which he is one.

    Why is he conflicted? He has a sense of loyalty toward Lieberman, partly out of the cultural and religious bond of being Jewish, and partly out of respect for what he perceives as Joe's long history as a good liberal politician. I explained to him a few things that he was not aware of, such as his wife's job as a lobbyist for Big Pharma, and reminded him of the duplicity and party betrayal stemming from Joe's decision to run as an independent even if he loses the primary.

    I think there are a lot of democratic voters out there who have a difficult time believing the worst of Joe, and we can only hope that they ultimately make their decision for Lamont, choosing change over loyalty.

    •  SAME conversation here (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, iCaroline, jamfan, mjd in florida, OWTH

      but surprisingly enough, my father's biggest turn-off about Joe was his behavior during the Clinton mess. The Jewish thing IS a factor with some Jewish voters, although I dislike admitting it. I wish it were otherwise. My parents, however, are voting Ned, because of Joe's self righteousnes, because of his closeness with Bush and because of...well...me.

  •  Until the polls close . . . (7+ / 0-)

    your candidate is always two points behind, no matter what polls say.

    From what I've seen on the ground in Hartford this weekend, Joe's team is acting accordingly.  Are we?

    "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."=GWB

    by BTP on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:10:50 AM PDT

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester, who threw da cat

      I saw Joe's kids on my street, but heard nothing from Lamont.  Joe really has an army out there.  The question I have is did Joe work this hard in 2000 for Al Gore?  

      Let's hope the passion for change is stronger and Ned's supporters want it more.  

      Your ad could be here.

      by TheC on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:34:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  'Joe's Kids' (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not from Connecticut, so I'm puzzled.  I keep hearing about "Joes kids".  How in the hell is a totally non-cool Republican Democrat like Lieberman getting such a large crowd of kids?  What motivates them?  Or is this being exaggerated.  I see posts saying that in Hartford Lieberman's people were all over, but Lamont's weren't.

        I was so happy with last week's Q poll showing the big Lamont win.  Now, it is tightening, and we still have a whole day before election day.

        Maybe traitor Bubba's campaign ads are starting to work, along with the rest of the "Protect Incumbents" other Democratic Senators.

        That, along with dirty politics using Lamont's membership in the country club against him, may be cutting into his support in the black community.

        If Lieberman wins, the mainstream media will depict it as a huge win for Bush's Iraq policy.

        I was so up, and now I'm feeling down.  

        "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

        by Michigan Paul on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:05:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hartford (0+ / 0-)

      Yes, I was in Hartford on Saturday and Sunday.  Lieberman teams were all over, with signs all over, especially in the poor neighborhoods. Park Street looks like a Lieberman Avenue.

      No Ned signs or support.  Was there canvassing in Hartford?  I know we had some in Middletown.

      Anyone else has done canvassing in CT?  What's your experience?

  •  SEND a MESSAGE!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida, OWTH, carolinacal

    It's time for voters in Conn. to send a message to Mr. Bu$h and anyone in either party that allies themselves with him that the voters of America have had enough! Sen. Lieberman will be the first head to roll and after it rolls the rest of them will be on notice.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:21:19 AM PDT

  •  Six more years of Lieberman's BS? (0+ / 0-)
    I hope the LAmont voters come out in force in CT tomorrow because they realize the alternative is  6 more years of Lieberman's corporate shilling  under the guise of being a Democrat. Sure he can vote along with the Democrats with stem-cell research and other no-brainer liberal issues. But on the less red meat issues (less publicized) he will continue to keep siding with big business over the man on the street.

    He is so far out of touch I hope that CT voters do no't fall for some last minute posturing and get stuck with this rotten apple for SIX more years. We all know chenge needs to come a lot sooner than that.

  •  what can you do for me? (4+ / 0-)

    I was fascinated this morning with the tone of the dialogue on C-Span's Washington Journal segment on the Connecticut race. Granted that their format is always one from column A and one from Column B, the majority of those who stated they would vote for Lieberman over Lamont stressed that although they did not agree with his position on the Iraq war, they still stressed his experience and what he had and could do for them and feared that Lamont's inexperience and lack of Washington knowhow would create hardship economically for the state. That is a fine concern for a Congressional representative who still basically represents a local constituency, but in a system where only two individuals represent an entire state, I find it most disturbing that the overall issues facing the nation as a whole are not more prominent. I find this extremely interesting because in this class of voters, and most of them sounded older voters it meant that personal issues outweigh national or idealistic ones. In other words the tone set by John F Kennedy''s inaugural address about ask not what I can do for you ask what you can do for the good of mankind (paraphrased obviously) has given way to the ask what you can do for me mentality.  It is the tone set from the top leadership that drives any nation to idealism or selfishness and at the moment America is singuarly deficient in genuine passion for justice and equality for all Americans, let alone the entire world. It is very much a dog eat dog world. Perhaps that more than inndividual issues is where we need to search our souls. Have we completely lost track of what it means to be an American and what America's role in the world should be?

  •  Bad News? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester

    Lieberman has made pretty dramatic gains, but it still is a conventional rule that an incumbent below 50% is in danger, especially since they say that undecideds tend to break for the challenger.

    That was the conventional wisdom, until Diebold and company sort of messed it up in the 2004 presidential election.

    I hope Lamont wins.  After years of kissing up to Republicans, now Lieberman, sensing his job is on the line, is starting to talk like a Democrat.

    Too little, too late.  I hope Connecticut Democrats see through Lieberman's phony act.  And I will never forgive Bill Clinton for so actively campaigning for Lieberman.  Clinton has shown us where his true priorties are-with the Republican wing of the Democratic party.

    "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

    by Michigan Paul on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 07:55:32 AM PDT

  •  God's speed, Connecticans. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mjd in florida

    Thank you for everything you've done so far to give us better representation in Washington.

    We're pulling for you.  Let's bring it on home.

  •  Math error in the Q-Poll release (0+ / 0-)
    28% still open to changing their minds would be astonishingly high this close to Election Day.

    On closer inspection, it's 10%.

    10% of total voters,
    10% of Lieberman voters,
    9% of Lamont voters,
    which (with round-off) apparently adds to 28%, but that's triple-counting.

    How does it all turn out? Trend is unfavorable to Lamont, but intensity and internals weigh in his favor. 8-10 points is still reasonable (and given the vagaries of primary polling, any number you want is still reasonable).

    Note also, Lieberman and Lamont are within the combined margin of error (Lieberman up and Lamont down) ... you could frame the results as one of those mythical "statistical ties".

    None Dare Call It Stupid!

    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:10:10 AM PDT

    •  22,000 new Dems? (0+ / 0-)

      counting both new voters and new Dem enrollees. May through last Friday there were 11, 496 new enrollees (switches), and 10,344 new voters in same period. ~ 6500 between July 31-Aug. 4 alone iirc.
      I think those numbers favor Lamont, who actually has an operation to enroll unaffiliateds, vs. JL who seemed to have no ground game at all till last week and now has new workers but inexperienced ones. And that means the Lamont numbers are undercounted because those new enrollees are not in the sample.
      Having said that, if I was running either campaign and I saw that many new people I'd freak out - who are they all? Statistically new voters are less likely to vote  (may have signed up at a festival for example and no one follows up with them and they dk where to vote) but new enrollees are already voters so will turn out more.
      The new voters may mean chaos at the polls btw. These registrars offices are horse and buggy and understaffed most places. The deadline for enrolling was noon today and they have how many hours to process those and print good lists by six AM? Usually lists are ready the night before but there will be supplementals this time.
      Folks will show up and insist they are Democrats and someone will have to verify all of that in a City Hall somewhere in time to let them vote by 8.

  •  whooping cough polls (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hester

    The patient always looks a little stronger before he perishes..

  •  Lamont Needs Al Gore (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bincbom

    It seems that Holy Joe is closing the gap, probably due to the delayed effects of the Bubba barrage of pro-Lieberman ads.

    If Lamont wants to win, his campaign needs to get on the phone pronto with the Gore people to convice Al to do a last-minute endorsement spot for him on radio and tv, heavily in the minority and base Democratic communities.

    Kos, please use your connections to convince Gore to do this.  It would not be a betrayal of his running mate in 2000, Lieberman has betrayed the Democratic party that he represented in 2000 by his kissy kissy with the Bush war.

    If Lamont does not counter the Clinton ads, then I fear he will lose narrowly tomorrow. I might just be getting nervous, but I fear Joe is going to pull this out if Lamont does not do something dramatic.

    "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

    by Michigan Paul on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:27:18 AM PDT

  •  Your head, not your heart! (0+ / 0-)

    I've been thinking about Lieberman's assertion that with him at the top of the ticket, he could drag in some Democrats down the ticket (the Shays and Johnson races). It seems to me that if Joe L win, the activists will be so disheartened that it will reduce Democratic turnout in the general election, Wheras if Ned L win, they will be fired up and increase the Democratic votes. Whaddoyathink?

    If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own...FDR

    by Finnegan on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:34:11 AM PDT

    •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamfan

      I think you're right on.  Lieberman's victory will be politics as usual, possibly another stolen election.

      Activists and new voters will grow ever more cynical and discouraged.  The progressives of this party need a win big after so many disappointments after disappointements.  I don't think I can take one more loss.  

      "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."-FDR

      by Michigan Paul on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 08:41:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just got back from Town Hall... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L

    So I went to my town hall in North Branford today to switch from Independent to Democrat. I was amazed at the crowd of people there to change their party. There was a huge stack of registration cards on the Registar's desk (all from today). I'm guessing turn out is going to be big, if the rural town I live in is even having a huge turnout to switch/register. Maybe a good sign for Lamont? Or may just Joe convincing the large Republican community in my town to switch to Democrat. ;-)

    •  Registered Republicans can't switch. (0+ / 0-)

      To vote in a Dem. primary, Republicans would have had to switch by May 8.  Independents can register as Dems. as late as today and still vote in the primary tomorrow.

    •  What's your guess? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zeke L

      My husband switched a month ago (we are in CO vacationing, so we voted absentee). Republicans had to switch a long time ago, to vote in tomorrow's primary. So the people you saw, were independents. I think that is a good sign for Lamont. Hope springs eternal.

    •  R's can't switch (0+ / 0-)

      only unaffiliateds.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:18:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  These numbers sound about right to me. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L

    Lamont had a blip last week and this week it has returned to the post-debate Dynamic with Lamont ahead, outside the margin of error, and ranging from 3 points to 9 points.

    Lamont didn't drop much in this poll (3 points is within the margin of error), it seems that conservative and moderate Dems returned to the fold.  In the prior poll, Lamont was essentially even.  In the latest poll, Lieberman has a 10 point lead, which is to be expected, but with Lamont at 43% among conservatives and moderates, that's bad news for Lieberman, who should lead this category by 20 points in a normal race.

    Polls are generally accurate (Diebold notwithstanding), and this one tells me that Lamont should win if he gets his likely voters out to the polls.  If he can add the newbies, then his lead will widen.  But I think Lieberman will get a solid turnout of his folks to make this a less than 10 point race.  It could be as narrow as 3 points.  

    •  Sounds about right to me too (0+ / 0-)

      I'm in NJ, so I've been comparing the Q-polling to last years NJ gov. race. As an aside, and FWIW, Quinnipiac on the day before Election Day had Corzine winning by +7; the next day, he won by +10.5. (I know, I know, generals are different from primaries, NJ is different from CT, etc., but I just thought I'd check.)

      Something's happening here today -- a show of strength with your boys' brigade. Paul Weller

      by jamfan on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:42:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Q-poll has a good record, but there's also (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamfan

        few undecideds left. Compare to governor numbers, where decision is soft.

        OTOH, summer, primary, etc...

        "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

        by Greg Dworkin on Mon Aug 07, 2006 at 09:44:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Just Wondering (0+ / 0-)

    A question for those of you phonebanking or canvassing.  How many people did you run across that have already voted absentee?  How difficult is it to get an absentee ballot in Conn.?  Here in California a substanial number of voters use absentee ballots every election.  

  •  Damn. This means (0+ / 0-)

    we'll be suffering the insufferable Lieberman all the way into November.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site