"Ned Lamont has lost momentum"

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 10:18 AM

Ned Lamont has lost momentum," said poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "He's gained only two points in six weeks. He's going to have to do something different in the next six weeks or ... Lieberman stays in for another six years."

I think we all knew this would happen. Flashinthepan

HAMDEN, Conn. (AP) - Sen. Joe Lieberman has a 10-point advantage over Democrat Ned Lamont among likely Connecticut voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday.

Lieberman, a three-term Democrat running as an independent after losing the party nomination in a primary, is favored by 49 percent to 39 percent over Lamont in the three-way race. Republican Alan Schlesinger trails with 5 percent.

My Way News - Poll: Lieberman Leads Lamont in Conn.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 10:21 AM

OH SNAP

This kinda puts a dampener on about a million other threads on this forum. I was wondering why we haven't had our usual anti-Lieberman, pro-Lamont thread in a while.

The limelight is starting to fall and CT is starting to see the truth it seems. It's no wonder Lamont has spent something like $7milllion on his campaign...

SoFlaJDM · 09-28-2006, 10:21 AM

i'm not worried.

thanks for caring though

6SpeedTA95 · 09-28-2006, 10:34 AM

Sweet lovin'

I hope lieberman or a republican takes that seat

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Sweet lovin'

I hope lieberman or a republican takes that seat

Some would say if Lieberman won, it is a Rupublican taking the seat!

DosEquis · 09-28-2006, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Some would say if Lieberman won, it is a Rupublican taking the seat!

Yeah, it is basically. Lieberman is a moderate republican. Just like Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Yeah, it is basically. Lieberman is a moderate republican. Just like Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

Didn't he vote with the democrats like 80+% of the time? I think he's more of a moderate democrat.

SoFlaJDM · 09-28-2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Didn't he vote with the democrats like 80+% of the time? I think he's more of a moderate democrat.

so why are you celebrating?

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 10:53 AM

According to this he is a moderate Dem.

Joseph Lieberman on the Issues

Pretty cool site actually.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Didn't he vote with the democrats like 80+% of the time? I think he's more of a moderate democrat.

I think it's far more than 80%

motivez · 09-28-2006, 02:32 PM

I'm not sure why I (or someone) always has to point out that it doesn't matter how he actually votes, if he only does so after doing all he can to sabotage the effort.. either directly through supporting Bush/GOP initiatives, or indirectly through not standing up for Democratic proposals..

and then only deciding to cast his vote one way or another after it's already shown that something like the social security thing is completely dead.. and thus politically convienent to "get out front" and pretend like you had a hand in it.

I think it's going to be an interesting day on poll day, because.. while these polls say this person or that person, it doesn't take into account a factor like Lieberman being so low on the ballot, under a bunch of other independent challengers, or the fact that Lamont will be at the top, followed by the Republican guy

While there will assuredly be people who go specifically looking for Lieberman, I have a feeling a lot will get there and say, oh hey, a Republican guy. Neat. Lets vote for him.

Maybe enough to pull enough GOP support from underneath Lieberman to help usher in Lamont

Either way though, it's made the GOP spend money on a candidate in CT, something they normally wouldn't have done. That's money they can't spend elsewhere.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not sure why I (or someone) always has to point out that it doesn't matter how he actually votes, if he only does so after doing all he can to sabotage the effort.. either directly through supporting Bush/GOP initiatives, or indirectly through not standing up for Democratic proposals..

and then only deciding to cast his vote one way or another after it's already shown that something like the social security thing is completely dead.. and thus politically convienent to "get out front" and pretend like you had a hand in it.

I think it's going to be an interesting day on poll day, because.. while these polls say this person or that person, it doesn't take into account a factor like Lieberman being so low on the ballot, under a bunch of other independent challengers, or the fact that Lamont will be at the top, followed by the Republican guy

While there will assuredly be people who go specifically looking for Lieberman, I have a feeling a lot will get there and say, oh hey, a Republican guy. Neat. Lets vote for him.

Maybe enough to pull enough GOP support from underneath Lieberman to help usher in Lamont

Either way though, it's made the GOP spend money on a candidate in CT, something they normally wouldn't have done. That's money they can't spend elsewhere.

Why would he sabotoge and then vote against his stance? Are you calling him a Republican plant? Name an instance where he tried to sabotoge and then voted against his verbal opinion.

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not sure why I (or someone) always has to point out that it doesn't matter how he actually votes, if he only does so after doing all he can to sabotage the effort.. either directly through supporting Bush/GOP initiatives, or indirectly through not standing up for Democratic proposals..

and then only deciding to cast his vote one way or another after it's already shown that something like the social security thing is completely dead.. and thus politically convienent to "get out front" and pretend like you had a hand in it.

I think it's going to be an interesting day on poll day, because.. while these polls say this person or that person, it doesn't take into account a factor like Lieberman being so low on the ballot, under a bunch of other independent challengers, or the fact that Lamont will be at the top, followed by the Republican guy

While there will assuredly be people who go specifically looking for Lieberman, I have a feeling a lot will get there and say, oh hey, a Republican guy. Neat. Lets vote for him.

Maybe enough to pull enough GOP support from underneath Lieberman to help usher in Lamont

Either way though, it's made the GOP spend money on a candidate in CT, something they normally wouldn't have done. That's money they can't spend elsewhere.

In the end, all you have is the results of how he voted. He's a democrat, maybe not as liberal as some would like, but that's what he is.

Oh, the GOP has plenty of money this year. I think we can afford to spend some in CT

motivez · 09-28-2006, 02:43 PM

Sorry, you have much more than the results of how he voted. You have his actions leading up to the vote, positions he supported and pushed for, etc.. before finally turning around and voting one way because it was politically convienent..

If you want to remain willfully ignorant of those very important factors, feel free to do so.

And no, he's no Democrat. Not anymore.

And yes, while the GOP has plenty of money, the gap is much narrower than in years past, and they're being forced to focus much of that money in areas they've never had to contest before.

Thanks to Dean and his 50 state strategy.

Stylerod · 09-28-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

And yes, while the GOP has plenty of money, the gap is much narrower than in years past, and they're being forced to focus much of that money in areas they've never had to contest before.

Really?

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 — The Republican National Committee has amassed a significant fund-raising advantage, according to campaign finance records filed Wednesday, feeding Democrats’ fears about remaining competitive in the intense final weeks before the midterm elections.

The new fund-raising reports show that at the beginning of September, Republicans had $39 million in the bank, compared with $11 million for Democrats.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-28-2006, 03:03 PM

39 to 11?

In football thats known as an ass kicking

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

39 to 11?

In football thats known as an ass kicking

It's not uncommon. Republicans typically do better at fundraising than Democrats. Dean did a great job at first. But then his big mouth got him in trouble. At first having a radical in that position was great for the Democrats. But then when he didn't shut up and the media got a hold of his antics and exposed him it hurt a lot. You can't expect someone like Dean to be your official spokesperson and fundraiser and not take a hit. He would be better off as a Pelosi or Boxer and just give the media daily soundbites. That at least would have been respectable to the media and Democrats. But in his position he's just making an ass of himself.

JaJae · 09-28-2006, 03:12 PM

You can't expect your fundraiser to go out there and give speeches like Hugo Chavez and continue to make money. It gets old after a while, even to the Democrats.

motivez · 09-28-2006, 04:13 PM

More information on the poll:

Lieberman falls under 50% for the first time in Quinnipiac: Lieberman (Lieberman) 49%, Lamont (D) 39%, Schlesinger (R) 5% (LVs). This is -4 for Lieberman from their last poll in August, and also goes against other recent polls showing the race a dead heat. It's clear by now that Democrats strongly back Lamont and Republicans strongly back Lieberman (but once again here, even Ned does better with Republicans than Schlesinger does). The key differences seem to rest with "likely voter" models (the Q-Poll did not release RV data this time), as well as predicting which way unaffliateds will go - in this poll they break for Lieberman, in the most recent ARG poll, they break for Lamont.