September 28, 2006
The results of the poll have Lieberman at 49% to Lamont's 39%. Republican candidate Alan "Gold" Schlesinger is still stuck at 5%. If you distribute the "undecideds" proportionately, the numbers indicate that Lieberman would win with 52% if the election were held today. If you gave all the "undecideds" to Ned Lamont, Lieberman still wins 49% to 46%. I seriously doubt any Schlesinger voters would switch to Lamont.
The A/P story tries its best to spin the poll results by pointing out that the race has "tightened" since the Aug. 17th poll, which was Lieberman leading 53% to Lamont's 41%. Yeah. It "tightened" so much Lieberman's lead went from 12 points to 10! Wow, is that a dynamic swing or what?
The real story when you compare those numbers is that Lamont's total support dropped from 41% to 39%. Lamont's momentum coming out of the Aug. 8th primary seems to have evaporated.
Now let's look at the internal data. While it's true that the bulk of Lieberman's support comes from Republicans and Independents, it's clear that Democrats are not united behind Ned Lamont. Democrat respondents favored the Greenwich millionaire 57% to 37%. More than one third of likely Democrat voters still prefer Joe Lieberman.
Remember last week when the Lamont campaign released an ad calling Lieberman a "turncoat"? I said at the time that I guessed that the reason they were focusing so much on Lieberman's Independent candidacy was because their internals were probably showing that Lamont, the Democrat's annointed candidate, was not closing the deal with enough of the party faithful.
Looks like that is indeed the case. Five weeks ago in the August 17th Quinnipiac poll, Democrats favored Lamont over Lieberman 60% to 33%. That's a seven point swing back in Lieberman's favor - among Democrats!
Another significant factor in the data proves another point:
"Lamont wins among those who say Iraq is the most important issue to their vote, but that is only 35 percent of the electorate. Lieberman wins on all the other issues voters say matter most to them, including terrorism and the economy."That's right. Lamont's base of support - the Left-wing anti-war kooks - represents a significant minority even in a state as "Blue" as Connecticut.
When asked if Ned Lamont "has the right kind of experience to be a United States Senator or not", 47% of respondents said "No".
When asked if each candidate was spending more time "explaining what he would do if elected Senator or attacking" their opponent, guess what?
Lieberman: Explaining what he would do - 53% or attacking Ned Lamont - 33%
Lamont: Explaining what he would do - 25% or attacking Joe Lieberman - 62%
Joe Lieberman need not feel completely secure just yet. Six weeks is a long time in politics. But it's clear that as long as he continues to connect with CT voters - regardless of party - as a positive force for his state in the U.S. Senate, then the great CT moonbat "insurgency" of 2006 will be swatted away by a popular majority. And the Dems will have thrown away a perfectly safe Senate seat.
Jim Geraghty sees the final spread on Nov. 7th in single digits and I'm inclined to agree with him, though he presents a comprehensive analysis of the data which shows Lamont doesn't have a snowball's chance of beating Liebs.
September 25, 2006
The public has to look at the fragments it can find of Lamont's private life to figure out what sort of public figure he would be. The man who seemed a fresh force in the spring is starting to look like a contrivance as the fall begins. Here are some examples:Ned Lamont has no substantive experience in public service on a scale that would qualify him to be Joe Lieberman's replacement in the U.S. Sentate. We can only look to his experience in the private sector to get a feel for what he brings to the table. As far as I can see, all he brings is a plateful of virulent Left-wing supporters with a side order of hypocrisy.
Lamont, like all Democratic candidates, has been in hot pursuit of union endorsements. Lieberman snagged most of them in the primary campaign. Most, but by no means all, have stuck with Lieberman.
In his cable business, however, Lamont has not been so eager for union attention. At one conclave, Lamont gave the cold shoulder to Bill Henderson, president of Communications Workers of CT Local 1298, when Henderson had the temerity to suggest to the cable executive that he ought to let the union into Lamont Digital.
When Henderson, a Lieberman supporter, complained in public about Lamont's anti-union attitude in his own business, registered lobbyist and Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan called it a "red herring" because Lamont's employees are well compensated. But Henderson points out that unions aren't only about wages. They also secure better working conditions and the dignity of their members. Lamont and, suddenly, Swan aren't interested in the union credo.
Candidate Lamont is keen to call for more corporate responsibility from the likes of Wal-Mart and Enron. He made the obligatory appearance at a protest of Wal-Mart this summer.
Lamont, however, won't say much about corporate shenanigans closer to home. His wife, Ann Lamont, is a formidable venture capitalist. And while piling up their millions, there have been a few casualties. The Lamonts won't disclose details, but public documents reveal that Ann Lamont was successfully sued for securities fraud in 1999 for her role in a disastrous public offering of stock by a Florida medical management company that went bust in a big way. Ann Lamont and other defendants entered into a multimillion-dollar settlement with fleeced shareholders.
Some of the records are sealed, and the Lamont campaign won't reveal how much of the settlement Ann Lamont had to pay in 2001 to get out of the mess. Substitute the name of, say, Lynne Cheney for Ann Lamont and imagine the outrage on the left for such a doomed scheme.
As the campaign spotlight shines a little brighter on the Greenwich millionaire who wants to be CT's next Senator, voters - especially unaffiliated, moderate voters - should take the opportunity to have a closer look.
September 14, 2006
Lamont's campaign got a boost Wednesday from former President Carter, who offered a blistering critique of Lieberman's support for the Iraq war. "He was one of the originators of public statements that misled the American people into believing that the Iraqi war was justified," the former Democratic president said on CNN's "Larry King Live."Don't expect these words of criticism to count for much coming from the worst President in the history of the United States. If anything, it'll reinforce the support Lieberman already enjoys. Oh boy, I hope Lamont can get more of these "boosts" over the next two months.
"He's joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism," Carter said. "So for all these reasons, I've lost my confidence in Joe Lieberman and don't wish to see him re-elected."
Lamont, a multimillionaire businessman who spent about $4 million of his own money in the primary, is tapping his personal fortune once again. He has written checks totaling $1.5 million for his general election bid, his campaign confirmed Wednesday. Lamont gave his campaign $1 million on Sept. 11. He wrote a $500,000 check on Aug. 22.
He may not be able to afford them.
September 13, 2006
It's still early but not a single poll since the primary in August has had Lamont leading (though he has been close). Lamont has less than eight weeks to convince non-Moonbats in CT to move in his direction. The closer we get to November 7th, the harder that task will be. It's not a name-recognition problem considering the amount of national press this race has received.
And with races tightening up in PA, OH, and MD, the DSCC has to decide how much resources they are willing to keep pouring into this match-up.
It may not be long before Ned Lamont and his nutroots supporters find themselves on their own.
First the sizzle, then the fizzle.
I ran across this article in The Weekly Standard while I was away on vacation. The web hype for Ned Lamont's candidacy doesn't seem to be able to translate into a lead against an independent Lieberman. In light of this point, I quote Louis Wittig who compares the internet buzz that built up "Snakes On A Plan" to that of the Liberal blogosphere. In both cases, expectations end up falling short (ahem, Dr. Dean?). Wittig makes an excellent point:
The problem is that most people, both insiders and outsiders, misunderstand the internet's advantages and limitations.The nutroots keeps waiting for this Liberal "revolution" to take Washington by storm because they're under the delusion that they represent the majority point of view in America.
It's perfectly understandable when political junkies and box office watchers conclude that web buzz augurs big things, but it's also perfectly backwards. We look at the humming activity of the blogosphere and assume the cadre of online enthusiasts behind it constitutes the tip of an off-line iceberg. It is assumed that for every posting on MyDD, or SoaP rap on YouTube, there must be dozens of people out there itching for impeachment of python gags.
Reality is just the opposite. People go to the blogosphere because they can't find a sizable number of people in their everyday, off-line lives that are as enthusiastic as they are. The blogosphere gathers together atypical fans and brings them together in what quickly becomes a broadband echo chamber. The louder and more intense the online community gets, the farther it's likely drifting from what is happening offline.
But whenever reality hits back at them, they seem unable to accept the idea that they really are nothing more than a fringe. And they resolve to just try harder for the next election.
September 08, 2006
I am an ex-Democrat and have been for at least eight years. As such, I (along with about two thirds of registered - and living - voters in CT) did not cast a ballot last month in the Democrat primary. Nor should I have been able to. I strongly disagree with the "open primary" concept.
But the results of that primary election (the rejection of Joe Lieberman by some 10,000 votes) do not reflect the "will of the voters" as Ned Lamont's supporters like to claim. They reflect the vote of registered Democrats (living and dead). Lieberman now runs as an independent. Last time I checked the U.S. Constitution I wasn't able to find any references to political parties.
Joe Lieberman has a right to run as an independent. And he will win or lose based on the will of ALL or CT's registered voters on November 7th. Ned Lamont's supporters should welcome this opportunity if they are so confident in their candidate.
Personally, I believe that Joe will prevail in sixty days. Polls indicate that his approval rating in excess of 60% will translate to a fourth term in the Senate. That being said, you can't take anything for granted in politics. The opposition is determined and relentless. They will do or say anything to win. Their efforts are fueled by organizations like MoveOn.org and the resources that pour into the State on Lamont's behalf come by and large from outside the State.
I could easily just hang back and watch with amusement as the Democrat party engages in intra-party bickering and tears itself to shreds. No matter what, Republicans will NOT pick up this seat. When your opponents fight amongst themselves, it's always best not to interfere.
But I live in CT and this race does mean something to me. I already have to live with the fact that I have one major asshat representing me in the U.S. Senate.
I disagree with Joe Lieberman on most of the votes he casts and almost all of the positions he supports. But I have always voted for Joe regardless of my party affiliation. And I support him this time around for two important reasons: his unyielding integrity and his ardent support for this country's efforts to fight the Islamofascist threat that we now face.
The stakes are just too high.
So I'm signing on as an unofficial - and vocal - supporter of Joe Lieberman for the U.S. Senate. I have absolutely no connection to Connecticut for Lieberman, Friends of Joe Lieberman or any other campaign organization associated with the Senator. But I will be doing whatever I can over the next sixty days to promote his candidacy.
On to victory, baby!
September 07, 2006
Of course, as in the past, Democrats want to silence them. Why should they support the First Amendment rights of people who risked their lives to defend those very rights for them, anyway? Vets For Freedom's stated mission is "to support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain."
In other words, other than Joe Lieberman that would leave out just about every nationally-elected Democrat. No wonder the moonbats are pissed off.
The website for Vets For Truth is here. Thanks to our veterans all over the world who keep America free.
September 06, 2006
The electorate is pretty surly these days, true. But the part they've been leaving out is that there is absolutely no polling data to suggest that voters are ready to turn over control of Congress to the Dems. Granted, the GOP seems to be going out of its way to anger its base and turn off everyone else. But the Democrats offer no reasons for voters to move in their direction.
Here's the bottom line: Voters are disaffected. What else is new? And in different times that would be enough reason to expect a change of control in Congress. But these are dangerous times - serious times. And with the safety of our nation so much at risk, swing voters may look at the Republicans and hold their nose. But when they look at the Democrats they hold their stomachs.
Dems hold an advantage in polls focusing on the generic Congressional ballot. Can anyone remember a time when this was not the case heading into an election? And how many times in the past ten years have those poll advantages led to Democrats taking over either chamber of Congress? Republicans can still do a lot to screw themselves up. And as I've said all year, the GOP will lose seats in the House and the Senate. It would be historically unprecendented if they didn't.
But as long as Democrats keep taking the bait and talking about national security, the uncertainty and uneasiness of handing the reigns over to the party that thinks we should release all the detainees at Gitmo so they can try and kill Americans again, eliminate surveillance programs that monitor the activities of terrorists, repeal the Patriot Act and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq will make the possibility of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi replacing "minority" with "majority" in their titles highly unlikely.
118 queries taking 0.0886 seconds, 237 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.