It's been more than five weeks since the last Quinnipiac Poll on the CT Senate race, and with six weeks still remaining before the November 7th election Joe Lieberman still shows a ten-point lead among likely Connecticut voters.

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."

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.

UPDATE:
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.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 4 kb.

The Hartford Courant has an editorial up that takes a look at what Ned Lamont says compared to what Ned Lamont does.

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:

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.

Posted by: Gary at 03:25 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.

Jimmy Carter campaigned for Ned Lamont yesterday.

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."

"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.

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Mr. Carter is the BEST spokesman an incumbent could ever want!! Oh, Please..could he repeat this phrase every day till election day?? Pretty Please!!!! ------------------------------------- "He's joined in with the Republican spokespersons by saying that Democrats who disagree are really supporting terrorism,"

Posted by: Skye at September 14, 2006 06:37 PM (l9Zv4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Personally, I get a little skeptical when a sample size is less than 1,000. But this just-released SurveyUSA poll (sponsored by ABC News) has Joe leading Ned Lamont 51% to 38% - Republican Schlesinger has 7%, an all-time high.

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.

UPDATE: 4:15PM
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.

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.

Posted by: Gary at 12:23 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 471 words, total size 3 kb.

Solomonia takes a cyber-walk through the websites of the respective Senate candidates. His take:

I can't tell yet whether this new focus is going to be a load of fun or the source of the worst brain-freeze headache in the history of 7-11.

Posted by: Gary at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.

Sixty days from now, I and millions of other Americans will go to the polls. We here in CT have a very high-profile Senate race.

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!

Posted by: Gary at 10:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 3 kb.

Lefties are all up in arms about Vets For Freedom. They're deriding them as the 2006 version of the Swift Boat Veterans who exposed John Kerry for the back-stabbing, lying creep that he was back in 2004.

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.

Posted by: Gary at 04:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Joe's website has been relaunched. And like Ned Lamont, he has an official blog - complete with snarky-assed comments from moonbat trolls.

Posted by: Gary at 10:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

The NY Post reports this morning about how the forum portion of LoseOn.org's website is riddled with Jewish slurs against CT Senator Joe Lieberman.

"We recognize that Action Forum is an open forum intended to foster the free flow of ideas," ADL head Abraham Foxman said in a letter dated Aug. 31 to MoveOn, which supported Lamont in the Democratic primary against Lieberman.

"Nevertheless, since such profoundly offensive content is appearing on a board clearly linked to MoveOn.org, we believe you should assume some responsibility to respond to this hateful content," Foxman wrote in the letter, which was forwarded by Lieberman's campaign.

Foxman cited examples from the site's Action Forum, including "media owning Jewish pigs," "Zionazis," a reference to the senator as "Jew Lieberman" and the question, "Why are the Jews so Jew-y?"

Foxman wrote, "Those who allow hate to rear its ugly head under their auspices bear a special responsibility to distance themselves from that hate, and to speak out against it, as loudly as possible."

If Pariser is serious that he disapproves of these offensive comments, will he delete them? Imagine the howling on the Left over that one. Cries of "censorship" would reverberate throughout the blogosphere.

Anti-Semitism has been a major component of the the Leftist nutroots for some time. Just browse through the comments on any given post at some of the more prominent Lefty blog sites (don't even get me started on Dummycratic Underground.com). But LoseOn.org is a 527 organization that funnels big bucks to Democrats.

Democrat Senate candidate Ned Lamont owes the bulk of his success to their efforts.

Now, wither Ned? Will he make a statement denouncing the content on the site? It would be tough. After all, so many of his supporters like to push these neocon conspiracy theories ("it's the Jooos!!"). And when confronted by a racist photoshopped pic of Joe Lieberman in blackface that was created by Jane (firedoglake.com) Hamsher last month, Lamont's response was "Blogs? What Blogs?".

Lamont's opponents should not let up on this one.

Read excellent commentary from The Moose here.

More on this abhorrent phenomena at FrontPage Magazine.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Was that before or after he met with Hamsher while shooting his first video blog Geez...typical libs.. And when confronted by a racist photoshopped pic of Joe Lieberman in blackface that was created by Jane (firedoglake.com) Hamsher last month, Lamont's response was "Blogs? What Blogs?".

Posted by: Skye at September 05, 2006 08:12 PM (MfeOa)

2 Anti-Semitism has always been rampant in the Democratic Party. How could the party of the Ku Klux Klan, George Wallace, and Strom Thurman not be anti-Semitic? One of the very rare occassions that I had the presence of mind to save something from the web was the "blackface Lieberman" picture. I just knew it would disappear almost immediately and it did. But, I still have the image on file.

Posted by: Indigo Red at September 05, 2006 11:52 PM (6HsUG)

3 i guess the concept of an open, free, forum, where everyone is allowed to express their opinions, is totally lost on you. let's go shut down yahoo. i hear someone dropped the f-bomb on one of their forums.

Posted by: camden at September 19, 2006 03:19 PM (NnFbc)

4 An "open, free, forum, where everyone is allowed to express their opinions" is a good thing. But how many pro-Lieberman commenters are treated with such respect at MoveOn.org (or even welcome, for that matter)? Any guesses? How about zero? So much for free speech. BTW, I never suggested that their forum be shut down. But a candidate for elected office has a responsibility to answer for such vile, hateful "opinions" featured by an organization whose financial support he's only too happy to accept.

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2006 03:57 PM (PLHs9)

5 "BTW, I never suggested that their forum be shut down. But a candidate for elected office has a responsibility to answer for such vile, hateful "opinions" featured by an organization whose financial support he's only too happy to accept." MoveOn.org shut their forum down twice, for two days on September 8 and "until the election" on September 24. It's quite likely that the candidates they endorsed contacted them and told them to get rid of the evidence before it cost someone like Bob Casey or Ned Lamont the election. Too bad for MoveOn that I copied all the good stuff before they could hide it.

Posted by: Bill Levinson at October 03, 2006 01:51 AM (Poedu)

Hide Comments | Add Comment