oops, double post. Apologies.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

First of all, as a CT. Dem, I'm going to the polls and voting for Ned Lamont.

I think Mark Schmitt's analysis is spot on here. He thinks Joe will be tagged as a loser, and will find it very difficult to even run as an Independant. There will be immense pressure on Joe to step aside and endorse the Dem candidate, from outside of CT. as well as here at home.

There was a story in the Courant yesterday that people are rushing to change their party affiliation to D just so they could vote in the primary. Does anyone think they're doing that to vote for Joe? I don't think so.

Don't forget, rightfully or not, people here feel like Joe abondoned us during his 2000 run, and they haven't forgotten that. In addition, people here are itching for change.

There was a story in the Courant yesterday that people are rushing to change their party affiliation to D just so they could vote in the primary. Does anyone think they're doing that to vote for Joe? I don't think so.

I thought that was a ploy people were predicting--GOP voters cross-registering to keep W's favorite Dem in the Senate? Especially since their own senate candidate is a turkey.

IIRC, the deadline to switch from R to D in order to vote in the CT D primary is long past, and those who have recently switched to D are Independent or non-affiliated. That being said, I have no idea which candidate these would break for. My gut feeling (my hope?) is that Indies lean Ned, since many are disaffected Dems (i.e. they are upset with the status quo of the Democratic Party, as rep'd by Lieberman...).

If forced to guess, I say Lamont by 7.

Despite Lamont's apparent lead there are some nervous progressives who believe that it it will be very close. It all hinges on turnout. I don't share the opinion above that people switching parties to vote is good news for Lamont. Sounds like GOP GOTV to me.
Liberman has run an awful campaign and Lamont has come across very credibly. The fact that it is even close at all is a nightmare for the Bush bots which is why they are caterwalling as they are.

Final pick: 52-47 Lamont

This one's been a struggle for me. But I'm going in on Tuesday and voting Lamont. I fought my guts out for Gore's running mate in 2000, and he votes right a lot. But the thing that made me break for Ned is Joe's talk about running as an independent. I can't countenance that kind of shameless selfishness.

Lamont will win by more then 10.

• The war and the kiss.
• The polls have it for Lamont.
• Undecides break for the challenger.
• Lamont voters are pissed and motivated.
• This is a primary and so the 'party' will have less sway, especially with Lieberman planning an independent bid.

You probably think that races tighten and they do in a general. But this isn't a general.

The midwest is sending a nice cool high pressure ridge toward the east coast, meaning the temps should be in the low 80's with little humidity on election day. This will lean toward a slightly higher turnout.

Of course I won't be voting in CT -- but I think it will track the recent polls -- Lamont by perhaps ten. I look forward to knowing, probably after the polls close, whether either of the campaigns had a GOTV effort to call independent voters, canvas them, and encourage Lamont or Lieberman supporters to change their registeration so they could vote their preference on Tuesday. All those persons re-registering suggests to me a quietly organized effort to accomplish this. It won't work in just any state, but with CT's rules it is an interesting tactic, and looks well executed. The deadline is noon tomorrow.

I don't think Lieberman, should he be down more than a few points, will find any support for an Independent Candidacy within the Democratic Leadership. They can read the public opinion polls as well as anyone, and "stay the course" is not a winning slogan or position. Adopting Lamont as the CT People's Choice is the winning strategy looking out to November -- standing by Joe is not. They may be pol's, but they ain't dumb.

I predict Lamont by less than 10, but still a solid margin (5-7).

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think Lamont wins rather comfortably...I'd say 54-46.  There have been a lot of indies changing their affiliation so they can vote in the primary and I think they break for Lamont in a big way.  The primary is a referendum and the Iraq War and public opinion in this state is VERY decidely against the war.  After Lamont wins the primary then the fun starts.  Will Joe or won't Joe run as a petitioning candidate?  And in a general election, while it will still be THE key issue, Iraq won't be the only thing Connecticut voters, en toto, will be considering.  If Lieberman doesn't run as a petitioning candidate then Lamont beats Schlesinger handily, if Lieberman does run then it is going to be even more bruising a campaign as the one for the primary was...

I stand corrected re my above skeptical question about GOPers registering Dem to vote for Lieberman. But if they're former Independents, the basic import of the question still stands. I thought Lieberman traditionally has had big support among Independents in CT? If lots of 'em are registering D, isn't it likely they're trying to shore up Lieberman? Anyone have a link to the Courant story?

All the chickens that have been counted based on unhatched eggs in this race has me spooked. I've got a bad election-night-2004 feeling about it. I'm guessing Joe by 1 or 2%, and hoping I'm wrong. If I'm right, I hope at least it's close enough to make it hard to dismiss the questions that have been raised by Lamont's amazing run.

As a Lamont win in the primary would be virtually the only way the republican candidate would stand a chance, the allegations that republicans are rushing en masse to switch their party affiliations to democrat to vote for Lieberman, a senator who votes liberal democrat consistently 90% of the time, are farcical. It's as transparent a lie as any that I've seen, whether here or from a right wing pundit propagandizing for Bush.

Anyone who recalls Lamont in the debates remembers the stammeringly weak, effete man who lacked any significant idea on the realities. He is NO sane persons idea of a good candidate for the senate. The polling data after the debates only confirms that. I don't claim to know what the change is in result of, but the only thing that changed was the vitriol and fascistic nature of the Lamontsters increased dramatically. The smears and slander. I don't know how that will be reflected in Tuesday's vote, my hope is that Lieberman wins the primary. If not, I do hope he runs as an independent and wins in the general election. Not just because Lamont would lose and the republican would win, but because Lamont is as bad as that republican, he is everything that the Lamontster liars accuse Lieberman of being.. and perhaps much worse.

Shame on Josh Marshall for not holding to journalistic ethics and standards by not speaking out and helping to facilitate such lies, and on occasion perpetuating it himself. As someone who started reading Talking Points Memo years ago because I'd come to respect him and rely on him as one of the rare voices adhering to those crucial journalistic ethics and standards, it is frankly more than mere  disappointment, it is a real loss when someone like him is quick to sell out those ethics and standards for what is politically expedient for him.

What this shows is that he is no different from his brothers and sisters in the right wing controlled press corps, who only speak to democratic theory, and lack any commitment to democratic practice.

I can only surmise that the fact that Lamont fired more than half of his workforce since '01, and has refused to answer questions about where those jobs went, that he not only owned stock in Halliburton, but in Walmart as well, that he actually selected the Walmart stock personally, and according to Swan, his campaign manager, refuses to sell either stock... isn't considered questionable to Marshall because his commitment to that kind of hypocrisy and corruption is speculative at best. Because Marshall has virtually sat silent on those topics. I guess your version of muck raking isn't that different from the Rovian school, eh Josh? You are the saranwrap to your own candidate and won't dare challenge him on his own serious hypocrisy.

I guess that perhaps due to the fact that the most people like Josh have had to suffer from during Bush's horrorific administration and republican lock on power is for example, the theft of his car that he talked about in an article, or the "big" dilemna of "should I stay with a pc or go with a mac".

A few weeks before Marshall's article about he theft of his car and his frustration with having to deal with the parking garage management, my husband had died. My frustration had been that not only had my husband died young, that he  was gone from mine and my daughter's lives, but that he had been discriminated against in getting access to the specialists he needed because we were too poor to afford supplemental health insurance. He had medicare, because he was in end stage organ failure, and been waiting for an organ transplant since '97.

In late May, he was hospitalized for what we thought was something minor, only requiring a few days in patient. But after they tested some abdominal fluid they had removed (something that should have been started years ago) they found that he was in the advanced stages of Burketts-like lyphoma, an extemely aggressive form of the cancer. He was given a 1 in 5 chance of survival, received one dosage of chemotherapy, and while the chemo actually weakened the lymphoma a bit, it destroyed what was left of his immune system, and sent his kidneys and liver into final failure. He died on the morning of June 14th, only three weeks after his admission and diagnosis. What was the most galling thing was that if my husband had been getting the regular testing a patient requiring a transplant would get, the lymphoma would have been diagnosed FAR earlier when it was more treatable. They wouldn't have had to be looking for cancer.

What is even more galling is that this same sort of thing is playing out to untold vast numbers of Americans.. I can't be specific because our so calle watchdog press doesn't pay attention to the realities of average Americans since the '80s. I guess that is why I valued the Josh Marshalls out there since I was able to get on the internet.. naive of me I guess to have believed that someone like him was immune to the disconnect that is so pervasive, in the world of the increasingly more affluent all the time... and that said disconnect could help make selling out so easy when it comes down to ones own bias on a candidate.

What I think will happen? I have no idea. I believe that if Lamont wins the primary, it would be the only way the republican candidate who has been found to be corrupt would stand a chance of winnng in the general election. While some state moderate republicans might not vote for their party's current corrupt candidate against Lieberman, they are less likely to vote for a Lamont who is seen as little more than stooge for the neo-left. Of course the national GOP are playing to the neo-left stereotyping of Lieberman, because it helps Lamont, and in turn getting an additional seat for republicans, and removing one controlled by democrats.

I don't own a crystal ball, I don't live in CT, but I do know that I was correct in 2000 when I spoke out about the dangers a Bush administration would bring, I knew my husband would lose his job, that he would lose his health insurance, and perhaps his life. I also spoke out against Bush's willingness to push us into war, and the Naderite version of the Lamontsters laughed those concerns off and accused democrats like myself of lying, that "Nader would never let them get away with it." (don't criticize my bringing Nader's name up, one of the tpmcafe.com's Lamontsters posted Nader's rant against Lieberman as a validation of the same.). Denial doesn't excuse one from accountability for your decisions, and it shows so called leftists and progressives as being as callously indifferent to the blood of innocents that is as much on their hands as it is on the right wing Bush voters.

I doubt that even the moderately affluent out there can survive much more of this, and by '08, if we continue with republican control, much of the lot of you stand a good chance of being right where people like my family are now.

Frankly, nobody knows what will happen on Tues.

But, it sure doesn't look good for Joenertia does it?

I would think a single digit win for Lamont unless there's some hidden GOTV effort that I'm missing. But Lieberman never needed a big ground game. He's been cruising through the stratosphere with the power-brokers for years now, with virtually NO opposition in sight.

And a crushing ground game is just not something you can improvise at the last minute. And of course there's apparently no buzz about a surge towards Lieberman, no intensity in his campaign appearances.

Joe just doesn't excite anybody, not even his supporters (discounting lobbyists like the Lamont heckler who apparently earned $300,000 in fees last year and doesn't want to lose his influence).

I have always thought that the talk about an independent run by Joe is just ridiculous. Nobody really wants to support a loser.

If he ditched the Democratic party sometime back in late May and announced his candidacy as an indie, then maybe he could make a case, but not as "I never wanted those grapes anyway" Joe! A loss in the primary is just crushing to Joe. At that point he should just gracefully go away and start earning those huge fees from speaking engagements before large corporate audiences. He could easily pull down high triple figures on the lecture circuit for a few years, write his book and basically settle down to a life of leisure. Not a bad gig if you can get it. No tears for Joe!

What's going to be interesting are the ramifications of Lamonts win within the democratic party. That alone brings up a whole host of very interesting issues.

How does Lamonts win impact other democratic races? Especially if it's a blow out. Do other democrats follow suit? How does the party react to a bottom up, people driven powered politics that's winning if for Lamont and thumbing its nose at the inside the beltway democratic establishments conventional wisdom? How does the party present its stance against the Iraqi war and Bushs policies to the general public? We all know what the Republicans are going to do and are democrats ready for it?

But that is all that the gamut the Lamontsters are working for.. this is an attempt to show that they have muscles to flex.. it's NOT about getting better representation in CT.

"But that is all that the gamut the Lamontsters are working for.. this is an attempt to show that they have muscles to flex.. it's NOT about getting better representation in CT."-Mary from RI

Come on Mary, it's not those "Lamontsters" that are winning this primary for Ned. It's the majority of CT democrats, just as it supposed to be in a democracy. Are you ascribing that majority of democrats as "Lamontsters?"

What you're doing, in effect, is casting aspersions on the democratic process.

Here's the link.

While the last minute registration concerns me, I still don't think it's enough.

Even a razor - thin loss is a loss, and the pressure on JL to get out then will be huge. Lautenberg et al may have done the Lamont crew a favor by implying that a close loss doesn't count, as it puts the spur under Lamont voters to drive harder, even if they buy the poll differential. A comfortable win (anything above 5) and it's a no-brainer, and double digits? I can't imagine even the JL campaign insiders spinning that.

If Lamont wins comfortably, he wins in the fall under any scenario.

With regards to "Joe just doesn't excite anybody," on the surface I'd say that's right, but I can't help thinking of the silent majority voters duing Vietnam (even after the war became unpopular) and the whimper that was Howard Dean when Iowa caucused.

It's now up to independents and those Democrats who only tune in on election day. I think they break toward Lieberman, but your guess is as good as mine.

Unaffiliated can still sign up.

New York Times Sat.:

In a sign of the tremendous interest in the primary, nearly 11,500 voters have changed their status from unaffiliated to Democrat, Connecticut’s secretary of state, Susan Bysiewicz, said yesterday. That was up from the 6,715 Ms. Bysiewicz said had switched their status earlier in the week.

Unaffiliated voters, who make up roughly 45 percent of the electorate, have until noon on Monday to change their registration.

But based on the choice of candidate, whose sole record is of voting with the republicans on the Greenwich council, who actually was a republican. Who not only owns Halliburton stock and is profitting from the deaths of US soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians, but on the ripping off of US taxpayers, but who owns and deliberately purchased Walmart stock, and then pretended to care about the plight of American workers, the exploitation of the corporation and refusal to supply health care insurance (I'd love to see Lamont's stockholder voting record for the company leadership) to it's workers, putting the burden on city and state taxpayers. Who outsourced more than half it's workforce since Bush took office.. it's not hard to dispute and laugh off any claims of this being about seeking "better" representation, because we know what that kind of representation is in aide of.

Especially when you contrast that to Lieberman's voting record.. so can the BS, because not only is it stale, it's so old, that it's dead.

Last time I looked, the bulk of the Lamontster contingent aren't from CT, and they have showed themselves to be every bit as racist, classist and hateful as any right wing nut. If anything this has the handprints of a neo-conservative/neo-leftist alliance to further increase the power and control of the republican party. the neo-left's rationale is that with continued suffering imposed, it will help them to gain power through the pipe dream of 'revolution'.

No, I'm not casting aspersions, I'm leveling charges on the on the shoddy ethics and intent of the Lamontsters.. if you find that inconvenient and can't answer my critique, that is your problem.

If that isn't the case, then please do answer now, provide a rationale for supporting a candidate like Lamont that is so Bush-like that no true liberal could support him?? Well, I'm waiting (not holding my breath)

Also, I'm critical on the spinning of polls as being a true indicator of the end results, when we all know how polling data is contingent on exactly who was polled, and what the questions actually were. As we have all seen, they can be shaped to reflect what the pollsters want them to say.

Lamont by 7. Lieberman's expensive, extensive GOTV effort will close the gap somewhat, but not by enough.

In contrast to Mary's description of Ned in the debate, and his TV shortcomings, I think he has come a long way, as evidenced by his interview with George S. on ABC. A long way. And a clear message, in contrast to JoeMo. Ned by 4 or 5 percent.

It's interesting you mention Dean because it's Lieberman's field program that gives me the Perfect Storm vibe... throwing tons of young people at a problem without much thought.

Lamont has been sneaking up and overtaking Lieberman in the polls the same way Kerry and Edwards did in Iowa. They quietly and competently built their field organization and while they didn't have tons of out-of-states in orange gear, they did know what they were doing. And that's why they won.

We'll find out Tuesday if it worked.

While Lieberman voted against the party on the prescription drug plan, he voted with the democrats fighting the Bush plan to privitize social security.. no Lamontster lie or spin can change that truth. The fact is the public do trust Lieberman on that issue because it's well known how he voted on it.

OK, I'll give you that. The public trusts Lieberman not to let Bush ruin Social Security. That is just not enough. It's grabbing for straws; it's kinda like proudly saying he never shot anyone in the face.

Jan Knaus

Really? To me it was highly scripted, with no challenges to Lamont's highly scripted answers.. ie... challenging corporate interests.. what about Lamont's corporate interest taking advantage of Bush's outsourcing incentive and seeking to profit from it?

Starting up a business from scratch? Scratch means from bits and pieces one can scrap together.. Lamont is the scion of billionaires, he hardly had to scratch anything, that is other than the itch to rape and pillage the workers/taxpayers of the US and the third world for his own power. If the lot of you give even the slightest damn about said issues, you would have demanded he deal with his own shortcomings and challenge him to admit his wrongs.. you certainly wouldn't have let him get away with refusing to sell his Halliburton and Walmart stock.

Re: this as being some contrast to the debates. A virtually one sided interview, where Lamont isn't on the spot (how would he fare on the senate floor, not to mention his record showing his true nature and where his allegiances lie...

Sorry, but again, that was no example to validate the Lamontster hypocrisies on the plethora of issues.

Don't worry. It doesn't matter what you say. Mary will pick a fight and call you a name or two. You'll learn to ignore it eventually.

Jan Knaus

Iowa is also an example of Lieberman's arrogance when it comes to American voters. He all but announced his Presidential campaign in Israel but he wouldn't bother to campaign in Iowa.

The way I heard it from family in Iowa, Kerry won because he was surprisingly good one on one in small towns talking about the war. This was before his campaign got captured by the phonies who striangulated him on the war issue.

I'm moderately optimistic about Ned, but there's a collection of little disturbances that make me, as Arsenio used to say, go "hmm." One is the congregation of paid hecklers that showed up on Friday. Another is the large number of independents registering as Democrats, some 20,000 by last count. Sure, "independents" break Lamont's way, by hoary political truth, but is there any chance that these "independents" are Free Republic-type independents? All of them following some mysterious inner migration so they can "vote for Joe," huh?

Probably just paranoid, huh? Tell me I'm being paranoid.

Do they by any chance use Diebold machines in CT?

Prediction: The loser will come out in support of the winner. Primaries are always full of passion and all sides greatly exaggerate the misgivings of the other side(s) and extol the virtues of their side. Rhetoric flies all over the place. That's how it is. It's called campaigning. Those who take comments too personally are going to have a hard time.

I started out leaning Lieberman and have seen no real reason to vote for Lamont over him. Lieberman is neither as bad as his detractors say, nor as saintly as his staunchest defenders say. He is, like all of us, human and complex. I think he has been adequately humbled and will be a good Senator if he wins. But I only give that a 25% chance. Since both are Democrats who I think will do well I don't really care.

RIGHT FOOLS

I believe Lamont will win by less than 5%. The question will then be: will HoJo be tempted by the closeness of the primary to run as an independent?

I thought Lanny Davis on MTP was suggesting "yes."

Okay, you're being a little paranoid. :o) We don't have too many Freepers here in Connect-The-Dots. We've got some, but they all register as Republicans. All the Independants I know here have registered Dem to vote against Joe, not for him (I know a personal anecdote like that is not really good evidence of any kind of trend).

I think one of the reasons we have so many I's in this state is because people here like to think of themselves as free thinkers, and not to be pigeon-holed easily.

My guess is they're breaking away from Joe. The discontent here is palpable...

We have the old mechanical voting machines here in CT...

For what it's worth this comment comes from an Oregonian. So I have a lack of knoweledge of internel connect-the-dots politics. That said their is no Joe-mo out there. Joe will lose big 10-15%. This is a guy who when he ran for President in 2004 was almost in a virtual tie for third (forth place) in New Hampshire. Joe is clearly out of touch with political reality. He is soon to be a casualty of a Political Tsunami that is coming in November 2006.

The electorate wants red meat they are fed up. Old Joe will be a tender appitiezer for a feast rubber stamp Republicans to be consumed come November. The Democrats will most likely take back the House and narrow the margin in the Senate to 50-50, Despite Gary Hart's concern for an October surprise, from Karl Rove, An October surprise will backfire. The only thing that could save the Republicans is if the Price of Gas were to somehow fall to around two bucks a gallon again. Which has about as much chance of happening as Old Joe winning on Tuesday.

The key for the Democrats is to just let the Republicans keep digging their hole deeper. A national ad campaign needs to be established that has a nifty slogan, introduced in the fall of course, as all new products should be. Perhaps old Newt's " Have you had enough yet?" with a list of the FUBAR's team 43 has delivered up. Dollar devalued 40% in just 3 years, gasoline doubled in just three years, Privacy eliminated, in just 6 years, Poverty doubled in just six years, Tax's for the wealthy reduced by 50% Tax burden for Middle class increased. Debt for our Grand children beyond calculation. Minimum wage increase held hostage to elimination of estate tax for Dick Cheney's and Bill Frist's family.

HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YET?

Show me the proof of how Lieberman has contributed to the Reagan/Bush and Bush jr.'s attacks against the poor, their imposing further hardships, or how he could have single handedly overcome the problem? Then tell me why Ned Lamont's insistence on profitting from Bush's policie of outsourcing American jobs, and Halliburton/Walmart is any indicator of his being such a progressive candidate?

Lieberman was elected to office in 1988, prior to the '80s we had made great strides in dealing with the issues of poverty and providing opportunity. The '80s with the election of Reagan/Bush was a time of siege against the new deal and democratic programs. Lieberman who got into office 8 years in after a time of severe gutting of those programs and funding, can't be blamed for any of that. His voting record from then onward with the exception of a small number of votes, reflects a liberal democratic voting record, his rankings from interest groups of women's rights, social welfare, civil rights, labor rights, the environment plus other liberal groups prove that.. and those rankings have been posted on the tpmcafe.com discussions of the subject.. so you can't feign ignorance.. perhaps those issues aren't important to you?

Interesting that you bring up Sean Hannity, because you are an example of his refusal to address the hypocrisy and double standard, as well as his willing lies and propaganda of his ideology and agenda. You can't keep making crass accusations like that, while you refuse to address the fact that Ned Lamont is a sham candidate who is a republican in sheeps clothing, who would be a failed candidate and a hoax perpetuated on the people of CT by a group of power mad fascist wannabes.

You do sound like a DFA dullard. Anyone who doesn't agree with you has to be a "paid operative". I guess that indicates the type of freedom you'd advocate if you had the power to bring about "change", right?

lol Mary - you yourself accused Greg Sargent of being a paid operative. I guess it's only ok when you do it...

Shame on Josh Marshall for not holding to journalistic ethics and standards by not speaking out and helping to facilitate such lies, and on occasion perpetuating it himself.

It's strange that Josh lets down his ethical standards for this one race. Very strange. Almost like you're imagining it...

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

And alot of Daily Kos regulars had to eat crow when they tried to laugh off the accusations of Kos himself being a paid operative, one of Ho Dean's Ho's.. until he was outed by a Dean isider and Markos had to dash off a rather pissy statement admitting that he was in fact on the payroll. It was also exposed that quite a number of the leftist bloggers at the time were paid consultants, who Zephyer (whatever was the rest of her name) outed in an interview.

It's only a legitimate question, and one can't help wonder why Greg Sargent hasn't answered it.. especially given his extremely partisan writing (it can't be classified as reporting). The people have the right to know..

Then tell me why Ned Lamont's insistence on profitting from Bush's policie of outsourcing American jobs, and Halliburton...

Time magazine:

Lieberman's campaign lambasted Lamont for the Halliburton holdings last spring, until it was revealed Lieberman himself owned mutual funds that held stock in the corporate giant. Lieberman spokesperson Steinfels said the Senator has no stock in Wal-Mart, either held directly or in mutual funds. His financial disclosure forms do show mutual funds that continue to hold Halliburton.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

John Zogby says Lamont by a "substantial margin," so I suspect the Republicans will do whatever they can to steal the election to keep Lieberman in the Senate. He is their best buddy after all.

I say Lamont by 8.

I don't know if you'll find any Green party stats here, but GenghisConn has a neat-o set of links to past electoral maps of CT, over at the CT Local Politics blog.

Sheila in CT

Mary, I only brought up the Sean Hannity comparison to jog you into realizing how inappropriate your previous comment was:

Oh yeah, the realities of the poor, the un an under employed, the issues of health care, worker's rights, the environment, women's rights, the entire gamut of issues of the democratic base are so unimportant to you that they can be dismissed as mere rantings. How very Limbaugh-esque of you...

 Now, as to your answer to my question about why Lieberman's many years of seniority and experience are so valuable since he has not accomplished any meaningful relief of the things you say matter to you so much...

Show me the proof of how Lieberman has contributed to the Reagan/Bush and Bush jr.'s attacks against the poor, their imposing further hardships, or how he could have single handedly overcome the problem?

Not contributing to various republican efforts to attack these issues is pretty lame.  We need someone to LEAD in these areas.  That is the only way a senator who wants to "single handedly" solve something, can.  He/she has to work to get others on the side he/she supports.  You don't think Lamont will, but most of us KNOW that Lieberman won't, because he hasn't. 

Mary, the name-calling seriously decreases your credibility.  When I disagree with your conclusion, it really doesn't mean that I hate the poor, the sick and the needy, even though you might want it to be so.

BTW, who is the group of power mad fascist wannabes you're talking about   -- Other than some (maybe a majority) of Democratic voters in CT?

Jan Knaus

Coming back to the issue of poll reliability, Mark Blumenthal has some interesting findings to put Lamont supporters at ease.

First, Lamont's favorable rating has increased even more in the last two weeks than his share of the vote. It jumped ten points, from 36% to 46%, while his unfavorable rating remains quite low at 14% (up just one point from 13%)[.]

. . . . .

The second notable finding is the surprising collapse of Lieberman's support among moderate to conservative Democrats. Among liberals, Lamont is currently trouncing Lieberman by a more than two-to-one margin (66% to 31%). But as my friend Charles Franklin points out, Lieberman's support has also dropped sharply among moderate to conservative Democrats, falling from 61% in June to just 49% on this latest survey. Lieberman's lead among moderate and conservative Democrats has fallen from 35 points in June to a statistically insignificant 4 points (49% to 45%).

There's nothing "honorable" about supporting an unjust, illegal war that's not only based on lies, but is also destructive to our country, our economy, and the world as a whole.

The war is only illegal, unjust, and destructive to our nation if you see it from one side of the coin. There are plenty of people in this country who would argue just the opposite.

The irony here, of course, is that neither side is right because everything is based on qualitative, moral arguments. Perhaps the Bush policies in the Middle East will, in the end, be a harbinger of hate and isolation on the part of the U.S. Then again, maybe it will open the region to much needed political and economic reforms.

It is far too early to tell. Of course those opposed to the actions can say that things have gone poorly thus far. It's true, they have. But nobody ever said the enterprise would be an easy one.

If we could go back in time and talk to people around the country prior to the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863 a clear majority would likely concede that Lincoln's efforts would fail and that the Confederacy would, in one way or another, gain its independence. Why? For one thing the military situation of the Union was disastrous. McDowell, McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker had all taken their aim at Lee, and all had been beaten (save McDowell who was defeated at First Manassas when Joe Johnston still presided over the Confederate army).

The lies aspect which you mention is valid and can hardly be refuted. Bush and his administration have lied and have done so with regularity. Yet one must differentiate political policy from military engagement.

Bush will be long gone from office before the ultimate verdict on his policies becomes known. No matter which side of the fence you may stand, there is no doubting that there is still plenty of time to right this ship.

The thing is, you should suck it up and spit out your opinion of Ned's moral relativism on the subject. The facts are disgusting, and yet it's far more disgusting that so called "progressives" find nothing wrong with what their candidate condoned and went along with until he decided to run for senate.. so either stand up and speak to what Lamont is guilty of, go crawl back down into the gutter where you belong.

Fact is, you are either standing with the garbage that acted that way, or you are against it... you can't have it both ways!

The war is only illegal, unjust, and destructive to our nation if you see it from one side of the coin. There are plenty of people in this country who would argue just the opposite.

There are plenty of people in this country that would argue that the US government has been actively conspiring with Aliens (24%, actually, which is less than the 30% who believe that the Iraq war was worth it - but I bet the margins of error overlap), which is a qualitative interpretation of available information.

I don't think that Lieberman is being attacked for supporting Iraq per se, as much as he is being attacked for giving delusionally optomistic versions of progress that is going on there, and telling people who are critical of Bush's Iraqs policy (which would be 62% of Americans and 89% of Democrats) that they need to shut up or else they are placing America in Peril.

So, if you're suggesting that we should be tolerant and listen to opposing views on Iraq, how does that translate into support for Lieberman? He didn't want to engage in discussion on Iraq before his views brought him into political trouble. He helped poison the political discourse by suggesting that to criticize the president is to harm America.

Y'know, if you can be at ease with Ned Lamont then you'd probably be at ease with the same folks who hide beneath those white sheets and go by the acronym, the KKK.

As I mentioned, I'd probably be voting for Lieberman if I were in CT. I think a great deal of the criticisms thrown at Lieberman are unfair and unwarranted. I'll cede that some are quite valid, though not enough to make me hate Lieberman.

That said, I think calling Lamont a racist is sophmorish. Is he clueless about race? Probably. After all he's upper class from CT. But that doesn't mean he is racist and I haven't seen anything to directly link Lamont to racism.

While I no longer go to FireDogLake, because Jane Hamsher strikes me as shrill, even though I like Christy's decent legal analyses, I wouldn't say that Jane Hamsher and "Hitler" can be equated in any way. She's not my favorite blogger but she isn't that bad.

Funny about that. I was a very strong Dean supporter and sat here in TX -- too old and busy to be a campaign kid in Iowa -- and wrote those letters we were all given addresses for. As I did -- and I did my best -- I began to have misgivings, asking myself how I'd feel if someone from Iowa wrote me personal letters begging me to vote for this or that candidate.

As it happened, I got some nice responses and one of them led to a long phone conversation with an interesting professorial guy in Ames (if I remember correctly), also a Dean supporter and also with misgivings about the out-of-state personal attention so many Iowans were getting. We came to agree that it might have been a really bad, if well-meant, campaign tactic. Whether we were right or wrong, I don't suppose we'll know. I hope the advisors/consultants , ex-Deanies, who encouraged aggressive tactics have learned from it -- and aren't applying the same strategies to any of the progressive campaigns of 2006, at least not without careful thought.

Lets look at an earlier point in time when Conneticut Democrats had a chance to vote between Lieberman and other Democrats - the 2004 Primary. Lieberman clocked in at an anemic 5% - 2 pts higher than Kucinich and Sharpton!

Sure, maybe you think that Lamont is no John Kerry (and I'm sure people think that as both an insult and a compliment), and the considerations that go in to a presidential primary are different than those that go in to a senate primary. But I think that it suggests that there isn't a depth of Pro-Joe feeling in the Conneticut Democratic party.

I wasn't a Dean supporter -- I worked for another campaign -- but I got the impression that, especially in December and January, a lot of Dean's supporters bought into the press hype and believed that everyone would soon be coming over to their side. I saw a number of Dean volunteers and staffers getting really frustrated by those who didn't see it their way, and it just made them more and more intense until they scared off average voters.

These are highly partisan times, and Senator Lieberman has given bipartisan cover to the GOP agenda on multiple occasions. That can lead to a great deal of frustration amongst the voters who put him in office to stand up for their values. He chose to make a stand for his personal values, and if those values conflict with the voters then he will be replaced. Plain and simple. In the end, it is what the people want that matter, not what he wants.

BTW, who is the group of power mad fascist wannabes you're talking about

"Me, Me!" *as he waves his wildly hand in the air....

I don't know any Democratic or progressive voters who are looking for fall guys in their ranks -- rather, most of us are looking for standup progressives. The fall which Lieberman has been suffering in terms of loss of respect from prospective voters is one he took all by himself.

No one pushed. Joe Lieberman decided which positions to take, which leaders to follow, which votes to make. It sure looks as though most of the people writing here are very familiar with Lieberman's record. The fact that this race raises issues about the direction the Party will take is nothing but good. It shows that the system is cranking along as it should. People are observing, listening, choosing, donating, volunteering, and voting. I'm pretty sure they're as much of a mix of left and center and right and doubts and certainties as they always are.

In such circumstances, applying labels and trying to squeeze healthy diversity into tight little categories -- "selected by the left as a fall guy for the collection discontentment with the Bush administration" -- sounds a little petty and irrelevant.

Lamont lost ALL the Conn newspapers--even his hometown Greenwich Time.

Joe's get out the Vote drive is huge. Nearly 20,000 people are a lot of voters and no, they're not all for Lamont. Some may not be for Lieberman's experience but instead may be against Lamont's lack of it.

In a post 9/11 and Katrina world, lacking experience--as a public official--can have serious complications for the public. While Ned may be friendly enough, the reality is that he doesn't have the connections or expertise, and more importanly, despite the far-left's mantra demanding pure ideology, pure ideology is going to get butkus for the people of Conn when handshakes with counterparts make the deals needed for the people. Washington politics is about deal-making and Kos demands progressive purity. As Mr Spock says, "It is not logical."

The Hamsher blackface episode was bad enough but Lamont made it worse with "I don't know blogs." That got it another 36 hours of coverage, and at a time so close to the primary, 36 hours of questioning the sincerity of his reply did do damage.

Al Sharpton? Twannah Brawley. The Riots. People don't forget.

Jesse Jackson calls Clinton immoral? Jackson fathered a child in an extramarital affair with a staffer and paid her hush money to move and go away. People don't forget hypocritical scandal.

The country club--Lamont SHOULD have quite sooner. He wasn't distracted before the campaign by the differences between the people he ate and played with and the people who served him and cleaned the bathrooms? It was only The Campaign that made him see the light?

Joe returned Wallyworld's donation a week after they sent it, Lamont is keeping his $51K in stock. It was so hypocritcal that the unions will ramp up their get out the vote drive. They will escort their members, families and friends to the polls.

Max Cleland and the emotional memories of the lies that circulated and did him in. That is a powerful one-two punch in the gut to Lamont's campaign.

The election will be razor close--it may be decided by the overseas votes of the servicemen and women and the final decision made after all their votes are counted once the extension is up. But if the votes from the service are used, they are going to be against Lamont.

Joe literally wrote the book on politics in Connecticut, he's Mr Political Science, and in comparison, Lamont's two years as a selectman just don't equal that.

Nice piece in the Guardian about bloggers, the notion of a "grass roots revolt," Lamont, and what's really going on.

Including Lieberman's "infidelity issues" -- the Bush smooch!

As one of the wealthiest and best educated states in the union, Connecticut is no bellwether. The Senate seat is so reliably Democratic that when the Republicans nominated their candidate earlier this year some in the convention bleated to signal a lamb to the slaughter. Lieberman, meanwhile, is no regular Democrat. That incriminating smooch didn't come from nowhere. He was the only New England Democratic senator to support Bush's energy policy, one of only a few Democrats who thought the government should intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, and a rare Democrat who said he was willing to work with Bush's failed plan to overhaul social security. Indeed, it is the very presence of this unreliable Democrat in this reliably Democratic seat that has transformed this primary into a national race, for it tests just how much betrayal Democratic voters are prepared to accept before they assert their electoral clout.

I do not live in Connecticut so my interest in this debate, as is the case for many here, is from a distance. But it seems as if any and all support of Lamont comes not as a result of anything he has accomplished either through experience or other means, but because he is "the lesser of two evils."

It's important for people of that state to closely examine this race because Lieberman was, even a year ago, a very popular senator. What's more, aside from Lamont's complete political inexperience, is the fact that 2/3 of the winner's term will be served after Bush leaves office.

But nobody ever said the enterprise would be an easy one.

Come on.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

There's just enough truth in there to be credible. Well done.

Maybe one too many half truths, though. Mentioning Max Cleland was brilliant. You registered to vote in Tuesday's primary?

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

If Lamont wins, do you think the national Democratic party will shift gears, and maybe realize that now is the time for a "progressive reaction"?

I've posted some of my thoughts here if you're curious what I mean...

progressive reactionary
architectures, cities, politics

I doubt it, his "willingness to work the the president on social security" caused a bit of talk, for sure.

It's hard to avoid knowing this stuff when the National Media reports every bone-headed, Bush-kissing, spineless, un-democratic thing he says.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

I'm guessing a super close finish, maybe 51-49% or in that range. I think Lamont will come out on top even though Lieberman will close strong thanks to his union pals and his very expensive, everything but the kitchen sink GOTV operation. Already there are reports of LieberKidz ripping down Lamont signs throughout the state and posting the Lieberman signs illegally everywhere.

I also read somewhere that Lieberman does fairly well with older 65+ voters, whereas Lamont does better with younger voters 18-35. We all know that the old folks are more likely to vote, giving Joe the advantage here.

But Lamont has the advantage with the well-educated types who are more likely to vote than the uneducated, lower income folks who still apparently favor Lieberman.

I think Lamont will pull it off. I'd love to see him with by double digits, but Connecticut voters might get a touch of cold feet in the last two days. Thus Lamont will win a close win instead of a blowout.

You are simply fabricating the "facts," Mary. Your tactics are disgusting.