X. Benedict Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 No, I'm pretty sure that if Lamont wins the Dem nomination, Lieberman cannot also run as a Dem. Some of the Letters to the Editor in the Hartford Courant have suggested the 'Connecticut Sour Grapes Party.' 734725[/snapback] In Conn. do third parties have mainline candidates on the ballot? Most third parties in New York do not require that their candidates be party members.
GG Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 It all depends on which Democrat he's modeled after. FDR, Truman & JFK or McGovern, Humphrey & Dukakis.
UConn James Posted August 3, 2006 Author Posted August 3, 2006 In Conn. do third parties have mainline candidates on the ballot?Most third parties in New York do not require that their candidates be party members. 734734[/snapback] Not that I remember seeing; I think candidates have to be, or it's an unwritten rule that they be in the party. There's a line for Greens in the state elections, most of the time with just 2 candidates. Lowell Weicker actually won the governorship back in.... 1990?.... under the "A Connecticut Party" he created.
/dev/null Posted August 3, 2006 Posted August 3, 2006 The big question, will he accept Steven Colbert's open invititation to appear on the Report before the primary
GG Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 I thought the Dems were the party of the enlightened. Where's joe2006.com?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 After hearing and reading a little bit about Ned Lamont in the last day or two, this dude is a pretty decent candidate, and not just the stupid, silly, rich schmuck I just assumed he was. I would probably vote for Lamont anyway if I lived there.
GG Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 After hearing and reading a little bit about Ned Lamont in the last day or two, this dude is a pretty decent candidate, and not just the stupid, silly, rich schmuck I just assumed he was. I would probably vote for Lamont anyway if I lived there. 738364[/snapback] That's an interesting take, as everything that I have heard from Lamont is the "I'm not Joe Lieberman" refrain. Lamon will do fine in a statewide election pushing for universal healthcare.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 8, 2006 Posted August 8, 2006 That's an interesting take, as everything that I have heard from Lamont is the "I'm not Joe Lieberman" refrain. Lamon will do fine in a statewide election pushing for universal healthcare. 738372[/snapback] Just think he has an interesting background, comes from a family of moderate republicans apparently and has some serious liberal roots, too. I listened to three different national reporters yesterday covering the election and all three said the same thing, they didn't know much about him but after spending a lot of time with him they were very impressed. He's a serious candidate. Lamont's great-grandfather Thomas Lamont, whose partnership with J.P. Morgan created the family fortune that has provided a firm financial base for Ned's business and political endeavors, was one of Woodrow Wilson's negotiators on the Treaty of Versailles. Ned's great-uncle Corliss was a leading figure in the American Civil Liberties Union and a founder of the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee who successfully sued the Central Intelligence Agency in a groundbreaking challenge to domestic spying--and who would no doubt be proud of the Senate candidate's support of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold's proposal to censure Bush for authorizing warrantless wiretaps. Lamont's father, Ted, an economist, helped administer the Marshall Plan after World War II and served with George Romney--Massachusetts Governor Mitt's liberal dad--in Richard Nixon's Department of Housing and Urban Development.
UConn James Posted August 18, 2006 Author Posted August 18, 2006 Lieberman leads opponents in new poll. Lieberman (I) - 53% Lamont (D) - 41% Schlesinger ® - 4% Joe's numbers dont so much surprise me. This is pretty much what has been forecast. It's just that Schlesinger's numbers are so low. I mean, CT is by-and-large a 'blue' state but not that blue. As I said upthread, lots of the Republican Lites and even many, nay, most hardcore Repubs seem to be willing to vote for Joe b/c of his national security stances, presumably. To say nothing else, we are practical people up here, and we stick with what works --- hence the "Land of Steady Habits" moniker. Quite telling that even Mehlman and Karl Rove are giving tacit support (tho they will deny this to any and all) for Joe-mentum. This has been and will continue to be an interesting race to follow, especially for it's impact on the national level; where the parties are, which direction they're going, etc.
Johnny Coli Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Lieberman (I) - 53%Lamont (D) - 41% Schlesinger ® - 4% Joe's numbers dont so much surprise me. This is pretty much what has been forecast. It's just that Schlesinger's numbers are so low. I mean, CT is by-and-large a 'blue' state but not that blue. As I said upthread, lots of the Republican Lites and even many, nay, most hardcore Repubs seem to be willing to vote for Joe b/c of his national security stances, presumably. To say nothing else, we are practical people up here, and we stick with what works --- hence the "Land of Steady Habits" moniker. Quite telling that even Mehlman and Karl Rove are giving tacit support (tho they will deny this to any and all) for Joe-mentum. This has been and will continue to be an interesting race to follow, especially for it's impact on the national level; where the parties are, which direction they're going, etc. 745911[/snapback] Looking past the "Joe's ahead in the polls" snapshot and examining the trend is the most relevant news from these new numbers. Here's the ink to the Q-poll TREND: If the 2006 election for senator were being held today and the candidates were Ned Lamont the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger the Republican, and Joseph Lieberman running as an independent candidate, for whom would you vote? Aug 17 Jul 20 Jun 8 May 2 2006 2006 2006 2006 Lamont 38 27 18 13 Schlesinger 4 9 8 10 Lieberman 49 51 56 56 Lieberman's support has started to tail off over the past two-and-a-half months, while Lamont's numbers are really coming on strong. It's going to take a huge push from the GOP to keep Joe The Enabler around. This will be a close one. It's exciting to see a virtually unknown candidate come out of nowhere, bounce an 18-year incumbent off the party ticket, and poll this well two months out from the election.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Lieberman's support has started to tail off over the past two-and-a-half months, while Lamont's numbers are really coming on strong. It's going to take a huge push from the GOP to keep Joe The Enabler around. This will be a close one. It's exciting to see a virtually unknown candidate come out of nowhere, bounce an 18-year incumbent off the party ticket, and poll this well two months out from the election. 745986[/snapback] God help us all if that half-wit, appeasing, socialist cob-bobber gets elected. It would be shameful for the people of Connecticut to elect someone like that. Shameful, but hardly suprising.
cromagnum Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Looking past the "Joe's ahead in the polls" snapshot and examining the trend is the most relevant news from these new numbers. Here's the ink to the Q-pollLieberman's support has started to tail off over the past two-and-a-half months, while Lamont's numbers are really coming on strong. It's going to take a huge push from the GOP to keep Joe The Enabler around. This will be a close one. It's exciting to see a virtually unknown candidate come out of nowhere, bounce an 18-year incumbent off the party ticket, and poll this well two months out from the election. 745986[/snapback] Why don't the conservatives support the republican candidate in this election. He is after all more in line with they're overall theme in the GOP platform then liberal lieberman? I understand the gop strategy of fracturing the democrats in this election and elections nation wide, so the gop can retain majority power in the senate.. It would be nice to have at least ONE legislative branch of goverment in democratic majority to help balance the power and have more input on the major issues, War, Civil Liberties,Debt,Labor,Energy,Immigration,Enviroment,Health Insurance cost.. War on christmas. Flag burning. Gay marriage. Keeping braindead people alive. Scratching my nuts and azz only with my righthand. And so it goes
Johnny Coli Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Why don't the conservatives support the republican candidate in this election. 746014[/snapback] They are.
UConn James Posted August 18, 2006 Author Posted August 18, 2006 Looking past the "Joe's ahead in the polls" snapshot and examining the trend is the most relevant news from these new numbers. Here's the ink to the Q-pollLieberman's support has started to tail off over the past two-and-a-half months, while Lamont's numbers are really coming on strong. It's going to take a huge push from the GOP to keep Joe The Enabler around. This will be a close one. It's exciting to see a virtually unknown candidate come out of nowhere, bounce an 18-year incumbent off the party ticket, and poll this well two months out from the election. 745986[/snapback] I knew next to nothing about Lamont two months ago. The rest of CT too. The fact that he's closed this much of a gap in that short a time.... I didn't mean to create that 'It's Lieberman's race" impression, b/c it obviously is not. I didn't vote in the primary b/c I can't; still don't know who I'll vote for in the general tho I suspect that guy named 'None of the Above' has a good shot. Despite his own insistance to the contrary, Lieberman has staked a fairly far position from the Dem party. Which is why he lost. His support for war without end amen was the anvil that broke the horse's back, but he's been chipping off the block for a while. Everything from his crackdown on free speech and telling videogame makers and recording artists what they can put in their work ('Think about the children!'). Some of his votes in recent abortion-access issues have rankled people. In addition, JL gets the Republican vote, like I said, b/c of national security --- they are willing to single-issue-vote. Schlesinger's gotta be under a lot of pressure from the RNC to drop out, and if he doesn't want his ego bruised when he gets 4%.... JSP, is it possible for you to put the crap aside for a moment? So, the people of CT might not elect the person you would choose (Well, granted that b/c Ghingus Khan is dead....). *GASP* How dare they! They don't know what's good for them! This is not a JSP-ocracy we live in.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 JSP, is it possible for you to put the crap aside for a moment? So, the people of CT might not elect the person you would choose (Well, granted that b/c Ghingus Khan is dead....). *GASP* How dare they! They don't know what's good for them! A more brusk person would say you don't believe in democracy. 746040[/snapback] This guy has one platform: GET THE TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ. Great, Ned, THEN WHAT? Yeah, he'd be a great addition to an already f*cked up legislative branch. And what's good for Connecticut CERTAINLY doesn't jibe with what's good for the rest of the country. Pardon the generalization, but most people in Connecticut are WELL above the national average for income. Most Connecticut citizens are what we in the real world like to call "limousine liberals"....those who suffer guilt over their good fortune and try to cover it up in a warm blanket of liberal feel-goodiness. Oh, that and the fact that the "Johns" are backing this clown makes him all the more repugnant as a candidate to me. Edit: Don't get me wrong here, I'm no fan of Lieberman, either. But he's most definitely the lesser of two evils when it comes to choosing between a spoiled rich kid without a clue and a veteran senator who's known to TRY and work across party lines.
KRC Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Looking past the "Joe's ahead in the polls" snapshot and examining the trend is the most relevant news from these new numbers. Here's the ink to the Q-pollLieberman's support has started to tail off over the past two-and-a-half months, while Lamont's numbers are really coming on strong. It's going to take a huge push from the GOP to keep Joe The Enabler around. This will be a close one. It's exciting to see a virtually unknown candidate come out of nowhere, bounce an 18-year incumbent off the party ticket, and poll this well two months out from the election. 745986[/snapback] I pretty much loathe polls, but since you brought up Q-Polls, I thought I would check on the Santorum-Casey battle in PA. Since the Dems are putting so much effort into beating Santorum and you were absolutely glowing at Casey’s poll numbers, I wanted to get your opinion on Casey’s dive in the polls. I mentioned a while back that Casey would be doomed once he was forced to actually take a stand on issues. That premonition seems to be coming true. Here are the latest Q-Poll trends: Favorability rating of Santorum: Favorability: Up Unfavorability: Down Approval Rating for Santorum: Up Opinion of Casey: Favorability: Steady Unfavorability: Up In head-to-head polling: Casey is losing ground (actually at the lowest polling to date) Santorum is gaining ground (highest polling to date) When asked if pollees were voting FOR Santorum or AGAINST Casey: 82% FOR When asked if polees were voting FOR Casey or AGAINST Santorum: FOR Casey: 50% Registered voters, 43% Likely voters AGAINST Santorum: 42% Registered voters, 51% Likely voters Does Santorum deserve to be re-elected? YES: Moving up NO: Moving down I thought that this was pretty interesting. When Casey did not have to stand for anything, he polled well. Once he needed to go head-to-head with Santorum on issues, he is dropping fast. Of the likely voters, a large number were only picking Casey to prevent Santorum from winning. They were not picking Casey because they wanted Casey. The exact opposite is true for Santorum. People picking him were doing so because of him, not Casey. To me, this shows the strength (or lack thereof) of the candidate. If the candidate is not strong, the debates can easy swing against them. The fact that Casey is not a strong candidate does not bode well for his long-term chances. I suspect that this trend will continue when the debates start. Santorum is a good debater and should easily handle Casey. Casey is in trouble.
UConn James Posted August 18, 2006 Author Posted August 18, 2006 Pardon the generalization, but most people in Connecticut are WELL above the national average for income. Most Connecticut citizens are what we in the real world like to call "limousine liberals"....those who suffer guilt over their good fortune and try to cover it up in a warm blanket of liberal feel-goodiness. 746048[/snapback] I won't pardon the generalization. Travel outside of Fairfield and Litchfield counties. (And even in them, your statement isn't entirely accurate). I call bullsh--.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 I won't pardon the generalization. Travel outside of Fairfield and Litchfield counties. (And even in them, your statement isn't entirely accurate). I call bullsh--. 746062[/snapback] Oh-ho-ho Nice try UConn...but only NJ ranks higher for median 4-person family income. Uh...next!
Johnny Coli Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 {Ken's post}... 746057[/snapback] I haven't been following that race as much as the Lieberman/Lamont one, but I looked back at my relevant posts here (three in total it looks like; for the most part more giddy at Sanitarium's sh!tty numbers than Casey as a candidate) My take: If you can't beat the pants off a nut like Santorum, then you don't deserve to win. He still leads in the polls, but you are right, he's sinking fast. Have they started the debates yet in that race? Maybe Casey is saving his money for an ad blitz closer to the elections...I would guess that these new poll numbers would light a spark under his campaign's a$$ to get moving. You'll have to tell us what's going on with ad time in PA. Is Santorum burning up the airwaves to make up ground, while Casey waits to fire up the campaign post-Labor Day? It could be a resource thing...let Rick bust his nuts to make up ground, then really start the campaign closer to the election. You don't want to run out of cash in September. I don't know.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 I haven't been following that race as much as the Lieberman/Lamont one, but I looked back at my relevant posts here (three in total it looks like; for the most part more giddy at Sanitarium's sh!tty numbers than Casey as a candidate) My take: If you can't beat the pants off a nut like Santorum, then you don't deserve to win. He still leads in the polls, but you are right, he's sinking fast. Have they started the debates yet in that race? Maybe Casey is saving his money for an ad blitz closer to the elections...I would guess that these new poll numbers would light a spark under his campaign's a$$ to get moving. You'll have to tell us what's going on with ad time in PA. Is Santorum burning up the airwaves to make up ground, while Casey waits to fire up the campaign post-Labor Day? It could be a resource thing...let Rick bust his nuts to make up ground, then really start the campaign closer to the election. You don't want to run out of cash in September. I don't know. 746080[/snapback] Crippen's right. Casey has STILL yet to speak on issues. He's not going to last long if he doesn't. And even if he does, I don't think he's going to win.
Recommended Posts