Lamont leads Lieberman 51% to 47%

[GOP = Terrorists]

Lamont Leads Lieberman In Latest Poll
7:05 AM EDT, July 20, 2006
The Associated Press
 
HAMDEN, Conn. -- A Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday has Democratic challenger Ned Lamont leading the U.S. Senate race over incumbent Joe Lieberman.

The poll shows Lamont ahead 51-47 percent among likely voters in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary. That compares to a 55-40 percent lead for Lieberman in a similar poll in June.

The telephone survey of 2,502 registered voters was conducted July 13-18. It has a sampling error margin of about 2 percentage points.

Lamont, a multimillionaire and founder of a cable television company that has wired college campuses, has contributed a total of $2.5 million to his own campaign.

He has gained national attention by challenging Lieberman, who has come under fire from some Democrats for his support of the war in Iraq and a perceived closeness with congressional Republicans and President Bush.

"More Democrats have a favorable opinion of Lamont, who was largely unknown last month, and see him as an acceptable alternative to Lieberman," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz. "But Lieberman's strength among Republicans and independents gives him the lead in a three-way matchup in November."

Lieberman has said he will run as a third-party candidate in November should he lose the Democratic primary.

The poll shows him leading a three way race with the support of 51 percent of likely voters, compared to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger.


Full Poll:  http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=940
-----------
I've been saying this for quite a while now.  Lieberman is going to lose the primary.  Further I'm now willing to predict he will lose by 10%.  Driving from one side of New Haven (Lieberman's hometown) to the other yesterday I saw 13 Lamont lawn signs and 2 Lieberman ones.  One house had one of each in the front.  I have yet to see a Lieberman bumper sticker but I see at least a half a dozen Lamont ones every day not including the ones on our cars. Lieberman is going to lose the primary.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Honestly, I'm pulling for Ole' Joe Lieberman.  I like the way he's not afraid to publicly disagree with not only the Republicans, but his own party as well.  Kind of like John McCain of the Republicans.

[Wiz in Wis]

Honestly, I'm pulling for Ole' Joe Lieberman.  I like the way he's not afraid to publicly disagree with not only the Republicans, but his own party as well.  Kind of like John McCain of the Republicans.

When was the last time he disagreed vocally with George Bush?

[Joe Biden 2020]

Honestly, I'm pulling for Ole' Joe Lieberman.  I like the way he's not afraid to publicly disagree with not only the Republicans, but his own party as well.  Kind of like John McCain of the Republicans.

When was the last time he disagreed vocally with George Bush?

I believe he has come out against some of the Administration's handling of the war effort.  I haven't heard him yet on Gitmo.

He doesn't do it as much as he used to, but he is still kind of an "Independent Republican" as Lieberman is an "Independent Democrat", meaning they're not going to vote along with their party on all issues.

[7,052,770]

This is bullshit.  If Lamont wins I'll seriously consider leaving the Democratic Party.

[opebo]

This is bullshit.  If Lamont wins I'll seriously consider leaving the Democratic Party.

Why?

What are primaries for other than to allow the rank and file of a party to reject incumbents that no longer represent them?

[TheresNoMoney]

What are primaries for other than to allow the rank and file of a party to reject incumbents that no longer represent them?

Exactly.

[Boris]

Ok. So Lieberman loses the primary. Big Deal. Then he wins the general as an independent by fifteen percentage points. And you've just wasted a lot of resources and money on a useless objective during a crucial election year that the Democrats *need* to gain seats in.

Look, I disagree with Lieberman's position on the Iraq War also, but the liberal wing of this party really needs to start seeing the big picture.

[TheresNoMoney]

And you've just wasted a lot of resources and money on a useless objective during a crucial election year that the Democrats *need* to gain seats in.

What resources are wasted? I don't expect the DSCC or DNC to waste any money in this race either way. It's kind of a no-lose situation.

[MaC]

This is bullshit.  If Lamont wins I'll seriously consider leaving the Democratic Party.

Why?

What are primaries for other than to allow the rank and file of a party to reject incumbents that no longer represent them?

Plus Lieberman's quite a prude for the Democratic Party.  I hope he gets kicked out-seriously.

[© tweed]

I'm starting to feel like this is destiny.  Like this is all meant to be, like Lamont is going to win (twice) against all odds.  Still a long, long, long way to go, but we have nothing to lose and a world to gain.

[© tweed]

Look at what the sign appears to say.  Hilarious

[Rob]

This is bullshit.  If Lamont wins I'll seriously consider leaving the Democratic Party.

Your Political Matrix score is -6.46, -2.06. You've always seemed like a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but you'll jump ship if the Democrats in one state vote against one guy (one that is likely to be returned to the Senate in any case)?

[Lincoln Republican]

If Lieberman loses the Democratic primary, he loses the seat in the general, simple.

Independents very seldom win.

If Lieberman ends up running as an independent, it would be far different from the situation in Vermont with independent Bernie Sanders.  Sanders was and is an independent, and isn't running as an independent because his party rejected him.

With Lieberman running as an independent, in this case, it would be seen as a case of sour grapes on his part.

Democrats will end up, by in large, supporting the official Democratic candidate, and the official Democratic Party candidate will win this Senate seat.

[Raoul Takemoto]

Ol' Joe really has no one to blame but himself. It appears he has rankled enough core CT Democrats to threaten his nomination. He'd win in the general, however, so it looks possible that the makeup of the next Senate could be 51-47-2, with the two "Independents" caucusing with the Dems.

[GOP = Terrorists]

This is bullshit.  If Lamont wins I'll seriously consider leaving the Democratic Party.

*waves*  I hear Connecticut for Lieberman party is looking for members.  He is gonna lose.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Ok. So Lieberman loses the primary. Big Deal. Then he wins the general as an independent by fifteen percentage points. And you've just wasted a lot of resources and money on a useless objective during a crucial election year that the Democrats *need* to gain seats in.

Sorry opposing one of the biggest supporters of the War in Iraq is not a waste.  It is the biggest issue of our day.  It is more important that Lieberman be removed than Chaffee for just that reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big picture is that war supporters must be removed from office as soon as possible before they start wars with Syria and Iran. 

[Raoul Takemoto]

Someone told me that Bill Clinton is going to Waterbury next weekend to campaign for Lieberman. Has anyone else heard this? If true, this is a shock - unless he's trying to shore up his wife's moderate credentials by supporting a neighboring moderate like Lieberman.

[dazzleman]

Someone told me that Bill Clinton is going to Waterbury next weekend to campaign for Lieberman. Has anyone else heard this? If true, this is a shock - unless he's trying to shore up his wife's moderate credentials by supporting a neighboring moderate like Lieberman.

That's a good analysis.  Hillary has also supported the war, and for too long to back away from it now without looking foolish.  Bill and Hillary can't want an intra-party challenge to a popular senator on the basis of his support of the war to succeed.  The implications for Hillary are too negative.

[Speed of Sound]

Awesome. Time to show Joe that he must represent the people and the party. (and I dont mean the Connecticut for Lieberman party )

[Smash255]

Someone told me that Bill Clinton is going to Waterbury next weekend to campaign for Lieberman. Has anyone else heard this? If true, this is a shock - unless he's trying to shore up his wife's moderate credentials by supporting a neighboring moderate like Lieberman.

That's a good analysis.  Hillary has also supported the war, and for too long to back away from it now without looking foolish.  Bill and Hillary can't want an intra-party challenge to a popular senator on the basis of his support of the war to succeed.  The implications for Hillary are too negative.

One difference between Lieberman & Hillary, is while they both have supported the war, Clinton has beem much for vocal in her opposition to the way the administration has handled the war, something Lieberman has not been that vocal about.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Ok. So Lieberman loses the primary. Big Deal. Then he wins the general as an independent by fifteen percentage points. And you've just wasted a lot of resources and money on a useless objective during a crucial election year that the Democrats *need* to gain seats in.

Sorry opposing one of the biggest supporters of the War in Iraq is not a waste.  It is the biggest issue of our day.  It is more important that Lieberman be removed than Chaffee for just that reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big picture is that war supporters must be removed from office as soon as possible before they start wars with Syria and Iran. 

The war supporters do not need to be removed from office.  The War in Iraq is very justified, I mean, look at where Saddam Hussein sits now.  Plus, there WERE WMDs they were just hidden real good by Saddam.  The war in Iraq is, just as Bush said, a central front on the war on terror.  It was before we attacked it.  Saddam had the plans and the capability of attacking the United States.  Bush went into Iraq as a LAST resort, not because he was a war-hungry, blood-thirsty murderer as some liberals suggest.  And, no, these war supporters would not start a war with Iran and Syria unless it was justified and EVERY OTHER option had been exhausted.  We have made mistakes, yes, but what war was without mistakes?

Forgive me for this grave sin, but I SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH and the WAR in IRAQ.  Keep these war supporters such as Lieberman in office.

[Smash255]

Ok. So Lieberman loses the primary. Big Deal. Then he wins the general as an independent by fifteen percentage points. And you've just wasted a lot of resources and money on a useless objective during a crucial election year that the Democrats *need* to gain seats in.

Sorry opposing one of the biggest supporters of the War in Iraq is not a waste.  It is the biggest issue of our day.  It is more important that Lieberman be removed than Chaffee for just that reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The big picture is that war supporters must be removed from office as soon as possible before they start wars with Syria and Iran. 

The war supporters do not need to be removed from office.  The War in Iraq is very justified, I mean, look at where Saddam Hussein sits now.  Plus, there WERE WMDs they were just hidden real good by Saddam.  The war in Iraq is, just as Bush said, a central front on the war on terror.  It was before we attacked it.  Saddam had the plans and the capability of attacking the United States.  Bush went into Iraq as a LAST resort, not because he was a war-hungry, blood-thirsty murderer as some liberals suggest.  And, no, these war supporters would not start a war with Iran and Syria unless it was justified and EVERY OTHER option had been exhausted.  We have made mistakes, yes, but what war was without mistakes?

Forgive me for this grave sin, but I SUPPORT PRESIDENT BUSH and the WAR in IRAQ.  Keep these war supporters such as Lieberman in office.

Oh Come on thats a complete bogus pile of crap

Saddam did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction, this is an argument that even the majority of those on the right gave up on.

He didn't have the means to attack us, nor the weapons to attack us.  Saddam is evil no question, but he was a samall fry compared to the cabailities of others in the region, and the capability to attack us.  To say every other option was exhausted is complete & utter BS, Bush didn't even let the Inspectors actuaally finish their job in Iraq.  The 2nd time aroundSaddam wasn't the one to kick the Inspectors out, Bush was.  The War on terror centers around Extremist Fundamentalist Islam.  Thats what it centers around.  Not Iraq, not someone who wasn't an Extremist Fundamentlaist, nor any kind of Fundamentalist.  The guy is a pile of crrap and evil, no question, but he wasn't our biggest threat, he didn't have the means to attack us, he didn't have the weapons, he didn't have the connections to those that could attack us, .

[AuH2O]

Citizens of representative governments tend to have a high level of war weariness, which is not really based on how the war is going, but merely on the perception of the war dragging on. In other words, whether a country is "winning" or "losing" does not affect war weariness. The US is actually winning in Iraq by all objective measures, as opposed to what was going on in Vietnam, but for opinion purposes it makes little difference.

However, citizens also show a preference for leaders who appear willing to use force, because it promotes a sense of security. Even Presidents involved in unpopular wars often do well electorally.

The mistake Democrats have made for decades now is to respond to an unpopular war by running on an anti-war platform. In a Democratic primary that's not a problem, and in some states it's not a problem in a general election. But nationally, it is a problem. People don't so much oppose the concept of war as the execution, which is never as perfect as they would like.

[GOP = Terrorists]

The war supporters do not need to be removed from office.  The War in Iraq is very justified

Sorry not only was it not justified it was a war crime.  The very same war crime we hung the Nazis for.  Conspiracy to wage a war of aggression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ROTFLMAO.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We shall see.  Though I don't doubt that if our military hadn't been essentially destroyed during the occupation of Iraq we'd be already invading Iran/Syria.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We didn't make mistakes... The entire war was a mistake.  The biggest mistake in the history of our foriegn policy and its supporters are no better than the arab warmongers like Bin Laden.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well no doubt being pro-slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents would be a sin in any religion.