Lieberman to appear last on the Ballot

[YRABNNRM]

I would say it's Lamont's race to lose at this point.

No

You think Lamont will win?

When someone says it's a certain candidate's race to lose, what they're saying is that, unless that candidate makes some mistake, he/she will win.  DownWithTheLeft's replying "No" means, it seems to me, that he does not agree that Lamont will win as long as he doesn't make a gaffe.  So he is probably saying close to the exact opposite of proclaiming that Lamont will win.

That doesn't really make sense.

It makes perfect sense, I answered "no" to Lamont being the favorite, it is still Lieberman's race to lose.

The term of saying that it's someone's "race to lose" while meaning they win doesn't make sense.

[Frodo]

And the significance of this is....?

[adam]

And the significance of this is....?

A) This will help Schlesinger by being on the ballot first next to Jodi Rell, thus hurting Lieberman among those who may have went into the booth undecided between party loyalty (Schlesinger) and Lieberman.

B) Ballot placement is more important than you'd think. Had Gore been listed first on the ballot...it may have been a different history.

C) Appearing last on the ballot under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party makes him look corny, and a bit of a jokish loser.

I'm not saying that this will decide the election, but it's not doing Lieberman any favors.

[Deano963]

How anyone can say this is Lamont's to lose is just plain wrong.... Its a democratic state, in a democratic year..... yet if one looks at polling and the general mood, its Lieberman's to lose. Lamont has yet to catch on fire like he did in the primary. Second, his ads that were just as good as the current ones by Steele and Ford in the primary have faltered. His latest ads (baseball and the turncoats) are just plain strange. For one thing, most Democrats who were thinking of leaving Lieberman already have (granted, there might be a percentage point or two to be grabbed, but that is a very small percentage), and the ads talk about Lieberman leaving the democrats. Yes that assures his base, but what else does it do? It tells us something we are know and all of Connecticut knows. Second, the only poll that has Lamont anywhere near Lieberman is the rasmussen poll (cuse me I don't believe the ARG from a month ago, look at 2004). In that poll he leads among the most predictable voters, over 50..... And lets not even talk about the survey USA poll that I believe is more reliable and has Lieberman up big. Granted, I would like to see a Quinnipiac poll, and it would be worth while to make sure old folks know where Lieberman. Finally, take a look at the prediction market..... Lieberman lead is pretty sizeable.....

Are you on crack? You think SUSA is more reliable than Rasmussen? Get a clue dude.

They are.  Look at the history.  Next.

No they're not. Look at the most recent election. Rasmussen was the most accurate pollster. Try again.

Please click on the link found on this page entitled Prez, Sen and Gov only:

http://surveyusa.com/electiontrackrecord.html

We have a number of different measurements here:

Using the Traugott measure and 2nd Mostettler measure, Rasmussen ranks 4th, SUSA ranks 2nd, behind Mason-Dixon.

Using the 5th Mostettler measure, Rasmussen is tied for 3rd with Strategic Vision.

Using the Shipman measure, Rasmussen is tied for 2nd with Mason-Dixon and ARG.  Survey USA is first.

If we look at the number of wrong winners with polling companies who did more than 10 polls, Rasmussen is 1st, with 1, as opposed for two with Mason-Dixon, SUSA and Research 2000.

If we look at size of Pro-Democrat/Pro-Republican bias, Survey USA is 1st, with Mason-Dixon not far behind.  Rasmussen had a pro-Dem bias of roughly 2.2%.

Off-topice, but in the primary this year, Rasmussen was pretty far off in Democrat-bias, whereas Quinnipiac nailed the numbers.  I always remember that come November.

Seriously Sam, don't cut and paste and call it an argument. Rasmussen is more accurate. Period.

[Keystone Phil]

The term of saying that it's someone's "race to lose" while meaning they win doesn't make sense.

Andrew, you are right 90% of the time when you are dealing with DWTL but you are wrong here.

[poughies]

Here is a good article about election 2004 and pollsters......

To me the best is still Mason-Dixon.....
http://www.slate.com/id/2110860/

[Lincoln Republican]

I am no fan of Lamont, but I think he wins.

He has the Democratic nomination, he has the Democratic endorsements, he has the Democratic money, he has the Democratic machine.

In a Democratic state, this counts for a lot.

Lieberman's public speaking is enough to put you to sleep.

Besides, Lieberman has been around long enough.  The Connecticut Senate seat is not his private property.  Of course, he is entirely free to run as an independent, but it is very, very difficult for an independent to win.

[jimrtex]

2006 Ballot

At least there isn't a Libertarian on the ballot.  Remember the claim in Florida 2004 that those who weren't voting for Pat Buchanan were getting confused and trying to vote for Al Green and Joe Libertarian.

Supposedly ballot order only matters when the people don't have a clue who they are voting for.

[Eraserhead]

Wouldn't it be funny if the Green party candidate gets more votes than the Republican?

Very possible. Poor Goldie.