Talk Elections

Connecticut US Senate
If the general election for US Senate were being held today between Ralph Ferrucci, of the Green party, Timothy Knibbs, of the Concerned Citizens party, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Joe Lieberman, of the Connecticut for Lieberman party, and Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, for whom would you vote? (names rotated)
10/20/06   Lamont   Lieberman   Others*   Undecided
Likely voters   37%   49%   9%   5%
Republicans (28%)   8%   66%   23%   3%
Democrats (39%)   62%   34%   0%   4%
Unaffiliated (33%)   33%   53%   8%   6%
9/19/06   45%   47%   3%   5%
8/21/06   42%   44%   3%   11%
*Alan Schlesinger, 8%, Ralph Ferrucci and Timothy Knibbs, each less than 1/2 of 1%.

Based on 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely voters in Connecticut on October 18-20, 2006. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points, 95% of the time.
In the latest survey, 41% of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Ned Lamont, 38% have an unfavorable opinion, and 21% are undecided. In the August survey, 47% of likely voters had a favorable opinion of Lamont, 34% had an unfavorable opinion, and 19% were undecided.

In the latest survey, 54% of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Joe Lieberman, 40% have an unfavorable opinion, and 6% are undecided. In the August survey, 56% of likely voters had a favorable opinion of Lieberman, 41% had an unfavorable opinion, and 3% were undecided.

 

I gotta admit that I do find it kind of funny how strongly the Republicans are supporting a guy who has said again and again that he will caucus with the Democrats.  Besides the Iraq War and a couple other minor issues, Lieberman is not exactly in line with the ideology of most Republicans.

Lamont needs to do a better job of pointing out where most of Leibermans support is coming from.

Sort of.  The problem with that approach is that only around 38% of his support is coming from Republicans (in this poll, at least).  If you go the route of antagonizing Lieberman's supporters, you'd probably run the very real risk of upsetting even more of them rather than convincing them to support Lamont because you chastised them.

I think Lamont's only real hope at this point is for Republicans to stop flirting with Lieberman and to shift to Schlesinger at the last moment.  If Schlesinger was able to siphon off 10% or so from Lieberman's supporters, then Lamont would have a real shot.

Whats Lamonts net worth? He should put more money into this. At least 20,000,000 of his own money.

Yeah - the Lamont campaign has been a MASSIVE disappointment.

Badly managed and has not had a proper massage outside of his primary campaign.

It comes down to whether Republicans would prefer anti-Iraq War Democrat or pro-Iraq War Democrat in the Senate. I'd obviously rather have the later.

It is a real shame that Schlesinger won't win since he would make the best Senator of those running!  Does he have a future in politics after this?

Not at all.  He has massive gambling debts from gambling under a fake name.  He'll be lucky to break 10% (and only break 5% because of the debates).

Why do you think Schlesinger would make a good Senator?

He had A LOT of really good ideas in the debates and REALLY, REALLY impressed me! 

Social Security: His idea on how to prevent social security privitization was to revoke congress's pensions and make them pay for  their own healthcare.  I doubt many of them would oppose social security then (it would also save taxpayers some money or allow the money to go to something else).  Heck, you might actually see conservitives supporting universal healthcare.

Iraq: He says on his website that we NEED to have AT LEAST 50% of our troops out of Iraq by next year.  During the debate he said that no one running for that seat, not even Lamont, supports immeadiate troop withdrawl.  Both he and Lamont support a timeline.

Energy Independence: He said that we need to tax oil companies and reaserch alternitive fuels with the money.  MY OPINION: The reason we cannot be serious when we say we want to spread Democracy is because countries like Saudi Arabia can say "If you are to hard on us, up the prices go up."  And countries like Sudan support Saudi Araaba, Iran, and Venuzela during U.N. votes, so they wouldn't let us do anything to those countries (least they lose an ally).


When Joe Libermen said that Washington needed to be fixed, Schlesinger said to Lamont : Mr. Lamont your a buisnessman.  If someone came to you and said: Gee boss, I've been working on this thing for 18 years and it's in worse shape then when I started; what would you say?  Lamont responed "It's time to go!" 

When Lamont said Ct wasn't getting its fair share of money, Schlesinger said that if Lamont cared so much about Ct, than he should give some money to the state instead of to his campagin.
     

Why the hell is Schlesinger a Republican then?

I would be glad if Lamont or Schlesinger won. Sadly, excluding a miracle, it isn't going to happen. Its time to worry about places where REAL Democrats can still win...surprisingly places like Montana and Virginia.

I don't know, I think he is in the wrong party.

Because the GOP is a rather large tent, especially in the northern states where more moderate positions are needed to win races.

I'm sure Christopher Smith and Joe Schwarz would agree with that statement.

Anyone who calls immediate withdrawing from Iraq is an idiot. So it's good to see that Lieberman is winning.

One thing I haven't understood about this race is what is wrong with Schlesinger guy? I thought that the three-candidate race was a great opportunity for Rebublicans and now they are almost totally backing Lieberman. Doesn't make sense for me. 

I was referring more so to state wide races. Obviously, single congressional districts are a rather poor measure of the politics of a state.

:P

Lieberman's support (according to this poll): 18.5% Republicans, Democrats 13.25%, Independents 17.5%. In other words, about 37% of Lieberman voters are Republicans, 35% Independents and 27% Democrats.

Yep. I said after the primary that the Independent vote would decide this race, and Lamont's failure to win them over, despite Indys being almost as anti-war as Dems, pretty much ends his chances.

Well, what TexasGurl probably meant, was Lamont needs to point out that Lieberman does best with the smallest political group (GOP), while doing worst with the largest political group (Dems).

I'm not sure why independents would care about that.

With 66% or whatever of the GOP vote, Joe is the de facto Republican candidate.

How do you thats what was meant by support? They are bank rolling his campaign.

Nobody didn't answer my question. What kind of candidate that Republican guy with difficult German name is?

How it goes Gustaf? Last year in high school? I was so glad when Social Democrats lost their power in you country. :) It was about the time! You did something to help that happen?

He's very very weak. Just a no-name with a gambling problem. Was initially only going to be the sacrificial lamb against Lieberman or Lamont, but when Lieberman stepped in as an indy, that changed the dynamics, but too late for the GOP to get a decent candidate. Since he doesn't have a prayer, all the Republicans will just vote for Lieberman. He's basically a third party candidate.

I actually like him more than Lieberman, and if Lieberman had won the primary, he'd be my sole Republican endorsement (besides Lugar).

Uhhh no.

Mr. Gold would get my vote long before Joe Lieberman and his pro-torture pro-terrorism pro-corruption stances.

Thanks for your information.