Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Thursday, September 28, 2006


Thursday Morning Round-Up

Thanks for the exellent poll dissection. Gives me courage after the first numbers ran a chill down my spine.

The Q-poll seems to have much more variation on this race. In the primary it had that wacky huge lead for Lamont at one point, which the disappeared shortly thereafter.

The trends still are the friends, here. But no laurels to rest on. Work, work, work!
Its impossible to know what the polls mean when they're telling us that a major party candidate who is on the first ballot line is only going to get 5% of the vote. Its like George Allen saying that he just made up the word "macaca," i.e., telling us something that is absolutely not believable.
The new Zogby/WSJ poll out today

yeah, but that is a highly questionable poll, because its voter sample is internet subscribers.

the Lamont campaign is off-track and off-message at this point, and they have been like that ever since Ned won the Dem primary.

I think the Q poll is the one to be believed here, and I hope & pray that it is a wake-up call to the Lamont campaign.

you do make a very good point tho, that joe has now fallen below 50% in the new Q poll; that traditionally means that joe is now ripe for defeat (but we still must deliver the package.)

by "delivering the package" I mean that the Lamont campaign must stop operating like we are still trying to win the Dem primary (ie, they must stop preaching to the choir), and they must now go after the Unaffiliateds for Joe and the Dems for Joe by raising Joe's negatives among those segments with messages that resonate with those segments.

it is worth noting that in 1988 at approx. this same relative point in time, joe was significantly down & was significantly behind weicker. then joe launched his "lazy bear" missed votes ad attacks on weicker to raise weicker's negatives, and the rest is history.

joe brags about all that in his book.
The problem is that raising Ned's positives is very difficult. Use this blog as a sample. 80% of the posts (not the comments) are not Ned is great he did this that or the other, they are Joe Sucks see how much he sucks. That worked great witht he bomb throwing fools who vote in primaries, but is much less successful with more reasonable people. And that attitude follows through to the campaign as well. the much celebrate Red sox/yankees ad served what purpose? It was funny and cute, but would never convince an non-bomb throwing liberal to change his mind on Ned.
The problem is that raising Ned's positives is very difficult. - EnergyAnalyst

but I didn't say "raise ned's positives" -

I said that we must raise JOE'S NEGATIVES, via a massive tv ad campaign -

as for the feasibility of raising negatives, FYI, out of thirty new TV ads that just hit the air that were examined by the NYT, only 3 were positive.

tom reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, readily admits that he is counting on negative ads to prevent a dem landslide; tom reynolds readily admits that for over a year now his team has been doing "negatives" research on likely challenger dems.

here, read:


also, ned's "turncoats" ad has been roundly condemned by me and many others.
Post a Comment

<< Home