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
- New Q-Poll out this morning, as Lieberman falls under 50% for the first time in Quinnipiac: Lieberman (Lieberman) 49%, Lamont (D) 39%, Schlesinger (R) 5% (LVs). This is -4 for Lieberman from their last poll in August, and also goes against other recent polls showing the race a dead heat. It's clear by now that Democrats strongly back Lamont and Republicans strongly back Lieberman (but once again here, even Ned does better with Republicans than Schlesinger does). The key differences seem to rest with "likely voter" models (the Q-Poll did not release RV data this time), as well as predicting which way unaffliateds will go - in this poll they break for Lieberman, in the most recent ARG poll, they break for Lamont.
- Other interesting bits: Ned's favorability numbers are still rising as Republicans and Independents get to know him (+6 since last month) while his unfavorable numbers are actually falling as more people form opinions of him. And Iraq continues to be the most important issue for voters - Bush's approval is at 33% (28% on the issue of Iraq), 62% say going into Iraq was the wrong decision, 51% say we should either decrease troop levels or withdraw all troops, and 55% say we are losing the war in Iraq. It's clear why Sen. Lieberman dosen't want to talk about Iraq, even though it's the single most important issue for all CT voters (35% of them).
- Truer words... from Alan Schlesinger, a fine upstanding Republican:
Schlesinger, 48, the former mayor of Derby, also accused Lieberman of shying from more debates to avoid criticism of his record. The three campaigns have agreed to two debates on Oct. 16 and Oct. 23.
"I think he's afraid that when people see that there's a moderate fiscal conservative running this year and that his record is straight liberal ... I think he's worried that a lot of his base is going to erode that he needs in this election," Schlesinger said. - People for the American Way endorsed Ned Lamont yesterday, based solely on domestic issues:
“Ned Lamont strongly backs public schools, while Joe Lieberman has voted for vouchers,” Collins said. “Ned Lamont fully supports privacy rights, while Joe Lieberman said legislative intervention was appropriate in the Terry Schiavo case. Joe Lieberman voted to confirm John Roberts to the Supreme Court and voted against a filibuster of the Samuel Alito nomination; Ned Lamont would forcefully oppose far-right nominees. And on other issues, from church-state separation to marriage equality to demonstrating a willingness to stand up to President Bush, Ned Lamont is clearly the better choice.”
- According to the Day, Ambassador Joe Wilson will be campaigning with Annie Lamont and George Jepsen this weekend at a fundraiser in Old Saybrook.
- The Center for Responsive Politics has the last word on who is trying to "buy" a senate seat in this race:
According to campaign finance information available as of Sept. 13, Lieberman had raised more than twice Lamont’s receipts and 78 times Schlesinger’s.
Interestingly, Sen. Lieberman had no problem campaigning for Mark Dayton (D-MN) in 2000, who spent $11 million of his own money, outspending his opponent by $5 million. He had no problem campaigning for Jon Corzine (D-NJ) in 2000, who spent an amazing $60 million of his own money, outspending his opponent almost 10-to-1.
Sen. Lieberman has been furious since day one of this race that, thanks to massive grassroots support as well as personal finances, a challenger might be be able to spend perhaps half as much as he is going to on this race - and without being beholden to PACs and disgusting people like Mel Sembler:The question everyone asks is why Sembler’s sordid past hasn’t caught up with him. Far from hiding his association with Straight, he’s still boasting about his connection to the program on his corporate website.
The short answer is that Joe’s new friend Mel is one of the most well-connected Republican operatives in America....
It says a lot about this country that one of the most notorious (and unrepentant) child abusers in our history considered a leading authority on treating drug abuse.
It says a lot about Joe Lieberman that he’s the first "Democrat" ever to benefit from Sembler’s fundraising mojo.
It also serves as a handy diversion from talking about Iraq - the issue CT voters care about most in this election.
posted by tparty at 7:57 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
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!
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.
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:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/us/politics/27ads.html
also, ned's "turncoats" ad has been roundly condemned by me and many others.
Post a Comment
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:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/us/politics/27ads.html
also, ned's "turncoats" ad has been roundly condemned by me and many others.
<< Home