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).
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Wednesday Morning Round-Up
(Bumped.) One hundred and forty-four hours until polls open. Volunteer down the stretch.
- New Rasmussen Poll out this morning: Lieberman 48 (50 in last poll), Lamont 40 (40), Schlesinger 9 (6). And some cogent analysis, too:
Lieberman's dip in the new poll could be a mere statistical wobble, or it could signal a significant tightening of the race.
But all bets are off if the marginalized GOP candidate manages to climb much further. Schlesinger has been sidelined up to now because of a gambling controversy and the willingness of Republican voters to flow en masse to the Lieberman camp. But after managing only 6% early in the month, he now attracts 9% of the vote.
...To the extent Schlesinger gains in the campaign's waning days, the likely loser is Lieberman, not Lamont.... Thirty-seven percent (37%) now view Schlesinger favorably, up from 19% on October 3. - New Q-Poll out this morning: Lieberman 49 (52 in the last poll,) Lamont 37 (35), Schlesinger 8 (6). Ned narrowed the gap by five points. Schlesinger continues to grow his support, but Joe still continues to get an eye-popping 73% of Republican support. The 17-point poll was clearly an outlier. And many factors are conspiring to make this election a very volatile one. As an aside, I don't know why anyone should particularly trust one poll over others when it is conducted by someone who makes editorial comments gleefully assuming an electoral and political outcome such as the following:
"For Ned Lamont to catch Sen. Joseph Lieberman, he needs Alan Schlesinger to break out of single digits and take away Republican votes from Lieberman. That hasn't happened. Lieberman, the once and future Democrat, is winning 73 percent of the Republican vote," said Quinnipiac University Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D.
- Speaking of that "once and future Democrat," the AP covers one of the most underreported stories of this race - the way the Lieberman Party is actively helping to re-elect three Republican House incumbents (at our nation's peril):
The three-term Connecticut senator is aggressively pursuing Republican and independent voters in his race against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and little-known Republican Alan Schlesinger. That targeted appeal _ and the potential for a strong GOP turnout _ could save three GOP House incumbents struggling to return to Washington.
"There's resentment on a lot of people's parts," said Richard Smith, Democratic town committee chairman in Milford, a New Haven suburb. "There's something about the American character. We love a good fight, but we also love people who play by the rules. C'mon Joe, you're a Democrat or you're not a Democrat. Sometimes, self-interest takes the day."...
Lieberman's coattails could carry the GOP incumbents to re-election and undercut Democratic hopes of majority control of the House.
"It does help me," Shays said in a recent interview. "I know there will be a lot of Republicans who will vote for him, as well as a lot of independents and Democrats...."
Who else but Doug Schwartz disagrees with Chris Shays, claiming in perplexing fashion that he doesn't "see Lieberman firing up the Republican base," despite his own poll showing Lieberman attracting almost unified Republican support. And Joe? He says he hasn't thought about it. Right:"Loath to be seen as a spoiler, Lieberman dismissed the idea that his success could hurt the Democratic effort to retake the House.
"I haven't thought about it," Lieberman said. Contending that most voters tend to cross party lines, he added: "People are going to be smart enough to pick their way." - The Courant on how the race is all coming back to Iraq, and how that's bad news for Joe. Joe wonders aloud whether the LA Times story about generals believing a timetable is necessary might have been a political ploy against him and the rapidly shrinking number of other Republicans who are staying the course with Bush:
Lieberman declined to comment on a Los Angeles Times story, carried in The Courant and other papers, reporting that some military officers believe Iraqis will not undertake key political and security reforms unless faced with a timetable for troop withdrawals.
"I'm surprised to hear that," Lieberman said. "I'd like to know more before I comment."...
In response to a question, Lieberman told reporters he hoped the timing of the report was not political.
"Obviously, politics affects the conduct of a war, because, as we've seen before in our history, maybe an enemy can't defeat you on the battlefield, but if you lose the support of the American people, it can have the same effect," he said. "But you've got to be real careful about playing politics with war, because people's lives are on the line." - The Times on how the race is also returning to the Bush-Lieberman kiss of death:
When, for example, he was asked recently whether the country would be better off with Democrats in control of the House, he said he was not sure. The next day his aides tried to clarify his statement, saying he would like to see the Democrats regain control of Congress, provided they promoted a more bipartisan atmosphere....
It has been a considerable shift from the primary, when Mr. Lieberman spent most of his time talking about his record of voting with Democrats 90 percent of the time and criticizing Mr. Lamont for siding with Republicans as a member of the Greenwich Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Lieberman has now taken to speaking of the potential of a Democratic wave on Nov. 7, noting that he could become chairman of the Homeland Security Committee if the Democrats took control of the Senate. But he ducked a question on Tuesday about whether the midterm elections were a referendum on the Bush administration. - Two long profiles of the race this morning from New York reporters who have been out-of-state since (it seems) the primary, and whose writing seems to very much reflect it - one in the Observer, and one in the Times.
- The Norwich Bulletin was at the Conn College town hall last night:
Ned Lamont said Tuesday he hopes U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman will change his mind and participate in Thursday's televised debate with him and Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger.
"I think people are tired of the 30-second commercials and the mailings, and I think people want to see the candidates debate the issues, so I am hoping that he decides to be there," said Lamont, the Democratic nominee in the five-way contest for U.S. Senate.
posted by tparty at 8:50 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Central Command must be playing politics then...
A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos,
It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.
...the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy’s fighting strength and the control of territory.
[Note: these are typically measures used to guage the status of Civil Wars.]
An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads “urban areas experiencing ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaigns to consolidate control” and “violence at all-time high, spreading geographically.” According to a Central Command official, the index on civil strife has been a staple of internal command briefings for most of this year. The analysis was prepared by the command’s intelligence directorate, which is overseen by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.
Stay the course and fight them where?
Post a Comment
A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos,
It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.
...the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy’s fighting strength and the control of territory.
[Note: these are typically measures used to guage the status of Civil Wars.]
An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads “urban areas experiencing ‘ethnic cleansing’ campaigns to consolidate control” and “violence at all-time high, spreading geographically.” According to a Central Command official, the index on civil strife has been a staple of internal command briefings for most of this year. The analysis was prepared by the command’s intelligence directorate, which is overseen by Brig. Gen. John M. Custer.
Stay the course and fight them where?
<< Home