Lieberman by 12

[senorpogo]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/pl_nm/connecticut_lieberman_dc

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November's election. The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger drew 4 percent, the poll shows.

Most interestingly:

The survey found that Lieberman polled best among likely Republican voters, leading the others with 75 percent of the vote compared with Lamont's 13 percent and Schlesinger's 10 percent.

"Senator Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing," Douglas Schwartz, the university's polling director said in a statement. "As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran senator will be hard to beat."

 

[Azure]

Good.

I hope he wins.

 

[Cleon]

So Lieberman is popular among Republicans. Boy, there's a shocker.

 

[Mycroft]

It seems to me this Lamont/Lieberman thing is evidence of the Democratic party self-destructing.

 

[Grammatron]

So Lieberman is popular among Republicans. Boy, there's a shocker.

Remove the issue of war on Iraq and how is it not a shocker?

 

[JamesDillon]

Good.

I hope he wins.

I don't.

But he will.

 

[BobK]

The DailyKos crowd must be having a conniption.

 

[Azure]

I don't.

But he will.

Good.

 

[Rob Lister]

It's still early guys and gals.

Lamont was running to the far-far left in the dem nod for the seat.

Leiberman held his stance.

The only issue appeared to be the war.

Now that Lamont has the dem nod, he'll revise, ever so slightly, his stance against. It won't be (or seem to be) a flip-flop, he'll just clarify his position a tiny bit...just enough to tighten up the poll numbers.

 

[hgc]

Lamont was running to the far-far left in the dem nod for the seat.

Maybe this time you have evidence for this claim.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Republicans in Connecticut aren't numerous enough to be important. Unless it's a close race between Democrats.

 

[corplinx]

Did anyone expect Lamont to be able to beat Lieberman (the incumbent) in a 3 way race in the northeast? Where Lieberman is the incumbent with the name recognition? Is this news?

 

[Azure]

Did anyone expect Lamont to be able to beat Lieberman (the incumbent) in a 3 way race in the northeast? Where Lieberman is the incumbent with the name recognition? Is this news?

Plus, Connecticut has more registered independents then they do Democrats or Republicans.

 

[Rob Lister]

Maybe this time you have evidence for this claim.

It was a subjective opinion. Feel free to disagree. I won't mind.

 

[Rob Lister]

Did anyone expect Lamont to be able to beat Lieberman (the incumbent) in a 3 way race in the northeast? Where Lieberman is the incumbent with the name recognition? Is this news?

Actually, many did.
Many still do.

I'm still only putting him at 80% or so for final victory.

I'd like to see Leiberman win for the same reason those on the left would like to see him lose.

But I also think that if he loses, they lose far more than I do.

 

[SezMe]

It seems to me this Lamont/Lieberman thing is evidence of the Democratic party self-destructing.

I'd be interested in your fleshing out this opinion.

 

[JamesDillon]

It seems to me this Lamont/Lieberman thing is evidence of the Democratic party self-destructing.

It seems to me that the above quote is evidence of Mycroft's wishful thinking.

 

[Rob Lister]

It seems to me that the above quote is evidence of Mycroft's wishful thinking.

don't be too sure just yet. Polls aside (or rather, despite the polls), the dems have not done well [enough] in actual elections of late. Not to say they won't this time. I personally expect the dems to pick up a few seats in both houses this off-term election but the real campaigning has not yet begun.

 

[JamesDillon]

don't be too sure just yet. Polls aside (or rather, despite the polls), the dems have not done well [enough] in actual elections of late. Not to say they won't this time. I personally expect the dems to pick up a few seats in both houses this off-term election but the real campaigning has not yet begun.

I know; the Democrats have a proud history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. My point was only that Lieberman's defeat in a bitter primary is hardly evidence of Democratic self-destruction.

 

[Rob Lister]

I know; the Democrats have a proud history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. My point was only that Lieberman's defeat in a bitter primary is hardly evidence of Democratic self-destruction.

I disagree.

1) Leiberman one of the most liberal candidates there is (your opinion my rightfully vary).

2) Leiberman lost on one issue, and one issue alone, the war.

3) Lamont is, again IMO, far more conservative otherwise and probably will change (clarify) his position during the actual election.

IOW, the Dems (that nominate) tend to knee-jerk.

Heck, Leiberman could have wooooped Bush's butt in 04, (I might well have voted for him) but, alas, we was not nominated.

No Thank you. Instead I was left with Kerry. No Thank You.

Maybe 02 as well (though I'd have likely voted for Bush on that one). Gore sealed that deal for me.

ETA: if Leiberman pulls the same Independent stratagy for the Pres election in 08, we'll be certain of another Rep. in the O-Office