Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

CT Senate: Lieberman Trails Ahead of Primary

Ned Lamont, the anti-war challenger to Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, has a substantial lead ahead of Connecticut's August 8 primary, according to a new poll. The Quinnipiac University survey of 890 likely Democratic primary voters, conducted July 25-31, shows Lamont leading Lieberman 54 percent to 41 percent. Five percent of those surveyed were undecided.

Not only is Lamont ahead, but he appears to have momentum, widening his margin in the race from four points to 13 points in a matter of a few of weeks, according to Quinnipiac. The speed of Lamont's rise has been dramatic. In early June a Quinnipiac poll showed Lieberman leading Lamont 55 percent to 40 percent.

Lieberman has not ruled out running as an independent should he lose the primary. The three-term senator's struggle is remarkable considering his easy reelection win in 2000 (Lieberman beat Phil Giordano 63 percent to 34 percent) and the fact that he was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000. Lieberman is widely seen as a moderate Democrat. He supported President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 and has been a vocal defender of staying the course in Iraq.

Lamont has tapped into an apparently powerful undercurrent of anger aimed at Bush and those who support the war, mounting an effective campaign backed by anti-war Democrats and activist bloggers. In the Quinnipiac survey, 65 percent of Lamont backers said they considered their stance mostly a vote against Lieberman. The war was the top issue for 44 percent of those supporting Lamont.

Washington Post reporter Dan Balz filed from Connecticut today: "Lamont Has Momentum Over Lieberman, Poll Shows."

Wednesday's Post had a profile of Ned Lamont: "True Blue, or Too Blue?"

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  August 3, 2006; 11:43 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Tenn. Primary Preview: Will It Be Corker vs. Ford?
Next: Appeals Court: DeLay Must Stay on the Ballot

Comments

"one who may vote with Republicans at least part of the time"

How would that be different from today?

If Lieberman loses he'll either bow out or lose the last shred of respect.

Posted by: Steve | August 7, 2006 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Connecticut Democrats will really shoot the National democratic Party in the foot if Liebermann loses the primary. He has enough support to win statewide in November as an independent, despite Lamont's popularity right now. That will mean the net loss of a Senate seat for the Democrats and the gain of one for an independent......one who may vote with Republicans at least part of the time.
While I believe in democracy and the right of the people to have their candidate, if I was a Democrat in Connecticut I would think long and hard before voting for Lamont.

Posted by: M.R. Marshall | August 7, 2006 9:35 AM | Report abuse

I do think it is time some one really challenge Lieberman, He is just like Mcain double talker and at the same time take us the voters for granted. As for Lieberman he want to play both sides just for his personal gains, I call him selfish and therefore unworthy to represent anyone.
This is somthing I observe during the Gore election, If al had pick some one else he would have been President now and not Bush, thus we would not in this disaster we are in right now. I am only sorry I cant be around to cast my vote against him, show me your company I tell you who you are- "Via-con dios"Lieberman

Posted by: Pull the plug | August 6, 2006 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Joan: There have been other such high-quality public servants running for office, like Paul Wellstone, but perhaps not in Connecticut.

Arlene: Dayenu, indeed! And Shabbat Shalom.

The media surely seem incompetent at seriously or thoroughly covering any Mid-East conflict, but I suspect their inability to walk (Iraq) and chew gum (Lebanon) at the same time to be the real culprit here. The war in Lebanon is a major news story; it would be grossly irresponsible not to cover it. It may be momentarily more active than Iraq, or at least provide a break for those with "Iraq fatigue". But Jon Stewart has been doing a good job showing all the filler crap on TV news (Mel Gibson, the end of the world, celebrity nonsense, CNN's new weather office) that they air with the time they should be using on deeper coverage of real news. There's also Cuba, midterm elections, Sudan genocide, potential causality of the heat wave by global warming...no shortage of news needing to be covered.

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 4, 2006 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Joe Lieberman is finally getting what he deserves from CT. Democrats. He has long given up on the party priciples of separation of church and state and his pious statements are coming back to haunt him.

I am only sorry I can't cast a vote against him as I don't live in CT.

Posted by: a real democrat | August 4, 2006 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Thank you Arlene. Yours are the words of another Jew frustrated by being misrepresented by Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Adam | August 4, 2006 9:53 AM | Report abuse

The way seems clear for the folks in Conn. to have a clear say about the useless killing in Iraq. So many realize how the vote to go to war was such a mistake, yet how few Senators still will not admit how mistaken they were. Another thought, could the blanket coverage of the Arab/Jew conflict being used to take attention away from Iraq ??.

Posted by: lylepink | August 4, 2006 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I saw a Galliup poll this morning that says Lieberman is more popular among republicans than democrats, and the most vicious, rabid and foaming rightwing pundits like malkin, coulter, hannity and limbaugh have been rooting for him. Enuff said.

Posted by: Drindl | August 4, 2006 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Joan Bowman, Lamont's commercials are made by the same firm that made the late Paul Wellstone's commercials during his insurgency campaign in 1990.

I think that IF Lamont wins the primary, Lieberman is damaged goods. The Dem party establishment will unite around the official party's nominee (leading to support and money) and Lamont will have the momentum going into the general where Lieberman will be seen as a bad loser with too huge an ego. (face it, running as an independent sure looks like a me me me candidacy stinking with egotism) IF Lieberman wins, then the rest of the party - even those who now challenge him - will support him in the general.

Joe's problems don't merely go to Iraq. There's a huge dissatisfaction with Joe which is larger than purely Iraq. Besides Iraq, Joe has been on the wrong side of the following issues: privitization of social security, Schiavo and the fact that he is backstabbing the party vis-à-vis Bush critic.

The simple fact is that Lieberman is too conservative for today's Connecticut. CT has moved leftwards whereas Lieberman has always been conservative (remember that he challenged the incumbent Lowell Weicker - who was a republican - from the RIGHT)

As to the taunt that Lamont is a millionaire buying his way into office... Lieberman has spend thrice the amount of money in the primary than Lamont has... so who's buying?

Posted by: Frederik | August 4, 2006 4:22 AM | Report abuse

If Senator Lieberman had only wanted to keep Terri Shaivo on life support indefinitely, it would have been enough.

If Senator Lieberman had only wanted to privatize Social Security, it would have been enough

If Senatory Lieberman had only supported censorship, that would have been enough

If Senator Lieberman had only said his opponent was a problem because he is rich, that would have been enough

If Senator Lieberman had only accepted money from Wal-Mart, that would have been enough

If Senator Lieberman had only supported the war, that would have been enough

But Senator Lieberman made George Bush want to kiss him, and that is surely enough.

Posted by: Arlene | August 3, 2006 10:35 PM | Report abuse

Lamont has run a terrific campaign. Every night when I return home for the last several weeks there is a thoughtful, well-done oversize post card from Lamont. I actually look forward to his mailings. His television ads are very well produced, positive, intelligent and fun to watch. The creativity is just plain uplifting. The rest of the "political" country could learn from Lamont. I have been waiting since Bush Sr. ran for Prsident with the nastiness of Atwater behind him, for candidate like Lamont to run for an important office. He is ahead because he deserves to be. He has brought energy, intelligence and a positivie strength to his campaign. I agree with his views and I will proudly vote for him in next week's primary and in November. By the way, Leiberman claims in the press here that he was helped by Former President Clinton's visit in my backyard, Waterbury, last week. A ridiculous assertion to me. Clinton is not the face of my Democratic Party. He looked and sounded old! We Democrats have moved on.

Posted by: Joan Bowman | August 3, 2006 8:02 PM | Report abuse

You'd have to be nuts to think Traitor Joe would honor a deal withdrawing from the race and endorsing Lamont! This is a man so self-promoting he was willing to throw this seat to the Republicans in 2000, and so irrationally angry and indignant he called Firedoglake's photo of him among the worst in American history. Just a tad hysterical.

Lamont's primary win will indeed contribute to his continued momentum and Lieberman's continued fall. Has anyone found what today's Quinnipiac poll found about a 3 way race? I'm waiting for the first one to show Lamont beating Lieberman in November, too.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

Posted by: Sandwich Repairman | August 3, 2006 7:29 PM | Report abuse

There are rumors that a verbal deal was struck between Lieberman and the VIP Dems who campaigned for him (Bill & Hillary, Boxer and several other senators); i.e. -- that if he loses the primary, he'll bow out and endorse Lamont? And does anybody believe Lieberman would honor such a deal?

Posted by: Rob | August 3, 2006 6:43 PM | Report abuse

"D" (posting at 5:30pm) is leading a very rich fantasy life in claiming that Lieberman will recover from a primary loss to win the general election.

In June, Lieberman had a 15-point lead in a theoretical 3-way race; by July 23 (see above), he was in a tie with Lamont. That's not a very promising trend for Joe, and I doubt that losing the primary would help matters.

The stench of political death hangs over Lieberman right now; if he loses to Lamont in the primary, that's it. Joe may struggle, like some wounded, lumbering beast in a tar pit, but -- barring Lamont himself appearing in blackface at a public event -- there is no earthly way Joe wins the general given his current no-mentum.

Posted by: mark | August 3, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

How quickly Senator Lieberman has fallen, and what does this mean for hawks like Hillary Clinton? Is this the zone from which new hope that this candidate will implode doth spring?

Lieberman, smarten up and cut a back room deal with the GOP to become the next secretary of defense; I'd imagine whatever your personal political stripe, you think we could use one.

Posted by: Amazed | August 3, 2006 5:59 PM | Report abuse

>>>the thing that makes me most angry is joe's emphasis on ned's wealth

Good call nachy.

I almost hurled when I saw the lead graph in the AP story 'Lamont Leads Lieberman in Conn. Poll':

"Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman..."

So much for unbiased reporting.

Posted by: F&B | August 3, 2006 5:58 PM | Report abuse

some of us have been predicting this since april, only to repeatedly be told by chris that a lamont win is 'unlikely.' we connecticut democrats resent being called 'jihadists' just because we might vote the other way. fact is, senators should be responsible for their records. at this point, in 2006, too many democrats in the state have too many problems with lieberman's record. that's not an 'inquisition,' as david brooks called it - that's democracy. i'm glad we have the power to choose our representatives, aren't you?

the thing that makes me most angry is joe's emphasis on ned's wealth. the only reason ned has spent millions of his own money on the campaign is because he has refused to accept PAC money. this is a GOOD thing for democracy. lieberman has accepted nearly $10 million from PACs and lobbyists - including from Wal-Mart, against whom he campaigned today. He claims he returned their check, but neither federal election records nor the Wal-Mart PAC files have any evidence of that.

in connecticut, people recognize ugly campaigning and class-warfare for what it is: desperate attacks by an incumbent who knows he doesn't have enough support to retain his seat, but feels entitled to it anyway. i don't mind joe lieberman as a person... in fact i have a lot of respect for him, especially in the early days and his civil rights record. i just dislike being told that by participating in the democratic process - god forbid, by writing on blogs - i am ruining the democratic party. i would vote against lieberman for that insult alone. but of course there's also all that other stuff... censorship, social security, the iraq war, federal intrusion into my life, and telling the country that they undermine the president at the nation's peril. those aren't my values.

Posted by: nachy | August 3, 2006 5:45 PM | Report abuse

What I want to know is, does The Big LIE really think that Iraq is still improving? Hopefully his opinion wont matter much longer.

I think Lamont is the first politician to go on Colbert Report and not come out looking like a total ass.

movies.crooksandliars.com/LamontColbert73105.wmv

This is great too:

movies.crooksandliars.com/Colbert-Lieberman-Plea.wmv

And to combine the top 2 threads, DeLay endorses Lieberman! Oughtta go over real well in CT:

movies.crooksandliars.com/Hannity-Colmes-TomDelay-Lieberman.wmv

Posted by: F&B | August 3, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Anyone catch Lamont campaigner/fund raiser Jane Hamsher's nice little posting of Lieberman in blackface over at the HuffPo. nice huh.

Classy. And here I thought you guys were above that sort of thing.

Lamont will win the primary. Lieberman will run as an independent and win (independent vote, democrats not yet gone over the cliff, and moderate republicans).

Posted by: D. | August 3, 2006 5:30 PM | Report abuse

If Senator Lieberman loses in the Democratic primary, what is the likelihood that the Republican senatorial candidate will cease campaigning, with the tacit understanding that an Independent Senator Lieberman will caucus with the Republicans in the next Congress?

Posted by: Mouse | August 3, 2006 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Re the 7/20 Rasmussen poll: if Lieberman loses the primary, his numbers are almost a lock to drop further. Lamont gets more name recognition; Lieberman looks bad for two-timing his own party; and the national Dem leaders (and the DNC/DSCC) have no choice but to come out in favor of the primary winner. Some (Hillary, most obviously) have already made clear their intention to do so.

Say all you want about the numbers of GOP & indy voters, and about Lieberman's allegedly greater appeal to them -- it doesn't change the fact that perceptions count, and that the perception arising from a Lamont victory will be that Lieberman is vulnerable and out of touch. Worse, I predict that Lieberman's campaign will turn uglier and uglier, mirroring the candidate's increasingly bitter attitude at the electorate's apparent "betrayal." I don't think an angry, vindictive Joe Lieberman is what the voters will be buying in November.

Posted by: mark | August 3, 2006 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Just to be RMill for a moment. Even if Joe loses the Democratic primary and runs as an independent, his job is still in great jeopardy.

Rasmussen (7/20/06)

Lamont (D): 40%
Lieberman (I): 40%
Schlesinger (R): 13%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/July%202006/connecticutSenateJuly.htm

Posted by: Gaithersburg, MD | August 3, 2006 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Looking at the latest poll, I made my guess a few days ago that Ned would win by at least 5 points. Seems I was off by quite a bit. Hopefully the trend continues until election day. I'm very pleased.

Posted by: lylepink | August 3, 2006 4:07 PM | Report abuse

It is anti-Iraq war not anti-war. Big difference!

Posted by: Samuel | August 3, 2006 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Now when he tanks next week maybe traitor Joe will give up his nonsense about an independent run and leave leadership to real leaders.

Feel the Joementum.

PS Nice shilling this week WashPost. You lie as bad as Joe.

Posted by: Greg in LA | August 3, 2006 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"Lieberman is widely seen as a moderate Democrat."

Oh, please, give it a rest. He is "moderate" only in comparison to the full-on neo-cons currently running the Executive Branch & Congress. Lieberman is certainly not "moderate" in his willingness to meddle legislatively in family matters historically handled by state courts (Schiavo), and was distinctly immoderate in his zeal for Congress to intercede -- unconstitutionally, not that it stopped him -- in a case that had already been fully litigated in state court (Schiavo, again).

However much Lieberman deludes himself to the contrary, he long ago ceased to have any claim on the label "moderate" or on the loyalty on Connecticut Democrats. He richly deserves the thumping voters appear to be on the verge of delivering.

Posted by: mark | August 3, 2006 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is also lyling about his support for privatization of Social Security. It's true, he once was a real supporter for the system, but he changed his tune once his wife became a lobbyist for financial entities who would benefit from privatization:

'Election Central has just obtained a political mailing which touts Joe Lieberman as "one of the first Senators to stand up to George W. Bush's dangerous plan to privatize Social Security."

The mailing says it was sponsored by the Credit Union Legislative Action Council, which backs candidates who support the "Credit Union movement," and that it was "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The mailing is right here in our TPM Document Collection.

Contrast the mailing's assertion with this about Lieberman in the Times in March 2005, when President Bush was pushing his phase-out plan: "In recent weeks, he has angered Democratic activists nationwide for expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to change Social Security."

Posted by: Drindl | August 3, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Lieberman is also lyling about his support for privatization of Social Security. It's true, he once was a real supporter for the system, but he changed his tune once his wife became a lobbyist for financial entities who would benefit from privatization:

'Election Central has just obtained a political mailing which touts Joe Lieberman as "one of the first Senators to stand up to George W. Bush's dangerous plan to privatize Social Security."

The mailing says it was sponsored by the Credit Union Legislative Action Council, which backs candidates who support the "Credit Union movement," and that it was "not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. The mailing is right here in our TPM Document Collection.

Contrast the mailing's assertion with this about Lieberman in the Times in March 2005, when President Bush was pushing his phase-out plan: "In recent weeks, he has angered Democratic activists nationwide for expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to change Social Security."

Posted by: Drindl | August 3, 2006 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Read a satirical critique of the battle being waged amongst Democrats in the Lieberman v. Lamont Senate race coined "The Hatfield's & McCoy's"...here:

http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/08/the_hatfields_mccoys_lieberman_1.php

Posted by: Daniel DiRito | August 3, 2006 12:32 PM | Report abuse

When are Chris and other pundits going to stop using Karl Rove's talking points, this 'stay the course' business? [Come to think of it, I believe they stole that from Ronnie Raygun]. When will they admit that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity?

When will they admit that, as Midge Dector [wife of Norman Podheretz--leading 'conservative thinker' --oxymoron if I ever heard one] admitted recently, 'We're not in Iraq to bring sweetness and light, we're there to get what we need--oil.'

And this is Lieberman's problem. The idea that we're going to march in and recreate the entire Middle East --with a vast national deficit, no allies and a depleted military -- is insane.

'Staying the course' while driving over a cliff is not intelligent or adaptive behavior.

Of course, that's only part of his problem. Perhaps the Democratic party is tired of letting republicans tell them who to choose as their representatives.

Posted by: Drindl | August 3, 2006 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company