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

Lieberman Loved by GOP; Hillary Looks to 2008

With Labor Day rapidly approaching, news is breaking out in races all over the country. We can't get to all of it on a busy day like today, but here are a couple of interesting tidbits.

Republicans Love Lieberman

A new Quinnipiac University poll of likely voters in Connecticut shows incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman (D/I) leading businessman Ned Lamont (D) and former state Rep. Alan Schlesinger. Lieberman won the support of 53 percent of those surveyed. Lamont had 41 percent, while Schlesinger took an amazingly low four percent.

The poll seems to show that Lieberman, who lost the Aug. 8 Democratic primary to Lamont, has become the de facto Republican candidate in the race, scoring incredibly high with GOPers in the state. Lieberman recieved 75 percent among Republicans in the sample as compared to 13 percent for Lamont and 10 percent for Schlesinger. Democrats supported Lamont by a 63 percent to 35 percent margin (Schlesinger did not even receive one percent support). Lieberman also won Independents by a 58 percent to 36 percent margin over Lamont. Schlesinger clocked in at three percent.

Those head-to-head numbers tracked with other measurements of support for the three men in the poll. Overall, 53 percent of likely voters thought Lieberman deserved re-election while 40 percent did not. A whopping 80 percent of Republicans said the incumbent deserved another term compared with just 32 percent of Democrats. Independents favored another term for Lieberman by a 57 percent to 35 percent margin.

The question going forward is whether Lieberman can keep the strong support he currently enjoys in Connecticut Republican circles. With the primary so recent, it's possible that many Republicans are expressing support for Lieberman simply to show disdain for Lamont and his opposition to the war in Iraq. Do those Republicans stay with Lieberman or do they eventually revert back to their Republican roots and support Schlesinger? If Schlesinger's recent appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews (in which he struggled to explain questions regarding his interest in gambling) is any indication, the Republican is simply not ready for prime time. Knowing this, Republicans may stick with Lieberman for fear of a Sen. Lamont.

This continues to be the single most fascinating race in the country at the moment and shows no signs of getting less interesting in the coming 80 (or so) days before the election.

Clinton Ad on the Air

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) has hit the television airwaves with the first ad of her re-election coronation, er, campaign. The 60-second ad features testimonials from New Yorkers about Clinton's work on a variety of issues: securing funds for New York in the aftermath of Sept. 11, saving military bases, and working on healthcare -- especially for children.

Since Clinton has no real race this fall, it's impossible to see this ad through anything other than a 2008 lens. At the start of the spot, several people admit they began with doubts about Clinton but were won over during her six years in the Senate.

The issues highlighted in the ad -- national security, support for military, job creation -- all appeal to moderate voters who will likely decide the 2008 election. While only New Yorkers will see these ads with any kind of frequency, they will be picked up and analyzed by national and local media outlets ad nauseam in the coming months. (And, yes, the author of The Fix is aware of his own complicity in that previous sentence.) Therefore, Clinton's ad campaign becomes another step in a 2008 presidential bid.

Watch closely for the messaging in Clinton's ads going forward. Does she stay focused on issues that appeal to the center like job creation and national security? Or does she step up her criticism of the Iraq war and the Bush Administration's handling of it in hopes of putting down a potential rebellion from the anti-war left in the presidential process?

By Chris Cillizza  |  August 17, 2006; 4:04 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McCain Stumps for DeWine
Next: The Friday Line: U.S. Senate

Comments

Hillary vs. Condi. YUCK!!!!
I never thought I'd see the day when there were two females with potential to garner presidential nominations. I WANTED to see the day; I just never believed it would happen. Now that it has, it's a major disappointment. I can think of worse candidates from both parties, for example, the current president and the husband president, but it certainly is a disillusionment to think that these two are the best that the female of the species can offer.

Posted by: Susan | August 28, 2006 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary vs. Condi. YUCK!!!!
I never thought I'd see the day when there were two females with potential to garner presidential nominations. I WANTED to see the day; I just never believed it would happen. Now that it has, it's a major disappointment. I can think of worse candidates from both parties, for example, the current president and the husband president, but it certainly is a disillusionment to think that these two are the best that the female of the species can offer.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 28, 2006 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Good news for ned lamont:

Lieberman is getting more then 70% support from GOP voters and karl rove, bush and the republicans host have done a terrific job and spreading the words that it is okay to vote for lieberman.

The problem with this is, how many of them will actually get off their butt to vote for lieberman, who has already stated he will caucus with the democrats and votes with dems on a 90% clip...

Just think about it, if you're a conservative, would you stop what you're doing to vote for someone that supports gay marriage,? abortion rights? amnesty for undocumented immigrants? tax increase?

Would you?, i know i wouldnt..i would probaly just stay home...i dont think voting for lieberman will make things better..The only difference between ned lamont and lieberman is the war in iraq . lieberman supports the war whyle lamont doesnt...Is that enought for me to go vote for lieberman?

If im not doing anything, maybe i might, but i sure wont be excited to go out there to vote for him since he goes against everything i stand for.

Posted by: blaise | August 20, 2006 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Here's some good news and bad news for ned lamont

Bad news:
1)I was shock when i saw the new poll which shows ned lamont trailing lieberman by more then 10, on a 3way race..After the primary, i was certain that ned would have been at least be within 5, specially after a major upset.

2)The polls show that lieberman is getting 36% of the democratic voters support..ned had to chip away at this 36% and bring it down to the 20's, maybe 25%..If ned cant do that, then he's cooked...Also, it would be very tought to decline this democratic support that lieberman has,because this remaining democratic support are less likely to switch side because those are lieberman die hard, core democratic supporters that still loves him.

3)The GOP Voters voting for lieberman at such an high rate and very problematic for ned lamont, and if this number continues to rise, its all over for ned..right now, the number is at 72% which is ridiculously high, specially for someone thats not running on the republican label.

4)The fact that lieberman is an indepedent, might sway more unaffilliated voters to his side because those unaffiliated really dont trust democrats or republicans, therefore they choses to not pick a side, so therefore, with lieberman not having an affiliation with neither party, this might help him..The problem is, if lieberman continues to gian support amongs GOP voters, and keeps is small die hard democratic base, then this race is officially over...Lieberman will be unbeatable.

Posted by: Blaise | August 20, 2006 3:03 PM | Report abuse

Joan - Unfortunately I think Sally is correct with respect to the "control freaks."

Ever since the McGovern Reforms allowed single issue activists to get power within the party, there has been an "If you are not with me (on my issue), you are against me!" policy in a lot of non-public lower-than-National level parts of the party.

You're right, the Republicans have loved the fights. But it's been watching the Democrats subvert each locally time after time. Weakening the Party for over 35 years now.

What an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. Giving "Power to the People" and taking it away from the "back room" power brokers; only to have the People totally misuse the Power, by using it only for their narrow personal purposes. The general "Good" of the Party be damned!

And the Republicans chuckle every time it happens.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | August 20, 2006 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Ah, Sally, Sally...That's the problem with you republicans, you just love fights.

Posted by: Joan | August 20, 2006 12:15 AM | Report abuse

Hillary stands by the New Hampshire primary system, so it will be interesting to see her reaction as the DNC meets this weekend to shove a Nevada Caucus between Iowa and the first primary state of N Hamp.

Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton might be complaining about the lack of black voters in the early states, but strong black leaders can run for president and get support. Look at Shirley Chisholm in 1972, with little money, she managed to win delegates and McGovern screwed up by not naming her as his VP. She was feisty and ready to do battle so to speak on civil rights and taking care of our nation.

the DNC wants to take away the delegates won by candidates if they do not obey their national party rules. That only means that to get Democrats running for president to obey, you hijack the process. Can you imagine being a voter in New Hampshire, and then told that your votes for delegates won't count because your candidate disobeyed the rule and campaigned in the state? This is exposing the CONTROL FREAKS at the head of the DNC. So I will just sit in my chair with some popcorn and watch the fireworks today on CSPAN, Saturday, starting at 11 AM Eastern time. I love the Democrats who attack each other.

Posted by: Sally | August 19, 2006 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Edwards is coming up behind Hillary, and he will stomp all over her in the race for the 2008 nomination. Kerry is a HAS BEEN, and no way will he get another chance, he blew it in 2004. Adlai Stevenson ran in 1952 and 1956, and that race only helped build a stronger profile for VP JFK on the 1956 ticket. That is why I think it will be Edwards.

Posted by: NO WAY HILLARY | August 18, 2006 9:34 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary were the Democratic candidate it would be the biggest win for the GOP since Ronald Reagan. Typical neo-con post failing to mention the indi candidate Kevin Zeese in Maryland.

Posted by: Ghost | August 18, 2006 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Loudoun Voter, I LOVE your comment. Interesting thing is if Smoking Joe wins he will be the most ineffective Senator in history. He will lose his seniority and trust among Dems; moreover, once his usefulness for the Republicans are gone he'll be cast back to how they really see him a "TRAITOR".

Posted by: SteelWill | August 18, 2006 4:02 PM | Report abuse

My mother is a Democrat and she will not vote for Hillary for president. She voted for Kerry because of his military service and years and years in the Senate on foreign relations committee work. But now she is supporting Edwards for 2008. Sent a check too just last month.

Now I am a Republican, and a woman, but just to vote for a woman to get her into the Oval office is also just silly. Only Dems would think of the sisterhood thing, give a woman a chance thing. Well, I saw Hillary in action for those 8 years when her husband was president. She tried to shove that Hillarycare down our throats and acted like she was Queen. She steamrolled over Democrats, pissed off Senator Moynihan, and angered voters for her HIGH AND MIGHTY ATTITUDE. Now any reporter who is sucking up to Hillary, (is that you Cillizza), they need to remember the bit** in the office or the bit** of a school teacher, or a bit** of a mother or wife before they kiss up to Hillary. She is putting on act right now, her ad is a hokey jokey "DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA" ad, singing the praises of New York voters. She is a snake who will bite them in their butts as she flies across the nation to run for president in 2007 instead of doing her job in the Senate and casting votes. (Remember Kerry skipped almost 70% of his votes while he flew around running for president too.)
NUFF SAID

Posted by: My Mother is a Democrat | August 18, 2006 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Watching conservative Republicans rush to embrace the man they savaged as Sore Loserman in 2000 is one of the most pathetic spectacles seen in recent US politics.

What's especially hiliarous about this is that Lieberman is ONCE AGAIN playing the Sore Loserman role!!!!

GOPers, you have the whiff of desperation about you.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | August 18, 2006 12:40 PM | Report abuse

If Lieberman were to win the election he would clearly owe his win to the Republicans, both in terms of votes and campaign money. There is every reason to believe that if the senate were divided 49R-50D-1I that Lieberman would caucus with the R's in order to give them control of the senate. After all, virtually every one of his Democratic collegues would have supported his opponent, while the senate Repubs would have supported him (in one form or another). Who does he get his best deal from (in terms of committees, etc.)? The Republicans, no doubt.

But Leiberman has a fundamental problem in winning the election: He outspent Lamont by 2.5:1, using his advantages of incumbency and close ties to pharmaceutical and insurance industries to raise big-lobby money. He also had the horsepower of organized labor on the ground to do GOTV, signage, and door-to-door. In the upcoming fall election he will have neither the money resources nor the grassroots resources he has had previously. I just don't see how he keeps his nose above water over the next three months with the various lead weights tied to his shoes.

I think Leiberman succeeded in doing what any candidate would seek to do: He peeked on his toughest election day, the day of the primary election. Having come up short, his path is downhill from here.

Posted by: Henly | August 18, 2006 10:59 AM | Report abuse

Just to let you know that Lynn Cheney, the VP's wife and a political powerhouse going back to her days on Crossfire/CNN, was at the Aspen Inst. gathering recently.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/08/17/news/wyoming/ec4b093893f82238872571cd007212ed.eml

In the story, she sings high praise for Condi as a possible female president. NOW THAT ALONE SHOULD SHAKE UP THE REPORTERS AT THE WASHINGTON POST.

If Lynn Cheney and Laura Bush keep pounding the drum about Condi in 2008, what will the Democrats do? Does headache and heartache come to mind? The entire political world erupts and will be tossed upside down if Condi listens to Lynn and Laura about putting her name out there.

Wyoming was the first territory (back in 1870's which fought to give women the right to vote and run for office) The men also fought to keep the new rights for women at the time of possible statehood in 1890, the men demanded women keep their rights as part of the deal to join the nation. That is why we are called THE EQUALITY STATE. And Condi would be the best woman on any ticket in 2008.

Posted by: Casper Wyoming | August 18, 2006 10:46 AM | Report abuse

Doesn't anyone else find it absolutely hilarious that, according to all the pundits and polls, Connecticut's Republicans will be voting for Al Gore's former vice presidential running mate this coming election?

Ironic might the proper word, if it weren't for the fact that Joe, until the latest Bush War in Iraq, was considered, quite rightfully, to be one of the members of the Progressive Clinton club?

Are these Republicans really going to vote for someone who Bill Clinton stumped for? Someone Hillary endorsed?

I doubt very much they agree with hadrly any of Joe's politics, except for that minor one, the one about "It's THE WAR, STUPID"

I don't agree with Schlessinger, about much of anything from what little I can glean from available resources and interviews I have seen, but I know most Republicans believe exactly as he does, they just consider him a sleazy gambler.

I find it refreshingly humorous that the single issue of supporting Bush's greedy oil war (Joe's doing it to protect Israel, not for the oil) is enough to make these Republick'ns vote for a bona fide liberal.

I personally hope Lamont just plain kicks everyone's collective posteriors, if the Republicans who are voting against him were aware of his fiscal policy platform, they might just vote for him. And if the Democrats who are going to vote for the Maverick Party's new member, Joe Lieberman, knew more about Lamont, they too might change their plans.

By now, the Conn. Repugs think they are saving face, as political a party, by voting for Lieberman, but in the inner circles of real politics, it is one of those convoluted cosmic developments in history, the likes of which only our present political climate could ever produce.

The twists and turns of this race have put a new face on politics, and promises to turn the Connecticut Senate race into a virtual history lesson.

No one can guess right now where it will go, but in terms of both the Republicans voting for him and in terms of Joe's status as a Democrat, I think the word "disloyalty" must be applied to the equation.

Who'd a thunk it a year after the first Bush election larceny, that the VP victim of the Supreme Court selection would become the warmonger's posterboy.

Lieberman has proven he really does not care about his constituents, oif they voted for Lamont, he no longer considers them constituents, they are "the enemy."

Joe, if you run against Lamont and win because of those "bitter Republican" votes, you have sold something more precious than gold.

JEP

PS Please, WAPO people who took me off your daily email list after my posts yesterday about Allen's foot-in mouth disease, please put me back on your list...

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2006 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Ahhhh.... Hillary..... just like Kerry and all their cronies..... flip flop flip flop.. I wonder if anyone out there remembers all the quotes about how horrible Saddam was, that we needed to take him out, that there were (and are) WMDs, and that we needed to go to war, etc. They seem to have forgotten that those remarks were made by "both Clintons", Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi (shall I go on)... Look it up if you don't believe me. Also please remember that the "liberal" media only shows what "they" want to show, in order to "brainwash" America that we made a wrong move. There are two sides to every story. They have been showing WMDs found in Iraq and some of Saddam's own former generals have told where they actually are and where some were sent to.

Posted by: Sherri | August 18, 2006 10:08 AM | Report abuse

One of the more amusing hypocrisies coming out of the conservative republican commentariat is this laughable notion of how shoddy the connecticutt democrats have been in their dumping of Senator Joe Lieberman in their recent primary. Aren't these the same people who turned so viciously on a former republican in 2001 when he changed his party affiliation to independent because of his disgust with the Bush tax cuts? Anyone remember even who that Senator's name was, whose action turned control of the Senate over to the democrats?

Isn't it funny how selective the media is when someone they really like gets defeated in a legitimate election.

Posted by: Jaxas | August 18, 2006 10:00 AM | Report abuse

>>>As for the bounce for Lamont, yea its there, but pretty much every honest pundit (not Republicans) thought Lamont would have a lead (Murcurio, Todd etc)

Do you have any links/evidence of this? While I greatly respect both Mercurio and Todd, I dont recall seeing anyone (including the esteemed Hotline journalists you mentioned) say that they think Lamont will be LEADING the 3-way race. If you can provide links or even just copy+paste a paragraph I would interested to hear their reasoning behind that. Thanks.

Posted by: F&B | August 18, 2006 9:21 AM | Report abuse

The news media must continue to ask Joe Lieberman who he would caucus with if elected. He must make an absolutely firm commitment to this. Statements of "my current intention" are not enough.

Posted by: Will | August 18, 2006 7:02 AM | Report abuse

let me guess, Paul-- Republican?

Posted by: JD | August 18, 2006 6:17 AM | Report abuse

I hope that Joe Lieberman is re elected ! Not so Hilary Clinton !

Posted by: Paul | August 18, 2006 5:53 AM | Report abuse

Is an "independent, decent guy" enough for you in a Senator? People that make life and death decisions ought to be right, and if they aren't, they ought to be held accountable. Besides, Lieberman still thinks he was and is right about Iraq policy. Further, a vote for Lieberman is a vote for the war. Apparently, I don't get Independents the same way I don't get Republicans.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 18, 2006 1:52 AM | Report abuse

Why would Republicans come back to Alan Gold? Let me tell you this much, the only thing many Republicans hate more than a Democrat is a liberal Democrat. Alan S. has no chance at winning and Republicans know that...... it is the reason why Collins is already backing Lieberman..... As for the bounce for Lamont, yea its there, but pretty much every honest pundit (not Republicans) thought Lamont would have a lead (Murcurio, Todd etc). Also, Lamont's bounce mirrors the Cbs exit poll which said that 36% of Democrats would support Joe in a general election.... It will be difficult those voters, mostly old and blue collar voters. At the same time, Joe's support is very much up aong GOP voters. Finally, Lamont has gained among indepedents, but that gain is really misleading. Lamont gain is really picking up every single person who said in the previous poll who was unsure. Lieberman hasn't lost any of his support and gained 4% of Gold's...... If Lamont wants to win this election he is going to have begin to get voters from Lieberman and not the undecided. Sure he did it in the primary, but by running left. Can he reach out? Yea maybe, but he has some major convincing to do....

Posted by: HJE | August 18, 2006 12:00 AM | Report abuse

The Hillary ad is her way to trying to get people to ignore the fact she will be running for president. It has been reported many times that the people who did vote for her in 2000 and who will vote for her again in 2006 are IN NO WAY supporting her for president. Why can't you people get the difference? She asked for us to adopt her in her new state and to be one of us and represent us. She even made a pledge to serve her entire 6 year term YET she won't do the same pledge now. So what do we, the people of New York, do to tell her that we want to keep her as our senator, and be our voice in the Senate, but not to run for president? What is so difficult for the other people to understand? Look at the fact that only 2 Senators got elected to become President in the past 100 years. I like Mark Warner, and I like Bill Richardson. Strong leaders, and they could win. I think the people who want Hillary to run are confused that she is a clone of her husband. And yes, if Bill could run again, I would vote for him. But he is not running, and if Hillary can't stand on her own 2 feet, why would I want to have a woman in office with her husband behind her skirts? If Hillary is going to run, she needs more than the 35% to 40% she is getting now. Edwards is also running neck and neck, and he is a strong leader too. Just not Hillary. Sorry.

Posted by: New York Lady | August 17, 2006 11:57 PM | Report abuse

The end of the Clinton ad was something I didn't know about.... what a story. Very touching. She clearly has a lot of support in New York.

I still may not vote for her but it was a great ad in my opinion.

Posted by: josh | August 17, 2006 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Much noise has been made about the fact that the Democrats are "eating their own" and purging anyone who supports the war. Some (in oddly contradictory arguments) ask why people like Ben Nelson haven't been targeted. The point is that Democrats are NOT purging Iraq supporters from the ranks. They have no problem with Ben Nelson in Nebraska because Nebraska is a very conservative state, and the Democrats have long been the Big-Tent Party. The reason that Lieberman is being challenged is because he is a conservative Democrat in CONNECTICUT. If he was a senator from Nebraska, that'd be one thing-- but this man is supposed to represent the people of one of the bluest states in the nation. This isn't a shift of the national party-- this is a readjustment of Connecticut.

Posted by: JD | August 17, 2006 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Why, why, why, why does this issue keep rearing its ugly head?

If (IF!) Lieberman is elected, it will not be a loss for the Democrats. Yes, he will be officially an independent. That doesn't change his ability to vote for Harry Reid, or any other Democrat, to be Majority Leader of the Senate. Since he's making such a big deal about being an "Independent Democrat," I think he'll stick to that.

And before more silly questions arise about the legality of this: Jeffords did exactly what I am describing above. It's why the Democrats retook the Senate in 2001: an Independent can caucus with anyone and remain an independent.

Posted by: bauerbynight | August 17, 2006 8:03 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, Actually, Lieberman winning is more a loss for the Dems than for the Repubs. Look at the seat counts (which determine who has control of the Senate), with Lieberman as an Independent, the dems lose 1 seat. Even if he ALWAYS vote with the Dems, his seat is still officially an Independent.

Posted by: Dan W | August 17, 2006 7:49 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, thank you, I could not have said it better! It makes me angry when you have guys stating "Cut and Run", the fact is the majority of these guys have never had to face battle, let alone military training.
I think there isn't anything more patriotic then pulling our troops out of a mindless, senseless War which is costing our military many lives, not to mention the death and destruction. Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rummy/Rice and the like attempt to portray Democrats or anyone who disagrees with them as unpatriotic when it is they who demean the flag and our country, trying to pawn off their invasion of Iraq as "bringing democracy to the Middle East". For those of us with a brain, we realize that oil was the motivating factor, let's face it Bush etal changed the reason for going into IRAQ as fast as you change underwear, Oh this week it's 9-11, last week it was bringing democracy, it was WMD, then getting rid of terrorist! Sad really that on the backs of the American public dollars, our military lives and futures, they can so cavalierly call those who disagree "Unpatriotic". May they all pay someday. Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 17, 2006 7:15 PM | Report abuse

"The DEMS are having a battle in their ranks between the peace at all costs, and those who stand up to defend our nation from enemy forces." - Jim Jeffords

Do you mean terrorists, those who use terror as a weapon, like George Bush and Karl Rove? Jimmy boy, I AND MILLIONS OF OTHER DEMOCRATS stand to do battle with the enemies of this country, the cold blooded killers who send our children off to meaningless wars, the terrorists who trot out their phony alert lights and close down bridges and ports to frighten the Amercian people during every election, the criminals who seek to curtail our freedoms, the goose-stepping Nazi scum who jail people without warrants or legal reason, who tap our telephone, steal our medical and employment records, keeping databases on Amercian citizens, the swindlers who steal the hard earned tax dollars of ordinary Ameican's and enrich themselves and their friends with the food and housing money from the poor and Middle Class. Jim, you'd better believe we intend to stand up and fight. This will be battle the likes of which this nation has never seen and WE WILL PREVAIL!

Posted by: MikeB | August 17, 2006 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris: Trying to keep up with this election cycle is very hard for most of us outside the Beltway. Only the committed voters are paying attention to who is running and for what. The folks I talk with are most concerned about the loss of life in the Middle East, no matter their being Jew - Arab - Muslim - Christen - Other - . This is a war for the profit of a very few. Every day makes this more clear.

Posted by: lylepink | August 17, 2006 6:27 PM | Report abuse

The DEMS loved Jumpin Jim Jeffords hopping over to their side and that seat was held for over 150 years by a Republican. So let the partisans YAP YAP YAP about Lieberman. The DEMS are just angry to have a WAR HAWK in their midst, (like FDR and Truman and JFK) The DEMS are having a battle in their ranks between the peace at all costs, and those who stand up to defend our nation from enemy forces.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska is a WAR HAWK as well. Are the anti-war attackers YAPPING at him too?

Good thing Jeffords is finally retiring from the Senate. Time to get a real REPUBLICAN back in that seat.

Posted by: Jim Jeffords | August 17, 2006 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Who would have thought it, Joe Liberman, being supported by Repubs! The guys been a closet Republican for years, don't get to happy there Zouk and others, the election is a way's off. Also, I for one think it's a big mistake for Hillary to run for President. You know the Republicans are going to spend millions dragging out all the old cases that they spent the tax payers into oblivion investigating President Clinton, she's got too much baggage, and let's face it, she isn't Bill Clinton. Stay in New York please, let's have some really fresh blood in the 08 campaign, lord knows were going to need it to get us out of the hole the Republicans have dug for us in IRAQ, the economy, insisting on their guest worker program, health care, you name it. There will be a tremendous 'TO DO' list for whomever gets elected in 08. Unfortunately, we will probably see another campaign with ROVE the worm slinging slime at whomever runs. And let's face it the Republicans don't care if it's lies or not there going to make it up as they go along, just like they always do. GOP, the party of GREED, OBTRUSIVENESS, AND POWER. Thanks Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 17, 2006 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Who would have thought it, Joe Liberman, being supported by Repubs! The guys been a closet Republican for years, don't get to happy there Zouk and others, the election is a way's off. Also, I for one think it's a big mistake for Hillary to run for President. You know the Republicans are going to spend millions dragging out all the old cases that they spent the tax payers into oblivion investigating President Clinton, she's got too much baggage, and let's face it, she isn't Bill Clinton. Stay in New York please, let's have some really fresh blood in the 08 campaign, lord knows were going to need it to get us out of the hole the Republicans have dug for us in IRAQ, the economy, insisting on their guest worker program, health care, you name it. There will be a tremendous 'TO DO' list for whomever gets elected in 08. Unfortunately, we will probably see another campaign with ROVE the worm slinging slime at whomever runs. And let's face it the Republicans don't care if it's lies or not there going to make it up as they go along, just like they always do. GOP, the party of GREED, OBTRUSIVENESS, AND POWER. Thanks Sue F

Posted by: Sue F | August 17, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I think we can take this poll fairly seriously. Unlike voters polled in other races around this time of year, the CT electorate is already familiar with both of the major candidates. The issues have already been debated. There's already been commercials and a televised debate. There's been campaigning galore.

If anything, the numbers may come out actually better for Lieberman in the end due to rising terrorism anxiety (I'm not saying that Lieberman *should* be elected...just that he likely *will* be).

I saw Schlesinger on "Hardball" and thought for a minute I'd tuned into a SEINFELD re-run instead. He looks (and, apparenty, acts) like the love child of George Costanza (sp?) and Newman.

Watch for Tony Snow and the neo-cons to gloat about the President's Iraq policy being vindicated (even in deep-blue CT).

Posted by: Independent Woman | August 17, 2006 5:12 PM | Report abuse

I have my doubts about Lieberman's support waining more then it has. Joe is still pretty well thought of in Connecticut by the independent to right leaning crowd. He also has Alot of support from organized labor types and some of the more socially conservative democrats.
Also the reason Lieberman lost the primary in my opinion is that he didn't really take it seriously until like a week before. He should have been up there putting his time in on the ground and Lamont would have lost. But he allowed Lamont to gain traction and then couldn't stop the train once it started.
Also the recent terrorist alert would have had a serious impact on this poll.

Posted by: Andy R | August 17, 2006 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Andy that's too perfect. LIBS4SCHLESINGER.COM is available. :)

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Our slogan could be "Schlesinger: Our ace in the hole"

Posted by: Andy R | August 17, 2006 4:55 PM | Report abuse

I think that the more important issue to consider is not whether or not Lieberman will continue to enjoy the strong support among Republicans that he currently has (he certainly will) but whether or not his support among Democrats and Independents will gradually erode.

One of the main themes of Lamont's campaign has been that Lieberman is essentially a Republican masquerading as a Democrat. With Lieberman now getting the majority of his support from the Republican party, will his support from Democrats and Independents start to erode?

Posted by: J. Crozier | August 17, 2006 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Have you reported that the people of New York do NOT support Hillary for president? Like Edwards failed to win North Carolina or any state in South in 2004, if Hillary can't win her own state for 2008, that is not a good thing. What is the latest national poll testing the mood of the voters right now? Favoring who? Regardless of whether anyone says they are running or not, we know HILLARY is running for 2008 and she has her work cut out for her to win the nomination.

Posted by: Sam | August 17, 2006 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Good! Although I much prefer my Democrats within the Party, Lieberman is not a bad choice. And, although I strongly disagree with him on Iraq, he appears to be an independent, decent guy. And, he has already stated he would side with the Democrats in the Senate Committee and leadership votes. As far as I am concerned, a vote for Lieberman is another anti-Republican vote.

Posted by: MikeB | August 17, 2006 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Andy, we should start a Libs for Schlesinger campaign. Hahaha. TWO can play THAT game!

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of 2008, here is Des Moines, at the state fair, we had a "test of the presidential waters" by putting the names of 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats on kernels of field corn.

The results were posted by WHO TV.
John McCain 24%
Rudy Guiliani 20%
Condi Rice 20%

For the Democrats
Edwards 33%
Clinton 33%
Vilsack (reported as coming in third)

It would appear that the voters in Iowa have 2008 on their minds, even supporting people who have not camped out for chicken dinners and baby kissing.

Posted by: Sally | August 17, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

F&B, I agree that 14% is impressive but I thought he would take the lead or be within the margin of error.
Also the democrats have been accused of eating our own with this whole thing, but how about the way Schlesinger is being left out to dry. Lamont won more republicans then he did. That is pitiful. Way to support your party Repubs.

Posted by: Andy R | August 17, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone else offended that Joe, who is doing this "to save the party" will now have to actively campagin to GOTV of the GOP voters, thereby hurting the CT democratic congressional candidates?

Posted by: EMF | August 17, 2006 4:34 PM | Report abuse

interesting that you left out a comparison from the july 20 polling that indicates a significant uptick in support for lamont since then, while lieberman's only increased by a couple. spin it, chris:

"Lamont, however, is improving since a July 20 Quinnipiac poll. In that survey of registered voters, he trailed Lieberman 51 percent to 27 percent with Schlesinger getting 9 percent."

Posted by: linda | August 17, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

sp. SURELY ;)

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Andy R, actually I think a 14% bounce in the general is pretty good. Once this general campaign gets going, Ned will surly catch up as Dems around the country paint Lieberman as the Republican/Bush stooge that he clearly is.

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Well it seems that Lamont didn't get as large a boost as I thought he would have from his primary win. I would love to know though how the poll determined "likely" voters? for example some polls ask the person if they voted in the last election. Well some folks who are really behind Lamont are newcomers to the political game so wouldn't be counted. You can see that in the closer score of this poll when the asked registered voters.
Either way though Ned has an uphill battle ahead of him, but that is nothing new to the Lamont campaign.

Posted by: Andy R | August 17, 2006 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Kudos, Chris, for basically ripping off CNN's 'Morning Grind'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/17/mg.thu/index.html

Way to think for yourself there bud.

Btw, if you read the small print, you'd see that Lamont's numbers, while not amazing, are a significant improvement over the last poll. The July 20 poll has:

"Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger."

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=940

Posted by: F&B | August 17, 2006 4:25 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company