Leiberman left the democrats we didn't leave him.
As far as his web site goes, guess why it went blank? Joe didn't pay the bill.
ON PURPOSE! jOE DIDN'T WANT THE VOTERS TO SEE WHAT HIS OWN REAL STAND ON THE ISSUES WERE. jOE is after all in favour of the three wars now going on in the middle east, Iraq, Afganistan, and Lebanon. JOE is also for attacking Syria, Iran, and who knows what next. Joe is for privatizing Social Security, against stemcell research, for tax breaks to the rich and powerful,for torture, for short changing the education system in America, for wire tapps, against a free internet,Joe said questioning this president is "done at our own peril" (he was wrong there too, his not questioning him brought about his defeat)So he thinks oversight is not needed. JOE MUST GO! OH, he did. Thank you Conn. voters from ray in Mass. Keep up the great struggle to tell the truth.

Appalled says "I think that the liberal blogs and liberal activists have exercised their power cautiously. The reason that Lieberman is facing this challenge is that he continually jabs the liberal activists in the eye."

Well, I don't think that they're being very cautious!!! The reason Lieberman is having trouble is that the liberal blogs have concentrated on this one race and tipped the balance to make an anti-war statement. There's a lot of pressure from people outside of CT attempting to make that "statement." They may succeed in making a "statement" and shifting Lieberman further towards the middle. Or worse, they may elect an independent who proves that the left edge of the Democratic party can't get elected.
-profschiler

Talk about missing the point. When you are wrong on THE ISSUE of the day and not only don't admit you're wrong, but keep insisting that night is day and give your dangerously wronheaded opponents cover in doing so, that's just a little different than being wrong on one little issue. Back that up with Joe's support of corporate welfare through the Energy and Bankruptcy Bills, his startling statement that it's ok for hospitals to deny rape victims contraception since they can just go to a different hospital and vote for cloture on one of the most extreme Supreme Court candidate in history and the problem becomes that we have a Democrat who calls himself a Democrat, but acts much like a Republican.

Supporting a Democrat who acts like a Democrat, when we have the choice, should hardly be called extreme. That's just a crock.

Even though some may not like Joe Lieberman's stance on Iraq, those Democrats are missing the broader point. We need to be able to have diversity of thought within the party.

It's better to have an environment where Republicans start calling themselves Democrats than to have an environment where Democrats start calling themselves Republicans....

Let the extremists go be Republicans and let Democrats be the party for real Americans.

The attitude of the fullmooners who want to destroy Joe Lieberman is a sad commentary on the Democratic party.The fact that Lieberman votes with them 85% of the time is not enough.So apparently being
a liberal Democrat today means to stop thinking and obey orders.Edmund Burke once said that a public official owes His constituents not only His industry but also His judgement and when He sacrifices His judgement to their opinion He betrays them and Himself.I think Senator Lieberman is just the sort of statesman that Mr. Burke had in mind.

I don't think the RI poll will influence many Republican primary voters there. It's just one poll, and Whitehouse's lead over Chafee is quite narrow. These things often turn on ideology as much as electability. I don't see reason to think voters will abandon Chafee for Laffey at this point.

2% undecided seems perfectly reasonable to me. There have been a lot of races in recent years with virtually no undecideds (MO Senate 2000 comes to mind), and we're only 2 1/2 weeks before the election now. Furthermore, the Quinnipiac poll's numbers are consistent with the trends all the polls have shown in this race. I think Lamont will win the primary with relative ease, and has a good shot at winning in November. Chuck Todd wrote of Lieberman's aura of inevitability being punctured in the wake of a Lamont upset, after which either man needs only about 40% of the November vote to win. Four years ago, New Hampshire Republicans replaced incumbent Sen. Bob Smith with John Sununu in their primary, who went on to beat Gov. Shaheen in the general. I think CT looks similar, and there's nothing wrong with Lamont's candidacy or Democrats substituting him for Lieberman any more than what happened in NH in 2002 or what's happening in RI now.

Kurtz-"Given the blizkrieg effort by the on-line liberal Democratic community, a Lamont victory may send a message to Democratic legislators---toe the line or walk the plank. It will be like the GOP has it---deviate at your own risk."

Yeah wouldn't that be just horrible if politicians actually felt they had to answer to the people rather than the Party Establishment?! Not that one win by a netroots backed candidate would suddenly break the beltway hold on power.

Would be great if it were so, because it would be the same as the GOP has it, yet entirely different; in that the plank walking would be induced by deviation from the people's will. That used to be exactly what elections were for and from what I've heard what the founding fathers intended when they set up our Representative Democracy.

Hope to make an additional comment around the first week in Aug. when more polling is done. Will see how close we are.

".....most Democratic voters are closer to Lieberman than Pelosi (or Lamont!)." - anonymous poster

That is by far the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life......

Let's see, mose Demoratic voters do not support the Iraq War in the beginning and do not support an open-ended committment with no exit strategy like the Republicans and Joe Lieberman do, most Democrats do dnot support Bush's plan for destroying Social Security like Joe did, most Democrats did not support intervention into the Terri Schiavo case like Joe did, most Democrats think that hospitals should be required to provide contraception to rape victims......I could go on and on and on and on......

Now, just HOW is the average Deomcratic voter closer to Joe Lieberman than to Ned Lamont? I ask becuase the facts do support such an assinine assertion.

"All the stats in the world mean very little at this stage of the game." Actually, isn't this the point where normally voters are beginning to make up their minds and the poll stats begin to have more validity as indicators of the outcome? [Though I'm not sure if that belief applies to primaries in addition to general elections.]

RMill's note that "...undecided was running 15-19%. Now its 2%?" would seem to indicate that the stats now do mean something very significant in terms of predicating the outcome. Unless the anomolous poll happens be correct.

Peter,

"Why else should 70% of Lamont's funding come from out of state?"

Read today's NYT. 80% of Lieberman's funding is coming from out of state. Mostly pro-GOP corporate donations.

All the stats in the world mean very little at this stage of the game. Give this another 10 days or so and we can pretty well know by then how the Conn. primary will turn out.

weseto-

I don't dispute the race is close. I take the latest single poll by Quinnipiac with some skepticism. It is essentially the reverse of last months poll
Liebrman 55%- Lamont 40% and anomolous to other recent polls Rasmussen 46%-40%.

Also, Quinnipiac numbers show almost no voters who are undecided. Earlier in the season undecided was running 15-19%. Now its 2%? Unlikely.

The trends are certainly going against him but his huge cash advantage and having dignitaries like Pres. Clinton, who is still very popular in CT, are a big advantage.

Also, his approval ratings have not experienced the kind of free fall indicated in this latest Quinnipiac poll.

While it is embarrasing for a sitting Senator to be in such a situation and he has made himself look weak to voters by announcing an independent bid, the advantages he enjoys I think will ultimately prevail.

But as you say, everyone is entitled to a guess and yours is as good as mine. I guess we will find out August 8th.

Most Democrats agree with Pelosi and Lamont. Moderate Republicans don't agree with Lieberman. Hagel and Graham don't march lockstep behind Bush.

Democrats in Washington expect voters to throw out politicians who support Bush and enable him to enact his agenda. It's hypocritical of them to expect voters to only throw out Republicans who agree with Bush and not Democrats. That is why Lieberman will lose.

From 4/30 FEC reports
Lieberman
$5.9 M raised
$4.3 M on-hand
$4.8 M raised from individuals
$1 M raised from PACS (1/6th)

$1.2 M from 1,217 CT individuals (25% of total individual contributors with an average of $986 per contribution)

Lamont
$776 K raised
$180 K on-hand
$405 K from individuals (52%)
includes $371 K personal loan
$ 0 PAC
$103 K from 124 CT individuals (25% with average of $830 per contribution)

R Mill

You are good, very good. I enjoy your knowledge of polls and find that you are most often more accurate than CC. I also find your comments to be educated and informed. With that said, I must call you on your 'guess'

"My guess is that Lieberman squeeks this out in the end". R. Mill

We are all intitled to a guess now and then, however, I submit that Lamont will win the primary in August and the general in November. Keep up the good work and thanks.

I didn't like Lieberman, but I never thought Lamont could win. But anyone who claims they know the endgame on this race is simply crazy. It could go any which way.

Also, Peter, 74% of Lieberman's funding comes from out of state. And that is very heavily PAC money and large-donor contributions, whereas Lamont has no PAC out-of-state money and mostly small-donor contributions.

The other aspect of "all politics is local"- Lieberman is bad at constituent service. He isn't in the state much, and doesn't respond to residents (even his campaign manager admitted he needed to hear from the people of Conn). I think a "You see him on Meet the Press---but do you ever see him in Connecticut?" type-ad might work in the general election.

"The best thing for the Democratic party's hope nationally would be for Lamont's victory in the primary to cause a three-way race, with the Republican winning"

Have you looked carefully at this race, anonymous? This scenario is never going to happen. If Lamont wins the primary, the Conn. conservatives will all vote for Lieberman. What do you think accounts for his comparatively better performance in the three-way poll?

Like many other posters, I somewhat resent the implication that the netroots crowd that's calling for Lieberman's ouster has "hijacked" this primary to the detriment of the national party. The nomination will be decided by Connecticut Democrats, and why shouldn't they have the right to a Senator who represents their views? Lieberman has broken with mainstream Connecticut Democrats on a variety of issues; I don't think a Lamont victory would be the result of some kind of evil liberal scheme, just the natural comeuppance for an elected official who has lost touch with his constituents.

Are Connecticut Dems just supposed to fall on their own swords and elect a "centrist" Dem for the good of some larger party ideology? What good would that do, exactly?

For many weeks I have thought Joe would lose, for the simple reason, he is to close to POTUS.

NoVA Dem, you can point to polls that say Lieberman will still win in November, but the Joementum has been all negative. Four months out from the primary, Lieberman led by 46 points, now he trails by four. For months out from the general, he only has to make up 24 points, and this is with the thought that Lieberman might still be the Democratic nominee. Once Lamont wins the Democratic primary, those numbers will tighten considerably because Lieberman's fundraising will collapse.

RMill, Lieberman will not win because of "some self-fulfilling prophecy that is giving Lamont a boost in polls." If anything, the Dems who show up will be furious that the only candidate who has decided to endorse the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is is Ned Lamont. The Democratic primary voters will be more liberal and more loyal to the party, so Lieberman dug his own grave by his have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too strategy. Go Ned Lamont!

I'm fine with whatever decision the voters of CT make on this. They are in the best position to determine who their Senator should be. CT voters, not liberal bloggers and op ed writers out of SF, NYC and other locales can best determine whether Lieberman has abandoned the Democratic Party or whether Lieberman is just the kind of Senator they want.
Given the blizkrieg effort by the on-line liberal Democratic community, a Lamont victory may send a message to Democratic legislators---toe the line or walk the plank. It will be like the GOP has it---deviate at your own risk. Granted, as noted above, there will be some leeway for deep red state folks like Ben Nelson, but everyone else had better read the little red Kossak book. I hope thats not what people come away with but if Lamont wins I can hear the war drums beating already.

Sorry about the accidental but careless misspelling of your name in my prior post, Sandwich Repairman!

I think that the Rasmussen poll referenced by Sandwich Repairment does something that many may find surprising, it helps Laffey win the primary. Why, because it shows Chaffey trailing Whitehouse. That changes the psychology of the Republican voters outlook, if they are going to lose, they rather lose with a Republican they feel will fight for them. It might not make strategic sense, but I think that reflects the reality of the situation.

Recent Rasmussen poll in RI shows Chafee narrowly losing to Whitehouse--it may not even matter who wins the Republican primary there.

Lieberman is sinking fast, and Lamont is rising quickly. I wouldn't assume that Lieberman beats Lamont in November. I think Lamont has a good chance of winning. Chuck Todd wrote a column on it at National Journal's site.

http://sandwichrepair.blogspot.com

peter,

You missed my point. What's happening in RI is not similar at all to what is happening in CT. If the Dems ran a challenge against Nelson in Nebraska, that would be similar to the situation in RI. Dems are lucky to have a Dem senator from Nebraska no matter what positions he has. Same goes for the Repugs in RI. RI might be the most liberal state in the country and they are challenging their own senator with a far right Club for Growth sponsored wingnut that would be slaughtered in the general. If Lamont wins the primary and the general, Connecticut gets a senator that reflects their views.

I agree that what's happening in Rhode Island is similar to the Connecticut situation, except that it's probably far more self-defeating for Rhode Island Republicans. The reason Lieberman's primary challenge has garnered so much attention is less the result of some conservative media bias than it is Lieberman's national profile, even though it is apparently fun to cover the netroots.

I suppose it is a fair criticism that I have taken a somewhat national perspective of the race, but I am well removed from Connecticut. When we say that all politics is local, though, I think it is more accurate to say that rather all elections are local. Senate races naturally have a national dimension because they send representatives elected by local constituencies to decide issues before the entire national constituency. Why else should 70% of Lamont's funding come from out of state?

Personally I would vote for Lamont in the general election but not in the primary.

>>>most Democratic voters are closer to Lieberman than Pelosi (or Lamont!).

Wishful thinking on your part. Even heartland conservatives like John Thune are fleeing the Bush Agenda, esp in regards to Iraq. Why someone who still tries to position himself as a NE Liberal is clinging to the absurd Iraq debacle is anybody's guess. It doesn't even help secure the state of Israel as we have seen with Iran's expansion of power in the region (Shiite takeover in Iraq and funding and weapons support of Hezbollah's terrorist actions). So No Mo Joe. Time to go.

Peter is taking a nationwide view of this race. Except maybe the Presidency, the old saying rings true: all politics is local. The politics of this is that Lieberman is more of a Republican than many of the elected Republicans in Connecticut.

Bush has an awful approval rating in Connecticut, and Lieberman has stood by his side and made speeches on the floor supporting the President several times--which is several times to many for his state.

I would wager a guess Rep. Shays (R-CT) will have a stronger Democratic following than Lieberman by the time this race comes to a close--after all, he probably votes with the Democrats about a similar number of times as Lieberman, and is probably more critical of Bush.

While netroots can be responsible for getting the press nationwide, Lamont has his own money (and lots of it) to promote his name locally, and has been doing so successfully. What you're reading about netroots and national buzz is reverberation of a local issue.

The best thing for the Democratic party's hope nationally would be for Lamont's victory in the primary to cause a three-way race, with the Republican winning (second best is Lieberman winning). This will convince Dems that they must avoid being pulled to the left, especially by the Kos Krowd. As someone else on the WaPo site put it very aptly, most Democratic voters are closer to Lieberman than Pelosi (or Lamont!).

Rmill,

Even with full fledged disintegration of Iraq? No way. As of the first debate The Big Lie was still clinging to the "things are getting better" mantra defying all reporting and reason. He's finished.

While Liebrman may have had indications of slipping in the primary, these recent results are probably self-fulfilling once Lieberman publicly acknowledged he was in trouble and would seek an independent candidacy.

Once the public sees the blood in the water and hears the media hype, they tend to propetuate it in polling.

My guess is that Lieberman squeeks this out in the end.

peter,

I think that the liberal blogs and liberal activists have exercised their power cautiously. The reason that Lieberman is facing this challenge is that he continually jabs the liberal activists in the eye. (We've been through this ad-nauseaum, but just look at op-ed in WSJ and appearances with Hannity where he accepts Hannity's support) Liberal activists know what to expect from Ben Nelson and a vote for the majority leader is all we need from a Nebraska Democrat. Hopefully he'll agree with some positions of the party, but if not, its understandable due to his election situation.

Now the conservative activists act in a completely different manner. Those right-wing nutjobs go for scalps that would be an overall detriment to their party, but enforce their party line views on every part of the conservative dogma. Look at Specter's situation in PA. They almost took out a very important senator and would have almost assuredly lost the seat had Toomey won the primary. Then look at RI today. If they succeed and Laffey takes out Chafee, then they lose the seat. I think their RI situation is exactly the same as the Dems in Nebraska. He may not be the senator you want, but as long as he has your party's name name attached to his, then you should be happy with that. If anything shows the conservative bias in the media today it is the constant chatter of a "liberal inquisition" of Lieberman, yet nary a word is said about the frothing at the mouth conservative activists that are looking to take out Chafee in RI.

Polling a potential three-way race prior to seeing who wins the primary is a less than academic pursuit. Voter perceptions will be greatly impacted should Lamont win, and Lamont's general election performance depends much more on Lamont than on the Liebster.

My best guess is that, despite Lieberman's bluff of an independent candidacy, his stock would be so deflated by a primary loss that he becomes irrelavent.

I can help with "irresponsible".

"Irresponsible" = Doing anything that upsets the beltway elite.

There, simple as pie.

Just to clarify, since other posts popped up while I was typing, I was responding to Mark's issue with my remark about the netroots wielding their influence "responsibly."

That comment didn't necessarily pertain to Lamont's candidacy because Connecticut is a reliably blue state. But suppose someday they set their sights on someone like Ben Nelson? His record is considerably more conservative than Lieberman's, so why not? Does he represent our values adequately? For God's sake, he's running campaign commercials with Bush in them.

But you see, he comes from Nebraska and knows how to be elected in a state that went for Bush by something like 30%, according to something CC said once.

All I'm giving is a cautionary note that bloggers, taking heart from their apparent success in the CT primary, exercise their newfound influence carefully.

NoVA Dem:

Polls change over time. They are a snapshot of the situation RIGHT NOW, not what it will be two weeks (or more) from now.

Just because polls currently say that Lamont would lose to Joe in a three-way election does not mean that it will stay that way. Remember, polls at one point had Lamont behind Joe by easily 30 percentage points.

I've never read the DailyKoS in my life, but you don't have to be a DailyKoS reader to be a bit disillusioned with Joe Lieberman lately. This is why politicians have to be reelected every few years. It gives their constituents a chance to decide if they still like the guy they voted for previously.

That isn't people being Kossacks or the liberal wing of the Democratic party suppressing dissent. It is giving the people of Joe's state a chance to decide if they still want him representing them or someone else. Joe's state is more liberal than, say, Virginia. Therefore a Democrat in that state needs to be more liberal than a Virginia Democrat to truly represent the views of his state.

I fully support Joe's right to run as an Independent in the general election. Just as I fully support Lamont's right to challenge him in the Democratic primary. This is democracy at work. Whomever gets the most votes, therefore appealing to the widest cross-section of voters, gets elected.

Peter, what on earth does that mean, "they need to wield their influence responsibly"? Especially with Schlesinger's little gambling/assumed-name problem, the GOP isn't picking up this seat -- no how, no way.

So what's to fear from "irresponsible" support for Lamont? That Lieberman, feeling mistreated, stops acting like a Democrat and starts giving the President & GOP "bipartisan" cover on controversial issues? In case you haven't noticed, Lieberman is a long way down that road already.

NoVa Dem writes: "So if polls show that Lieberman will win more than 50 percent of the vote in a three-way matchup in November with him as an "independent," Lamont as the Democrat and whoever the Republicans nominate, what's the point of Lamont's candidacy?"

Polls in April had Lieberman winning the primary 65 -19. Lieberman's numbers among *all* voters--liberal, independent, conservative, male, female, have been dropping since.

It's not unreasonable to argue that Lamont's support would continue to grow in the general election, especially when Lieberman would have to engage in a campaign as a turncoat politician with his colleagues on the Hill and elsewhere supporting Lamont.

Feel the Joementum!

As for Nov., once he loses in August, Lie-berman will be damaged goods. Lamont's name rec. will surge and the whole dynamic changes.

And while I'm thinking about it, while Democrats are poised to unseat their so-called maverick in Connecticut, the Republicans just might produce the next president with theirs.

A "conservative" from Connecticut is likely markedly more liberal than one from elsewhere in the country, so Lieberman's high polling with Connecticut's conservatives and moderates shouldn't be quite the fodder for Lamont operatives that it is.

Another consideration to make is the party-break boost. McCain polls very well among liberals and moderates for occasionally breaking party and challenging the president. But who in his right mind would call McCain a liberal?

A Lamont victory in the primary would show in concrete terms the influence of the Kos netroots crowd. Call it a victory or not, in most other states, neither the Lamont candidate nor the Lieberman candidate could reasonably expect to win the election, and the seat would go red. Maybe Lamont will be Connecticut's next Senator; that would be a victory for them. But they need to wield their influence responsibly.

Feel the Joementum!

As for the Nov. polls in a three-way, that is flawed. When Lie-berman loses in August, he is damaged goods, Lamont is now a known figure and the bleeding will continue until "Give em Zell, Joe" is nothing but a turncoat footnote for the Democratic party.

You should note that determining the likely voters in the Lieberman-Lamont race is notoriously difficult. There are no recent historical analogues to determine a reasonable baseline population.

The margin of error in the Quinnipiac poll is 3.8 points, and that's just based on the sample size. The actual error could be considerably greater.

Clearly by any measure Lamont is surging, but the 51-47 numbers are much, much fuzzier than say, Presidential approval ratings.

Mystery Pollster wrote an excellent post on the subject: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/07/connecticut_pri.html

All there is to know: Republicans adore Lieberman, Democrats don't like him. He might as well change parties.

And as for Clinton, for him to campaignon behalf of a guy who essentially wants to abandon his party if things don't "turn out right", it tells me all there is to know about the Clintons - They are country club Democrats.

No wonder rank and file Democrats are cool to Hillary's presidential run.

CC writes "It's clear that a significant (and growing) segment of the likely Democratic electorate has decided to abandon Lieberman."

Chris, try this: it's clear to a significant (and growing) segment of the likely Democratic electorate that Lieberman has abandoned their previously shared values.

See how easy it is to report the facts correctly if you resist the urge to pervert language?

So if polls show that Lieberman will win more than 50 percent of the vote in a three-way matchup in November with him as an "independent," Lamont as the Democrat and whoever the Republicans nominate, what's the point of Lamont's candidacy? So he forces Lieberman to get the signatures, but then after Lieberman wins, he will be right back with the Democrats in the Senate.

Is this what the Daily Kos followers, the "Kossacks," call a victory?

CC-

Great stuff on the Conn. race, but what's been going on one state over with Chafee? Also, how are the Connecticut House races looking?

Also, Truth Hunter, Bill isn't cozying up to Bush- he has absolutely nothing to gain from helping Joe. It's simply a matter of helping out an old friend- try reading "My Life" and you will realize why Clinton isn't ready to abandon Joe yet.

Those numbers showing that Joe has a higher approval rate among conservatives than liberals are just one more piece of evidence to support the fact that Joe's positions no longer represent those of his state.

It's not surprising Democrats are abandoning Lieberman, he has become too cozy with Bush. Too much hugging.

Another Dem who has become too cozy with the Bush clan is our "beloved?" Bill Clinton. From a former "yellow dog" point of view, both Lieberman and Clinton are a little too progressive, and a little too anxious to identify with an administration that has taken a wrecking ball to our country.

You go Connecticut Democrats and Lamont! Show them the Dems aren't the "Bush Lite" party.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com