Thursday, August 24, 2006

Senate Race Campaign Updates

This morning's Courant has an article with the latest on the Senate Race. Here are the highlights.


  • Lieberman's name will appear 5th on the ballot after Schlesinger, Lamont, Timothy A. Knibbs of the Concerned Citizens Party, and Ralph A. Ferrucci of the Green Party.


  • Ned Lamont has been endorsed by the UAW.


  • Hillary Clinton has invited Lamont to meet with her on Friday to discuss his campaign and how she can help him win. He will also be attending an event sponsored by Moveon.org in NYC.


  • Lieberman will appear tomorrow with Rob Simmons and Jodi Rell to mark the one year anniversary of the Pentagon's reversal of the decision to close the sub base at Groton.



I wonder how being so far down on the ballot will affect Lieberman's final numbers. At the same time I'm curious if being first might help Alan Schlesinger.

Source
Pazniokas, Mark. "Joe Down Low On Ballot". Hartford Courant. 8/24/06

31 comments:

Gabe said...

Here is an interesting article in the Journal of Politics that argues (subrscription required to get the full text; also available with a subscription to JSTOR):

This article presents evidence of name-order effects in balloting from a study of the 1998 Democratic primary in New York City, in which the order of candidates' names was rotated by precinct. In 71 of 79 individual nominating contests, candidates received a greater proportion of the vote when listed first than when listed in any other position. In seven of those 71 contests the advantage to first position exceeded the winner's margin of victory, suggesting that ballot position would have determined the election outcomes if one candidate had held the top spot in all precincts.

Anonymous said...

IF we are using the old machines that we’ve used for years (and I’m uncertain if we will be), then Lieberman has a problem with the fifth slot. If you’re 5’8” or taller (an estimate) you simply don’t notice anything that far down… it’s simply the machine design. And if you’re shorter, I don’t think it helps… you’d probably still be attracted to all the “activity” of the first couple lines, as well as ballot questions.

Lieberman will need to take a page out of Waterbury Mayor Jarjura’s playbook… Joe needs to do a MASSIVE voter outreach/education. He may still win without it, but for him, failing to do this would be the equivalent of failing to get out his vote.

Many people will walk in and simply not see his name. And that could very well be the difference.

Charles Gaba said...

Wow.

Regardless of who you support in this race (or your political leanings in general), that's about the saddest thing I've read about the voting populace in years.

I can see where having your name on the back of the page would cause this sort of a problem, but just being listed second or third? Just how lazy are people?

Can I at least assume that what happens is people not voting for *any* candidate if they can't find their name, as opposed to actually voting for an *opposing* candidate out of frustration? That would be even sadder...

Note: this doesn't include situations like the infamous Florida "butterfly ballot" in 2000--of course, that was part of what caused this whole brouhaha in the first place...

bobeedee said...

Easy - Gabe said it! Joe will be on line 5, nobody to the left, nobody to the right, all alone on the line. With our lever machines, you'll have to look down for him.

It's possible, but not likely, many will find him. It is a sad end to his career.

It will make a great book, though: "The Rise and Fall of Joseph Isidor Lieberman". I'm guessing someone already has most of it penned. The voters may write the last chapter in November.

Anonymous said...

Schlesinger's entire argument has been that he has the best chance b/c he's right after rell, top of the ticket, line 1.

The only problem is that he's a crackpot and people are beyond dissastisfied with his candidacy....they're downright scared of him.

Anonymous said...

Lieberman says it's "a little bit harder" for him to support the Democratic Congressional challengers. Any Democrat should be ashamed to support him.

Anonymous said...

Chris Dodd, John Larson, Bubba & Hillary are all political phonies. For years, they all regarded Joe Lieberman as their “close friend” and have praised him for being such a wonderful Senator. Now, they have kicked their close friend to the curb because he no longer is the “endorsed” Democrat. Party before friends and Party before Country is their message. With the exception of Senator Lieberman, I will be voting straight line Republican for the first time in my life.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Ned Lamont has been endorsed by the UAW.

Would that be the same UAW that said and did nothing when the state bought both domestic and imported (non union made) hybrid cars?


Golly they're an effective group!

They really stand up for their members. Not.

Yawn.

CT Working Families said...

The WFP poll had Murphy slightly ahead, but within the margin of error. The bottom line is that the race will be very tight -- none of the polling that has been made public can lead to any other conclusion. In a race that could
come down to 2-3%, the Working Families Pary endorsement could play a significant role. The WFP candidate got over 1% of the vote in '02 without doing anything. This year the WFP plans a more aggressive campaign to attract independent voters to vote WFP for Murphy. This week the WFP joined with police and firefighters to denounce Johnson's "9/11" ad and her votes to cut funding for emergency responders. For more see
www.ct-workingfamilies.org and click on the "highlights" page.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

CT Working Families said...
The WFP poll had Murphy slightly ahead


Thank you Mr. Green.

For a related website click here!

Anonymous said...

Lieberman should withdraw his endorsements for his back stabbing Democratic friends and support Shays,Johnson & Simmons.

Derby Conservative said...

ACR-

LMAO at the CPUSA link that you snuk into your last comment! When are people going to wake up and realize that the only thing unions care about is lining the pockets of their officers with the hard-earned "dues" that they fleece off of their members? Honestly, when was the last time a 17-y/o cashier at Stop & Shop got anything for their dues?

meteskyjr said...

I hope someone at the sub base will point out amid all the hoopla and self-congratulation that submarines represent the Maginot Line of modern warfare.

Derby Conservative said...

meteskyjr-

You cannot seriously be marginalizing the effectiveness of submarines! They may not be very useful in fighting that is currently occurring in the desert, but ashould we ever find ourselves fighting an actual nation state like say China or North Korea, they will be very useful indeed.

bluecoat said...

submarines are still an integral part of the Navy and they will stay that way as you might be able to see fromthe Status of the Navy but the navy is on schedule to close the base within the next two decades - just look at the orders going to EB in Groton and EB will do fine with related facilities at Norfolk and Georgia. It's long overdue for everybody to think about the future of Groton instead of pretending it's still the past

meteskyjr said...

The U.S. has been building submarines, one after the other, for the past 50 years to no earthly purpose other than saber-rattling and keeping the economy in Southeast Connecticut on its feet. The submarines fleet may have been a strategic piece an imagined post-WWII conflict with the Soviet Union or China (raining down nukes from underwater positions), but those conflicts never materialized. Otherwise, I don't believe they've played a truly useful role in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. But they have been very good for Southeastern Connecticut.

bluecoat said...

Obviously you didn't look around the the link or you would have found thisconfiguration,this one as well as the number of subs underway and deployed. But Like I said, I expect the Navy to proceed with their plan to consolidate operations at Norfolk and ???(drawing a blank)Bay Georgia.

bluecoat said...

PS: the first air strike on Afghanistan was fired from a sub as I recall.

Anonymous said...

Read this...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/sub-mission.htm
Perhaps you should educate yourself on a particular subject before you make wild claims...
On another note, I actually agree with BlueCoat in that Southeastern CT should make a more concerted effort to diversify business community in the area and move away from its current dependence on the military presence in the area. Keeping the subbase open is a nice victory for the area in its present state, but the base will more than likely close eventually (as in the next decade or two).

Derby Conservative said...

Anon 12:38, please learn how to post a link by clicking on the Help button on the CTLP banner. We're far to lazy to copy and paste a link.

bluecoat said...

DC: this is better than the link from 12:38the submarine force of the future it's straight form the Navy wheras the other one is from John Pike, a talking head who is too often off base or just plain superficial.

meteskyjr said...

Yeah, that sub-based missile attack on the Taliban really taught them a lesson.

bluecoat said...

Aye, aye, Admiral, we'll scuttle the submarine fleet post haste.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

On the very first day- alone- of the attack on the Taliban regime, U.S. and British ships and submarines fired about 50 Tomahawk missiles against terrorist targets.

Mateskyjr, subs remain a multi-capability, multi-use part of our fleet. We need them for the strategic purposes that DerbyCon mentions, but they also provide flexibility- they can get sea-based missiles closer to target.

Those Tommys were not fun to be around in downtown Kabul. And they made it easier for our ground guys.

If ignorance is bliss, this is one happy blog.

bluecoat said...

Aug 24, 4:31 PM EDT
Israel Adds 2 Nuclear-Capable Submarines By RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI Associated Press Writer
and both are German made Dolphins.

bluecoat said...

And BTW, I am not endorsing what Fat Guy says about how the battle was fought early on in Iraq; his story sounds great but that's not quite the way it works on the battlefield and in the theater.

Authentic Connecticut Republican said...

Derby Conservative said... "...
when was the last time a 17-y/o cashier at Stop & Shop got anything for their dues?


They can't even get on the weekly schedule without their dues card.
It's perfect training for them so they'll realize how important it is to get a job elsewhere and where there is no union.

My 18 year old son tells me how his freinds that work there have already learned to hate the union.

Funny thing is, my son's making 2 or 3 bucks more an hour working for a large non-union drug store chain.

FatGuyinMiddleSeat said...

Bluecoat- to clarify, I was talking about Afghanistan, day 1. Not Iraq.

Even double-checked it with CNN's archive.

Anonymous said...

I was a teamster for a number of years. The union reps cared more and fought for the slackers who did not show up for work, the heroin addicts and the screwups. They couldn't care less for the hard working rank and file. They showed up once in a while wearing Rolex's and pinky rings, driving their Lincoln Towne cars.

joejoejoe said...

Here's a study by Ho and Amai which is convincing to me - they use the randomized California ballot as a basis for study which removes a lot of incumbent and major party bias that exists in other state ballot procedures.

"Examining a total of 376 candidates in 62 races from 12 general elections and 5 primary elections, we find that in general elections, ballot order substantially impacts minor party candidates, while having inconclusive effects on major party candidates. In primaries, on the other hand, being listed first significantly increases the vote share for any candidate. Major party candidates generally gain two to four percentage points of the total party vote, while minor party candidates may increase their vote shares by fifty percent of their baseline vote. In fact, ballot order might have changed the winner in as many as nine percent of all primary races examined. In general elections, we find the largest effect for nonpartisan races where candidates in first position gain three percentage points on average. In contrast, we observe little difference in estimated causal effects of ballot order between types of offices for general elections, although effects appear to be larger for major offices in primaries. Our results are largely consistent with a theory of partisan cuing, where party labels convey information to uninformed voters (e.g., Schaffner and Streb, 2002; Snyder and Ting, 2002). When party labels are not available, as in nonpartisan races, or not informative, as in party primaries, voter decisions are most likely to be influenced by the ballot order."

It would follow that Schlesenger gains a point or two and Liebeman loses a point or two based on the findings of this paper. Karma's a bitch, Sen. Lieberman.

Shaken, Not Stirred: Evidence of Ballot Order Effects from the California Alphabet Lottery 1978-2002 - (PDF) http://polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=18

bluecoat said...

I meant Afghanistan, not Iraq, and had actually referenced it myself earlier, Fat Guy - my mistake; what I was taking exception too was your description of how it works on the battlefield and in the theater - and still do..