Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Courant/UCONN Poll: Lieberman Still Leads

A new Courant/UCONN poll shows Sen. Lieberman with an 8-point lead over Ned Lamont.

Lieberman leads Lamont among likely voters 48-40 percent, with 8 percent undecided and roughly 15 percent of both candidates' supporters saying they still could change their minds before Nov. 7.
[...]
The poll by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that 60 percent of voters believe going to war was wrong, and a slim majority favors a deadline for withdrawal, issues Lamont used to defeat Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

But Lieberman, who stayed in the race as a petitioning candidate, enjoys a 57 percent approval rating and has managed to capture 67 percent of the Republican vote, while keeping 35 percent of Democrats in his camp. Unaffiliated voters prefer him over Lamont 45-37 percent. (Pazniokas)

Lieberman supporters are an interesting coalition: a solid majority of Republicans, about half of the unaffiliated voters and a third of Democrats. Can he hold them together long enough to win?

The trend may also be starting to shift in Lamont's favor, although it's hard to tell. Lieberman's lead is slightly less than it was in the last Q-Poll.

The poll also showed widespread discontent with the war in Iraq, although not, apparently, enough to give Lamont a lead over Lieberman. 30% of antiwar voters support the incumbent senator.

Source
Pazniokas, Mark. "Ned's Ideas, Joe's Votes." Hartford Courant 11 October, 2006.

33 comments:

Anonymous said...

2 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s

you've GOT to be kidding me.

Anonymous said...

Must be nice to have the ability to buy a Senate seat.

Shadow said...

Must be even nicer to be Lieberman, not to have to spend your own money, and still nonetheless have over twice as much as cash as your opponent thanks to contributions from lobbyists and political action committees, whose money has been instrumental in the vast majority of all goverment corruption by both major parties. It also helps to have the overwhelming support of BILLIONAIRE Michael Bloomberg, who could buy and sell Ned Lamont a thousand times.

Wow, you guys are right, Lamont is such a rich entitled elitist! Now tell me, do I sound sufficiently like the idiots you guys expect all of us CT voters to be?

Anonymous said...

Lamont would take money from PACS if they would give it to him. Challengers never "accept" money from PACS and lobbyists because they are not interested in wasting their money on candidates who are likely to loose.

Anonymous said...

Imagine the temerity of Joe, accepting contributions from individuals and businesses which he represents!!! Poor Joe wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he has to work for the people.

Anonymous said...

The only idiots are the ones who think Ned is just one of the regular people. How much has Ned spent to buy this seat??? More than $8,000,000!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The only idiots are the ones who think Ned is just one of the regular people. How much has Ned spent to buy this seat??? More than $8,000,000!!!!!

GMR said...

30% of antiwar voters support the incumbent senator.

This is a big difference from Vietnam, of course. Without a draft, the war doesn't really touch that many Americans directly. There are about 140,000 soldiers in the theater. If you count ten unique family members and close friends for each soldier, that's about 1.5 million people with a direct stake in the war (and those people are probably more supportive of the war than the general populace, since these people have a strong portion of families with significant military backgrounds).

During the Vietnam war, the draft put more or less everyone in their late teens under the potential to be directly impacted. There also aren't any victory gardens, people recycling bacon grease or whatever they did during WWII.

There is of course a big financial cost of the war: the figure of $250 million per day is what's often quoted. (I wonder, though, if we weren't at war, if we'd actually be spending $250 million less per day. I doubt it, since we'd still pay soldiers, they just wouldn't be in Iraq. But there's materiel, reserve soldiers salaries, etc. But I'm not sure what the actual marginal cost of the war is).

Some liberals have actually tried to reinstate the draft, not because they think it would make the military more effective, but because they think it would drum up hard core anti-war sentiment. Right now, over 50% of the people may be against the war, but a sizable portion of them do not list the war as the #1 issue for them.

Shadow said...

> Anonymous 9:46 am: Challengers never "accept" money from PACS and lobbyists

> Anonymous 9:48: Imagine the temerity of Joe, accepting contributions
> from individuals and businesses which he represents!!!


Will you guys listen to yourselves? By your logic, no one should ever challenge incumbents for office, because they won't have the support of individuals and businesses since they won't have the support of lobbyists and PACs. Maybe a money-driven autocracy sounds great to you, but most of us here in America think things are already leaning too far in that direction, and prefer actual democracy.

Heh, no wonder all you anti-Lamont people post anonymously here, I can understand why no one would want to admit their name while posting something so stupid. Why don't you guys propose reinstating a monarchy next and see how that goes?

Anonymous said...

Dear Shadow, This anonymous poster will be voting on election day. Does that make me part of the autocratic regime? Democracy is pretty simple, you vote for your candidate. when you acuse people you disagree with of being autocrats or monarchs, you are just being silly.

Anonymous said...

Shadow--By your logic only the uber wealthy should run for office. Should Ned win he will be one of the wealthiest Senators, along with Kerry, Rockeffeler, Corzine. All Dems. Sure must be nice to be wealthy.

Anonymous said...

Shadow-

While I make it a point not to post and just ake in most of the comments made on this site (from both sides), i feel compelled to make a small statement.

I believe what the two Anonymous posters were trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with taking contributions from those industries and individuals whom Joe has positively represented in the last 18 years. PACs and individual contributions are what fuel capmaigns...that's just the facts and that's how it is...from the local level right up to Presidential campaigns. If this wasn't the case, how many actual legislators would ever have the chance to run for office if they needed to fund thier bids from thier own pockets...I would venture to say not too many (I don;t know about your spouses, but I'm pretty sure mine would have a strong opinion about that). I am not saying this is the right way to do things, just that it is the way it is done now (insert comments about campaign finance reform here).

That said, I commend Mr. Lamont on his conviction not to take PAC dollars, but if he's elected I think he'd be hard-pressed to follow through with that motivation. Facts are facts, and campaigns cost money. His net worth isn't publicly known, but I would believe that making up another $8-10 Million just to run again wouldn't be an easy feat.

It's pretty easy to defend someone on conviction, but you can;t fault someone for playing by the current rules.

justavoter said...

This hit the cake .

The Anti Lamont messages what a joke if they were funny.

Lieberman- Pacs -Lobbyists and Lieberman was not born with a spoon in his mouth these key points say it all.

Lamont spent 8,000,000 dollars and his supporters lets see who are they yes the voters not Pacs,Lobbyists etc match what he contributes to his campaign.

Lieberman lets see accepts all the money that is given to him from Washington D.C. Republican and others who support the Bush Agenda.

Yep Lieberman is a real peoples candidate.

The poll from the new Hartford Courant shows the Lieberman lead narrowing and that will continue.

Again Lieberman will lose this election then he can go to his Republican contributors and join the Republican Party.

Anonymous said...

The Johnson campaign is renting space in New Britain from the Maguire Group. It probably has nothing to do with the RellDOT fiasco over on I-84 that Maguire helped to create but the relationship does raise a question or two.

Shadow said...

> Anonymous 10:33 am: I am not saying this is the right way to do things, just that
> it is the way it is done now (insert comments about campaign finance reform here).

I agree with you, that is the way things are done, and that is why I've never initiated attacks against any one particular candidate for doing what the other would probably do himself.

However, once someone first initiates attacks on Ned Lamont for using his own money, when it was all that was stopping PACs and lobbyists from monopolizing one of Connecticut's Senate seats for a candidate who couldn't even win his own primary, all true believers in democracy should be appalled, regardless of their political affiliation.



> Anonymous 10:28 am: when you acuse people you disagree with of being
> autocrats or monarchs, you are just being silly.

I wasn't accusing you personally of being an autocrat or a monarch, and I'm quite glad to hear you reaffirm that you are for democracy; I expected nothing else. I just wonder how you reconcile that with the earlier argument, which was clearly autocratic.

If you say that a) challengers do not get ever get money from lobbyists and PACs, and b) that only candidates who get PAC and lobbyist money represent individuals and businesses in their district, then you are effectively saying that only incumbents can properly represent their districts, and should never be challenged; no elections, no democracy.

Go ahead and explain the fault in my logic. I'll wait.

Anonymous said...

Bill Frist is kind of wealthy and he's a Republican.

Shadow said...

> Anonymous 10:32 am: Shadow--By your logic only the uber wealthy should run for
> office. Should Ned win he will be one of the wealthiest Senators, along with Kerry,
> Rockeffeler, Corzine. All Dems. Sure must be nice to be wealthy.

I think it's absolutely terrible that the only way to stop PACs and lobbyists from stealing our Senate seat for a candidate who couldn't win his own primary is for a rich person to fund their own campaign; in fact, that's one of the very things I was complaining about when I said we're leaning too much towards a money-driven autocracy.

Money should be taken out of politics, and we should have free elections; most Americans consistently agree in all the polling when given the option between that and the money-driven political climate of recent decades. That is why it is essential for all of us not only to support Cliff Thornton for Governor, but Mike DeRosa for Secretary of State and all other local Green candidates, who really believe in taking the money out of elections and will actually get it done in this state; otherwise, you can wait the rest of your life for Republicans and Democrats to do it and be constantly disappointed until your grave.

I think it's off the charts ironic, by the way, that far right wingers are now trying to say Lamont being rich means he doesn't represent the interests of common people. This from a party whose LIFEBLOOD for decades has been convincing common voters to vote for candidates who support policies that hurt them economically at the gain of the rich, and then go on the financial news every day for the last five years and talk about how great the economy is, despite the fact that the approval numbers on the economy were long in the 40's and have now been in the 30's for months. Now Lamont's money is the only thing giving CT voters an actual option this election cycle, and you guys NOW complain about common votes shouldn't benefit the rich?

Anonymous said...

let's see--

4% unemployment. Deficit has been reduced three years ahead of schedule. Taxes have been cut for virtually all Americans who pay income taxes. Stock market at record highs. Home ownership at record highs.

Yeah, this Republican economy sure does stink. See you at the soup kithcen.

Anonymous said...

No-one is complaining about Ned's money. Just pointing out that Ned is very, very, very rich. Just like his rich Greenwich buddies.

Gabe said...

Who wants to uncork a blogswarm from 6 months ago?

Public financing.

'Nuff Said.

Anonymous said...

So the question is which is better: Lamont buying his Senate seat or special interests buying Lieberman's seat?

CommonSenseDem said...

On a somewhat related note, I just got a new mailer from the Lamont campaign and it is completely PATHETIC.

The entire piece bashes Lieberman and there is not one once of info about Ned Lamont except the tag line "Paid for Ned Lamont for Senate" (The paid for tag line is the only piece of truth in the whole mailer.)

The Lamont campaign tactics have completely turned me off, and I'm guessing others feel the same way.

Why is it so difficult for Ned Lamont to articulate a substantive postion? Ned Lamont...the U.S. Senate candidate that is no more than an inch deep!

ct_husky said...

Amen to that, Gabe

Anonymous said...

Ned Lamont.....Buying his way into the US Senate..What a Frigging joke.

Gabe said...

Hey Husky - are you at uconn storrs? Send me an off-blog email - my email is available in my blogger profile.

Anonymous said...

WAKE UP PEOPLE!! IF ANYBODY FEELS THAT USING YOUR OWN MONEY TO DEFEAT LIEBERMAN IS WRONG......YOU ALL SHOULD BE DEPORTED NOW!!

Here we have Ned Lamont who is a smart-brilliant man standing up to all the corruption and bullshit down in Washington D.C.

Joe Lieberman is part of the problem that is happening right now. The only way to defeat senatorial corruption is by outspending your opponent and having the best gotv campaign in American Senatorial history.

Lieberman gets the fat pharm, oil checks along with Mel Semblers' money. I will take Lamont using his own finances over the Lieberme freaks anyday.

PEOPLE WANT CHANGE AND NED LAMONT CLEARLY OFFERS THAT CHANGE.

Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman is a JOKE!...hey anoymous...Joe Lieberman's ground campaign doesn't even compare to Lamont's. People want to vote for change.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the only way to compete against an entrenched incumbent is to spend your own money in addition to whatever you raise.

Lieberman gets millions from PACs, lobbyists, etc because of what he's done for them and they want to have the access if/when he wins.

Ned Lamont is not just competing against his own fundraising abilities, but against all those lobbyists and PACs as well. Its now wonder he has to put his own money in.

What we should be thinking about is the fact that this guy had the choice not to run at all -- and did what no other D in CT would do -- challenge Joe. Perhaps a little gratitude rather than criticism and snarkiness might be appropriate -- otherwise a seat won't change hands until the incumbent decides not to run again. And that would be a shame.

GMR said...

Money should be taken out of politics, and we should have free elections; most Americans consistently agree in all the polling when given the option between that and the money-driven political climate of recent decades.

Money will never be taken out of politics: signs cost money, tv ads cost money, buttons cost money. So you need money. Right now, to raise this money, you either have to have it yourself (Lamont, Corzine, Kohl, Dayton, etc), or you have to raise it through a series of fundraisers and obey rather onerous reporting requirements.

The alternative that people are talking about here is public financing: this means that the government would give money to candidates, and then they couldn't raise money from anyone else, or could only raise a certain amount.

I guess newspapers would still be able to make endorsements, and radio talk show yappers would be able to make comments on the race, since we still have the first amendment. However, thanks to campaign finance reform, in Washington State, Kirby Wilbur has been prevented from discussing the gasoline tax referendum for more than 15 minutes per month, because his talking about it would constitute advertising. So campaign finance certainly isn't perfect.

How much does politics end up costing? A lot less than some other things. Lamont may have written himself $8 million in checks for his campaign. In 2004 (the last year available), Gillette spent $1.155 billion on advertising. Since Connecticut is about 1% of the US in terms of population, this means that Gillette spent about $11 million on advertising in Connecticut, for razors, Duracell batteries, Braun, etc. (It's now part of P&G). So while it may seem like there's a lot of money in politics, compared to the corporate world, it's just not.

Anonymous said...

SurveyUSA Poll released today has Lieberman 53 to Lamont 40

Shadow said...

> GMR: So while it may seem like there's a lot of money in politics,
> compared to the corporate world, it's just not.

That's hardly comforting, all that means is that buying off politicians' votes is small potatoes to big corporations. Clearly, that kind of system is worse than public financing; nonetheless, you are absoultely correct that public financing laws must be written very carefully in order to expand speech and not inhibit it.


> Anonymous 12:17 pm: let's see--
>
> 4% unemployment. Deficit has been reduced three years ahead of schedule. Taxes
> have been cut for virtually all Americans who pay income taxes. Stock market
> at record highs. Home ownership at record highs.
>
>Yeah, this Republican economy sure does stink. See you at the soup kithcen.


32% of Americans currently approve of the economy (CBS/NYT Poll).

For the first time since The Depression, Americans have a negative savings rate (more debt than worth).

It reflects the attitude in Washington; deficits in this administration are the highest in US history.

Alan Greenspan said if the gap between rich and poor continues to grow as it is, democratic capitalism is at risk.


With those four facts being true, NO OTHER number you can post means anything, and if you don't understand that, you don't understand economics or politics.

Anonymous said...

the polls have no clue how to examine this race. Just last week a poll said Lamont was down by 20. It's all nonsense. Two uconn polls this week showed Liberman has a 4 point lead in the Farefield country area and a 7-8 point lead state wide. Use rationality when reading these polls.

Anonymous said...

on the survey usa webpage they list thier pollings for us senate races in 2002 the week before the elections. (this is last mid years elections)

Out of the 11 senate races they polled the week before the election,

a.)two races had a nine point spread difference from the final polling

b.) one race had a spread by 12 point difference from the final polling.


straight from wikipedia…this is more like spreading opinions than extracting real information.

First, SurveyUSA does not use live call center employees, but an automated system. Taped questions are asked of the respondent by a professional announcer (usually a local news anchor), and the respondent is invited to press a button on their touch tone telephone or record a message at a prompt designating their selection. Secondly, SurveyUSA uses more concise language, especially for ballot propositions, than competitors. This can lead to diverging results, such as for California Proposition 76, where one version of the SurveyUSA question with a one sentence description, polled significantly differently compared to another version with a three sentence description (which was similar to a version of the question used by other pollsters, which used a five or six sentence question). [1]