Looks like Joe Lieberman is staying out of a proposed fourth U.S. Senate debate:
Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger, meanwhile, have accepted an invitation to a fourth debate Thursday, but Lieberman declined. His press secretary, Tammy Sun, said the campaign was sticking to the agreement to hold three debates.
It was unclear whether the debate at Quinnipiac University, which would be televised live by WTIC-TV, Channel 61, would go forward without Lieberman. (Pazniokas)
Why not agree to the debate? What can it hurt? Well, it probably hurts a lot if you're Joe Lieberman. Every time Alan Schlesinger faces off against him, he loses votes. At this point, Lamont's influence on the election is negligible. He isn't attracting new voters. Schlesinger is (although how many he's getting is still up in the air), and he's taking them mostly from Lieberman.
So, no go, which is too bad. Anyone who wants to say "bawk! bawk! bawk!" is certainly free to do so in the comments.
Source
Pazniokas, Mark. "A Little Help From Cajun Country. Hartford Courant 27 October, 2006.
27 comments:
GC said: "Schlesinger is (although how many he's getting is still up in the air), and he's taking them mostly from Lieberman."
GC this statment is not accurate and is specifically contradicted by the polling. Please look at the crosstabs of the last 2 Q polls. In the most recent poll Schlesinger's support among Republicans increased 6% points, Lamont's decreased 6% points and Lieberman's decreased 1% point from 70% to 69%.
It is obviously true that in order for Schlesinger to have any chance at all he needs to get the Republicans who are supporting Lieberman to switch allegiences and vote for him. So far, however, not one poll has showed any movement in that direction.
The fact is this: most Republicans will end up voting for the candidate who can beat Ned Lamont, and that candidate appears to be Joe Lieberman.
Are you aware of or have you seen any polling data that contradicts the most recent Q poll, which as you know, was taken after the first debate?
If the debate is going forward w/o Lieberman but with press coverage, Lieberman will change his mind and participate.
I agree...Ned and Alan should do the debate even if Joe is not in. It will hurt Joe for not being there.
disgruntled: a vote for Schlesinger, if he remains a distant 3d in the polls, is, in reality, a vote for Ned Lamont.
By the way, just ask the people who voted for Nader in 2000.
disgruntled: a vote for Schlesinger, if he remains a distant 3d in the polls, is, in reality, a vote for Ned Lamont.
I don't buy that argument. You vote for the candidate you think will do the best job--not the candidate you think can win.
I agree with Disgruntled Republican and The Rev that the debate should go on with out him. If this minor party candidate Lieberman chooses not to participate in the debate, it will leave more time for the two major party candidates, who in terms of just the issues, are the ones that actually represent voters in CT; it's hard to name even one issue where Joe has a policy position different from both Schlesinger and Lamont that a decent percent of CT voters agree with. While Schlesinger's views are not in the majority, they certainly do have a good-sized constituency; there's no constituency for Joe's policies, just support for the man himself. All he has is that he's Joe Lieberman and he's already there.
Therefore, Lamont and Schelinger have everything to gain by debating without him. If the next set of polls show Lieberman slipping (which they most likely will), and the race looks really close to the national media again, coverage will explode here just like it did before the primary; the one remaning debate suddenly will get tons of attention, and Joe Lieberman won't get any of it, except being known as the guy who didn't show up.
To update my comment from an older thread:
Ned and Alan should go ahead with the debate and give Joe the empty chair treatment. Put one of his "JOE!" yard signs on a chair, and use that as a foil.
Amazingly, I think the chair would have more integrity and humor than Joe.
ALAN v NED: YES YES YES!!!
I agree with Mr. Gruntled - the debate should go on. Let the party's candidates illustrate the core differences in their opinions and policies.
Let Alan prove to the VOTERS why he is better. And the hell with the CTGOP... It's individual Republicans, and likeminded VOTERS, that will get good conservative candidates elected.
This race shouldda been an Alan-Ned decision months ago had the GOP had the guts to let it be so.
Interesting point, but Alan appears to be taking votes from Ned...not Joe.
If the next set of polls show significant movement for Alan, this R will think more about voting for him. The main thing, the raison d'etre, of voting for Joe--is to keep Ned Lamont out of the US Senate.
Lieberman is running away from his record. And who could blame him? An airing of the truth of that record the week of an election could cost him his seat.
I think people will be surprised at the magnitude of Lamont's loss.
Even better...to all you Republicans thinking about voting for Lamont. If it weren't for Ross Perot, Bill Clinton would have never been President. A vote for Al Gold is a vote for Lamont!!!
The main objective of voting for Joe--is to keep Ned Lamont and his surrendercrat pedigree--out of the US Senate.
You guys are forgetting a couple important facts about how debates affect the polls.
(As a side note, Joe Lieberman deciding not to attend the debate will hurt him because he won't be able to defend his record. There is no doubt Alan and Ned will not be going at each other because they are going for Joe's votes right now.)
Statistical research shows it takes 7 to 10 days for one debate to resonante among the voters.
The latest American research poll that came out last weeks shows Schlesinger with about 25 of the independent vote,8-10% of the independent vote, and I beleve 10% of the entire vote.
Schlesinger's internal polling has him hitting 20% on election day. That may not happen, but I wouldn't be surprise if he stays in the higher range of 13-17%
Schlesinger's internal polling is counting on voters going straight Republican. I'd be shocked if he got that high. If he does get to 20% Lamount will win the election.
Cont'D
I feel like an economist after spewing this political theory 101 rhetoric, but the intial votes Alan will take may be from Lamont as being showed by the polls.
However, the majority of the votes Alan Schlesinger is taking away will be from Lieberman. In my opinion, people on this blog are saying the republicans will vote for Joe because this tatic will prevent Ned from beling elected as Senator.
I disagree with this theory because many repubs are going to stick with thier gop candidate. Whom many hate Lieberman and have never voted for him before ever. (they are going to see schlesinger's name on that first line and give him a big vote)
Schlesinger has about 25% of the republican vote
8-10% of the independent vote
I also think people are greatly underestimating the "petty cash" problem. Lieberman's ridiculous $387,000 slush fund is a huge problem, and it's a big scarlet letter on his campaign.
I can't even recall a campaign trick in any campaign that is as blatantly corrupt and illegal as that slush fund. The word is getting out too, as it should.
..and Leiberman is counting on most people not recognizing what a slime ball he is, too. He's been playing the game for a long time just like his successor, Dick Blumenthal.
And like Bluementhal he'll be re-elected.
The voters in a republic get what they deserve.
"bawk! bawk! bawk!"
Is that you, Fidel, posting anonymously at 1:04? Are you feeling any better these days?
Yes I'm feeling alot better. Thanks for asking! The CIA failed yet again. :-)
Please don't blow my cover.
As far has Lieberman not joining the 4th debate I can see why he loses votes to Alan each time he comes out on tv to do these debates
Alan kills him big time.
I think Alan will take alot more Republican votes away from Lieberman then some people think.
The Polls that happened recently really do not tell the truth.
I talkto people on the street and they tell me they will be voting for Lamont which contradicts the Q and other Polls.
I have said this from day one if you base your candidate winning or losing by these Polls then your not seeing the complete Political Picture in CT and elsewhere.
The only Poll that will count is when everyone goes to vote in the cities and towns here in Connecticut.
If you believe that phone Polls decide will decide this election your wrong .Actually people coming out to a Polling Place to cast there ballot that what will count and in the end the Q and others will be way off.
Lieberman vote debate anymore and that will also show voters that he does not really care to be in the public eye where we can see what he is doing .
I will say that Lieberman will lose November 7th and Lamont will win with Alan showing a good turnout for him this late in the game.
Remember Lamont Grassroots Campaign of volunteers is very large and Lieberman has hardly any people except paid staff and Republican outsiders helping him.
When you have as many Connecticut voters on the grassroots with Lamont thats a winning team .
Lieberman can't possibly have an airing of his terrible record in a public forum a week before an election! It's a sure way to lose his seat.
It takes at least a week for his paid-for NYT coverage and TV adverts for him to recover from a public debate.
The Ned-AS debate will only hurt Lieberman if it draws media attention. As the media has seemingly been enamored with Joey, I wouldn't be shocked if they decide to ignore it.
Maybe instead The Courant will publish another front-page color photo of Joey in front of the stars and stripes.
But, no matter. I have been watching debates from across the country on CSPAN. Some have been as embarrassing as the ones in CT, but not many.
I have yet to see anyone as clownish as Schlesinger or as arrogant as Lieberman. I have to say, though, that I have seen many debaters more adept than Ned Lamont -- on all sides.
This points up a fundamental problem in our democracy: if you're not a gazillionaire you can't credibly challenge an entrenched incumbent with piles of special-interest money. The guy with the bucks may not be the best challenger, but he's all you get.
That's why term limits are necessary. It's the only way to negate the advantages of incumbency. If Joey were being bounced out by limits, the Democrats would certainly have a more able candidate than Ned Lamont (that's not a comment on his ability to be a senator, just as a candidate). Similarly, the Rs would have found many saner people than AS willing to run...all of whom were scared off by Joey War-Bucks.
I think a fourth debate would be useful in that it would be useful in further showing Schlesinger's views on important issues; his ideas were largely ignored and not taken seriously before the debates, when attention was mostly only given to Lamont and Lieberman. The debates have changed that, but Schlesinger still hasn't had as much time in the media as the other two candidates, and so his ideas haven't been spread as well.
Post a Comment