A very weak Republican candidate could make things interesting.

But that's just what we've got, right?  The Gambler doesn't want out, and there was a story claiming that Rove didn't want him out either.  It's far better for the national GOP to have him stay in.  They have basically zero chance of getting the seat themselves, so the way to maximize Joe's chances is to have as worthless a candidate as possible on the ballot as an R.  It's rather embarassing for the state GOP, but won't they follow orders?

The frustrating aspect of this is that there's a well-funded challenge to the Democrat in what should be a safe Democratic seat.  I'm going to send money to Lamont that I could otherwise send to other Democratic races, and I blame Joe.

Rassmussen also shows Conrad Burns "coming back" in Montana from their poll a month earlier. Even though he's been absolutely pummeled over that firefighters incident.

In my opinion, this poll is 100% fruadulent. And it is designed to keep Lieberman from dropping out.

I believe this because, as you pointed out, the Rassmussen poll from the end of July showed Lamont and Lieberman in a dead heat in a 3 way race. Then the CBS exit poll showed a singtificant number of Lieberman voters would switch to Lamont if Joe mounted an independant campaign.

So, according to rassmussen, Lamont picked up ZERO additional support since the election? And Joe got all his from a switch of voters from Schlesinger to Joe?

I call bullshit on this one. Bullshit, bullshit, bulllshit.

We need a LEGITIMATE independent poll to come out.

That Zogby poll reinforces my BULLSHIT theory.

All Rassmussen did was take Schlesinger's support from him and give it to Lieberman.

Love "The Gambler" name for Schlessinger.  Will Kenny Rogers play him in the movie about this election?

If I am not mistaken, Rassmussen is an automated poll.  Does anyone know for sure?  Automated polls are not as accurate as live interview ones and Rassmussen has a tendancy to be all over the place with its results.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/11/l ieberman.senate/

"I look forward to supporting Ned as he fights to help Democrats take back the Senate, and I call on Joe Lieberman to respect the will of the voters and step aside," Richardson said."

Unfortunately, that BULLSHIT rassmussen poll is undermining the efforty to get Joe to quit.

I guarantee you that next week's Quinnipiac or Gallup or Zogby Poll will show Joe behnd by 8 nor 9 points.

But by then it will be too late.

We should be beating the shit out of this crappy-ass Bullshit poll.

...Tester and Burns are tied.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/Sta te%20Polls/August%202006/MontanaSenate.h tm

This is an improvement for Burns in the past month. And it occurred right at the time Burns was getting the crap kicked out of him on that firefighters story.

So, either Rassmussen is measuring some latent hatred for firefighters among Montana voters, OR THIS POLL IS HORSESHIT TOO!

Sorry dude, i was gonna cross post, but then got caught up trying to defend my arguments in the thread.

Its way harder to post on Kos.  I have read Kos for a couple of years, but just started being an active member, and its taking some time to get my Kos legs.  They are like an unruly mob over there.  

If Republicans can get anyone half way decent on the ballot, Lieberman should be immediately finished off. Even if they don't manage to do that, Lamont will probably win anyway. A very weak Republican candidate could make things interesting, however.

I agree with you on Lieberman being toast if they replace Schlessinger, but if not, what makes you think "Lamont will probably win anyway" when he's 5 down now? Is this just sunny optimism, or do you have some reasons for thinking this way?

Chris -- nice running into you at the Yeah Yeah Yeahs!

Sorry I had to skedaddle.

Meanwhile....back at the War/Occupation

"This place is crowded -- peddlers and pilgrims, women and children. A number of people that I know and my neighbors, who committed nothing, were slain today."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ world/la-fg-iraq11aug11,0,1284559.story? coll=la-headlines-world

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/0 8/11/in_connecticut_orchulli_approached_ about_senate_race.html

After endorsing Joe in the primary, the president of the CT-AFL/CIO was quoted in today's NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/nyregi on/11conn.html) waffling on the November race...

"The president of the Connecticut A.F.L.-C.I.O., which had endorsed Mr. Lieberman through the primary, also disclosed yesterday that it may sit out the fall election."

Contact information for the CT-AFL/CIO:http://www.ctaflcio.org/?zone=/unionacti ve/officers.cfm

Historically, most 3-way races are about one party splitting their vote, and the other one walking away with the spoils.  Both Taft and Teddy Roosevelt were more popular than Woodrow Wilson, but they split the vote and Wilson got in.

On the surface, having an "independent Democrat" on the ballot looks bad for the real Democrat.  Until you realize that "independent Democrat" is code for "unofficial Republican."  If the GOP gets any momentum in the race, it's only going to drain someone's Joe-mentum.  Holy Joe and the Gambler split the Republican vote, and we have another real Democrat in the Senate.

The significant number is Lamont's 41. If that's truly his base he has a greater chance than I was giving him. My guess would have put him in the 36 range so this is impressive.

But I have no idea how so many are dismissing the poll margin or projected Lamont to lead the new polling. Late primary night on DU I estimated Lieberman would lead the new polling by high single digits, perhaps 43-36-12. In the same thread, one poster after another proclaimed Lamont would lead big. Sure, that would be true if it was an all-Democrats affair again.  

Lieberman may have run an incompetent campaign, but he had a mathematical reason to explore the traitorous indy run. Let's not pretend otherwise. Two-thirds of Connecticut voters are not registered Democrats. The split is 8-6-4. That's an easy ratio to remember; indies at 8, Democrats with 6 and Republicans at 4. It's essentially Republicans who will decide Lieberman's fate, not Democrats. That's always been the irony here. Republicans who really don't care too much for Lieberman, but lack a viable alternative from their own party, have potentially more of a say in this than the heavily progressive anti-war group who loathe Lieberman. I'm talking about registered Republicans and right leaning independents. Since Lieberman will receive perhaps 1/3 of the Democratic vote, that gap between Lamont and Lieberman among our voters is not enough to cushion Lamont from the 2/3 who generally will favor Lieberman's partisanship more Lamont's.

I'll continue to suggest Lamont needs to engage Schlesinger in a typical D vs. R conflict, boosting Schlesinger's name ID and potentially head faking a portion of the enraged and braindead GOPers. Every point Schlesinger goes up in the polls siphons disproportionately from Lieberman. Might not work but you've got to handicap the situation properly and try it. I've run many scenarios via Excel and frankly, I don't see Lamont winning unless Schlesinger wins at least 15-18%. He's best with Schlesinger in the low 20s, which may be unrealistic.

One last point about the Connecticut race: don't expect the polling to chance significantly for a long time, if at all. That's just a guess but I think it has basis in logic. We were accustomed to Lamont on a takeoff trend line for months. There's a limit there. Plus, the Republicans who support Lieberman are not going to care if he's broke or bitter. They don't think Schlesinger can win and Lamont is not an option for them.

As far as Montana, Tester is a great candidate. Better than Lamont, IMO. He's a vote-for guy, not primarily a vote-against-the-opponent guy, so I expect he'll hang on. But none of these races against senatorial incumbents will be easy. We've been amusing ourselves in that regard. Burns, DeWine, Santorum and Talent will make runs. If you see a narrow poll or polls involving Ensign or Allen, expect the next batch to widen. Likewise, if Chafee survives the primary he immediately boosts in the polls against Whitehouse and that lead is all but gone. I'm not trying to be pessimistic but I've been betting heavily on these races for 10 years and seen the dependable trends.

BTW, I know it's fashionable to knock Schlesinger as a gambler. But keep in mind the casinos threw him out because he could beat them as a card counter in blackjack. If anyone thinks card counting is a simple skill, especially in a casino atmosphere, they're remarkably ill informed. You've got to be sharp and sly not only in keeping the count, but also in varying your bet size when the count is positive. Hardly equivalent to a give-away degenerate dunce like Bennett, who was insisting on high limit slot machines in his hotel room.

Squeezing Dem politicos to fall in strongly for Lamont and against Lieberman is part of the picture. That's the natural dynamic, especially considering Joe's increasingly deranged rhetoric and the danger it poses for all Democratic candidates, but it can't hurt to help it along.

Chris Dodd, anyone?
.

I think that Lieberman's spike may well be genuine.  A poll before the primaries reported Lamont's lead being cut, and in the final results Lamont's lead was smaller still.

As Kos was explaining, dumping a lot of ads on the public in the period of time that immediately preceeds the election does have an effect.  A better message works more slowly -- you have to pay attention.

The state of public opinion in CT is pretty viotile, and I suspect that Lieberman did not secure any lasting gains.  His record offers rich picking for a competent campaign, and the war is not becomming more popular.  But it may be a long hard slog.

Lieberman will definitely repeat the trick, he has a warchest to do it.  Lamont must build up a good lead in the next several months -- he has time for his better message to work.