RECENT POSTS
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
- White House State Dinner – Who Made the Exclusive Guest List?
- Admiral Mike Mullen To Geneva for START Talks
- VP Biden to Indian Prime Minister: “You’re the Hottest Ticket in Town”
- FLOTUS on the State Dinner: Like a Swan, "Calm and Serene Above Water, But We're Paddling Like Mad, Going Crazy Underneath"
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
No Lieb for This Poll
July 20, 2006 7:28 AM
The wisest advice I ever got about polls came in 1992 from Democratic consultant Ken Smukler.
"It's not where the numbers ARE," he said, "it's where they're going."
When Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-CT, took the unusual move of preserving his ability to run as a third-party candidate, he was ahead in the polls against primary challenger Ned Lamont. By 15 points. 55 to 40. But the numbers were not going in a good direction for him. The trend was that Lamont was gaining supporters and Lieberman was losing them.
This morning brings news of a Quinnipiac University poll showing 51 percent of likely Democratic primary voters favoring Lamont compared to 47 percent for Lieberman. (Margin of error is +/- 3.8%.)
The poll also shows Lieberman winning the general election should he run as an independent. His new party is "Connecticut for Lieberman," prompting Kos to mull if his new identification would read "Lieberman (Lieberman-CT)."
More later--
Jt
July 20, 2006 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (2)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Shouldn't it be "Lieberman for Connecticut?" And isn't the fact that it's not exactly the problem with Lieberman?
Posted by: esmene | Jul 20, 2006 1:27:23 PM
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Lieberman wins the general election as an independent, then bolts for the Republican party as its newest convert. Many of his positions aren't too far from those of the Republicans, and he's been extremely supportive of the war in Iraq (some would say TOO supportive) just like a "good" Republican should be. Why doesn't he just drop the pretense?
Posted by: chuck | Jul 20, 2006 7:58:01 AM
Post a comment


