Ouch!
Look, I fully expect the polling to swing back and forth a bit (or at least tighten), but this cannot be a good week for Nedheads anywhere ...
Lieberman (I) - 53%
Lamont (D) - 41%
Schlesinger (R) - 4%
(Quinnipiac)
Not enough to sway anyone of Ned's extremism? Try this on for size:
Overall, 28% of American adults say that Lieberman is a better representative of the Democratic Party than Lamont. Twenty-one percent (21%) say Lamont is the better representative while 51% are not sure.
Those, of course, are national numbers. It'll be interesting to see how the triumphalism of August translates into the reality of November. Once more, Kristen Powers offers a bit of insight that I can only stand back and admire.
And just in case anyone is unsure of why Connecticut has given up on Alan Schlesinger (aka - the Republican in this race), Rachel Weiner has the video that says it all. Normally, I might suggest that Joe's Republican support is at a high water mark in this poll. There's only so many times Dick Cheney and MarkKen Mehlman can get away with their crocodille tear routine on Joe's primary loss before someone recalls the multi-page documentation the RNC had on Joe to paint him as a flaming liberal. But then again ... how exactly does a gambling addict with little-to-no appeal to Connecticut voters go about staging a comeback? If there's any saving grace for Nedheads, it may well be that it was rightwing Connecticut Republicans who deemed Schlesinger as an acceptable representative of their own party. And since he's polling far behind Lamont, which party's grassroots is it that's so bizarrely out of touch?
Small error - The RNC Chariman is KEN Mehlman, not "Mark" Mehlman. BTW, I'm actually glad that CT Republicans are voting for Joe. It means, at least to a certain extent, that their party's domestic philosophy (kowtowing to extreme social conservatives, supply-side economics, destroying the environment) doesn't resonate with them.
A common mistake
This "the Republicans like Joe so he must be bad" nonsense is the most idiotic argument I've run across. Of course we need progressive candidates that can appeal to Republicans, else we can't put together a winning coalition. Hello?
Actually, it's Mark *Mellman* who is the Dem pollster. Blame me for the viral case of dyslexia, though. I started it ... and I don't plan on ending it ;-)
I was in CT last weekend (visiting family, it's my home state) and it was interesting how my moderate folks, who have always liked Lieberman, have reacted to his independent run with "what a putz."
"Brat" doesn't play well. CT is divided enough that support from Republicans may put Lieberman over the top, but he has alienated people.
Rachelrachel - Maybe you misunderstood the tone of my comment. I actually support Joe and am going to volunteer for his campaign. I only said that because I wouldn't normally be pleased with more Republicans than Democrats voting for a progressive candidate.
I'm reminded of a certain blogger crowing about Lieberman leading by such a wide margain only a couple of month ago before he ended up losing... so pardon me if I don't take this seriously either.
I only said that because I wouldn't normally be pleased with more Republicans than Democrats voting for a progressive candidate.
I was thinking you were responding to others who were making the argument I characterized as idiotic. Although I think it's good that Joe is liked by those of various leanings, I also think he brought on his own problems with the Dem base.
KT,
I'm reminded of a certain blogger who was crowing about unreleased polls showing an impending Gammage win far closer to the election. Maybe he shouldn't even be commenting on polls, period ;-)