The CT Senate Race: History v. Math Posted by: McQ
on Monday, August 14, 2006
Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, addresses an argument currently being made in some circles, i.e. that Lieberman is bucking history with his run as an independent and won't succeed. Brown points out that it boils down to a contest between history and math, and while history may say Lieberman loses, math doesn't:
Little more than 280,000 people voted in the Democratic primary that Lamont won. That is about 15 percent of the state's registered voters - as a group, presumably those are the most likely to agree with Lamont's anti-war, anti-George W. Bush themed campaign.
That leaves an additional 85 percent of the electorate who can vote in November. However, turnout being what it is, many of those Democrats who did not vote in the primary, plus a large number of independents and Republicans, are unlikely to vote in November either.
But still, the pool of November voters will be at least four or five times larger than the group that voted in last week's primary.
Lamont, despite all the sound and fury, only won the group most likely to go his way - Democratic primary voters — by 4 percentage points, or 10,000 votes.
It is important to remember that more than 20,000 independents switched their registration to Democratic in the weeks before the primary in order to vote in it. The betting is that the vast majority of them were anti-war folks backing Lamont.
Therefore, the most likely independents for Ned are already included in the primary Lamont vote. The remaining independent pool is more likely to like Lieberman than might ordinarily be the case.
Lieberman needs to keep most of those who voted for him in the primary in his camp, and a CBS News primary exit poll is reason for optimism. Three-in-four Lieberman primary voters said they would support him in a November three-way race with Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger. Another 16 percent said they were not sure.
OK, that's the math. Fighting the math is a fairly formidable Democratic machine who want to see Lamont win. The question is, given the other Senate races in contention, will they commit the resources necessary to do so. My guess, and it is purely that, is they'll give Lamont all the other support he needs, but no more money than they're giving any other Senate candidate. That will leave any balance necessary to come from Lamont himself. Being this close to a win, my bet is he'll spend what he feels is necessary.
So part of Lieberman's problem is going to hinge on funds, but as Brown points out, right now math, if not history, favors him.
Another aspect of a Lieberman win hinges on his Republican opponent:
Meanwhile, Schlesinger is the key. Earlier polls have him running in the very low double digits in a three-way. That's because Lieberman's support of the president's war policy and general philosophy also make him attractive to GOP voters.
And the White House has reportedly told Lieberman it will do what it can to help - which presumably means ensuring no other Republican replaces Schlesinger on the ballot.
All assessments of Schlesinger say he is an extremely weak opponent. As Brown points out then, the way Republicans can help the Lieberman effort is ensuring Schlesinger remains the Republican candidate for November's election.
Interesting. And, of course, politically speaking, it is useful for Republicans to help keep the Lieberman effort going if for no other reason than the ability to point to the race and declare the Democrats divided on national security (and that brings us back to funding. Any guesses where I think much of Lieberman's funding is going to come from?).
Brown points out that if Schlesinger remains the Republican candidate, the numbers look pretty good for Lieberman:
In that case, it isn't hard to see how Lieberman could outpoll Lamont by more than 10,000 votes among the 800,000-1,000,000 who will vote in November but didn't take part in the primary.
He concludes:
Think of Connecticut's much-ballyhooed Senate race as a face-off between history and math.
Those who ignore the lessons of history may be doomed to repeat them, but analysts who can't add and subtract generally have much more serious problems.
Politically this is going to be an extremely interesting race to watch down the stretch. And just as interesting will be seeing whether the math continues to favor Lieberman or slowly builds for Lamont.
Few people actually mentioned that if Lieberman wins the seat as an independent, the Democrats will actually lose a seat for their party. A nice bump in the road to their hopes of obtaining the majority in the senate.
I’m not sure that’s true, Alex. He’s running as an independent Democrat. If he wins, I’m sure he’ll demand his pound of flesh from the Dems before committing to caucus with them. But in the end I’m pretty sure he’ll add himself to their numbers.
Oh, and Robb:
Don’t worry McQ, the copy and paste beast is a hard one to tame.
Amazing how quickly that beast can turn and bite you without you even knowing it.
Few people actually mentioned that if Lieberman wins the seat as an independent, the Democrats will actually lose a seat for their party
Boy howdy, if we ain’t missing the point.
Democrats lost the seat along time ago. Last December, Lieberman declared that all criticism of Bush was akin to being a member of Al Qaeda. The minute he did that, he ceased to become a Democrat. One obviously cannot be a member of the opposition party if one does not permit himself or others in the party to actually, you know, oppose.
And don’t even start with that bit about "responsbile" opposition. Those who are on the receiving end of the opposition in a democracy cannot, by definition, determine what constitutes "responsible" opposition.
As for the voting for committee chairs, given Lieberman’s subservience, it can hardly be taken for granted that he would vote Democratic had he won the Dem nomination and won in the fall. After all, a Dem chair might mean investigations of the president. And as Lieberman has said, we cannot criticize Bush, much more investigate him.
And don’t even start with that bit about "responsbile" opposition. Those who are on the receiving end of the opposition in a democracy cannot, by definition, determine what constitutes "responsible" opposition
. Of Course, MK.... comparing Bush to Hitler, The Republicans to Nazi’s, changing one positions in order to OPPOSE the President’s that’s all very very very responsible....
As a Connecticut resident who furthermore had to cover the primary as part of my reporter-job, I’ve long since reached the conclusion that the only reason Lieberman calls himself a Democrat is that his lips can’t shape the words "I am a Republican" whilst superglued to George W.’s butt.
The man actually criticized those who criticized warrantless wiretaps. And insisted that we shouldn’t question the president at this vital juncture in history. If Lieberman does get elected this fall the only noticeable difference will be that I don’t have to type (D)-CT after his name. It’ll be (I)-CT instead.
Whew! Can you feel the winds of change blowing across the country?
Of Course, MK.... comparing Bush to Hitler, The Republicans to Nazi’s, changing one positions in order to OPPOSE the President’s that’s all very very very responsible....
Just as responsible as those on this site who label anyone who does not agree lock, stock and barrel with Bush as Marxist/Stalinist, etc.
Lieberman thinks things in Iraq are great. Thinks we should just stay the course. Thinks propping up government that allows Death to America rallies is just peachy.
I suppose you agree with him.
So tell me, Joe, why do you think it is such a great idea that Americans should die for a government that allows Death to America rallies? Why do you hate America, Joe? What did it do to you?
It’s obvious from her writing, if not her stating "I’m a reporter!" wasn’t a dead giveaway, that Jennifer is a whacked Leftie Lamont Lover.
The ones who are ernestly pouring into Connecticut telling CT Democrats and Indies that a partial birth supporting, affirmative-action loving, tax-raising, gun banning, open borders defending Democrat with 40 years of liberal causes behind him and a ADA rating of 90% isn’t a REAL Democrat.
And besides his sin of supporting the decision to go into Iraq, Jennifer huffs that he actually isn’t in favor of enemy rights and civil liberties, based on his idea that it is a REAL GOOD PRECAUTION these days to watch out for Jihadis. And he just wants us to have the ability to note calls coining from suspected terrorists into the USA. Not wiretaps, but noting who in the US terrorists are talking or plotting with. Lefties, given they lie like rugs, are unable to resist a lie like "warrantless eavesdropping".
But frankly we should go that way. The British busted 24 CITIZENS through actual warantless eavesdropping. Not what America is limited to - noting number and location of Islamists calling in, and who they contacted.
The scoop on Lieberman? He’s been Ct’s leading vote-getter, people know who he is. Some indies are attracted to Lamont as the unknown "other". For now. Lots can happen in the next 2 1/2 months, but odds to Lieberman now.
Just as responsible as those on this site who label anyone who does not agree lock, stock and barrel with Bush as Marxist/Stalinist, etc.
Yeah I remember Tony Snow making JUST that point...there’s your problem MK, like so many of your ilk you can’t make a point, no no, no that’s too reasonable. No in YOUR world, I guess, only hyperbole works, or do you truly believe that this administration and folks such as I think that to disagree is to be a Stalinist? Unless of COURSE YOU ARE, like ANSWER and Code Pink....are you a Stalinist MK? Or just a delusional paranoid or just such an angry fellow/gal you’ll say anything?
why do you think it is such a great idea that Americans should die for a government that allows Death to America rallies?
H&(( MK, there was Deth to America Rally in DC and San Fran this weekend, are you saying that I ought to have: 1) Renounced my citizenship 2) Witheld all moneys from any group or individual participating; or 3) Shot them all.
Geez dude/dudette it’s called FREEDOM OF SPEECH, mayhaps as a Stalinist you’ve forgotten it’s meaning, in the US AND Iraq.....Or are you just that flippin’ stoopit that you can’t see that!?!?!
It’s obvious from her writing, if not her stating "I’m a reporter!" wasn’t a dead giveaway, that Jennifer is a whacked Leftie Lamont Lover.
Nope. Jennifer’s a libertarian who dislikes Lieberman in part because he is, as you said, an "affirmative-action loving, tax-raising, gun banning . . . Democrat with 40 years of liberal causes behind him."
Although to his credit, he DID vote against the flag-burning amendment. I’ll give him that much.
Of Course, MK.... comparing Bush to Hitler, The Republicans to Nazi’s, changing one positions in order to OPPOSE the President’s that’s all very very very responsible....
Written By: Joe
You see, you don’t get to throw that around anymore. Remember this,
Gays can vote, speak, assemble, and print no rights being lost there and I have to tolerate gay speech, assemblage, voting for marriage amendments, and publiciations on gay issues. But I do not have to accept them. I will pour gasoline here and say, gays are like Nazi’s to me.
Written By: Joe
Endless entertainment, Joe. Endless entertainment. Keep up the good work.
I agree with you, McQ, that it will be an interesting race. If Lieberman loses, it will support the idea of political parties and partisanship at least as rallying points and branding. If Lieberman wins, it will support my suspicion that political parties are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
The question is, given the other Senate races in contention, will they commit the resources necessary to do so. My guess, and it is purely that, is they’ll give Lamont all the other support he needs, but no more money than they’re giving any other Senate candidate.
On the other hand, there’s Howard Dean. He’s not exactly got a reputation for being smart about where to put money. So what happens if they decide they’re going to pull out all the stops on this one particular race to win it?
They end up losing more than the one district. They lose more senatorial seats . One wonders if this wasn’t precisely what the Republicans have in mind by not supporting their own ostensibly Republican candidate. If in fact that is what they have in mind it’s an unusually brilliant move for them.
Don’t worry McQ, the copy and paste beast is a hard one to tame.
Amazing how quickly that beast can turn and bite you without you even knowing it.
One wonders if this wasn’t precisely what the Republicans have in mind by not supporting their own ostensibly Republican candidate.
Maybe they’re too busy supporting Green party candidates like Carl Romanelli. Seriously though, I don’t think it needs to be attributed to political brilliance when Schlesinger seems to be a pretty weak candidate that other Republicans just don’t want to be associated with.
Well, there is that, as well. But one wonders just what the criteria is for this nonsupport. I’m sure we all can point to various republicans who over the years did not deserve the support of the party and whatever race they were running. Nevertheless, they got it. So why this one?
Lieberman will caucus as a Democrat. If the Dems pick up six seats, he’ll vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader. He’s already said as much many times. The only reason Republicans want him to win is: A) It will take money from other Democrats. B) They agree with him on Iraq more than they do Lamont, and C) He gives bipartisan cover for their actions. It’s the same reason I was hoping Joe Schwarz would run as an Independent here in Michigan’s 7th district. He’ll still be a Republican and vote 90% of the time other than I’d want. But he won’t be a fundamentalist neanderthal like Tim Walberg, he’ll give bipartisan cover (especially if the House is Democratic), and he’ll take RNCC money away.
Yeah I remember Tony Snow making JUST that point...there’s your problem MK, like so many of your ilk you can’t make a point, no no, no that’s too reasonable. No in YOUR world, I guess, only hyperbole works, or do you truly believe that this administration and folks such as I think that to disagree is to be a Stalinist? Unless of COURSE YOU ARE, like ANSWER and Code Pink....are you a Stalinist MK? Or just a delusional paranoid or just such an angry fellow/gal you’ll say anything?
Are you always this hyperactive? You jump around like a frog in your posts. It’s as if composing a coherent paragraph is a chore.
My original point was that those who receive criticism should not be the same ones who define what is responsbile criticism. You then launch into a tirade about Nazis. And then you complain that I am the one engaging in hyperbole.
Do you even know what the word means?
H&(( MK, there was Deth to America Rally in DC and San Fran this weekend, are you saying that I ought to have: 1) Renounced my citizenship 2) Witheld all moneys from any group or individual participating; or 3) Shot them all.
Geez dude/dudette it’s called FREEDOM OF SPEECH, mayhaps as a Stalinist you’ve forgotten it’s meaning, in the US AND Iraq.....Or are you just that flippin’ stoopit that you can’t see that!?!?!
I got no problem with freedom of speech. But if you think that is what is going on in Iraq, you got a screw loose.
Tell you what, Joe. Fly over to Baghdad and find a local soapbox. And then start protesting against Sadr and the intolerance of his movement. And while you are at it, throw in a little criticism of Hezbollah and the Iranian Prez.
Guess you would then find out how "free" your speech is.
Free speech. Ha ha. Good one. And you call others delusional.
The question is, given the other Senate races in contention, will they commit the resources necessary to do so. My guess, and it is purely that, is they’ll give Lamont all the other support he needs, but no more money than they’re giving any other Senate candidate.
Well, there’s one Senate candidate in Virginia right now who just made the race there a whole lot more competitive. Simply by opening his mouth.
George Allen for the GOP nomination in 2008. Pleeeeeeze!
