Rasmussen Connecticut Senate Poll: Lieberman leads Lamont by 2 percent

Dave Leip's Atlas of US Elections ^ | 18 September 2006 | Scott Rasmussen

[okstate]

This poll is still on Rasmussen's premium section, but got leaked onto the blogosphere. Topline numbers:

Lieberman (I-Inc.) 45%
Lamont (D) 43%
Schlesinger (R) 5%

550 Likely Connecticut Voters
+/- 4.5% MOE

[Zeppo]

Lieberman is not sufficiently scared of losing (yet) to understand that he needs to aggressively court moderates and Republicans and Libertarians by giving them a reason to vote for him. Rather than talking sense, he is still spouting hard-left dogma (such as whining about tax cuts for the "rich") in an attempt to woo the leftist nutjobs. But he's already lost them to Lamont - so there's little or no upside to courting those folks.

So then, why is he still sounding like one of them in every single area except for the war? The war is important, but Lieberman is even hedging on that (for example, with his unfounded attacks on Rumsfeld, perhaps intended to show that he's not Bush's poodle). Yes, I know that he wants to convince the moderate Democrats (ha ha ha) that he is still a Democrat. But it's not the Democrat vote that is going to make or break his candidacy. If Lieberman is not careful, and continues along his current dumb strategy, it's going to backfire on him.

[NormsRevenge]

Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Connecticut, Ned Lamont looks toward a poster he was using at a news conference in his campaign office in Meriden, Conn., Thursday, Sept. 14, 2006. The poster was critical of Sen. Joe Lieberman's attendance at Senate sessions. (AP Photo/Bob Child)

[nutmeg]

Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

[CTGOPPER]

All 15 Connecticutt Republican voters need to vote for Lieberman.

As one of the 15 Republicans in the State (and an elected town official), I do plan to vote for Lieberman. People can say whatever about voting for the Republican candidate but the bottom line is a vote for Schlesinger is the same as a vote for Lamont.

[dancusa]

You see the latest Lamont ad? At first I thought it was a bad SNL parody. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn9kfwKDzi4

[BillyBoy]

>> Not good enough to vote for a liberal. That really is like saying "we need to vote for Hillary Clinton to stop moveon.org backed candidate Russ Feingold from winning the whitehouse." No thanks. <<

Bingo. The LIEberman apologists must be really excited about Hillary's "victory" over the unabashed "anti-war" Steven Tasini in the RAT primary.

By Loserman voter logic, since there's NO WAY a Republican can "win" in NY, we Republicans should support the 90% liberal Hillary over the 95% liberal kooks running against her, as a "symbolic" show of support for the WOT. I mean sure, Hillary is a demonic power-hungrey woman hellbent on controlling America, BUT she voted the "right way" on Iraq, so we should be THANKFUL to have her reprsenting NY instead of her anti-war opponents like Steve Tasini, Steve Greenfield, and Howie Hawkins. Thank goodness Hillary votes the "right" way 10% of the time. That's our gal!

Keep voting for socialists, and they'll keep on running them.

[BillyBoy]

>> People can say whatever about voting for the Republican candidate but the bottom line is a vote for Schlesinger is the same as a vote for Lamont. <<

Freepers can get down on their knees and worship Loserman's token vote in favor of the Iraq war, the bottom line is that both candidates agree on 90% of the issues and a vote for Liebermont is a vote to enact more socialism and make Harry Reid the majority leader.

Harry Reid thanks "conservatives" who oppose Schlesinger for ensuring the state of CT can vote against the Democrat and still AUTOMATICALLY provide him with the votes needed to take the Senate