This is weakly sourced (a Kos diarist’s diary leaking a subscription-only Rasmussen poll), so take it for what you will, but:
The diarist didn’t give the MOE, but since you basically double the MOE when comparing numbers with a high negative correlation, this is a statistical tie, unless Rasmussen had a sample that was in the 1500+ range.
(PDF) The CT Secretary of the State, in a frustratingly nonpartisan press release, reported 32K new voter registrations between May 1 and August 7, including 18K new Dems and GOPers. Plus 15K voters who switched from unaffiliated to one or the other of the parties during that time.
Can’t remember where I read it, but I’d heard that the Dems got about 14K each of new voter registrations and switches from unaffiliated in recent weeks. But take that uncited, dimly (and possibly incorrectly) remembered quasi-datum with a big shaker of salt.
Lieberman has gone into full-fledged “a win for Lamont is a victory for the terrorists” mode.
Funny, just the other night, in his not-exactly-concession speech, he was deploring the politics of partisanship and polarization.
I bet the voters of Connecticut can figure out what’s wrong with this picture.
He has to voluntarily step aside. Several weeks ago, the governor asked him to step aside when the story about his using a fake name to gamble surfaced and he flatly refused. His campaign is running full steam ahead so I seriously doubt he’ll step aside.
A Hartford Courant poll from today had the election at 46-41 for Lieberman, tighter than weeks ago. I don’t think that lead will last.
Her’s the full quote at issue … “If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”
Not exactly Lamont win = terrorist victory is it ?
If you want to nitpick, it’s “Lamont’s ideas = terrorist victory.” The difference is minute. Cheney said more directly that Lamont’s win was a victory for Al Qaeda.
[shrug] Smell the coffee, Joe. The terrorists will keep trying no matter what we do. And at this point, Iraq will continue to spiral down the shithole no matter what we do. And BTW, it was Hussein who kept terrorists out of Iraq. Before we invaded, the only leading terrorist operating in Iraq was al-Zarqawi – and he operated in Kurdistan, out of Hussein’s reach. Now . . .
Thanks, KSO. I had heard that stat on The New Hour earlier, so didn’t list that as a cite but thought I could trust it. Interesting how small the “other” number is. I assume tha would be mostly Greens and a few Libs.
I was just home (in Connecticut) this weekend, and I was surprised at how many people I talked to supported Lieberman. The republicans will vote for him, and independents will, and some dems will. I’d be surprise if he loses. He is very popular in Connecticut, and needless to say, if he wasn’t in support of the war, he would have won in a walk.
Your premise suggests that Iraqi’s want to live this way. Yes, Saddam killed off his enemies and yes there is a religious civil war going on but to say it’s long term suggests the people want that to happen. A substantial number of Iraqi’s risked death to vote and that says a lot about their spirit.
And our relationship in the process is not a static one. As more troops and police are trained then the direct military mission becomes one of logistical support. There will be a natural reduction of troops. But I suppose if that happens over the next 2 years someone will find a way to politicize it.
That’s not what it suggests. It suggests there are enough people who want it to happen, so it will keeping happening. In this context, what’s “long term?” It’s already been 2 1/2 years.
What does that even mean? What part of this process hasn’t been politicized?
How long is it supposed to take? What are you comparing it too? We’re fighting against religious nut-jobs who explode at the first sign of a cartoon. Either the region changes by the time the nuclear clock strikes midnight or we’re screwed. And by “we” I mean everybody.
hahahahah, what you talkin bout Willis.
Ya know, the official Pub nominee, Alan Schlesinger, must really be feeling like a piece of crap right now! 
We’ve got a new Quinnipiac poll:
Numbers like those won’t get Lieberman out of the race just yet. Lamont did get about the sort of primary bounce I expected, but he’s still got his work cut out for him.
And yeah, Schlesinger is roadkill.
Interesting. I agree that those numbers will keep him in, but I think we need to give it at least another week before we see the “real” numbers. Then the problem might be one of getting people interested in the question at all. Are they in full campaign mode in CT now or is this the lull before the storm (after Labor Day)?
He was on Hardball a few days ago. Besides being roadkill, the guy came across as one of the slimiest politicians I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a lot of slimy pols in my day.
He should be outraged that his party is supporting a Democrat (well, as of today he still is).
A Kos diarist reports that the latest Rasmussen (subscriber only) has the race at Lieberman 45%, Lamont 43%, and Schlesinger 6%.
That by itself wouldn’t be worth mentioning, since (a) it’s an indirect source, (b) it’s a big change from the last Q-poll, and (c) I’ve found Rasmussen less than trustworthy in other races lately.
But American Research Group also polled the race, and they have it at Lieberman 44%, Lamont 42%, and Schlesinger 3%.
Given that they both came up with the same result, it looks like the race really is a dead heat. At the moment.
Things are trending quite nicely. 
The nightmare scenario:
1 Lieberman wins as independent.
2 Bush appoints Lieberman as Defense Secretary, replacing Rumsfeld.
3 Gov Rell appoints a Republican to complete Lieberman’s term
The Republicans wind up picking up a seat in the Senate in one of the bluest of states.
Looks like they’ve got a good case, too:
Joe Lieberman clearly does not intend to support the Democratic candidate for Senate in his state, since he’s running against the party’s candidate, Ned Lamont.
Underlining mine.
Joe’s running for Senate under the Connecticut for Lieberman banner, so it looks like he’s not a Connecticut Dem for the next two years.
Sweet!