Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Survey USA has a poll out showing Lieberman ahead (51%, I think). Since I don't know much about SUSA, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

Also, I read somewhere (can't find it now), that polls with a MoE of larger than +/-3% aren't all that accurate and I think the SUSA poll was 4-something.

From a few articles I've read, Lamont is running a negative campaign 2 to 1 over Lieberman. Could be the reason for the jump in numbers, if it's true.

American Research Group Poll Shows Lamont Leading Among Independents

Here are the latest results in connecticut from the latest American Research Group poll.

Lamont is in a statistical dead heat with Lieberman and has overtaken him among independents!

Don't forget that Lamont started slowly against Lieberman in the primary, then came on like gangbusters the last three weeks before the primary. There is six weeks to go before the election.

3% for others including Schlesinger? Wow. That must win a prize for the least succesful major party campaign in modern history.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Obviously, you can't get that many Republicans to vote for Lieberman without the strong support, undercover or not, of the Republican Party and leaders.

If I were Schlessinger and my party let me end up with 3 percent, I would dedicate my life to getting the lowdown on all the Republican leaders that screwed me and expose the hell out of all of them.

Whats the matter, are you afraid Lamont might lose? Republicans aren't stupid. They can be pragmatic too.

Pragmatic?

Republicans voted against Lieberman three times when he ran for Senate.

Now, they are apparently voting for him 20 to 1 over their OWN candidate.

Something is amiss.

We have had a two party system for most of the country's existence. No major party candidate can be so bad that they can earn only 3 percent of the vote. The major party in question will guarantee that he or she gets much, much more.

Good heavens, convicted felons have garnered much more.

A political party is a group of citizens who share certain beliefs and principles, and who have banded together to promote the political fortunes of those who share those beliefs. Yes, there are internal squabbles, but the basic priciple is that once the candidate is selected, everyone supports him to a greater or lesser extent.

Granted, some candidates will be a lot easier to get enthusiastic about than others. But 3%? That is a disgrace.

If the candidate is really that bad, what on Earth is the Republican Party doing giving him the nomination? And if the guy is actually okay, then why is the Republican Party letting him rot like this? This is your own guy. Doesn't that MATTER to you?

Apparently not.

3% for your party's nominee is an outrage, for it could not happen unless you allowed it to. You sold your own nominee right out, and congratulate yourselves for doing so.

okie said

kw said

Both statements are true.

There has been a lot written over the last six years on this administration - its duplicity, its propaganda techniques, its corruption, its (designed) obsequiousness to business interests, its electoral shennanigans, its suppression of dissidence, etc. In itself, that is a very ugly story.

But Ricks "Fiasco", far moreso than anything else written to date, details the magnitude of the incompetence of this administration - pervasive incompetence in matters of the military and of defence of the country, no less, that mythological Republican strength.

Or, consider size and cost of government. Consider the "we are outside of the whole Washington thing" propaganda line. Almost every single individual at the top of this government has done little else in their adult lives other than be involved in that hated and un-american creature, Government (yech). Where they were briefly out of positions of government power, they were in corporate sectors with intimate ties to government contracts and largesse and they were taken on by those corporations because of their connections to Washington government systems and people. And they got rich...very, very rich this way.

But the incompetence of this crowd is actually far more pervasive than in matters related to the military or the structure of government. The EPA, the FCC, FEMA, the CPA,agency after agency has gained political appointees who demonstrate fealty rather than expertise and knowledge and who have mismanaged much that they've touched.

But there is something these people ARE very competent at. Gaining and holding power. It is, more than anything else (like ideology, for example) what they are about. This is Machiavelli. This is authoritarianism. Will they commit electoral fraud? Of course, just so long as they can get away with it. And "getting away with it" doesn't necessarily mean not getting caught, but rather, just not losing power.

Lieberman up by 10.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216258,00.html

Zogby: Lamont Closes Gap To Only 2%

And Lamont comes charging forward.

In the Democratic primary, Ned Lamont was a virtual unknown among Democrats until, as Primary Day neared, he came on strong to take charge of the primary and win the nomination.

Now, five weeks before the general election in November, he is giving every indication of doing the same thing. In a single month, Ned Lamont has closed Lieberman's gap from 10% to a mere 2%-with plenty of time left.

Note this quote from the Zogby poll, America's most accurate and most respected pollster.



Eight points in a month-a powerful surge.

Peter, would that be the same Zogby that predicted "Kerry will win the election" - back in '04???

Zogby's well-earned reputation as America's best pollster is based on the fact that his numbers are closer in the end to the election tally than anybody else's numbers. For three straight Presidential elections, Zogby has both predicted the popular vote winner and gotten the margin correct to within 1%! No other pollster has done that-in fact, no other pollster has come even remotely close. That is why Zogby is America's best pollster.

The quote you gave is from a little editorial analysis, clearly labelled as such, in May 2004-a full six months before the election. That analysis also contained the following statements.



As the election wound down near the end, Zogby's numbers showed Bush in the lead more days than he showed Kerry, and his final prediction was that Bush would win the popular vote by 1%. Bush won the popular vote by 2%, so once more, Zogby's prediction was excellent.

Zogby's excellence is based on his accurate numbers, not his clearly labelled editorial analyses six months before the election.

I guess that would be the same zogby then.

I figured, wow, too small a world for two pollsters both of whose name began with a Z. What are the chances? Hell, one would be more likely to see a Republican congressman pushing the criminalization of online sexual predation secretly sending a bouquet of bananas to sixteen year old pages.

BBB
We may never know if Zogby's prediction was right because of vote theft by the Republicans.

BBB

Zogby is a local guy and I believe his polling to be generally above board. But, one thing to keep in mind is that his company does create the polls, they only perform them. The people that create the polls are allowed to phrase questions in any way they wish and ask the questions in ways to get the results they wish. That is why all polls should be taken with a grain of salt.

McG


We will keep that in mind the next time you praise a poll that supports Bushco and slam those that don't.

BBB

You do that.

...might be a long wait for a poll with those findings, though...

Great point by Keltic on distinguishing between Zogby's poll results and his editorial analyses. Bears repeating whenever someone comes up with Sierra's line.

Eg: Zogby's personal prediction at the eve of the elections, again, was that Kerry would capture 311 electoral votes to President Bush's 213, with two states too close to call. That was way off. But his own tracking poll, as Keltic already mentioned, actually had Bush's winning margin pegged very closely - the last one he put out had had Bush at 48% and Kerry at 47%.

The point about the margin is thus well taken - Bush's victory is usually summarised as 51% to 48%, but breaking it down even more it was 50,57% to 48,14%, or just this side of 2,5% - so yes, looked at it that way, Zogby was off less than 1,5% on the margin - ie, 1%. Closer to the actual outcome, however, were Rasmussen (50,2/48,5), TIPP (50%/48%) and Pew, which had it spot on: 51%/48%.

But, it's worth distinguishing in turn between Zogby's regular phone polls and his online polls. The latter are deemed considerably less reliable. Compare Harris in 2004: its phone poll was very close, its online poll way off. And this new poll showing Lamont at 2 points from Lieberman is a Zogby online-only poll.

Anyway, this is the current pollster.com graph on the CT race - it includes the Zogby polls and, as you can see, a trend line (rolling average):



(That's from here.)

Except that he predicted a Kerry win on his own website on 9/30/04 and a month later (just days before the election) announced on The Daily Show with John Stewart that Kerry would win. Hah. He's a hack.