Wednesday’s political round-up

August 23, 2006

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The Connecticut Senate race may prove to be a close one after all. Last week, a Quinnipiac poll showed [tag]Joe Lieberman[/tag] (I) jumping out to a double-digit lead over [tag]Ned Lamont[/tag] (D) and [tag]Alan Schlesinger[/tag] (R), but a Rasmussen poll released yesterday showed a much closer contest. Rasmussen has Lieberman in the lead with 45%, followed closely by Lamont at 42%. Schlesinger is barely beating the margin of error with 6%. Bolstering the reliability of these results is a new poll from American Research Group, which has Lieberman leading Lamont, 44% to 42%.

* In Tennessee, Rep. [tag]Harold Ford[/tag] Jr., the Democratic Senate hopeful, released a new internal poll showing him almost tied leading former Chattanooga Mayor [tag]Bob Corker[/tag] (R). The results, released late yesterday, show Ford leading Corker, 44% to 42%. (thanks to reader S.T. for the tip)

* Yesterday, a Rasmussen poll showed Arkansas’ gubernatorial race getting more competitive. A few hours later, an Arkansas News Bureau poll showed the opposite. The latter showed state Attorney General [tag]Mike Beebe[/tag] (D) with a “commanding lead” over former Rep. [tag]Asa Hutchinson[/tag] (R), 52% to 31%.

* In Wisconsin, two Rasmussen polls show Dems in the lead in the state’s two big races, but by very different margins. In the Senate race, incumbent [tag]Herb Kohl[/tag] now leads challenger Robert Gerald Lorge by 28 points, 59% to 31%. In the gubernatorial race, incumbent Gov. [tag]Jim Doyle[/tag] (D) is ahead of Rep. [tag]Mark Green[/tag] (R), 49% to 41%.

* And yesterday was primary day in Idaho Alaska, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. Most of the results were predictable, but two races were particularly noteworthy. In Wyoming, Rep. [tag]Barbara Cubin[/tag] (R) managed to get by a political novice who had never run for elected office in a GOP primary, with 60% support. For a long-time incumbent, the results suggest Cubin may have a real problem in November against Democrat [tag]Gary Trauner[/tag]. And in Alaska, incumbent Gov. [tag]Frank Murkowski[/tag] (R) finished a distant third in a three-way GOP primary. Former Wasilla Mayor [tag]Sarah Palin[/tag] (R) won the Republican nomination, and will face former two-term Gov. [tag]Tony Knowles[/tag] (D) in November.

And in Missouri, Claire McCaskill gets backing from the pot-smoking tax-evading country and western crowd.

Not really sure what to think about that …

  • And in Alaska Repub. Governor Frank Murkowski (formerly senator Murkowski and bridge to nowhere advocate) lost the primary to Sarah Palin, whom many in both parties don’t think will beat the Democratic candidate Tony Knowles (Alaska governor 1994-2002)
    I’m not sure how this will effect all you folks in the real world, but even the conservatives in this state are fed up with the oily politics of the Murky clan. The current senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski was just appointed to the job when her Daddy got the job of Gov. None of those messy election things for her eh?

  • You’ve got the numbers backwards in the TN-Sen. race. Actually, Ford’s internal poll shows him AHEAD 44-42. It’s all within the MOE, so it’s all academic. And it is an internal poll, so a grain of salt is in order. But still…

  • There’s still two and a half months to go in theLamont-v-Bushite Lapdog contest. Now, it looks somewhat close to call, but the underlying factor here is that the Bushite Lapdog is losing ground in an eerily-similar fashion to the losses suffered in the primary—only this time, the ground is being lost at a faster pace, and there’s all that time until the ballots are counted.

    I’m curious—when Lamont wins the general election, what will the Bushite Lapdog do to remain in that Senate seat? Fetch a stick?

  • I live in Idaho, and there was no primary.

    Maybe they just didn’t tell the fourteen Idaho democrats about it.

  • That’s what I get for doing too many things at once…

    I live in Idaho, and there was no primary.

    True. I meant Alaska. They both start and end with vowels, so I was close, right?

    You’ve got the numbers backwards in the TN-Sen. race

    Also true. It’s fixed now.

    Sorry about the mix-up(s).

  • Connecticut Democrats who support Lamont shouldn’t rest on their laurels. Lieberman in the general election is going to be a lot tougher to beat than in the primary election, when the only ones voting were Democrats. Lieberman has a lot of support among Republicans, and as an Independant he’s going to leverage that. I don’t see it likely that many Democrats who voted for Lieberman in the primary are going to change their minds. This is still going to be a tough race for Lamont. Indeed, we might want to start asking the question what are national Dems going to do when Lieberman wins his bid as an Independant? He’s left the party but he will still be an incumbent.

  • From today’s NYTimes:
    Ned Lamont, who defeated Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary in part by stoking antiwar sentiment, […]

    I’ve always been intensely interested in language and how it’s used (even if I don’t, myself, always use it correctly), so the above quote caught my eye immediately.

    A week or so ago, in the same NYTimes, a similiar sentence would have run: “Mr Lieberman, defeated by Ned Lamont the anti-war upstart challenger […]” That is, it would have put Lieberman’s name first and it would have presented Lamont as a one-issue candidate (and not a very impressive one at that). That seems to be changing and, hopefully, will also change the perception of Lamont among the “undecideds”. It seems that NYT is finally saying “good bye” to Lieberman and his chances (better late than never); the new attitude should be helpful to Lamont.

    Another tid-bit I found interesting about the Lamont-Lieberman duel… The TPM Cafe/Election Central posts, daily, the results of various polls as they’re announced. In the Rassmussen poll (released yesterday). Lieberman is no longer labeled with an I as his party affiliation, but with CFL (Connecticut for Lieberman). Very appropriate, if long overdue, distinction.

    • Comments are closed.