For months now. Geez.

Lee from Norwalk, CT

...I wonder how closely the exit poll results matched up to the official results.

Lieberman was down by 8 points the day before the election, but lost by only 3.8 - even though turnout by new, Lamont-energized voters was astounding (total turnout shattered the record for a non-presidential year Senate primary).

Yes, this is far fetched. But given that the Democratic Party and the media don't appear ready to guard against shenanigans (despite research that shows shenanigans would be easy to carry out), and given that a Lamont Senator would vote to investigate any number of Bush crimes, I wouldn't rule out strings being pulled to help Lieberman.

Don't forget that Connecticut depends heavily upon the defense and insurance industries. Lamont's anti-war, pro-universal-healthcare stances would not endear him to many voters voting their personal pocketbooks. How that might play out in the election is anybody's guess, but Lamont will continue to need support because those industries have lots of cash to spend and obvious weight to throw around.

Very interesting.

The American people are tired of Bush but Bush cannot be removed (barring an unlikely impeachment). So what the people want are representatives who will at least work to check Bush's more outrageous actions.

It's not simply a matter of running against Bush. It's running for the principle of oversight that will bring in the votes.

I totally agree with you on this. I really don’t think the 3-way candidate polls reflect much reality at all about what will happen down the road. Unlike he himself, I find it hard to believe that democratic voters in Connecticut will so easily abandon their party when it becomes clear that key democratic party figures are not willing to do the same - particularly for a candidate who can so easily be dubbed a “three time loser.” I think he'll be forced to realize very quickly that he's all alone in this now and that the longer he puts off abandoning the effort, the less likely he will be able to walk away with some shred of dignity and the more likely he will seal his fate as a pathetic figure.

Big oil for one. The same people who support Bush. I hope the Democratic Party can talk him out of running as an idependent. But I suspect that big oil and the GOP will provide money for Lieberman.

And form the Shiny Happy Free People's Republic of Nedostan?

I remember back in 2000 how much those Sore Loserman signs/hats/etc infuriated me. Somehow, they seem prophetic and funny now.

In Nedmerica

Please note that Connecticut uses clunky old lever-style voting machines and the final vote tally matched the CBS exit poll results.

So, exit polls work all over the world and in Connecticut ... but not in Ohio? not in Florida? not in the 2004 presidential election?

People, we still have some serious work to do to guarantee fair elections in the United States.

This is to say the least disgusting. Don't know how to read a poll Glenn? Or didn't you get to the second page where it said:

MAIN REASON YOU VOTED FOR LAMONT?

(Among Lamont voters)

Opposition to Iraq war 43%

He would oppose Bush 24

It's just time for a change 21

Issues other than Iraq 9

His personal qualities 3

Or are you just following the failure of the DC Democrats?

"This shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the leader of the Democratic House Congressional campaign. "This is not about the war. It's blind loyalty to Bush."

Aw Joe, don't go away mad. Just go away!

Go where your heart takes you: The Republican Party.

Oh, wait, you're not welcome there. They don't need a whiney, preachy limp noodle whose always nagging everybody and being a general pain in the ass to the people he supposedly represents.

Replacing the devil you know with a millionaire businessman you don't.

Truth be told, I can't stand the Iraq war, but I've yet to be convinced that pulling out the troops immediately is the right answer.

I can't stand Lieberman for other reasons. He's always been the best friend of the Republicans. To spin it as all about the war is to deny I exist.

I agree it was a lousy idea with a lousier plan, but now we broke it. We have to buy it. And we don't have to live like a refugee down in Louisiana to be able to afford it.

People say you can't spread democracy at the point of a gun, but it misses the point, which is that it depends on where you point the gun. If you point it at the bad guys so the good guys can vote in safety, well, yes you can.

We haven't been doing that. We just made an already bad situation worse.

Not to say I agree with Joe on the war, or that I ignore his borrowing of rhetoric straight out of the WHPR handbook.

To castigate Clinton for moral turpitude and ignore Bush's extraconstitutional activities is reason enough to dislike Joe, but there's even more than that. He switches his vote more often than Rhenquist did when he catches the losing side of the battle.

He's never been good for us Democrats, and now with the way he has behaved, he'll not work with us again. Good riddance Joe. The fine people of Connecticut finally caught on to your scam.

...that Ned Lamont bears a more than passing resemblance to the young Jimmy Stewart? While he's not exactly Mr. Smith (alas, that really is only in the movies), he sure looks like him.

If you are not surprised that 78% of primary voters were opposed to the decision to go to war, why are you surprised that 40% of those opposed voted for Lieberman? Lieberman got 48% of the vote. Assuming that all 22% of those not opposed to the decision to go to war voted for Lieberman, that would mean that 33% (26%/78%)of anti-war voters voted for Lieberman. It's not much of a leap from 33% to 40%.