Poll: Lamont Would Beat Lieberman In Rematch

Daily Kos:

Daily Kos commissioned the following poll from independent pollster Research 2000:

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 9/10-12. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger
All 49 42 9
Dem 34 62 4
Rep 67 10 23
Ind 53 41 6

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

Lieberman Lamont Schlesinger
All 40 48 10
Dem 25 72 3
Rep 69 7 24
Ind 38 49 9

Lieberman won 50-40-10 in 2006, so the poll tracks closely. But even if you account for a slight Lamont bias, it still looks like buyer's remorse. Full polling memo from R2K below the fold.

Read the whole story: Daily Kos

Comments

[kevenseven]

Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer both bear responsibility for this turn of events, among other Democratic "leaders". Senators too often treat the senate as a club.

This is the fact that Dems should take away from this incident.

[kishaaann]

The good people from Connecticut are now suffering from buyers remorse.

[Bulbul]

This makes me sick to the stomach once again. What`s is the point of these after election statistics? Lamont did not win, I am sure he is doing something else instead of waiting for his turn. Liebermen won and has replaced Tony Blair as Bush`s Yes man.

[daniel155]

Flash! Polls show that the Chicago Bears would beat the Indianapolis Colts in a rematch of the Super Bowl.

These are the most needless type of polls. That election is over move on to the next one.

[Witchitalineman]

The good voters in Connecticut sure got what they deserved a hypocrite and arrogant liar named Joe Lieberman. What a disappointment this guy is.

[dora rice]

Lieberman needs to come out of the closet. In my opinion he is an agent of the powerful Israel Lobby in Washington , always has been.

[madron]

Who was so stupid that they voted for Joe Lieberman in the first place...

[Justis]

Polls like this one and those showing the president's falling popularity after 2004 amuse me. What do people now realize that wasn't already plainly obvious before the elections? It's not as if either man has deviated in the slightest from their previos patterns.

The only reliable message to be gleaned from these polls is that a significant proportion of the population is stupid.

[libertyanne]

We can only hope that if (when) the senate gets some more seats next year, senators who cannot stand Lieberman and drop the pretenses and kick him out of the Democratic party. He is totally useless to us.

[jkbowman]

Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate X Joe Lieberman wearing a helmet.

[fourex]

Most U.S. citizens could probably beat Lieberman.

[Purple Girl]

The relieve Lieberman from duty. He was never a real Dem, nor an independent (thinkers). You were duped by a self proclaimed label- his actions have proven he decieved the state by using a different label- not political ideolgy. HE LIED ON HIS APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC SERVICE. I truely wonder now if he even works for US.

[Prakosh]

When are the voters going to learn that they have to make the right decision while they are in the voting booth not a year or two after the fact. Once again we have the all too familiar story of voters who stuck their heads up their butt at some point before the election only to retract those same heads at some later date to discover they voted for the wrong candidate. If only such sentiments a year or more after an election actually translated into changed behavior at the next election. Unfortunately all too often, this being the United States of Amnesia, these same voters will march like zombies into the booth in a similar fashion next election and make a similar mistake two, four or six years from now. In this particular case the idiotic voters of Connecticut are stuck with Joe "let's talk about war with Iran" Lieberman. They fell all over themselves voting for this guy and now they wish they hadn't. Anyone with the sense to pour milk had to know that Lieberman was a damn war mongering fool and water carrying stooge for the Bush administration. According to the exit polls at the time, most Lieberman voters selected for him because they thought the Iraq war would be good for the Connecticut economy. So what happened, hasn't "let's have another war" Joe gotten them their fair share of military contracts? Is that their complaint? It certainly can't be his sycophancy of Bush—they were fine with that on election day. So what is the source of this remorse? Lieberman's positions and whining should come as no surprise. He was openly supported by the administration for his position on the war during the campaign. They voted for a war mongering dunce for Senator and they have a war mongering dunce for Senator. The voters got the candidate and the representation they deserve. And even though they are making dissatisfied rumblings today, given another shot they would probably vote for "Joe-mentum" all over again. They are, after all, still members of the American electorate.

[average joe]

Joe a great guy be beat dot org and the demirats.

[menes3959bc]

well , recall the incombant and go for new election if the recall successful.