Here's what I don't understand about the Connecticut results...

If more Democrats were energized to come out and support Lamont, and

If 22,000 unaffiliated voters switched their registration to Democrat (presumably to support Lamont), and

If Lieberman support was so soft,

Then why was it only 52-48? It should have been a landslide for Lamont. What happened? What are we overlooking?

prop up Lieberman? That is the question.

www.nedlamont.com

It would help explain why the final tally was so much closer that the poll from the week before.

No Republicans could switch parties after sometime in May. Now, undeclared/unaffiliated Republicans, maybe.

Back when Joe was 20 points up. I doubt more than two of them switched party affiliation at that point. Why would they? Just in case? There was also a Republican primary Tuesday, so they wouldn't have been able to vote in their own primaries, either.

I've heard this meme several times today, but believe me, Republicans had no direct influence on the voting. Unless they're all Kreskins with crystal balls.

And maybe Bill Clinton convinced some fencesitters to stick with Lieberman.

I wonder whether the switchers were former repugs or repugs in Independent clothing.

The Awesome Power of Incumbency.

It was missing here in 2004 also. Not enough acknowledgment of the edges Bush had.

And it's why 2008 is so vital. It's almost like a 2 for 1, given the huge edge a presidential incumbent has if the party has been in power only one term. Now 9 for 10 since 1900. We would be a big favorite in 2012 with a win in 2008.

I am puzzled too. With over 2 million registered voters in CT, why did Lamont only get 146,587 votes?

I'd be surprised to see the national turnout in November higher than 15%. This is why Republicans are all very much still in the hunt everywhere. Republicans turnout to vote. Democrats may or may not turnout.

Joe is our state's "celebrity" Senator. He brings recognition to the state. He has done lots of good for CT over his tenure. He is an 18-year incumbant. The primary was in August, the first-ever in CT. We had historic turnout, over 40%.

Then some no-name schmoe sneaks up and knocks Joe of his pedestal in short order, virtually unprecedented in modern politics. And DUers are still whining that somehow it wasn't good enough???? WTF, you want hookers and cigarettes, too?

Only registered Democrats can particiapte. And for those of you who feel it just wasn't good enough consider a few things: Lieberman is a well established 18 year incumbent with big name recognition. He had the backing of the Democratic establishment, the endorsement of all but one newspaper, the MSM on his side. Lamont was an unknown just a few short months ago. The fact that he was able to beat Lieberman is an amazing feat because of the fact that he wasn't just up against Lieberman but also the MSM, most Democrats in Congress, etc. What did people expect? A 30% margin of victory? :shrug: And as for the seemingly low voter turnout it was actually high for this state. Biggest primary turnout in CT history. This was not a general election. It was a Democratic primary!

from (I think it was) better than 10% at one time. Momentum would explain the final 4% win. Phenomena like that often make people say things like "if we had another week, we would have won." That overlooks the fact that, in a Senate race for example, someone has been running for reelection for the last 5 1/2 years.

And so is (was) Lieberman. You're uncle has a state job and you're a delegate to the convention? A vote for Lamont could cost him his job. That's still the way it works here. A number of delegates reportedly stayed away so as not to feel obligated to vote for Joe. In the primary I suspect Joe got some votes out of fear of a three way race costing House pick ups (and I think that is the real issue with the Joe Party).

Regardless, a 1% victory would still have been amazing. In December no one had heard of Ned, and as he put it, when he started he was an asterisk. Six months later he made every politician in America take notice. The people are paying attention and they are pissed.

52-48? It was heard around the world and is significant.

edit: sp

my concern is that we are looking at the result and misreading the causes and effects of what went into it. Obviously Lieberman's support was not nearly as soft as some thought, or the fact that Lamont presented a progressive alternative was not a primary reason for the high turnout. Also, even though Lieberman's campaign stumbled seemingly every day, missed opportunities, or shot itself in the foot many times, the margin was still very close.

When you consider the The "Awesome Power of Incumbency"

not to mention wonderful. A one vote victory would have made my day. Also, do not discount the millions Lieberman spent in the last few weeks. And the national media suddenly flipped. The media took Ned from a dark horse darling who generated ratings to a sort of "oh shit, what have we done, we'd better get back to our safe money guy" flip where suddenly Lamont and his supporters were the angry-anti-american-left-wing-crack-pots. Some Dems bought into the MSM fear mongering and Lieberman's outright lies and misrepresentations.

did a poll about a anti-war candidate and the poll said it was dead even.

that an incumbent Senator has been defeated in a primary.

52-48 IS a landslide, in terms of defeating an incumbent Senator in a primary.

Republican. I had never heard that before, and since I've always been registered as an Independent I was surprised by it also. So it's very possible that a significant number of those that switched from being Independents are more conservative than liberal.

And elderly CT dems have voted for Lieberman many times, may not be as tuned in to the internet, and hence may be more vulnerable to the MSM support for Lieberman.

But yes, an incumbent losing a primary is huge, regardless of the margin. Besides, if there were a 4% spread in a presidential election, wouldn't that be considered a landslide?