In Connecticut’s 2nd district, where Democrat Joe Courtney was taking on incumbent Rob Simmons, the current vote tally is 121,321 to 121,151 in favor of Courtney.  This is a difference of only 170 votes representing only 0.07% of the total votes cast, making it the closest congressional race in the country (FL-13 currently has a difference of 326 votes although there is an issue of some undervotes).  In a situation like this there will be a recount, but a revote is unlikely as there haven’t been any irregularities (such as those in FL-13) noted.

Incumbents Chris Larson (D, CT-01), Rosa DeLauro(D, CT-03), Shays(R, CT-04) have been re-elected and Chris Murphy (D) who has unseated Nancy Johnson (R) in CT-05.

CT Election Totals:  http://fox61.trb.com/includes/elections/wtic/Election.htm#U.S.%20House
Information on FL-13: http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/NEWS/611090343

1^st District: Lawson (D). An incumbent in a largely Democratic district, he has nothing to fear.

2^nd District: Simmons (R). He’s the incumbent and was in both the Army and the CIA. His lawyer opponent stands no chance, because even if he wins, there is a good chance he’ll turn up missing shortly after the victory party.

3^rd District: DeLauro (D). An incumbent who won 72% of the vote in 2004, need I say more?

4^th District: Shays (R). This will be a tight one, but Shays is the incumbent and has a lot more money on hand.

5^th District: Johnson (R). An incumbent who is holding onto a ten-point lead in the polls.

So after all this talk of shake-ups, I put all my money down on the incumbents.

 Edit: As of 10:36 PM, 7 NOV 2006, Nancy Johnson is dead to me.

This is somewhat surprising, as we aren’t speaking of a Zell Miller Democrat, because if one excludes foreign policy issues, Joe Lieberman has one of the most liberal track records in the United States Senate. Republicans across the country are campaigning for a man who will vote against most of their proposed legislation.

Lieberman currently leads over Lamont and Schlesinger in potential Republican voters; 70% say they will vote for the incumbent Senator. Now, while Schlesinger is not the best candidate, especially in a time where Republican corruption is splattered all across the newspaper, one must wonder, why put all your support behind someone who disagrees with your party on a majority of issues, and completely isolate someone who would bolster your party’s presence in the Senate?

The only way this can be explained is the ubiquitous “Lesser of Two Evils” theory. Exclude Lieberman from the race for a moment, Lamont would more than likely crush Schlesinger in a one-on-one race. Lamont has much more money, is more energizing, and has not been kicked out of numerous casinos in the Northeastern United States. Throw Lieberman back in the race, and you have an interesting situation. First off, Lieberman is portrayed as a moderate, which is appealing to many unaffiliated (and in this case, Republican) voters. Second, Lieberman is an incumbent, so he can argue he has the experience and the track record to represent the state. As shown in a Quinnipiac poll this week, that is playing a huge role in this race, as nearly half of the likely voters surveyed doubted whether Lamont had the experience to be a Senator. Now, Republicans then have the choice between an inexperienced party pawn with skeletons in his closet, a new outspoken anti-Iraq candidate, who lambastes the President any chance he gets, or a known Democrat who is right-leaning on foreign policy and defense issues. Every Republicans agrees they do not want the middle option, so who out of the the remaining two has the best shot?: Lieberman.

There is really no way the Republicans of Connecticut can win this one, literally and metaphorically.

(Source: Quinnipiac University, 20 OCT 2006)

Congressional Quarterly (CQPolitics.com) ranks CT-04 in the ‘No Clear Favorite’ category and both CT-02 and CT-05 in the ‘Leans Republican’ category which represents seats in Republican hands that are the least safe.

It is also interesting to note that all three seats made the DCCC’s list of “first wave” seats that are going to recieve the highest funding and priority for the final stretch of the campaign. (http://www.dccc.org/red2blue/) Also, on Wednesday (Oct. 18th) the DCCC announced spending in some top tier races, this included $322,000 for CT-02, $210,00 in CT-04, and another $322,000 in CT-05.

CT-02

An August 29th RT Strategies poll put this one at 51-45 for Courtney (D), although a Zogby Poll in early October put it at 41-44 Simmons (R).  Considering in 2004 Simmons won by 8 points, it is clear that his seat is in danger.  The NRCC knows that this is an important race that they haven’t lost just yet and it ranks in the top 10 targets of NRCC spending, with $1.47 Million poured into it since September 1st.

CT-04

Christopher Shays is possibly the most visible Connecticut Republican (assuming Lieberman doesn’t leave another party this year) but his seat is the most likely to be lost of the three. Early October polling shows Democrat Diane Farrell up by 5 points, and Shays’ 2004 win was by a narrow 4 points.

CT-05

Democrat Chris Murphy is still trailing Incumbent Nancy Johnson by 6 points as of October 10th.  It is looking like this seat may end up staying in Republican hands, although Johnson is likely to become the lone Republican in Connecticut’s congressional delegation.

(Polls: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2006/Info/hothouse.html#CT)

All in all, it looks like Republicans feel somewhat safe in CT-05, and Democrats feel somewhat safe in CT-04, and most of the spending from the NRCC is going into CT-02.  It’s interesting to note that the DCCC spent the same amount in CT-02 and 05 so it would appear they haven’t given up in either yet.  The next two weeks are going to have both sides doing intense internal polling on these close races so it’ll be interesting to see if the money keeps coming or if it drys up as parties are forced to concede losses and focus their efforts on races they have a shot at really winning.

(Source: New Haven Independant)

This shows how clueless Lieberman is, and the rest of the politicians for that matter, who would respond to such a pertinent and relevant question with a dumbfounded answer. Are we losing touch of the final goal? Wouldn’t one think that whether or not the outcome of such a race would be something far more important than the road there? It seems as if the means is greater than the end. And this goes deeper than this ignorant politician- it reaches out to each individual who lives their life without regard to what the goal is, but rather how much material, popularity and power they can collect on the way. This goes into another issue in itself… to be discussed at a later date.

Lieberman seems to be stuck in a weird political stance at this point, as if everyone around him is pointing at him as he tries to slip into office. And his tactic is just to stand still and pretend that no one can see him- hopefully everyone will just disregard asking involved questions if he just refuses to take a stance on anything. Because after all, its much less scary when everyone passes you off because of your passive demeanor and picks you in the end because everyone else is too controversial. Oh, the political tactics are oozing in this race.

The speech sought to draw upon the feelings of patriotism and unity brought out in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.  Simmons and Giuliani spoke of their experiences on that day, and sought to convey just how crucial security is in the 21st century.

One must wonder how much longer September 11th will be invoked for political gain.  This constant politicizing of the terrorist attacks will only serve to demean the importance of that day in the eyes of the electorate, and soon it will only be seen as a political strategy utilized in the dredges of a campaign.  Clearly, the technique polls well, or it would not be utilized, which serves only to further discourage my faith in the electorate.

The lessons learned from 9/11 need to be implemented into public policy, but the mere mention of the worst ever attack on our homeland should not tip an election.  While we must never forget, nor undermine the events of that day, in terms of electing criteria, we must move on, or we risk repeating the mistakes that perpetuated the death of over 3,000 of our countrymen.

(Source: Hartford Courant 12 OCT)

With North Korea reportedly conducting a successful nuclear weapons test, many moderate Connecticut voters may feel the need to elect someone with a strong track record on defense and foreign policy. Lamont is a foreign policy novice, and has been portrayed as nothing short of a pacifist, and with such a serious situation in North Korea, the electorate may be reluctant to take a chance.

In regards to the Foley scandal, Lieberman has a reputation of being a moral official. When the Clinton scandal broke, Lieberman was one of the most outspoken critics of the President, which is exactly why he was tapped as Al Gore’s running mate in 2000. While the Foley scandal should have no impact on a Senate race between (ultimately) two Democrats, whenever the airwaves are saturated with a story, it changes the public’s perspective, and therefore how they view the situation around them. Again, Lamont is a practical unknown, so if the Foley scandal has been able to affect a Senate race, it can only give a bolster to Lieberman.

To combat Lieberman’s recent jump in the polls, Lamont has poured $1,250,000 of private funds into the race.

Look at what Lamont professes, and what Lieberman professes, the only real difference is Iraq. Lamont, while being skewed as an anti-war candidate, acknowledges the need for pressure on Iran, and has made allusions to the fact that force may be the necessary amount of pressure. Lieberman has been cast as a virtual Republican, but a quick look at his voting record suggests otherwise. Since the beginning of 2006, Lieberman has only crossed party lines on 13 votes in the Senate. That is hardly the voting record of a Democrat in Republican’s clothing.

Let’s take a look at where each candidate stands on some of the most prevalant issues of the day:

Both support affirmative action.
Both support abortion rights.
Both oppose a gay marriage ban amendment.
Both support free trade.
Both support universal health care.
Both support earned citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Both oppose privatizing Social Security.
Both support the estate tax.
Both support repealing the Bush tax cuts.
Both support funding for alternative fuel research.

Now, it is hard for any politican to give a serious position on any issue, these are overall stances based upon voting records and public statements. (Source: On the Issues.org) As Lamont and Lieberman continue to get closer in the polls, I ask, what (viable) choice does Connecticut really have?

This election will ultimately be determined by the media’s representation of each candidate. If Lieberman is perceived as the President’s best buddy, Lamont will seem like a viable alternative to the current course of the country. If Lamont is perceived as a crazy-Leftist anti-war candidate, he may be deemed too weak to serve in this present War on Terror. Both perceptions are easily debunked with five minutes and access to Google. Unfortunately, most of the voting population is too lazy to even do that.

When Connectiut voters hit the booth this November, Iraq will be the determining factor, there is no doubt about it. As an outsider, one can only hope that the populus takes into account other factors, such as: agenda, experience, and character, but when is the last time any American electorate took those issues into account when electing their leaders?

Democrats shouldn’t forget why they endorsed Lamont.

There is no doubt that right now Connecticut has an interesting and somewhat rare situation, one of the most nationally recognizable Senators, a former Vice Presidential candidate, potentially losing his Senate seat, and also likely losing his seniority within the Democratic party.

When Lieberman was facing a primary challenger that was doing much better than expected, but long before the prospect of Lamont taking out a 3-term US Senator who had been his parties Vice Presidential candidate only six years prior seemed at all likely, Lieberman was asked if he would accept the results of the primary even if they were not in his favor. Lieberman initially dodged the question, saying that he would win the primary.

At the time it was a reasonable statement, however the fact that the primary was basically a referendum on if Lieberman was still considered a Democrat by voters made the question fairly important. More and more media outlets began to run with the question, especially when Lamont made it clear that he would not run as an Independent after an August loss. Lieberman was eventually forced to respond that he would consider a primary run. I strongly believe that it was at this point that Lieberman lost his primary battle, whether it proves to be a wise move on his part remains to be seen. In a primary election, voters are concerned with two things, who best represents the party, and who can win. Given the extremely weak Republican field, the main question for Connecticut Democratic voters on primary day in August was which candidate better represented the party, they knew that by voting for Lamont they weren’t endangering the seat.

Lieberman is a career politician, one could cynically argue that that is why he has some trouble with the truth, although whatever the reason, the evidence shows that it is the case. Once the race became competitive, he began to seek endorsements from his colleagues. Dodd, Gore, Kennedy, as well as other Democratic Senators like Chuck Schumer who is currently the chair of the DSCC and Harry Reid, current Senate Minority Leader, gave endorsements too, but publicly stated that they would support the winner of the Democratic primary, and that their endorsement andfundraising came under the assumption that Lieberman would do the same.

The fact that Lieberman made the decision before the primary to file his petitions for ballot access from the newly formed Connecticut for Lieberman party shows that Lieberman had no intention to accept the result. The endorsements and fundraising he accepted before the primary could have gone to Lamont had Lieberman not been willing to lie to his “friends” that he now claims to have been betrayed by. Lieberman has made it more than clear that he cannot be trusted, and voters would be wise to pay attention.

Any Democratic voters that are still wavering on Lieberman versus Lamont should consider the fact that Lieberman was more than willing to take fundraising and an endorsment from Harry Reid then set up a party in his own image. In my opinion Lieberman’s loss shouldn’t be looked at as only an anti-war reaction, but should be considered an outcry against a self-important Senator who is willing to say what it takes to win. Non-Democrats voting for Lieberman may want to take this warning too, before electing a man that will only serve himself in the Senate, as the name of his newly founded party indicates, the number one issue in this campaign in Lieberman’s mind isn’t Iraq, it’s Lieberman.