With 81% of precincts in, Lamont is squeaking by

Ned Lamont
51.8% (119,100)

Joseph I. Lieberman
48.2% (110,686)

More than 71% of the precints are in and Lamont is squeaking a win by less than 4% --not good to be within the margin of error.

[via courant.com | Lamont Leads Senate Race In Early Returns]:

Ten minutes before the polls closed Tuesday, primary Lamont's supporters were predicting a "landslide" victory.

"You know how you feel something in your gut?" said Laura Gallo, the former deputy mayor of Meriden as she wrapped up phone calls at Lamont headquarters Tuesday night. "We're going to win."

Others, like former state Democratic party chairman George Jepsen, were relying on something slightly more reliable than gut instinct - he had word from people in the field that returns were coming in overwhelmingly for Lamont.

As the party began at the Sheraton, the Rev. Jesse Jackson made his rounds in the press room talking up Lamont's commitment to urban schools, universal health care and other progressive issues.

"I hope he can win. The nation needs a new direction, new priorities and the values that Lamont represents," Jackson said. "He's taking on a bigger Goliath than just Lieberman."

I don't think Lamont is going to win by a landslide. I thought that a 6% margin was conservative. The difference may be smaller and albeit Dan Gerstein's claim they will not challenge the count, I honestly doubt the Lieberman campaign will walk away quietly. All reports I am reading seem to suggest there is intense focus on absentee ballots.


liza's picture

| | |


Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Buy it!


Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Google Ads

The Big Dialog


Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1262 guests online.

Online users

Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Words to live by

How do we know? I mean, what you're saying is fine. But how do we know that that's actually the law? I mean there are a lot of people who absolutely in very good faith would say that isn't competing harm. They would say that the competing right for the life of the fetus is more important than the possibility of the mother having children in the future herself. See, there are people in good faith on both sides of this argument. And so how do we know that ... your competing harms defense is going to do for this particular woman what a health exception would do?


— Justice Stephen Breyer


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify