"The way to help this country is to limit Republican power."
The article notes that democrats think the Lamont/Lieberman election was about Bush:
Democrats see Lieberman's loss as a referendum on
President George W. Bush and the Iraq war, while Republicans says it shows that Democrats are soft on national security issues.
Lamont defeated Lieberman by 52 percent to 48 percent in the August 8 primary but polls taken around that time showed Lieberman ahead in a three-way race with Lamont and the Republican candidate, former state legislator Alan Schlesinger, who is not seen as a strong threat.
To which I say again, if the election was a referendum about Bush, Bush just got 48% of the vote from people in a DEMOCRAT PRIMARY, which may not be exactly the referendum they wanted.
Lieberman probably would have won if he hadn't started the "independent" candidacy weeks ago (which he had to do because of the deadlines).
More interesting is this. Let's go with the Lieberman == Bush/Republican, Lamont==democrat meme the democrats are pushing.
Days before the election, polls showed Lamont up by double digits over Lieberman, but he only won by 4 points.
Maybe the polls showing democrats ahead in other races are similarly flawed. If Democrats poll better than they vote (which is historically the case) then things are a lot different than they look, and the polls can be seen not as an accurate reflection of the future, but rather another ploy to try to sway public opinion and effect election results.
Never was that seen better than the histerical attempt to dismiss actual election results in 2004 because they were at odds with the exit polling data.