Talk:Ned Lamont/Archive 1

Archive 1

Link Addition

The editors of this page may be interested in adding a link to Conservation Services Group in the last sentence of the article.

Energywriter (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Wal-Mart holdings

The "spin off as much as $3,500 in annual dividends" statement doesn't make sense. He's getting nearly 25% in dividends? The article referenced doesn't elaborate either. The WMT dividend is currently about 1.5%.

The Wal-mart thing seems pretty far-fetched and I'm thinking of removing it. It did come up in the campaign and should be mentioned in the article about the 2006 Senate election, but seems a little too irrelevant for a biography. If Lamont owned WMT stock directly, or owned a retail sector mutual fund or something like that, then it would be relevant, but an S&P 500 index fund is about as generic as it gets. If we're going to included the Wal-mart stuff, we should probably also include the similar flap about Halliburton. Yeah, the dividend yield thing sounds fishy too. Phr (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Parents?

I read his mother was born in Puerto Rico and speaks Spanish, but I don't know if she's ethnically Latina. Does anyone have any information about his parents, ethnicity?

According to Lamont, this is correct, but his mother is not obviously Latina photo. I'll put a citation in the article. His grandfather Buzby (on his mother's side) was a salesman in Puerto Rico and his grandmother was a Catholic schoolteacher sent there[1], but from where he doesn't say. His mother's name Camille could be French.--Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I came across Edward Sr's and Camille's wedding announcement while trying to figure out Ned's birthdate. Camille was apparently a high society type, educated in Switzerland. I'll see if I can dig it out again. Phr (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Added. Both her grandparents on her mother's side were French. Her father's family is American. Phr (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ned's father is/was Edward M. Lamont, Sr., grandfather was Thomas S. Lamont (first son of Thomas W. Lamont, whose second son was Corliss Lamont). The relationship of Corliss and Ned Lamont is being widely mis-reported in mainstream media. Corliss was NOT Ned's grandfather, but rather his great uncle. Phdotcom 21:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sticking this here, I was going to do the same when I saw that Thomas W.'s article was incorrectly edited.--Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

crystal ball

Isn't WP:NOT a crystal ball? This seems a lot like that to me. --worthawholebean _talk^contribs 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

$1 million of his personal

Weicker has reportedly pledged to spend over $1 million of his personal funds on the campaign. Is that supposed to say Lamont? I don't think Weicker is allowed to spend $1M on someone else's campaign. Phr 05:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear anyone intended to assert that; it was most likely a carelessly created sytnactic ambiguity.
--Jerzy•t 17:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

last section is out of date

The last section is out of date; the speculation can be replaced with the latest news. 163.192.21.41 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Commercials

The section on the television ads says Lamont is sitting in an "expensive home" in his first commercial. What's the basis (or reason) for characterizing the house as "expensive"? Frankg 03:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you folks now wondering if Kos should not have been in the commercial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.171 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2006

Criticism of Lieberman

I think the line "Some Democrats have criticized Lieberman for his willingness to speak his mind when it contradicts the Democratic party line.[1]" is biased and inaccurate. It makes the Democratic Party sound totalitarian, and I don't think it's "speaking his mind" Democrats object to; it's his overall conservatism. Plus, the source is a broken link. I think a better sentence, which explains the same issue, would be "Some progressives have turned their support away from Lieberman because of his conservative stances on issues including Iraq and the War on Terror." Comments? Jessesamuel 16:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I was replacing an even worse version. It doesn't belong here at all. Better to have the discussion of Lieberman at the 2006 Connecticut Senate election page. -- FRCP11 17:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall conservatism??? A person who toes the party line 90% of the time is considered overall conservative? How about this, Lieberman's support of not immediately pulling out of Iraq and using the war as a wedge issue. --Goldendroplets 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Jessesamuel 07:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

May '06 poll

Quinnipiac Poll May 2 is source of "46 pts behind". But the "however" is uncalled for: it is not contrary to anything that went before. It may be there to put out the PoV that his campaign is hopeless, but the contrary PoV is that it simply reflects lack of name recognition ("13. Is your opinion of businessman Ned Lamont favorable, unfavorable, mixed, or haven't you heard enough about him?" to which 90% said not heard enuf".) This is subject to rapid change especially now that he has started running TV & getting coverage from the convention results.
--Jerzy•t 04:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Now they are only 6% apart with Lieberman at 46% and Lamont at 40% as of June 16. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.169.177 (talk • contribs) 16 June 2006

on the issues

His stance on same-sex marriage is given in the Truthdig interview:

There are some places where the government should butt out and leave people alone. And if two people are in love and want to get married, God bless ’em. I’m not advocating anything, but I am saying that the government should know when it’s overstepped its bounds. All this stuff about a constitutional amendment outlawing the right of gay people to get married--that’s wrong. It’s wrongheaded. We don’t need those kinds of restrictions. We’re going to figure those things out as a society, and I’d just tell government to step back.

... thus my rewording of the article on this issue. The other things I'm listing there (progressive tax policy, energy conservation) came from that article too. -- Coelacan | talk 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this "support for gay marriage" thing keeps popping up in the article, and I'm afraid he has not yet been so bold. I’m not advocating anything, but I am saying that the government should know when it’s overstepped its bounds is not the same thing. So I'm changing the wording again. -- Coelacan | talk 23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

You're clearly wrong; He has been so bold in the very words quoted above. "if two people are in love and want to get married, God bless ’em" -- what could be more supportive than that? He's "not advocating anything" -- he's not telling gays that they should get married, but he's explicitly against governmental "restrictions" on such marriage, the government should "butt out", "step back", etc. This is clear and unequivocable support of the legal right to marry, which no more advocates such marriages than those who favor the right to have an abortion advocate abortion. This positive position supporting the right to marry, without legal restriction, is very different from merely opposing the FMA while leaving open the possibility of all other governmental restrictions on gay marriage -- for instance, Lamont's position is clearly contrary to the NY Supreme Court decision against gay marriage, whereas one could (and many do) oppose the FMA while agreeing with the court decision. -- Jibal 23:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It's very interesting for Lamont to say that the government should stay out of it, the government takes an active stance in recognizing or not recognizing marriage. Having the government "back off" doesn't make any sense, he either supports the government recognizing same sex unions/marriage or he doesn't, or he is just trying to weasel out of the question of whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriages/unions. --Goldendroplets 16:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since he didn't use the phrase "back off", I wonder if you actually read his words, which clearly state that the government should not prevent ("restrict") gays from marrying. He's obviously not saying that the government should butt out of awarding marriage licences altogether; that's a silly strawman. -- Jibal 10:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The NOW endorsement [2] is also worded more broadly than simply "abortion rights". There's much more to "reproductive rights" than abortion. -- Coelacan | talk 23:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

NOW says "Ned Lamont recognizes that "civil rights for all" encompasses the right of everyone to marry the person they choose regardless of gender." That's support for gay marriage. The endorsement says nothing about the FMA. -- FRCP11 23:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

And regardless of how NOW addresses their email subscribers, Lamont said exactly what I quoted above, with the "I’m not advocating anything" and "All this stuff about a constitutional amendment" bits. Which means he could come around to one of those weasely "I don't support the Amendment, but regular old federal and state laws banning gays from marrying are just fine" stances, like Bob Barr holds. I would like to see Lamont or Lieberman or Schlesinger or anyone come right out and say unequivocably "I support same sex marriage!" But that's not what we're seeing here, so let's be precise. And even in the context of your argument, your full revert was unwarranted. -- Coelacan | talk 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he couldn't "come around" to that, because he explicitly said that he's against restrictions by government. Indeed Lamont did say exactly what you quoted above, so why do you selectively extract quotes, ignoring the ones that go directly against your claims? "God bless 'em" is virtually synonymous, perhaps even stronger, than "I support their decision". -- Jibal 23:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lamont was present at the YWCA press conference where NOW praised his support for gay marriage, and didn't contradict it.[3] NOW wanted to bar the Senate from even voting on Alito, and is critical of Lieberman for joining the Gang of 14. Your version is a sanitized POV account of the NOW endorsement. -- FRCP11 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert again right now, because I'd be crossing the 3RR threshold and I don't feel like edit warring all day anyway. But you are wrong. First, your "quote" is not a quote from any NOW spokeperson, it's wording from the reporter of the article you're citing. In the NOW release, the words "gay marriage" aren't even there. Second, my language on Samual Alito is exactly correct. "a filibuster against the confirmation of Samuel Alito" means exactly that, and "to bar the Senate from even voting on Alito" was precisely the point of the filibuster so I don't see what your quibble is there. I suppose we could be more clear and say "a filibuster to block the confirmation vote of Samuel Alito". That would be clear and accurate, agreed? But let me point out something you might not be aware of. Your "up or down vote" language was a Republican talking point specifically invented for their "nuclear option" (original Republican phrase). So that's definitely POV language, though I suspect you didn't know that. Third, I included your language of "abortion rights and other reproductive rights" too, so I think you'll have a pretty hard time convincing anyone that it's me who's pushing POV. I also think I've explained the necessity of precise speech on same-sex marriage, because Bob Barr and others have presented exactly that "no amendment, yes to legislative bans" stance. So it should be clear I'm not sanitizing anything. Find a quote where Lamont says "I suppport gay marriage" or clearly to that effect, in contradiction of his Truthdig interview language, and I'd be happy to see that included here. I want him to say just that. -- Coelacan | talk 00:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman opposes the FMA. So why would NOW single out Lamont's stance on gay marriage if they didn't think he had a different view than Lieberman? The endorsement does, contrary to you claim, mention gay marriage, unless you think "marry regardless of gender" means something else. "Up or down vote" isn't "invented" language, it's an accurate description of the issue, but I've changed that text. -- FRCP11 11:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this article lack objectivity. It reads like a Democrat infomercial. Lets tighten up our standards alright? --75.130.91.73 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Wealthy?

If Lamont is supposed to be all rich and wealthy, then howcome he lived at that junkyard with his Dad back in the 70s? 72.82.179.70 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

People have all kinds of reasons for doing the things they do. Lamont isn't "supposed to be" wealthy, he is wealthy, as a matter of fact. Warren Buffett still lives in the house that he bought for $31,000 in 1959, and he's quite wealthy, even after giving away $48 billion. -- Jibal 23:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

lol

Gang of 14 and Alito

An editor's deletion of the Gang of 14 language because it supposedly has "nothing to do with Alito" is mistaken. See [4] [5] [6] [7] -- FRCP11 19:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

universal healthcare

Sorry - Lamont's support of universal healthcare doesn't distinguish. Look at Lieberman's 2004 presidential NPAT and the main page of his campaign website. Both express support for universal healthcare. 16 June 2006; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.33.182 (talk • contribs)

DoB

DoB - I think he is '54 born. That would be congruent with his graduating from Exter in '72. BBC News has him down as being born in '54. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.98.24 (talk • contribs)

Online Debate Poll

I think the mention of online polls is really more a reference to who participates in online polls and that can skew a reader's assessment of an event that the reader can see as streaming video and judge for himself. An online poll is just not a fair measure of how either candidate performed, so I added the link to streaming video of the debate from the TV station. Let anyone who wishes click on it and be the judge of the debate. I wanted this to be as objective as possible and tried to edit accordingly.

Character attacks

Some clever fellow slipped in false assertions regarding a putative white supremicist past. No citations were provided. I excised these and kept the surrounding material intact.

--Samwise2021 03:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's with the picture?

What is with his picture? He's nothing like David Duke. mirageinred 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the picture to its original state, and I'm sorry for reverting it three times before I did so if I caused any confusion. I'm just a newbie. mirageinred 03:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

untag?

Most of the claims now have citations but one. mirageinred 06:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I untagged it (I was the one who tagged it). Please expand the refs so that something besides a number shows in the Notes section. Sandy 12:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be good to avoid ibid, and used named refs for multiple sources from one ref. As articles change, ibid doesn't work. Named refs allow the use of multiple cites for one ref. Sandy 12:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ibid is entirely proper for when the same link is being used for two separate claims following eachother. I won't revert if someone changes it to an entirely separate source, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree, but it's not worth arguing, I fixed the two you missed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with ibid is that, if a subsequent editor inserts other text, we don't what the ibid references. Do you know how to use named refs? If not, I can help. Sandy 13:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did 3 named refs as an example for you. Sandy 13:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh. I just didn't follow what you were saying. Ibid is easy to fix, but I didn't follow you. Cool, thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Now for the down side :-) The problem with named refs is that if some future editor deletes the first occurrence, subsequent occurrences go dead, so you have to be sure the first occurrence of a named ref isn't deleted. (PS - you only have to name a ref if you plan to use it again -- although you can name every ref if you prefer.) Sandy 13:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple things

I've cleaned up the <ref> tags so they look standard, please consider keeping it consistent across the board. Also, when adding links, make sure the sources actually say what's being claimed in the article, and don't link directly to donation sites or blogs if possible. Finally, on external links, follow WP:EL as best as you can. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The Hartford Courant Wealthy link is dead. Also, the bibliographic style of the refs might be corrected to include author's name first, the link included with the title of the article, and the newspaper italicized. I've not seen this style used in other articles. Sandy 13:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've used it in a few places, and I don't know where it came from, but I didn't make it up. Feel free to adjust it, as long as the refs aren't blank numbers and there's worthwhile attribution. Consistency is the main issue, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Lamont, so I can't fix the refs. Just pointing out stylistic stuff ... Sandy 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of poll notice

I removed the notice giving the time the polls open and close since Joe Lieberman doesn't have such a notice; we would be subtly endorsing Lamont by placing the notice here alone. Please gain consensus to place such a notice on Lieberman's article as well, or don't have any such notices at all. Thanks. Johnleemk | Talk 06:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to place a poll notice on Joe Lieberman's website however it is currently closed due to vanadalism. Please allow us to post a notice so that as many voters as possible will voote. Jkfp2004 | Talk 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If the notice is not on both articles, then we are clearly favouring one candidate by placing a get out the vote message on his article alone. There's this thing called a talk page (Talk:Joe Lieberman) where you can gather consensus for a similar notice to be placed on Joe Lieberman. If there's consensus, an admin will place the notice there. Johnleemk | Talk 08:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for advocacy of any kind, either for or against either or both of the two major candidates or lesser candidates, or for anything such would implicitly endorse, from the bicameral system and American democracy, to even voter turnout. It is a disinterested and detached observer and documentor of events. I don't think a such notice to voters, other than the text that is already in the articles which clearly states the election day, on any article (it is currently on Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006) is befitting of a serious encyclopedia. Dmcdevit·t 08:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(WRT the Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 page notice) Putting a notice on candidates pages are one thing, as a direct inference (Go vote (for this dude)) can be seen, however putting a notice on a page about the election itself is something else entirely: If the articel isn't baised (Advocating one candidate or the other), then no "advocacy" sould be inferrable. It's a simple extention of {{future election}}, which is currently on Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006, and {{currentevent}}. Neither of those templates encourage participation in the election or event described. I suggest that it be re-added to the election page alone. 68.39.174.238 10:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

About revert

Yes, that edit summary didn't make sense at the end.... I reverted the page back because today's primary will determine if he's the Democratic nominee for the Connecticut's Senate seat. Also, it's unorthodox (and in my view inappropriate for Wikipedia) to have Connecticut polling times at the top of the page. Wikipedia is not a reporter of news, it is an encyclopedia. --MZMcBride 19:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Results Of The Primary

Joe Lieberman is about to begin his concession speech.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Associated Press has called the race for Lamont.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PRIMARY_ELECTIONS?SITE=VADAR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

the results table says lamont is a "communist"

someone please fix this before someone sues someone

Introduction

I know that you strive to maintain a "NPOV" policy, but doesn't this sentence strike you as a bit awkward, to say the least?

"Lamont is widely reported as an anti-war candidate."

I don't believe that Lamont has ever denied being an antiwar candidate.

In fact, to the best of my knowledge, he has predicated his entire campaign upon that theme, and it's the chief reason that he won this primary.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Should the sentence be deleted? mirageinred 22:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it previously said "liberal anti-war candidate", giving a bunch of cites that didn't support the claim, so I removed the POV term "liberal". Further editing of "anti-war" may be appropriate on examining the cites, but there's no doubt that Lamont sees one particular war (in Iraq) as a huge blunder, and has campaigned around that. Phr (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Image Change

Removed image on the page because it was a picture of Dan Quayle, the former Vice President, not Ned Lamont PlasticMan 01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Middle name, second source for date of birth

Does anyone have Mr. Lamont's middle name, and is there a second source besides the one found in the edit history (http://www.starlightnews.com/wordpress/?p=124)? I've been searching for a while and can't seem to find any reference to what the "M" stands for, and the only birth date I've found in January 1954. Thanks. --MZMcBride 01:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Middle name is "Miner" (same as his dad's) per Gale Group Biography Resource Center. Looking for birth date. Phr (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Birth year is hard to chase down. Maureen Dowd in NYT yesterday says he's 52 [8] which would mean 1954. A blog post says he has the same birthday as George Harrison (of the Beatles) so maybe January 3 is wrong. I'm searching various library databases and not having much luck. Phr (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

specify Connecticut in first sentence

The first sentence should specify that Lamont is the Democratic candidate in the Connecticut Senate race. It does not currently do so.140.247.240.188 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, that was my fault, I reorganized the intro a bit earlier this morning and slipped up. It's fixed now. You can fix this kind of thing yourself though; I think the page is unprotected. Phr (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

regardless of technical term

regardless of the technical term, Ned Lamont owns stock in Wal-Mart, as long as his investment company that he pays for chooses to invest his money this way .... directly is a pov term designed to paint him more favorable than Lieberman. if it is a legal term, i suppose i can understand that, but the passage is misleading and suggests that because it is the company he pays for which does this, that he is somehow not choosing to do this ... this suggestion, which i feel is directly implied, should not be there. Let us add a line or something that would say, "Critics of Ned Lamont, however, argue that insofar as he chooses which investment companies to consort with, he is just as guilty of censure as if he held the stocks directly." Just an idea.

this is also presuming that the information provided by other wiki users is current and correct. but as long as that is the case, then the text is inappropriately suggestive, in my opinion.

jmh

GO NED!!!

The Wal-Mart thing looks pretty bogus to me, and I think it came out a day or so later that Lieberman also had Wal-mart stock. Phr (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

value of Ned's house

I think I'm going to remove that thing. It's sourced to a hard-right paper and as such, appears to be a POV injection. Let me know. Phr (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Get out the old airbrush for negative information. It worked so good at Red Square back in the day.

Seems all criticism of Lieberman is deemed NPOV and all criticism of Lamont is "right wing propaganda". Paging Mr. Orwell... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.107.245.70 (talk • contribs) 16:57, August 13, 2006.

I removed it because the cited article didn't actually back up the claim. I don't see it as negative information, I just don't see how it's relevant. However, since it appears inserted for POV purposes, it should go. Phr (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please compare with the enormous amount of info about Lieberman in his wiki bio which may not be flattering to all readers. Given the incredibly vague nature of Lamont's finances, the self-financed nature of his campaign and the fact the information appeared on the front page of one of CT's four major newspapers I suggest it is relevant to his biography.

Right now there hasn't even been a cite for it. The article linked from the HCWealth reference doesn't say anything about it. Does anyone else have any thoughts about the relevance? It's true that Lamont has a much smaller political record than Lieberman, so there's less material either for against him. I think he's much less liberal than he's often painted to be, though he's gotten a lot of liberal support for opposing the war and embracing a few specific lefty causes. If he gets elected, some liberals may find themselves in for disappointment. One thing is certain--he's one rich dude, though less rich than Bloomberg or (I believe) Corzine. I think Bloomberg spent something like $70 million on each of his two campaigns and that's just for a mayoral election, not a US Senator. Phr (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The price of his house might be notable if it is out of the ordinary for the area. Bill Gates's house has it's own article, but it's also $125 million and a technological marvel.;) The rest of the article seems to do a good job of pointing out that he's loaded and comes from money. --Bobblehead 04:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Petitioning Citation

Lieberman's petitions are still beiong reviewed, according to this article: http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-sa-petitions-0811,0,1277416.story

Therefore, his candidacy as an independent is not yet official. However, it is likely that he has enough signatures to be on the ballot under his "Connecticut for Lieberman" party. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dweingart (talk • contribs) 20:47, August 13, 2006.

Thanks! The typical petitioning candidate has canvassers get signatures in shopping malls and places like that, and gets maybe 65% valid signatures. I'd heard Lieberman got his signatures mostly from donor/supporters at private house parties and the like, so I'd have expected almost all of them to be valid. I'm surprised the rejection rate is as high as the article says. Phr (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman's Party

I would argue calling Lieberman a former Democrat makes sense because Lieberman is only relevant to the Lamont entry in the context of the Connecticut Senate race. Since Lamont won the party's nomination, there is no way for Lieberman to still be a Democrat in the context of that race.

I would further argue that the evidence submitted to show that Lieberman is still a Democrat is not relevant.

1. he's a registered Democratic voter in CT
2. he's a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus; 
3. he serves on several Senate committees as a Democrat; and 
4. the Senate web site lists him as a Democrat.

His voter registration is not relevant, because it says nothing about his post-primary Party membership. If he succeeds in winning the election on the "Connecticut for Lieberman" line, but maintains his Democratic voter registration, would you still consider him to be a Democrat? I would not.

For the items involving the Senate, it is clear that he remains the Democratic Senator from Connecticut through the end of the 109th Congress. But that's not relevant to the issue of his political party after his loss in the Democratic primary.

Lieberman may personally still consider himself a Democrat. But he has declared his intention to create a new political party, Connecticut for Lieberman. Insofar as he would then represent a political party as a Senator, he wouuld represent the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party, not the Democratic Party, thus the rationale for calling him a former Democrat. To underscore the point, he has not stated which party he would caucus with should he win as an independent.

Dweingart 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This came up on the Lieberman talk page. My view is that JL is a Democrat if and only if the Senate Democratic leadership says he's one, regardless of how he got elected or what his voter registration says or what he calls himself (ok, leave out the mathematically possible but politically unrealistic possibility that Reid calls JL a Democrat but JL says he's quit). Right now, Reid is still calling him a Democrat as far as I know, and he hasn't quit (or been thrown out of) the caucus, so he's still a Democrat. As another example, Ben Nighthorse Campbell was elected as a Democrat but switched parties to Republican in the middle of his term. He switched his voter registration and caucused with the Republicans. Everyone called Campbell a Republican Senator after that, because he was one. Jeffords, similarly, was elected as a Republican but quit the GOP caucus and is now labelled Independent. I have no idea whether he switched his voter registration in VT and I doubt if anyone really cares. Phr (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If JL wins under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party he may caucus with the Democrats (or he might not) but he certainly won't have the "D" after his name anymore. Both Jeffords and Campbell changed parties in the middle of their terms, not during an active campaign. Their breaks from their parties were much more clearcut, it is true. But I fail to see how a man who has explicitly petitioned for the creation of a party to run against the Democratic nominee could still be considered a Democrat. Dweingart 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the first poster, I would say that what party Lieberman is relevent, at least to the correctness of the article. If he is a democrat, then he is a democrat. Calling him a "former democrat," even if his party affilition is irrelevent to the senate race with Lamont, is still incorrect if he is, indeed, still a democrat.

As for the question of whether he is still a democrat or not, I think his voter registration is entirely relevent. You aren't affiliated in a political party based on what someone else says you are (unles there is some way to forecefully reject you from the party), your party affiliation is based on what you say it is. If someone in New York state, for example, is nominated by multiple parties, then which party takes precidence? The answer is - it doesn't matter - it's what party the person is registered as that is important when determining party affiliation in Congress.

Even what caucus you are in is irrelevent that I know of. Jeffords caucuses with the democrats but is still an independent. Also, I believe former Senator Zel Miller caucused with the republicans, even though he was listed and recognized as a democrat, so I believe that shows that it doesn't matter whether he quits caucusing with the democrats, or is even kicked out of the caucus. Party affiliation and whom you caucus with is officially unrelated. Finally, Lieberman has said he will caucus with the democrats if he wins [9].

The only remaining conclusion that I can come up with is that a person's party registration - and only their party registration - is what determines their official party status. Therefore, Lieberman wouldn't be a "democrat through the end of the term" while simultaneously no longer in the party. If he's a democrat, then he's a democrat. If he's no longer a democrat, then he isn't. There isn't a two-tiered system seperating the senate from "real life" (if you will) as far as I can tell. Everything I have read from this point describes the Lieberman situation as a case where he is still a democrat and was just nominated by the Connecticut for Lieberman party. If someone has an article saying that Lieberman's actual party affiliation changed, then I'd like to see it. We have a similar situation in Vermont with Representative Sanders. He may very well end up winning the democratic primary on a write-in campaign some people (as far as I know) not affiliated with his campaign are apparently conducting. If he wins that and wins the election, does that mean he's officially listed as a democrat in the senate despite his own party registration? I'd say the answer is probably clearly "no." FleetAdmiralJ 05:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there really is a two-tiered situation. The makeup of the Democratic (and Republican) Senate delegations must be at most what the respective parties say they are, regardless of what the individual Senators say. We can't just go by their voter registration. Otherwise we could get a situation where Dennis Kucinich (very liberal Democrat) changes his voter registration back in OH to Republican while winking at his supporters, but keeps voting with Democrats on House procedural issues and starts going on TV talk shows as a "Republican" to face off "against" Al Sharpton, turning the TV shows completely one-sided while the GOP leaders seethe in frustration saying "that guy's not a Republican!". The big complaint against Lieberman was that he often took Republican positions on TV shows which were out of sync with the Democrats, but at least he actually was an official Democrat in terms of his Senate role. As for caucusing with a party vs. being a member, I'd say what matters is whether you're allowed to attend caucus meetings (they are private and they discuss political strategy etc). I'm of the impression that Miller was never officially kicked out of the Dem caucus, though he voluntarily stopped attending, and sat in on the GOP caucus (as a nonmember) instead, so that doesn't count. Phr (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But thats how exactly it would work officially. Kucinich would then be a republican who caucuses with the democrats, and would be, officially anyway, a republican in the House. Since 99.9999% of the time democrats caucus in the democratic caucus and republicans caucus in the republican caucus, it's effectively the same. But that doesn't mean it is the same. Again, I bring up Jeffords. He's an independent but caucuses with the democrats, so clearly what caucus you're in doesn't determne what party you're affiliated with. The question is - if its not the caucus, hen what is it? What party they're registered with would appear to be the obvious answer. FleetAdmiralJ 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with FleetAdmiralJ in this case. Speculation on Lieberman's party status other than Democrat is purely OR at this point and a contradiction to reputable sources paraphrasing Lieberman and his campaign staff saying he is still a Democrat and is running as an indy in order to 'save the Democratic party from the extreme left' and to 'assure proper representation for the people of Connecticut'.--Bobblehead 16:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with FleetAdmiralJ about the Jeffords and Kucinich examples. Jeffords might "caucus with the Democrats" (whatever that means) but he is not a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The SDC is an actual organization with a list of members at http://www.democrats.senate.gov/members/ and Jeffords is not on the list. If Jeffords were on the list, we would call him a Democratic Senator. If Lieberman is removed from the list, we should stop calling him a Democratic Senator. If Kucinich changes his voter registration, that would not make him a House Republican unless the GOP adds him to http://gop.house.gov/your_rep.asp which they certainly would not do in that situation.Phr (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Jeffords votes for Reid for majority leader and is assigned committee posts by the democrats. Perhaps he's not officiall part of the democratic caucus, but when it comes to leadership votes and and committee assignments, he is treated as if he were part of it. How about a situation where one person gets kicked out of one caucus but another one doesn't pick them up, and he hasn't formally changed party? Are they listed as an independent then? FleetAdmiralJ 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say we should visit that issue if it happens (e.g. to Lieberman), but yes, listing them as independent is probably what I'd support. The article text should describe the situation in detail, of course. Phr (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, at this point the debate appears to be moot since, whether one is using caucus membership or voter registration, either way he's still a democrat. If he loses, it wont matter. If he wins and still caucuses with the dems (which is likely) it won't matter. It's just for right now, there is no reason not to still list him as a dem, and if something wild happens later like him leaving or being booted from the caucus - then we'll take that as it comes. Probably whatever the senate website lists him as would be what I would go by. FleetAdmiralJ 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to the people giving well thought out arguments regarding Lieberman's "Democrat/Non-Democrat" status, can we acknowledge the elephant in the room here (no pun intended)? Most people that say he is a "former Democrat" are saying so because they are ticked at Lieberman. I respect that - but anger does not change the facts. The Connecticut Voter registration form asks "Do you wish to enroll in a political party?" [10] Lieberman enrolled as a Democrat, he did not change that enrollment, and he has not been removed as a member of the party. One can argue he is a bad Democrat, but clearly he is a member of the Democrat Party. As for the argument that "Connecticut for Lieberman" is a party.....get real! Is any one else running on that "ticket"? --Stillhere 14:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please read all the above discussion; it's not at all well-agreed (and in fact I think it is wrong) that his voter registration takes priority over the other factors when identify his party affiliation in his role as a candidate or as a Senator. There are three separate roles (voter, candidate, Senator) for which there are three separate lists (the voter list you cited, the list of candidates on the election ballot, and the list of Democratic Senators at http://democrats.senate.gov/members/ ). Right now, Lieberman is a Democratic voter (per the CT voter list), an Independent candidate (per his CT for Lieberman announcement and presumed eventual placement on the CT ballot), and a Democratic senator (per the list on the Senate web site), but those are all independent of each other. So how we identify him depends on which of those roles we're referring to.

My friend Jane is the president of my local bike club and she is an American, so she's an American president. We should not confuse that with being President of the United States. In contexts where the distinction can be confusing (like if we wrote an article about Jane's visiting the White House), we have to be precise about this type of terminology. Can you understand this? There has even been talk of the GOP putting Lieberman on their CT ballot line, and in principle the other Senate dems could JL out of the dem caucus tomorrow. Both these events are unlikely, but if they occurred, JL would simultaneously be a Democratic voter, a Republican candidate, and an Independent senator. We just need to keep it all straight, which can be confusing, but fortunately we have computers to help with it ;-). Phr (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Phr, I believe you are taking what I said one step beyond what I actually said. Many people are refering to Lieberman as a "former Democrat". I noted that he enrolled as a Democrat, he has not changed that enrollment, and has not been removed from the party. Therefore, it is incorrect to refer to him as a "former Democrat". You state that his voter registration form simply means he is a "Democratic voter", but the form clearly states that you are enrolling in a party. The National Parties don't have registration froms - if Lieberman is not a Democrat then no one is (expect Ned Lamont and others running for office) --Stillhere 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman is actually not an Independant Candidate. More correctly he is a petitioning candidate because he got on the ballot via petition. The local papers have called him that as well as Independant, but as there actually was an Independance Party candidate running, John Mertens, and since the Independance Pary has not endorsed Lieberman, labeling him an Independant is not technically correct.

That's a bit much to suggest using the adjective "Independant" when describing a candidate somehow indicates affiliation with the the Independance Party. Republican candidates paticipate in our Democracy, and Democrats candidates seek to serve our Republic. John McCain and Russ Feingold talk about being Reformers - yet no one confuses them with being members of the Reform Party. I took a quick glance at John Mertens web site. He refers to himself as the "Independant Party CT candidate"
--Stillhere 13:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mertens and his party are a lousy example to choose, since he failed to get on the ballot and he invites the inference that it resulted from failing to hire an election lawyer who would anticipate how troublesome choosing the party's exact ballot name could be. (As if that were not bad enough, he also embarrassed himself by failing to grasp that when well-informed people talk about the "six statewide offices" they mean the six "constitutional officers" specified in the constitution of CT, including the Comptroller; he failed in counting -- however irrelevantly -- the columns that would be identical in every town in 2006: the six that are there every second fourth year, and, making seven, the U.S. Senate column he wanted to appear in -- which of course is there two even-numbered years out of three.) These guys are The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, and they have nothing to teach us about political practice worthy of encyclopedic coverage.
--Jerzy•t 08:27 & 09:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

_ _ The four contexts distinguished by Dweingart are worth more explicit discussion:

1. he's a registered Democratic voter in CT
2. he's a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus;
3. he serves on several Senate committees as a Democrat; and
4. the Senate web site lists him as a Democrat.

_ _ Party registration (properly called "enrollment", tho indeed it takes place along with registering to vote) has little significance because it can be dropped on a moment's notice on one hand, but on the other cannot be changed (to another party) for IIRC six months: you have to be unaffiliated for a statutory period of time between parties, unless (IIRC) your party goes out of existence, or you move to a new town. It's both too easy and too slow to change for it to stay well correlated with "your real politics". On the other hand, there was (perhaps later than this discussion) an effort to have his D enrollment expunged against his will, on the claim that he implicitly or explicitly claimed to be a "CfL" member in order to get a line on the ballot. (He was way at the bottom of the ballot, but i think it probably kept him from sharing a row on the ballot with anyone who might get on the ballot by gathering petitions without setting up a party, and it would be distracting and potentially embarrassing to "share a row with strangers".) I think it failed, but i don't recall why.

_ _ Caucus membership is probably one of the top few on anyone's list. It tells a lot about who your allies in Congress are, especially where you'll fall when the framework (rules, leadership) shifts, since it normally reflects where you fell the last time they shifted.

_ _ Committee assignments are simply a reflection of your caucus: Lieberman doesn't serve on those committees as a Democrat, but as a member of the Democratic Caucus in the Senate.

_ _ He presumably was, at the time that list was made, shown as a D because he was elected on the D line the last time around (perhaps because he didn't bolt from his caucus). I believe he is now shown as an I because in '06 he was not elected on the ticket of any party that is significant in the structure of the Senate. Again, that changes too slowly to tell you much that matters.

I haven't yet tried to focus on what the article says where, but if it can be improved, IMO the thing to seek is not "is he still a D" but rather discussion what goes in place of the usual bald single-word party affiliation. Yes, "former Democrat" is/would-be adding nuance, but probably not enough nuance. It may be that the wording should be more explicitly cryptic, and somehow (within-page section link? between pages section link?) direct attention to a section on "Lieberman's 2006 party status" that draws all the conflicting and complementing nuances together, clarifying the big picture instead of seeming fixated on "what party was he in and when did he betray it", if you will permit me to exaggerate.
--Jerzy•t 08:27, 16 November 2007

_ _ I would not mention this if the problem had not been reflected in the article for over a year until my edit today, but it is truly mind-boggling that so many discussants fail to distinguish between Democrat, Republican, and (especially and most relevantly) Independent on one hand, and democrat, republican, and independent on the other. Especially so in this case, since the source (no longer [11] but properly [12]) cited for the sentence i changed says (emphasis added by Jerzy)

Former president Bill Clinton arrived in Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman last week in what was seen as a return of old political favours. But Democratic insiders believe Clinton warned Lieberman not to run as an independent if he loses the primary.

_ _ Do you remember the concept of proper noun? It is one thing to have "Independent" in a table of party-affiliation statuses, or e.g. "Lieberman (I, CT)" in any context, since the capital I serves to

• mark the start of a table entry (as it would mark the start of a sentence) or
• help mark the I as an initialism complying (as do with L, M, and S in your clothing) with the convention that
  • acronyms, e.g. "RAID", can be distinguished from proper names (Raid insecticides) and from their corresponding common nouns and other dictionary words ("raid", the noun and verb) and
  • other initialisms (e.g. BSE, standing for "bovine spongiform encephalopathy) from typos (e.g. "bse" invites puzzling over whether "base" or "bee" makes sense the same sentence),

by having few or no lower-case letters. It is entirely another another thing to say in a sentence that someone is an Independent. Never use the capitalized form unless it's

• the name of a newspaper,
• a reference to a member of a sports team or band called "The Indepedents",
• the well-established nickname for one individual known for their independence, or
• a member of a political party called Independent Party, Independents Party, or Independence Party (CT has had all three at least in one town or city each).

And BTW, election law in CT calls a person declining to declare a party when they register to vote an "unaffiliated voter" (and campaign canvassers call her "a U"), FWIW. (My personal conjecture is that many of those Ind... parties may have gotten named in the hope that "U" voters will ignorantly write something beginning "ind..." on the registration form, and get counted toward the would-be party's quota for getting a row on the ballot.)
--Jerzy•t 08:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lamont and his own money

PolitcalMoneyLine is a website that compiles information about donations to political campaigns. Their website currently links to the filings of Lamont, and demonstrates that he's certainly used $4 million of his own money in the campaign. Since it's been a point of contention here, I figured I'd mention it here first before adding it, in case anyone had any protests. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

According to this page, Lamont has only given $2.5 million. Where are you getting $4 million? Didn't scroll far enough down. Found it.;) --Bobblehead 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Senate race section

Is it just me or is the senate race section too long? It should be a summary of the race's article, not a secondary location to dump information that is semi-related to Lamont. Based on the current content I'm seeing two paragraphs, one covering his entry into the race and the second covering the race to the primary, just without all the stuff about the debate, Joe ignoring Bill and going indy, most of the polling stuff, and the whole Wal-Mart section is far too long. Figured I'd float it up the flagpole before I begin slicing and dicing.--Bobblehead 18:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Statement on the Polls is Wrong

The statement at the end that most polls show Lieberman ahead by 10points is factually incorrect or at least needs to be clarified.

On the same day that the Quinnapac poll came out Zogby released a poll showing Lieberman ahead of Lamont by under 2pts. Also both the latest ARG and Rassmussen polls show a tight race. So the characterization that the race is not a tight one is not supported by the latest polls posted on Wikipedia's own page covering the 2006 Connecticut Senate election.

The statement at the bottom of the article should be adjusted to fit with the facts.

Then why don't you adjust the article? --Stillhere 13:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

commercials

–12.76.153.131 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)I am so happy to see Ned Lamont finally giving us his plans for education. All the candidates seem to do is try to discredit one another. If someone is asking for my vote they need to tell me how they will change things. We already know what needs to be changed.

12.76.153.131 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Deb Bilodeau

infobox.

Shouldn't we put that he's a democrat? He did win the democratic primary, after all. dposse 14:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Lamont conceded

See [13]. JoshuaZ 03:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The composition of this talk page is fascinating. Lots of debate before this point; but subsequently there have only been three messages in three years, as he was immediately dropped like a stone into total obscurity. This is the kind of meta-history that might come in useful one day. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Platform

I inserted the word "eventually" in the "immediate withdrawal" sentence. Initially (this was before the state convention vote obviated Lamont's petition drive), he stated a position he called "Murtha without the deadline" or "Murtha without the timetable". No verifying source at hand, but it was public and i was listening very carefully. (And BTW, the old text's implication that he didn't have two positions is inherently unverifiable: the best you could hope to do is show he was reported to have had only one position, or that a credible scholar had compiled and inspected a complete archive of his speeches.)
--Jerzy•t 05:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

_ _ Altho both the primary and the general election are mentioned in the lead, i'd like to work toward a more nuanced "who is he" before the "what did he do". One reason (personal ax to grind -- let me get that out of the way) is that it is quite PoV to call him an unsuccessful Senate candidate. While he certainly is that, he may be more notable for all the trouble he caused Lieberman; i'm fond of saying that everyone who worked hard in Lamont's campaign is personally responsible for the Democratic majority in Congress that followed: winning that primary put a glow on the prospects for breaking out of the Dem's funk over the preceding 4 years in the minority while Bush consolidated power in the White House that may have brought out the work of activists and the willingness to turn out on election day among the liberal rank and file.
_ _ Of course, this is also a confession that i can't efficiently (and maybe not at all) rewrite this passage alone. On the other hand, my biased PoV may help point the way to summing up the two aspects of Lamont: a striking disrupter of the status quo, tho he failed to deprive Lieberman of his Senate seat. Perhaps part of the solution i'm hoping for is to call him a "Democratic political activist" rather than an unsuccessful candidate, and leave the nuancing of his success and failure until the "what he did" portion of the lead paragraph.
_ _ And while i'm proposing sticky work that i can't complete, it may also be important to describe the concerns about Lamont having pushed Lieberman to the right, e.g., the support he got from Rs who pretty much abandoned Schlesinger and made Lieberman the de facto R candidate in some senses makes in harder for him to stay in the D column and presumably built him relationships that encourage him to bolt on votes, or perhaps go into the Bush admin and leave his vacant Senate seat to be filled by appointment by the R Gov. Jodi Rell. (He didn't replace Rumsfeld, as some feared; is his likelihood of bolting now on the wane?)
_ _ I'll probably float some drafts of the lead here on the talk page; i hope i'll find some collaborators.
--Jerzy•t 08:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• I find the term "unsuccessful" in the following sentence, "Lamont was the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in the Connecticut United States Senate election held on November 7, 2006," to be not only grossly POV, but completely redundant, as the remainder of that particular paragraph goes on to explain precisely what happened in the general election. Moreover, it is factually incorrect. He was, in fact, successful in his bid for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate from the state of Connecticut; therefore, the immediate juxtaposition of "unsuccessful" with "Democratic nominee" is confusing to the reader at best, completely awkward grammatically at worse, misleading at worst and factually incorrect at absolute worst. I therefore propose that the word "unsuccessful" be removed from this particular sentence. Discussion on this? BobCubTAC (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Senate 2010?

Dose anyone know if there is any posibility of him running for the Senate again, because aparently Chris Dodd might be retiring in 2010 Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.111.139 (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Terminology for primary-election voters

I flubbed the edit summary just now, getting down only

"Democratic voters" is technically correct, but "enrolled Democrats voting ..." emphasizes distinction from the usual (polling) meaning, which is "self-described Ds" -- there are unaff'd voters who show up for a hot primary & say "

In this supra-Tweet format i can be more detailed than i intended.
The most common meaning for "Democratic voter" is a person who didn't tell a pollster to leave them alone, and said D in response to either

Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent?

or

Do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?

(Usually the pollster switches between the 2 questions from one voter to the next; my guess is that the other 4 questions of that form are seldom used.)
In the case we are talking about (a CT Dem primary), what someone called D voters, but i changed to enrolled Ds voting the the primary, includes (of course) only those who came to the polls (in August), but correlate poorly to the polling sense of "Democrat":
In a D primary,

1. people will be turned away who show up and say "Whaddaya mean i'm not a D? I've voted D in every election for the last 20 years." They may mean BTW, "every presidential election", "every election for governor", "every election for the legislature", "every election for town officials", or some combination. But subject to that qualification, they probably are telling the truth, and probably either didn't notice the place to fill in "party affiliation", or decided to stay flexible or stay undercover, but then forgot that intention, and
2. people will get to vote in the primary bcz they hadn't previously declared a party affiliation, but did so before the deadline for new enrollments by old voters; some of them will be "D"s, "R"s, or "independents" who want the D candidate to be someone they would vote for if they get the nomination, and some will be "R"s or "independents" who want to lessen the chances that either of two D contenders in the particular primary wins both the primary and the general election, and will vote in the primary for the D who is least likely to win the general election if they get into it, and
3. people will get to vote even tho they previously declared themselves R (or a third party), but declared a change of party affiliation before that (earlier) deadline; the declared Rs mostly are "polling Rs", but may be "polling indpts" bcz they said "independent" or refused to answer that question but answered the rest of the poll. (Voters in this third group are rarer; IIRC the deadline is 6 months before the primary, which is usually too far ahead to know who's going to be in it or even be confident it will be held.)

A lot of what i've just described will be different, depending on the state, but it's always a source of confusion to use the same term in discussing primaries that is used in discussing polling.
--Jerzy•t 07:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ned Lamont/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Diannaa (talk · contribs) 15:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Grammarxxx. I have completed the GA review and have done some copy edits too, I hope you don't mind. Everything seems to be in place for a Pass:

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   Prose, grammar, punctuation, and spelling are all good to go.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   • I think the 2010 Gubernatorial campaign section is pretty short, and could be combined with the Post-election activities section as the second paragraph. I have gone ahead and done this. Please feel free to revert if you think it's not working.

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   All material is sourced to high-quality sources. Some links were dead or redirecting to places where the desired content was not residing, so I fixed them using the Wayback Machine. Spot checks revealed no copyright violations or too-close paraphrasing. Citation templates are effectively used throughout, with no technical errors found.

   C. No original research:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   The article is a little short, but it covers all the main points. Google searching does not reveal any missing major points.

   B. Remains focused:

3. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy?

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

5. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Images are properly licensed.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: {{GAList/check|}y}

   Two suitable-captioned images are present.

6. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The article passes to GA. Remember for the future: you can check the status of urls using the Checklinks tool to ensure that the links are still going to the desired content and are not dead. Most dead links can be resolved using the Wayback Machine. Best wishes and congratulations, -- Diannaa (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ned Lamont. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613193545/http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=237 to http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=237
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022154552/http://www.iop.harvard.edu/former-fellows/L to http://www.iop.harvard.edu/former-fellows/L

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)