In a late-night victory, state treasurer candidate and real estate investor Walker Stapleton beat investment banker and Republican Party favorite J.J. Ament after leading by a few percentage points all evening.

Labour heavyweight boosts favourite in race saying he has 'strength and depth to stand up to David Cameron'

Labour leadership contender David Miliband tonight received the endorsement of another party heavyweight, as the shadow justice secretary, Jack Straw, gave the elder Miliband his vote.

In a letter to Blackburn Labour members, Straw pledged his support to Miliband, joining the shadow home secretary, Alan Johnson, and the shadow chancellor, Alistair Darling, in proclaiming him as their pick to take over from Gordon Brown.

Explaining his decision, Straw draws drew attention to Miliband's role running the leadership campaigns of both Brown and Tony Blair.

He said: "[David Miliband] has the strength and the depth to stand up to David Cameron at prime minister's questions week after week, and he can stand up for the people who will be most badly hit in our communities by the policies of this Con/LibDem government."

Accepting the endorsement, Miliband said: "Jack Straw has worked with Labour leaders since Harold Wilson, so I am honoured that he should judge that I have the qualities to return Labour to government. Jack has been in frontbench politics for 30 years."

Like Darling, Straw has announced that he won't serve in the next shadow cabinet and will be standing down from frontline politics.

David Miliband remains the bookies' frontrunner in the contest to succeed Brown, despite his brother Ed receiving the backing of six unions including the big three: Unite, Unison and the GMB. His elder brother was recommended by two unions.

The effect of union recommendations is contested, with observers saying it is particularly uncertain in this year's contest after the unions left their public declarations too late to sway many people. Most members, they say, are likely to make their own decision on which way to vote, irrespective of their union's advice.

The younger Miliband is not without his own high-profile backers, winning the support of prominent leftwingers such as Neil Kinnock and Tony Benn.

However, David Miliband has received the most support from constituency Labour party branches. He has the backing of 165 and his brother has 151. Among the other leadership candidates, Andy Burnham has the support of 44 constituency Labour parties, Diane Abbott is next with the support of 20, and Ed Balls has 17. Both Miliband brothers have the support of six MEPs apiece.

Proceedings are currently in something of a lull as the candidates break for the summer recess. Most will return for a final spurt of campaigning in the last days of August before ballot papers are sent out on 1 September. This is when campaign teams will hope for further high-profile endorsements for maximum effect.

The winner will be announced on 25 September, the day before Labour's annual conference begins in Manchester.

Tomorrow fresh figures for the financing of the five teams will be published by the electoral commission. The last batch released in July showed that David Miliband had raised six times more than Ed Balls, the second highest fundraiser among the contenders. A fortnight ago Diane Abbott accused Miliband of "buying" the campaign. His supporters responded that it would be good for the Labour party to elect a leader who could raise money.

Tory chair and Lib Dem climate change secretary also criticise previous government for taking severance pay

The coalition staged its first party political press conference this morning, joining forces to attack the Labour leadership candidates over the state of the public finances and arguing that they should pay back their severance pay.

In a joint appearance that hints at an ever-closer political union, Tory party chair Baroness Sayeeda Warsi and the Lib Dem climate change secretary, Chris Huhne, launched a joint attack on the opposition paid for out of party rather than government funds – though neither party would say whether the bill was split 50/50.

Huhne and Warsi consistently labelled the upcoming cutbacks, "Labour cuts", seeking to blunt some of the public backlash when they are eventually announced in the comprehensive spending review to be held on 20 October.

Huhne said it was "inexcusable" that none of the Labour leadership contenders had come up with any policies to tackle the record deficit.

"Labour leadership candidates say that spending was not the problem, it was taxes. Nonsense. In just two financial years up to the election, public spending rose by 10% in real terms. That's a rise after inflation of £59bn. Spending went from 44p in every pound generated by our economy in 2007 to 51pin 2009. Taxes went down by 1p in the pound.

"In 1979, the winter of discontent saw Labour lose power for a generation because Labour would not face up to the need for a change. Unless Labour now face up to the challenge of fixing our nation's finances, they won't deserve power for another generation."

Warsi called on the four Labour leadership candidates who had been ministers in the last government to give back their severance pay – a one-off lump sum equal to a quarter of their ministerial pay. She said: "At a time when people across the country are being asked to tighten their belts to deal with Labour's economic mess, it is unacceptable that the very people responsible, walk away with up to £20,000 each. Forfeiting this pay would be the first step towards accepting their responsibility, and the first sign that they had come to terms with the mistakes of their past."

Some will question whether launching a new joint attack is the best way to help the Lib Dems with their most pressing problem — which, in the face of plummeting poll ratings, is to mark out more clearly their distinctiveness.

Their first concentrated attack on the Labour party comes as some government figures are becoming increasingly uncomfortable that Labour, without a permanent leader, nonetheless continues to command a respectable 33% in the polls, fearing that figure could increase once a permanent leader is chosen.

Comments made by Warsi also appeared to place the Lib Dems on the less than equal footing her leader insists the party has. Warsi described the coalition agreement document as "delivering the bulk of the Conservative manifesto, with the best of Lib Dem thinking". Describing the work her team would be doing alongside Huhne's this summer, Warsi said: "Chris and the Lib Dems will be doing their bit."

But she drew criticism when, by her own admission, she used imprecise language to accuse Labour of "illegal" and "criminal" behaviour. In her prepared presentation Warsi said: "I'm a lawyer and I can tell you that if an individual had ran up such impressive debts so irresponsibly they would face legal consequences." She also described their behaviour as "frankly criminal". But when asked what crime the previous government had committed, she said she had only been using a "manner of speech".

Huhne developed Lib Dem arguments on why the party had changed its position on the scale and timing of deficit reduction. Before and during the general election, the party had said that cutting the deficit before the economic recovery would be destabilising.

Politicians find it impossible to approach the rules by which we elect them from an objective viewpoint

A notoriously difficult corner of social science is concerned with proving that no voting system is perfect – the so-called impossibility theorem. Politicians find it impossible to approach the rules by which we elect them from such an elevated viewpoint. Self-interest inevitably warps their thinking about the subject.

The Liberal Democrats now promote a referendum on the alternative vote system which Nick Clegg used to call a "miserable little compromise". Labour, meanwhile, now opposes a plebiscite that featured in its own manifesto. Labour's pretext is the coalition's move to bundle the measure up with a plan to equalise constituencies. Equality is a desirable principle, but it is also the interests of the Conservative party that have inspired it to redraw the map in haste, with an anti-conservative lack of regard for natural and traditional community borders.

Mark Harper, the Conservative minister who is shepherding the bill through the Commons, today confirms that he will be campaigning for a no vote. Yet his own reputation – and perhaps the coalition's fate – depends on him delivering the vote, and getting it through with time to allow a meaningful campaign to take place. With an unholy alliance of Tory reactionaries and Labour opportunists trying to frustrate him, it will be tough. Even at this late stage, the coalition might be much wiser to decouple the referendum from the boundaries legislation.

The tactical challenges in parliament are multiplied by the strategic dilemmas that will arise if and when the referendum takes place. Every Conservative instinct is against change, but wise Tory heads may calculate that – by denying the Lib Dems their great prize – a no vote could fatally weaken the coalition. That very prospect tempts Labour tribalists to swing against AV, and forget all about the progressive desire for a new voting system that allows people to express their best political hopes without unwittingly advancing their worst fears. Whatever the immediate gains, that would be a betrayal, and in time Labour would pay a high price for defending the old politics.

For the Lib Dems either result would raise searching questions. Defeat is a real possibility, and – without being defeatist – the party's top brass must, albeit quietly, start preparing a plan B. Victory would be sweet, but may prefigure fresh decisions. By making second preferences count, AV could transform the way parties relate to one another, allowing implicit alliances to do the work that would once have required a formal electoral pact. The Lib Dems would then need to figure out whether they wanted to go down that road – and with whom. So would other parties. It would be a big change, but when rules change, all sorts of things become possible.

UK Independence party's deputy leader replies to clerk of the parliaments that the House of Lords Act 1999 is 'defective'

The House of Lords has stepped up its efforts to make Lord Monckton – climate sceptic and deputy leader of the UK Independence party – desist in his repeated claims that he is a member of the upper house.

The push comes as Buckingham Palace has also been drawn into the affair, over his use of a logo similar to parliament's famous portcullis emblem.

Last month Michael Pownall, clerk of the parliaments, wrote to Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer, stressing that he should not refer to himself as a member of the House of Lords, nor should he use any emblem representing the portcullis.

In a letter seen by the Guardian, Monckton replied this week to Pownall stating that he considered the House of Lords Act 1999, which "purported" to exclude all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers from the Lords, to be "defective".

Monckton argued that the act did not remove membership because peerages are granted by "letters patent" which are a personal gift of the monarch.

The House of Lords said today it strongly rejects Monckton's interpretation. A spokeswoman said: "Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such."

Monckton also argues that his use of the portcullis emblem, which has appeared on his letterheads and lecture presentations, does not breach any rules. The spokeswoman added: "The emblem is property of the Queen, and parliament has a royal licence granted for its use. … he has been referred to the Lord Chamberlain over the issue, and it will fall to him to follow up on any misuse of the emblem."

Scottish trade unionist who led the successful work-in at the Upper Clyde shipyard

The Scottish trade unionist Jimmy Reid, who has died at the age of 78, will for ever be associated in labour history with the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS) occupation and work-in of 1971-72. It was an event that galvanised working-class consciousness, challenged political moralities and haunted the premiership of Edward Heath.

It is difficult to overstate the status that Reid achieved at this time. One of the last great platform orators, he had the ability to convey trade union demands in terms that invoked ethical values and Christian imperatives. This rewarded him with a galaxy of admirers who were more than willing to overlook the fact that he was also an executive member of the British Communist party.

Indeed, Reid’s communism reinforced his popular image as a man of unswerving principle, rather than just another politician or trade union leader. Middle-class observers would pronounce him a saint, in the wake of another oratorical tour de force which invoked the Sermon on the Mount or invited them to ponder what it would profit a man that he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul.

When, in the wake of the UCS triumph, as he swept into the elected rectorship of Glasgow University, his rectorial address was printed in its entirety by the New York Times, which compared it favourably to the speeches of Abraham Lincoln. “From the very depth of my being,” Reid declared, “I challenge the right of any man or any group of men, in business or in government, to tell a fellow human being that he or she is expendable.”

The Conservative government that came to power in June 1970 had decided that the cost of subsidising shipbuilding on the Clyde could no longer be sustained. By June 1971, UCS had debts of £28m. It was an amalgam of five yards, and Reid worked as an engineer in the most famous, John Brown’s, birthplace of the great Cunarders.

Though relative roles would long be disputed, two men emerged as leaders of the campaign in the public arena – Jimmy Airlie and Jimmy Reid, both stalwarts of the Communist party. In general terms, Airlie was the strategist and Reid the rhetorician. The idea of a work-in was very different from the traditional response of strikes or occupations. It was based on the brilliant concept of the right to work, rather than simply the right not to be made redundant. A campaign based around the fate of whole communities proved so effective that by October 1972 it was clear that the Heath government had caved in, and shipbuilding on the Clyde survives down to the present.

Born in the Gorbals, on the south bank of the river, the son of a shipyard worker father, Reid left school at 14 and served a very brief stint in a stockbroker’s office. Then he became a shipyard engineer, involved in the apprentices strike of 1960, joined the League of Labour Youth and gravitated quickly towards the Communist party, at the time a major force in industrial Scotland.

Reid’s uneasy relationship with the Communist party, where some distrusted his ideological flexibility, predated UCS, but soon came to a head. Already a Communist councillor in Clydebank, he contested West Dunbartonshire, which included the town, in the Communist interest in February 1974, and was widely expected, at least outside the area, to become the party’s first MP since Willie Gallagher. In fact, while polling creditably, he was soundly beaten and responded with a vehement speech in which he denounced some of his Labour opponents as Falangists.

Nonetheless, he went on to join the Labour party, and in 1979 stood unsuccessfully in Dundee East against the then leader of the Scottish National party, Gordon Wilson. Reid became close to the leadership of Neil Kinnock, from 1983 onwards, but there was a huge element of mutual distrust between him and a large section of the party in Scotland, which was regularly fuelled by his increasingly unpredictable pronouncements in the media, in both the press and on television.

Part of the difficulty was that Reid was far too intellectually and politically astute to become a kneejerk supporter of all fashionable leftwing causes. He understood the dire predicament of Labour in the early 1980s, and identified the need to regroup rather than constantly look for fresh battles to lose. However, his bitter criticism of the conduct of the miners’ strike of 1984-85 and the leadership of Arthur Scargill was regarded by many of his old comrades as an apostasy too far. Mick McGahey branded him “Broken Reid”.

Reid’s uncomfortable association with Labour came to an abrupt conclusion after Tony Blair took over as leader in 1994. Reid retired to Rothesay, on the Isle of Bute, west of Glasgow, and continued to write and comment while emerging regularly to pursue his myriad interests, ranging from jazz, on which he was profoundly knowledgeable, to support for the Scotland football team. He really was a renaissance man, brought up in the best traditions of the self-educated working class. In 2005 he announced that he had joined the Scottish National party.

Asked in 1979 to comment on Hugh Scanlon’s acceptance of a peerage, Reid replied that Scanlon’s life should not be judged on “a bit here and a bit there but in its entirety”. Reid himself is worthy of that same respect. Few individuals in the political or trade union arena over the past century have raised so many spirits, challenged so many assumptions or offered more vivid glimpses of a different social order. He is survived by his wife, Joan, and three daughters, Eileen, Shona and Julie.

Geoffrey Goodman writes: For a man who possessed the unique qualities of an outstanding political leader, an exceptional humanist poet and compelling orator, the baffling thing about Jimmy Reid is that he never occupied a formal leadership job. Everything Jimmy touched was briefly turned to gold, and then – his unrivalled talents notwithstanding – slipped away in the absence of that crucial essential, a national platform.

We worked briefly together when Robert Maxwell tried to persuade him to become a regular columnist on the Daily Mirror, but he found working with Maxwell impossible. Jimmy was a revolutionary who always found it essential to question everything around him, including his own deepest convictions.

My last meeting with this quite extraordinary man came a few years ago, at the 80th birthday party of a mutual socialist friend. We stayed up until 4am reflecting on the frailties of any revolution in pursuit of perfection. It was Jimmy at his wonderful, incomparable best – an irreplaceable character from a special breed of working-class heroes.

• Jimmy Reid, trade unionist and journalist, born 9 July 1932; died 10 August 2010

Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s private health reports will not be disclosed despite Democrat senators’ plea

Alex Salmond is to reject renewed calls from a group of US senators to publish the full medical records of the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing.

The first minister’s officials are writing a “courteous” letter to the four Democrat senators turning down their requests to disclose Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s private medical reports, with the names and expertise of his doctors, and to ask the Libyan for permission to release the papers.

The US senators and Salmond’s political opponents are ratcheting up their demands for all the medical evidence to be released because al-Megrahi is still alive, nearly a year after his release because he was close to death with inoperable prostate cancer.

Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish justice minister, said prison service doctors were “clear” that he had less than three months to live; al-Megrahi is now free and living at home in Tripoli, to the dismay of many US relatives of the 270 passengers and crew killed in the 1988 bombing.

Salmond officials will tell the four senators that the only published statement on al-Megrahi’s illness, written by Andrew Fraser, director of health with the Scottish prison service and released last year, is the definitive medical report.

They believe medical notes written by his doctors and specialists should remain private as they belong to him as the patient. It is understood that al-Megrahi would also refuse that request.

But the senators have leapt on Fraser’s disclosure last year that no specialist “would be willing to say” if a three-month prognosis was reasonable.

The US senators Robert Menendez, Kirsten Gillibrand, Frank Lautenberg and Charles Schumer wrote: “Independent examination of Mr al-Megrahi’s complete medical record is necessary in order to understand the circumstances surrounding his compassionate release.”

The senators added: “It is clear that there was no consensus among specialists treating al-Megrahi’s prostate cancer that he had only three months to live.

“The lack of consensus and clarity from any of the specialists involved is very troubling, especially the lack of confidence on the part of the treating oncologist, who was the most qualified to assess the worsening of Mr al-Megrahi’s condition.”

Scottish government officials privately believe the four senators are exploiting the issue for domestic political reasons: Gillibrand and Schumer are fighting for reelection in November.

Sources in Edinburgh point out their demands have not been supported by the Senate’s foreign relations committee, which first began an inquiry into allegations that BP influenced al-Megrahi’s release. Of the four, only Menendez and Gillibrand are committee members.

But the senator’s demands were supported by the Scottish Labour party and Scottish Tories, who repeated their requests for the full disclosure of all the medical evidence.

James Kelly, Labour’s community safety spokesman and the brother of al-Megrahi’s Scottish lawyer, Tony Kelly, said MacAskill should have nothing to hide. “The Scottish government keep talking about the array of doctors that were spoken to but no one knows what they actually said,” Kelly said.

“It’s time for full transparency and anything less that full disclosure smacks of cover-up.”

Tony Kelly would not comment on his client’s views.

Annabel Goldie, the Scottish Tory leader, said: “Every day that the SNP refuses to publish their evidence, suspicions only grow that the prison doctor’s opinion was not supported by the cancer experts. Until we see that evidence, we do not know.”

In a statement, the Scottish government said: “Dr Fraser is a professional of unimpeachable integrity. It was his professional responsibility to provide the clinical assessment of al-Megrahi’s condition, and his report [was] the medical report submitted to the justice secretary – along with the reports of the parole board and prison governor, which also supported a compassionate release decision.

“Dr Fraser drew on expert advice from a number of cancer specialists in coming to his clinical assessment that a three-month prognosis was a reasonable estimate for al-Megrahi – it was not based on the opinion of any one doctor.”

David Cameron has steered clear of unpopular decisions, and done a professional job of keeping the Lib Dems onside

This government’s getting lots of things right, even if you’re a Tory. Disastrous liberal wars are being scuttled out of; debilitating ministerial feuds – by the simple expedient of everyone in the government basically being in the Continuity SDP – have mostly been avoided; and cuts are coming. These may even include such welfarist shibboleths as council houses – with the faint possibility social housing might be distributed on need, rather than as a Labour-vote ramping hereditary fief – and best of all, even public health programmes could be up for the chop.

If you believe David Cameron, that is, which some of us have difficulty doing (cast-iron guarantees and all that). Or if you believe what you think, or hope, he means during those kneejerks. You know, the stuff that pops out when he isn’t dobbing in the Iranians over their nukes or playing Af-Pak blinders like lecturing Islamabad from the security of, well, India. So as the coalition oozes towards its hundredth day, these then are the two obvious questions: what’s the calibre of the ministers doing whatever they’re doing, and, does it matter that there doesn’t seem to be a very coherent reason why those things are being done?

The oddest people are getting good reports. Treasury civil servants are falling over themselves to praise George Osborne’s conscientious work rate – he’s hoovering up the briefing papers, apparently. While no one, not even the most bigoted Foreign Office Europhile, has found cause to hire a chum to do in William Hague, yet. And the list of duds thus far is an equally mixed bag. That sulphurous gossip emerges from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about Iain Duncan Smith’s man-management skills, as far as senior bureaucrats go, won’t have surprised many of his fans, but the mess Michael Gove has made of his stock in trade – press releases – has his.

The prime minister himself remains the most curious performer. One side of Cameron’s character is simply shabby. This is most obvious in the needlessly nasty smears still directed against his predecessor. Be it the spoonfed stuff about his behaviour towards Number 10 officials, Cameron’s own upbraiding of Gordon Brown for his, in truth, perfectly reasonable Commons attendance rate, or the pure poison Cameron’s cheerleaders direct at Sarah Brown.

Against this, and to the chagrin of Tory traditionalists, you have to admire the facility with which Cameron has handled Nick Clegg. Perhaps any other plausible Liberal leader – Chris Huhne, Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy or Paddy Ashdown – wouldn’t have been such a walkover, but the fact remains, to manage the coalition internally, Clegg is more important to Cameron than anyone else in his own party, and the skill with which he’s been reeled in ought to be professionally admired.

Yet if ministers are the good, bad and ugly all governments are, does the incoherence matter? Some policies are just trivia. Imported foreign gimmicks such as elected police commissioners, for example, won’t tackle the problems they claim they will, and are as bogus as any Heathite or Wilsonian modernisation ever was. But they make a lot of sub-Blairite splash, so you can see why they appealed in opposition. However, they are just add-ons to the real business of this government, which is to cut public spending, and, for Cameron, to do what it takes to keep the Liberals happy so that he, in turn, can stay as Tory leader, despite losing the unlosable election. And this is where the seeming incoherence becomes problematic.

Take those public health programmes. Cutting their bloated, nannying advertising budgets should be a philosophical no-brainer for most Tories. It saves money (astonishing amounts) and it leaves people to go to hell in their own handcart. So where does this leave “nudging“? Is the party still for it? In which case, how and with what? Though most of all, to what end? Why would we want to nudge people?

If nudging seems too feeble even for The Thick of It’s DVD extras, morality cuts to the heart of the biggest numbers of all: those that pass through the DWP’s giving hands. If British welfare provision is to have a self-consciously moral underpinning again (for recipients – its morality for donors sadly seems self-congratulatingly obvious enough), this will cost money we don’t have. The siren voices whisper to the domestic-employing classes ruling us: why?

Don’t think that Cameron and Osborne don’t hear those economic arguments in their more rightwing moments. After all, the reason no credible Conservative economist makes the case against cheap labour is because there isn’t an economic one: it, literally, works. Letting the Poles do what the proles won’t isn’t the way they’re putting it in Notting Hill, but the nanny tells her own story. Norman Tebbit can make the case entailed here, with sincerity and passion, but that’s all terribly “nasty party” for Dave. As is moralising at and about the welfare-dependent class. Thus a confluence of Treasury bean-counting and a reluctance to be seen to finger wag works against welfare reform – if “reform” it genuinely is. Is it the right thing to do to use the welfare system to make Britain less competitive for the sake of (allegedly) thereby improving the souls of welfare beneficiaries? There just isn’t an easy “rightwing” answer to this.

Whether or not one thinks that there’s a Thatcherite solution, it won’t actually be dependent upon policy specifics. Her improvisation in office was legendary. But it does come back to tone, and that’s where the infamous milk comes in. The reason why her enemies and friends alike knew that Thatcher had to be taken seriously – that she meant what she said – was that she did the unpopular things. Cameron, thus far, is as bad as Blair: a prime minister who won’t take political pain during his honeymoon doesn’t reassure me, but then that’s not what he wants to do. He wants to reassure Liberals, and they should be happier than ever. The Guardian wanted this government, and it’s tempting to say that you deserve what you’re getting, good and hard.

House of Lords steps up efforts to make Christopher Monckton stop claiming he is a member of the upper house

The House of Lords has stepped up its efforts to make Christopher Monckton – climate sceptic and deputy leader of the UK Independence party (Ukip) – desist in his repeated claims that he is a member of the upper house. The push comes as Buckingham palace has also been drawn into the affair over his use of a logo similar to parliament's famous portcullis emblem.

Last month, Michael Pownall, clerk of the parliaments, wrote to Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer, stressing that he should not refer to himself as a member of the House of Lords, and nor should he use any emblem representing the portcullis.

In a letter seen by the Guardian, Monckton replied this week to Pownall stating that "the House of Lords Act 1999, which purported to exclude hereditary peers from membership of the House of Lords, is defective". Monckton argued that the act, which debarred all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, removed the right to sit or vote in the upper house, but did not remove membership because peerages are granted by "letters patent" which are a personal gift of the monarch. Monckton claimed in the letter that "only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 act was a general law."

The House of Lords said today it strongly rejects Monckton's interpretation. A spokeswoman said: "Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such." She said Monckton's claim that the 1999 act was a general law was "misleading".

"The 1999 act does not remove letters patent, it just ends the right to be a member of the House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. The Act is pretty clear and uses the term 'membership' not the 'right to sit/vote'," she added.

The Guardian has learned that Pownall is now also seeking advice from the Lord Chamberlain, a key officer in the royal household, on the potential misuse of the portcullis emblem due to it being the property of the Queen.

Monckton argues his use of the portcullis emblem, which has appeared on his letterheads and lecture presentations, does not breach any rules: "My logo is not a registered badge of parliament, and is plainly distinct from parliament's badge in numerous material respects. The Lords do not use the portcullis at all on their notepaper: they use the Royal Arms within an elliptical cartouche."

A House of Lords spokeswoman said: "The emblem is property of the Queen, and Parliament has a Royal Licence granted for its use. Any misuse of the emblem by either members or non-members breaches this licence, and if a person refuses to stop using it the matter is drawn to the attention of the Lord Chamberlain, who is an Officer of the Royal Household. The Lord Chamberlain has been contacted regarding Lord Monckton's use of the emblem, and it will fall to him to follow up on any misuse of the emblem."

The spokeswoman added: "If, following the correspondence, Lord Monckton continues to claim to be a member of the House then the House authorities would need to consider and assess what options are available to them."

Buckingham Palace confirmed it is "aware of this matter", but said it "can not disclose any details on private correspondence between Buckingham Palace and an individual". It did, though, guide the Guardian towards a document on its website which says misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the Palace pursued the matter and successfully prosecuted him.

Monckton said he has yet to receive any correspondence from the Lord Chamberlain.

Monckton, a former Conservative party policy adviser who joined UKIP last year, has attracted repeated criticism for his claims that he is a member of the Lords. In May, when giving witness testimony upon the invitation of House Republicans to the US select committee on energy independence and global warming, Monckton was mocked by a Democratic congressman when asked whether he had ever served in the House of Lords. This followed an appearance at a congressional energy and commerce committee hearing in 2009 when Monckton began his testimony: "I bring fraternal greetings from the Mother of Parliaments to the Congress of your 'athletic democracy'."

In June, following the death of Viscount Colville of Culross, Monckton, as a qualifying hereditary peer, put his name forward as a candidate at the resulting byelection to find the replacement elected peer. However, he failed to secure a single vote among the 29 crossbench hereditary peers eligible to vote.

Would Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan recognize today’s Republican party? No. They would be astonished and dismayed at the timid claque of propagandists peddling hysterical fantasies about The Other.

In tough times, these leaders were optimistic, inclusive and self-confident. Abe, Ike and Ron would not fear an Islamic center in Manhattan. They would not have nightmares about a former Burlington Coat Factory housing sleeper cells eager to impose Sharia on American courts.

The giants of Republican history believed in the strength of America. They did not mimic the fanaticism of its enemies. Among today’s would-be presidents are several with a Wahabi-sect view of the Constitution, which they would transform into a tabernacle of intolerance.

Previous GOP leaders did not fear immigrants, legal or otherwise. Even if they did, they did not suggest repealing the 14th Amendment. For more than 100 years, Republicans boasted of the party’s role in codifying due process. Now, partisan tough talk isn’t tough enough without changing the Constitution, a pursuit as unlikely as it is unworthy.

The first president who enforced the 14th amendment said “It is my earnest wish that peace and cheerful obedience to law may prevail throughout the land.” He certainly sounds like a sissy. Who was that? Ulysses S. Grant. Oh.

To call the bizarre proposals emanating from today’s zealots “extremist” would insult the shade of Barry Goldwater. The party’s 1964 presidential nominee acquired his political beliefs from experience and philosophy, not from pollster printouts.

The extremism of today’s GOP mullahs derives from a calculated search for a new slogan. The old bumpersticker, “Tax Cuts and Deregulation” has been an automatic response, in season and out. TCAD would cure recessions, swine flu and teen-age acne. But too many voters recall that the near-collapse of capitalism occurred under this motto not long ago, in September of 2008.

Hence, “No Muslims, No Mexicans,” a marketing tool for twin fantasies of fearful domination by The Other: not only will terrorists proselytize the Five Boroughs and the Tri-State Area, but a Spanish-only caliphate will soon rise in the desert of the great Southwest — unless you vote for us.

Fear of The Other helped establish the GOP’s rival in the 1850s. Amid economic anxiety, the Know-Nothing Party peddled bias against immigrants, mostly German and Irish Catholics. By the 1930s, Jews became The Other, thanks to the Rev. Charles E. Coughlin. His conspiracy theories about Jews attracted a third of the radio audience, far more than those who hear his spiritual descendants, the talkshow troubadours who guide the Republican party.

Opponents of illegal immigration look forward to deporting more than 11 million people. Like amending the Constitution, this is no easy task. Until then, what boils their patriotic blood is the notion of “amnesty.” Whose idea was that, anyhow? His voice sounds familiar.

“I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally,” Ronald Reagan said in a presidential debate in 1984. The Gipper was a sissy, too? A socialist sissy!

In 1856, the Grand Old Party was new. It promoted freedom, which it defined as “the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution.” Today, the party is old, no longer grand and promotes fear.

Its Coughlinite instincts, its intolerant, jingoistic ravings would have disappointed Abraham Lincoln. In 1855, he wrote:

“As a nation, we began by declaring that ‘all men are created equal.’ We now practically read it, ‘all men are created equal except Negroes.’ When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, ‘all men are created equal except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.’ When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty–to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

It was anything but politics as usual in Connecticut’s primaries last night. For the first time, candidates for Governor and other statewide offices joined General Assembly candidates in having the option to run under the state’s Citizens’ Election Program. The program allows them to qualify for competitive campaign funding by collecting a large number of small dollar contributions from state residents. The success we’ve seen the program have in the General Assembly contests was replicated in statewide primaries, with a new twist.

Both party’s gubernatorial primaries had a David vs. Goliath money story. In the race for the Democratic nod, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy took on uber-millionaire Ned Lamont (the same Ned Lamont who four years ago gave Sen. Joe Liberman (I-Conn.) the “I” in his party affiliation). Malloy chose to opt in to the Citizens’ Election Program while Lamont cracked opened his wallet and self-funded almost his entire campaign.

Malloy was outspent by Lamont by nearly to 4 to 1. Lamont poured nearly $9 million of his own money and raised another $1 million. Malloy relied on the $2.5 million he got from the Citizens’ Election Fund, plus $250,000 from the small dollar donations (none more than $100) he collected. As the New Haven Independent pointed out in their election night coverage, Lamont spent “more money than any gubernatorial candidate has ever spent on a campaign in Connecticut history–not just for a primary, but for a primary and general election combined.”

A June poll had Lamont ahead by a margin of 39 percent to 22 percent. The election seemed his for the taking. But in an upset, Malloy bested Lamont by 17 points. Malloy gained more than 30 percentage points in two months despite Lamont’s wealth. In his victory speech, Malloy credited the Citizens’ Election Program and claimed victory on behalf of the more than 4,000 people who made small qualifying contributions to his campaign. He said they made “sure that on this day we could stand together and stand behind Clean Elections in the state of Connecticut.” The Citizens’ Election Program didn’t make Malloy the best-financed candidate in the race, but it gave him enough to win.

In the Republican gubernatorial primary, there was a similar story. Millionaire businessman and former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley eked out a victory after outspending both of his opponents. Like Lamont, Foley self funded the bulk of his campaign. Less than a month ago, a poll had Foley leading Citizens’ Election Fund Candidate Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele by 35 points–48 percent to 13 percent. After Fedele received his Citizens’ Election funding, he was able to considerably close the gap–Fedele ended up losing to Foley by only 3 percentage points. Fedele gained 30 points in less than a month. Local pundits observed that if Fedele had received his funds a bit earlier–Foley filed four losing lawsuits that delayed the arrival of Fedele’s funding–he just might have pulled off an upset as well.

There was one other high profile race in Connecticut. In a stark contrast, the GOP primary for U.S. Senate saw former professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon smack down two other candidates by tapping into her considerable wealth. McMahon spent $25 million dollars to secure the nod–she’s talked of spending another $50 million in her bid to acquire the U.S. Senate seat. Because of the way Congress has chosen to fund campaigns for federal office, McMahon’s towering financial advantage crushed her two Republican opponents, who were not permitted to use the state’s Citizens’ Election Program. And her November opponent, longtime Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, will not have access to the system either. The tens of millions in new money McMahon will spend will drive Blumenthal into an endless series of big dollar fundraisers while she courts voters. Ironically, Blumenthal has been a longtime supporter of the Citizens’ Election Program.

Federal races would look more like Connecticut state elections if the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826, S. 752), pending in Congress was enacted. Non-millionaire candidates would have more than a fighting chance when running against bottomless pockets. And there would be a small donation alternative to the current system of candidate dependence of big checks and insider bundlers.

Fair Elections, sponsored by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Connecticut’s own Rep. John Larson, would end the high roller campaign money chase and allow our leaders to seek office by relying on their constituents back home. The bill has broad cross caucus and bipartisan support in the House (with more than 160 co-sponsors). Momentum and cosponsors are growing in the U.S. Senate as well. Tuesday night’s results in the Nutmeg state suggest this alternative is worth a try.

American military officials are building a case to minimize the planned withdrawal of some troops from Afghanistan starting next summer, in an effort to counter growing pressure on President Obama from inside his own party to begin winding the war down quickly.

The tea party wins again with Ken Buck’s victory in Colorado, but President Barack Obama snaps his losing streak in the same state.

Tea party favorite Ken Buck has defeated former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton to clinch Colorado’s Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate.

Would Abraham Lincoln, Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan recognize today's Republican party? No. They would be astonished and dismayed at the timid claque of propagandists peddling hysterical fantasies about The Other.

In tough times, these leaders were optimistic, inclusive and self-confident. Abe, Ike and Ron would not fear an Islamic center in Manhattan. They would not have nightmares about a former Burlington Coat Factory housing sleeper cells eager to impose Sharia on American courts.

The giants of Republican history believed in the strength of America. They did not mimic the fanaticism of its enemies. Among today's would-be presidents are several with a Wahabi-sect view of the Constitution, which they would transform into a tabernacle of intolerance.

Previous GOP leaders did not fear immigrants, legal or otherwise. Even if they did, they did not suggest repealing the 14th Amendment. For more than 100 years, Republicans boasted of the party's role in codifying due process. Now, partisan tough talk isn't tough enough without changing the Constitution, a pursuit as unlikely as it is unworthy.

The first president who enforced the 14th amendment said "It is my earnest wish that peace and cheerful obedience to law may prevail throughout the land." He certainly sounds like a sissy. Who was that? Ulysses S. Grant. Oh.

To call the bizarre proposals emanating from today's zealots "extremist" would insult the shade of Barry Goldwater. The party's 1964 presidential nominee acquired his political beliefs from experience and philosophy, not from pollster printouts.

The extremism of today's GOP mullahs derives from a calculated search for a new slogan. The old bumpersticker, "Tax Cuts and Deregulation" has been an automatic response, in season and out. TCAD would cure recessions, swine flu and teen-age acne. But too many voters recall that the near-collapse of capitalism occurred under this motto not long ago, in September of 2008.

Hence, "No Muslims, No Mexicans," a marketing tool for twin fantasies of fearful domination by The Other: not only will terrorists proselytize the Five Boroughs and the Tri-State Area, but a Spanish-only caliphate will soon rise in the desert of the great Southwest -- unless you vote for us.

Fear of The Other helped establish the GOP's rival in the 1850s. Amid economic anxiety, the Know-Nothing Party peddled bias against immigrants, mostly German and Irish Catholics. By the 1930s, Jews became The Other, thanks to the Rev. Charles E. Coughlin. His conspiracy theories about Jews attracted a third of the radio audience, far more than those who hear his spiritual descendants, the talkshow troubadours who guide the Republican party.

Opponents of illegal immigration look forward to deporting more than 11 million people. Like amending the Constitution, this is no easy task. Until then, what boils their patriotic blood is the notion of "amnesty." Whose idea was that, anyhow? His voice sounds familiar.

"I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," Ronald Reagan said in a presidential debate in 1984. The Gipper was a sissy, too? A socialist sissy!

In 1856, the Grand Old Party was new. It promoted freedom, which it defined as "the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution." Today, the party is old, no longer grand and promotes fear.

Its Coughlinite instincts, its intolerant, jingoistic ravings would have disappointed Abraham Lincoln. In 1855, he wrote:

"As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it, 'all men are created equal except Negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, 'all men are created equal except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics.' When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty--to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy."

It was anything but politics as usual in Connecticut's primaries last night. For the first time, candidates for Governor and other statewide offices joined General Assembly candidates in having the option to run under the state's Citizens' Election Program. The program allows them to qualify for competitive campaign funding by collecting a large number of small dollar contributions from state residents. The success we've seen the program have in the General Assembly contests was replicated in statewide primaries, with a new twist.

Both party's gubernatorial primaries had a David vs. Goliath money story. In the race for the Democratic nod, former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy took on uber-millionaire Ned Lamont (the same Ned Lamont who four years ago gave Sen. Joe Liberman (I-Conn.) the "I" in his party affiliation). Malloy chose to opt in to the Citizens' Election Program while Lamont cracked opened his wallet and self-funded almost his entire campaign.

Malloy was outspent by Lamont by nearly to 4 to 1. Lamont poured nearly $9 million of his own money and raised another $1 million. Malloy relied on the $2.5 million he got from the Citizens' Election Fund, plus $250,000 from the small dollar donations (none more than $100) he collected. As the New Haven Independent pointed out in their election night coverage, Lamont spent "more money than any gubernatorial candidate has ever spent on a campaign in Connecticut history--not just for a primary, but for a primary and general election combined."

A June poll had Lamont ahead by a margin of 39 percent to 22 percent. The election seemed his for the taking. But in an upset, Malloy bested Lamont by 17 points. Malloy gained more than 30 percentage points in two months despite Lamont's wealth. In his victory speech, Malloy credited the Citizens' Election Program and claimed victory on behalf of the more than 4,000 people who made small qualifying contributions to his campaign. He said they made "sure that on this day we could stand together and stand behind Clean Elections in the state of Connecticut." The Citizens' Election Program didn't make Malloy the best-financed candidate in the race, but it gave him enough to win.

In the Republican gubernatorial primary, there was a similar story. Millionaire businessman and former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley eked out a victory after outspending both of his opponents. Like Lamont, Foley self funded the bulk of his campaign. Less than a month ago, a poll had Foley leading Citizens' Election Fund Candidate Lt. Gov. Mike Fedele by 35 points--48 percent to 13 percent. After Fedele received his Citizens' Election funding, he was able to considerably close the gap--Fedele ended up losing to Foley by only 3 percentage points. Fedele gained 30 points in less than a month. Local pundits observed that if Fedele had received his funds a bit earlier--Foley filed four losing lawsuits that delayed the arrival of Fedele's funding--he just might have pulled off an upset as well.

There was one other high profile race in Connecticut. In a stark contrast, the GOP primary for U.S. Senate saw former professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon smack down two other candidates by tapping into her considerable wealth. McMahon spent $25 million dollars to secure the nod--she's talked of spending another $50 million in her bid to acquire the U.S. Senate seat. Because of the way Congress has chosen to fund campaigns for federal office, McMahon's towering financial advantage crushed her two Republican opponents, who were not permitted to use the state's Citizens' Election Program. And her November opponent, longtime Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, will not have access to the system either. The tens of millions in new money McMahon will spend will drive Blumenthal into an endless series of big dollar fundraisers while she courts voters. Ironically, Blumenthal has been a longtime supporter of the Citizens' Election Program.

Federal races would look more like Connecticut state elections if the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826, S. 752), pending in Congress was enacted. Non-millionaire candidates would have more than a fighting chance when running against bottomless pockets. And there would be a small donation alternative to the current system of candidate dependence of big checks and insider bundlers.

Fair Elections, sponsored by Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Connecticut's own Rep. John Larson, would end the high roller campaign money chase and allow our leaders to seek office by relying on their constituents back home. The bill has broad cross caucus and bipartisan support in the House (with more than 160 co-sponsors). Momentum and cosponsors are growing in the U.S. Senate as well. Tuesday night's results in the Nutmeg state suggest this alternative is worth a try.

American military officials are building a case to minimize the planned withdrawal of some troops from Afghanistan starting next summer, in an effort to counter growing pressure on President Obama from inside his own party to begin winding the war down quickly.

Huffington Post - The Chamber of Commerce plans to spend at least $75 million on elections in 2010, but returns on its early investments this season have been disappointing. Jane Norton, who lost to a Tea Party backed candidate (Ken Buck) in Colorado Tuesday night, is just one in a string of Chamber-backed candidates to go down in defeat.

Jules Witcover, Balt Sun
Even before taking office nearly 17 months ago, President Barack Obama was being touted by hopeful Democrats as the next Franklin D. Roosevelt — he of the fabled "first hundred days" and the New Deal that was credited, with some dispute, with pulling the country out of the Great Depression.Mr. Obama's own spurt of action and remedial legislation upon taking office was not quite so swift. But in his second year, by pushing and shoving, by coaxing members of his own party in Congress, he did achieve historic health insurance reform.

Tony Blankley, RealClearPolitics
The cheerful, jaded, sneering question de jour from liberal journalists and Democratic Party commentators (I know, there's a pretty fine distinction) is, "What will the Republican Party do if it gets back the House?" The question is phrased along the line of what a car-chasing dog would do if it caught the car. As a conservative tea party Republican, I am not particularly worried about that eventuality. Despite itself, a majority GOP, driven powerfully by the unambiguous vox populi of such an election, almost certainly would go about trying to repeal Obamacare and put serious,...

Thomas Cooley & Peter Rupert, Forbes
When President Obama finally signed a law extending unemployment benefits up to 99 weeks another bruising political battle fought largely along party lines came to an end. The New York Times' resident Mr. Nasty, Paul Krugman, called the opposition "a coalition of the heartless, the clueless and the confused." While there is no doubt that some of the opposition was heartless, some of it was concerned about how to pay for the benefits, a different issue entirely. But is it really true that nothing about this extension should give one pause? Does showing concern about the overall...

For all the chatter about the White House's ability to get out the vote in Colorado's Tuesday night primary, the election produced one statistic that could leave Democrats unsettled.

The losing candidate in the Republican race, former Lt. Gov Jane Norton, actually earned more votes (197,143) than the winning candidate in the Democratic primary, Sen. Michael Bennet (183,521).

A voting breakdown like that is troubling enough for the party. That it occurred in Colorado -- a state targeted by the Obama presidential campaign and turned into a potential Democratic stronghold in 2008 -- makes it slightly more frightening. When the loser in the Kentucky Democratic primary, Lt. Governor Dan Mongiardo, received more votes (221,269) than the winner of the Republican primary, Rand Paul (206,159 votes), it was routinely highlighted by party officials as a sign of viability in the bluegrass state.

Party officials refused, on Wednesday, to downplay Bennet's win because of the aggregate voting trends. Eric Schultz, a spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, noted: "nearly three times as many people voted in the 2010 Democratic primary election in Colorado as participated in the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus in Colorado." The Secretary of State's office, meanwhile, reported that more than 35 percent of all Democratic votes on Tuesday evening were cast by voters who had no previous primary election vote history.

"That means our team knows how to motivate unlikely voters (like the Obama surge voters) come the fall," argued Schultz.

Whether that motivation extends to -- or, more importantly, accelerates in -- the general election is the essential question on the party's mind. Operatives are increasingly convinced that electoral enthusiasm will play a determining role in 2010, which is why grumblings were audible on Capitol Hill after White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mocked liberal constituencies for their unreasonable demands.

It was telling that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine didn't show any reluctance to poke fun at the president's press secretary when asked about Gibbs' remark.

"That was definitely one where, you know, it should have stayed in the thought bubble over his head than being spoken," Kaine said, during an appearance on "Morning Joe" on Wednesday.

"Look, it's been a hot summer in Washington and I've said things like that too and my temper got the best of me... As Democrats, we tend to be an impatient party. This is something that I know and I kind of love about us. Edison said discontent is the first sign of progress. If you're complacent, you don't push."

Kaine rarely addresses weighty political topics without first coordinating with the White House. So it stands to reason that Gibbs offered both the DNC chair and others in the party the green light to distance themselves from his remarks.

WASHINGTON — All hail inexperience – the less familiarity with politics the better, no matter the party or state.

"The support of the voters of Connecticut isn't bestowed by the establishment or the pundits or the media. It isn't a birthright," former World Wrestling Entertainment executive Linda McMahon said after winning the GOP senatorial nomination in her first run for office.

Two mountain ranges away, appointed Sen. Michael Bennett of Colorado, tried to express the same sentiment after dispatching his rival, a former state house speaker. "This election is the first time my name has ever been on the ballot," said Bennett, who enjoyed President Barrack Obama's support in the bitter Democratic primary.

Also in Colorado, businessman Dan Maes edged out Congressman Scott McInnis for the Republican gubernatorial nomination after a campaign in which both candidates suffered self-inflicted woounds.

Bennet, McMahon and Maes were three of the most distinctive winners on a busy primary night, one an incumbent who proved able to handle the type of primary challenge that has claimed lawmakers elsewhere, the other two the epitome of the conservative outsiders who will carry the GOP banner into the fall campaign, with control of Congress and 37 governorships at stake.

Each now pivots to the fall campaign. Bennet will face Ken Buck, another self-proclaimed outsider. McMahon is the clear underdog against Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's veteran Democratic attorney general. Maes faces Democrat John Hickenlooper, the Denver mayor, and American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo, a former GOP congressman, in the general election.

On a four-state primary night, former Rep. Nathan Deal led ex-Secretary of State Karen Handel narrowly in a Republican gubernatorial runoff in Georgia that was so close it could take days to resolve. The two vied for the right to take on former Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, who unleashed the first television ad of the fall campaign before the polls had closed.

In Minnesota, former Sen. Mark Dayton narrowly won the Democratic nomination for governor. He will face conservative State Rep. Tom Emmer, the easy winner of the GOP line on the ballot. Democrats have not captured the statehouse in nearly a quarter-century.

With Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell retiring in Connecticut, voters also settled a pair of contested gubernatorial primaries.

Tom Foley, a businessman and former U.S. ambassador to Ireland, won a three-way race for the Republican nomination.

Former Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy defeated businessman Ned Lamont for the Democratic nomination. It was Lamont's second try for statewide office and far quieter than his first. He won a Senate primary four years ago in one of the standout races of the 2006 campaign, upsetting Sen. Joe Lieberman, who then won a new term in the fall as an independent.

In Colorado, Hickenlooper was unopposed for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

McInnis has acknowledged receiving $300,000 as part of a foundation fellowship for a water study report that was partly plagiarized. Maes has paid $17,500 for violating campaign finance laws.

The spectacle prompted former Rep. Tom Tancredo to jump into the race as an independent, which in turn led state party chairman Dick Wadhams to say it would be difficult if not impossible to defeat the Democrat this fall.

In Colorado, Bennet drew about 54 percent of the vote to outpoll Democratic rival Andrew Romanoff, the former speaker of the state House, as he defied a trend that has dealt defeat to a half-dozen U.S. Senate and House incumbents in other states.

Bennet was appointed to his seat nearly two years ago when Ken Salazar resigned to become Interior secretary in the Obama administration. Romanoff had hoped for the appointment, and he spurned entreaties from senior party officials to skip the race against Bennet, but he swiftly endorsed the winner after the outcome was clear.

In an intense campaign, both men sought the mantle of political outsider. Yet each relied on very well-known establishment politicians to help them – President Barack Obama in Bennet's case and former President Bill Clinton in Romanoff's.

The Republican primary was equally intense.

With returns counted from about three-quarter of the state's precincts, Buck had 52 percent of the vote and former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton was pulling 48 percent.

They, too, sparred over ownership of the outsider's credentials. Both also have ties to tea party activists, although Buck expressed frustration at one point, asking aloud for someone to tell those "dumba---s" to stop asking him about Obama's birth certificate while he was being recorded. He later expressed regret for the remarks.

Blumenthal, whose primary campaign was marred by misstatements that he had served in Vietnam, made no public appearance Tuesday night. But surrogates wasted little time. "Connecticut Republicans today nominated a corporate CEO of WWE, who under her watch violence was peddled to kids, steroid abuse was rampant, yet she made millions," the chairman of the Democratic Senate campaign committee, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, said in a statement.

The two rivals could not be less alike – he the longtime statewide officeholder and she the political neophyte whose rise is part of a nationwide political trend that favors outsiders. Among her primary victims was former Rep. Rob Simmons, who began the primary campaign as the favorite and fell so far behind that he suspended his candidacy earlier in the year.

Simmons rejoined the race in recent weeks as attacks focused on the sometimes raunchy scenes that are part of WWE's appeal, but McMahon was garnering just under 50 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

Filed under: Senate, Polls, Poll Watch, 2010 Elections

Most polls last month had independent Charlie Crist leading in Florida's three-way Senate race with the exception of Rasmussen Reports, that has shown Crist and Republican Marco Rubio statistically-tied in its last three surveys. Now, the latest Rasmussen poll puts Rubio in the lead in one possible match-up and still effectively tied with Crist in the other, depending on who the Democratic candidate is.

Rubio runs ahead of Crist by 38 percent to 33 percent if Democratic Rep. Kendrick Meek gets his party's nomination. Meek gets 21 percent and 7 percent are undecided. The margin of error is 4 points.

Should billionaire Jeff Greene beat Meek in the August 24 primary, Crist would lead Rubio by 37 percent to 36 percent with 20 percent for Greene and 5 percent undecided.

With Greene in the race, Crist gets a higher percentage of support from Democratic and unaffiliated voters, lending some credence to the fear among Democrats that the choice of the often-controversial Greene would provide cover for Democrats to support Crist.

More Elections Coverage:

- Colorado GOP Takes Flyers on Tea Party, Buck; Dems Stick With Bennet
- Linda McMahon's Primary Win Sets Up a Money-Talks Senate Race
- Too Little Experience
- Ken Buck, GOP Senate Nominee, Rocks the Colorado Tea Party
- Nathan Deal Wins Georgia GOP Runoff for Governor as Handel Concedes
- Minnesota Democrats Pick Former Sen. Mark Dayton as Governor Candidate
- Politics Daily: Full 2010 Elections Coverage

Crist gets 42 percent of the Democratic vote and 45 percent of the unaffiliated vote in the Greene match-up compared to 36 percent of the Democratic vote and 38 percent of the unaffiliated vote against Meek.

The other recent Florida polls:

- A poll for New York Times-owned newspapers in Florida had Crist ahead of Rubio by 41 percent to 30 percent with 12 percent for Meek. The race is a little closer if Greene is the candidate with Crist leading Rubio 37 percent to 29 percent with 16 percent for Greene.

- A Quinnipiac University poll conducted July 22-29 had Crist 6 points ahead of Rubio with Meek in the race and 5 points ahead if the Democrat was Greene.

- A Public Policy Polling survey conducted July 16-18 had Crist 8 or 9 points ahead of Rubio depending on the Democrat.

Follow Poll Watch on Twitter

 

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments