With primary day less than a week away, Joe Lieberman is losing badly to Ned Lamont among likely primary voters, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll.
Unsurprisingly, they’re happy at Daily Kos. Kos also quotes the Lieberman spin, and wonders about Joe’s ground game. His thoughts about what happens on that score if Lieberman loses the primary, and runs as an independent, are enough to make me feel rather pessimistic:
Word is leaking out of the campaign that efforts to hire and organize several thousand itinerant campaign workers have fallen far short of expectations and necessity. Lieberman and his battered brain trust will now have to decide whether to continue investing funds in that effort or save money for November. These primary troubles are a preview of what he can expect in his new life as an independent should he lose on Tuesday. Much of his weak campaign organization will dutifully head to the triumphant Democratic nominee or simply sit out the race. …
The AFL-CIO, which has endorsed Lieberman and may be providing some of Lieberman’s ground game, won’t be around for an independent Lieberman bid. And his hired guns are having trouble putting together much of anything. … He’ll lose the support of people like Bill Clinton and most US Senators (Inouye, Pryor and Salazar being the exceptions). He’ll lose what little of a ground game he has. He’ll lose all of labor. He’ll lose most of the other groups that have endorsed him.
Kos goes on to say, “Lieberman can go out a sore loser, or he can go out a statesman. He can say next Tuesday that he has the votes to get on the ballot as an independent, but he’ll accept the will of the people.” I don’t agree one iota with Kos’s ridiculous contention that Lieberman will be disregarding “the will of the people” if he runs as an independent after losing on Tuesday. As noted here, the “20% of Connecticut’s registered Democrats who turn out for the closed primary in the middle of the summer” are not self-evidently representative of “the people.” In fact, they’re self-evidently not. Candidates like Lamont have a natural advantage in circumstances like this; primaries almost always pull a disproportionate number of angry voters at the ideological extremes, and the lower the turnout, the more slanted the result. With rare exceptions like me, Lieberman’s supporters aren’t terribly passionate; they support him solidly but not fervently. Lamont’s supporters, by contrast, are rabid. That doesn’t mean they’re more numerous, but it does mean more of them are “likely voters.” It’s patently absurd to claim that Lieberman would be disrespecting the “will of the people” by going head-to-head against both Lamont and the Republican candidate in a general election that many more people will vote in. But regardless of all that, Kos does have a potentially valid point about Lieberman’s “ground game.”
More broadly, the momentum (or Ned-mentum?) of a Lamont victory on Tuesday would totally change the dynamics of a three-way race, and only after the dust settles would we have a clear idea what’s going to happen. Hopefully it won’t come to that, but I’m not feeling optimistic at the moment. The Democratic Party is on the verge of giving one of its most principled and honorable members a giant “f*** you” because his loyalty wasn’t blind enough and his conscience wasn’t pliable enough. Heaven help ‘em.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:20:34 pm
Brendan, Lieberman is a dick. He is not principled and he is not honorable. What is loosing him the primary is his dishonorable action of saying if he looses the primary he will run as an independent. That is the point at which he jumped the shark and went from being spineless passive and annoying to being a dishonorable dick hell bent on winning at any cost for the purpose of his own self glorification and gratification. He has no principals beyond winning and political expedience and no honor beyond his own self interest. He is an ass and I would sooner vote for a Republican, hell I would rather vote for Tom Delay over Lieberman any day of the week and twice on Tuesday. At least with Tom Delay he is up front that he is a corrupt criminal unprincipled ass. Lieberman on the other hand hides it behind his spineless waffling whining. Carter’s response to the Iran hostage situation showed 8 times the back bone Lieberman is capable on his best day. And it is time for him to go.
There, I said it, now I feel better…
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:21:43 pm
But you didn’t comment on the blogospheric craziness involving Jane what’s her name, blackface, and other such things! How DARE you not cover this stuff? ;)
THE WHOLE COUNTRY IS WATCHING! Well, the blog readers. Who aren’t that many. And the ones decrying this prob ably aren’t all that influencian in Connecticut.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:30:04 pm
As for what I think about Lieberman . . . as a disgruntled conservative, I like Lieberman’s voice in the Senate. I also don’t see why we MUST HAVE ONLY TWO CANDIDATES for Senate. I’m not a fan of primaries, really, or at least of primaries narrowing down the field. If Lieberman wants to run in the general election, I say be my guest, as long as he enters in the proper way.
Its situations like these that show why we need many more political parties. Lieberman should be in the more center-left party, Lamont more toward the left, and the Republican in the right, and there should be a few others as well. We shouldn’t have a choice of 20 (that’s a bit much), but a choice of 5 or 6 wouldn’t be the end of the world, and would allow us to choose who we idealogically agree with. I say this:
1. GET RID OF PRIMARIES.
2. HAVE SEVERAL POLITICAL PARTIES.
3. HAVE EACH PARTY CHOOSE THEIR CANDIDATE BY PARTY RECRUITMENT.
4. RUN 5 OR 6 TOTAL.
See, not that hard. Also, not sure why I wrote in all caps there.
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:09:43 pm
By, Joe. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass.
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:09:59 pm
Bye, Joe, I mean. Dammit.
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:30:17 pm
Why is everyone willing to believe these polls? Hasn’t the last three elections sunk in with you yet? The pollsters haven’t gotten it right since at least 2000. (Which by the way, is the source of much of the leftwing’s conviction that the elections were stolen.)
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:23:21 pm
gahrie-
There’s a huge difference between an exit poll and pre-election polls. As I recall, the pre-election polls leading into 2000 showed a 50/50 split, which is what we got. In 2004, most polls showed Bush up by 3 to 4 percent over Kerry. Kerry losing was really no surprise regardless of what did or didn’t happen in Ohio.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:57:01 pm
B. Minich, there is nothing in theory preventing other political parties from fielding candidates. The problem, as i see it, is money. Special interest goups aren’t going to donate money to a politcal party that isn’t going to get them influence in Washington. How do you fix that? Serious campaign finance reform. But there is no incentive for the current big two to push that through.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:21:53 pm
Yeah the Lamont campaign is something that Conn. and the Democratic Party can sure be proud of:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005655.htm
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:26:39 pm
gahrie-
Except Lamont had nothing to do with the Lieberman black-face thing. Typical lying rightwing sack of shit that you are.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:42:06 pm
1. dcl: Recently on a Similar comment-thread, I accused Sean of Hyperbolizing against Saint Joe :). / Your Turn, kid. ;> Methinks thou dost Overexaggerate. {That’s as distinct from, Exaggerating just enough. :}
“What is loosing [sic] him the primary is his dishonorable action of saying if he looses [doublesic :] the primary he will run as an independent.”
Playing it a bit Fast & Too Loose, M. Lautrec, there… ;> / From The Poll ~ http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=943 ~ (scroll down) ~
So ultimately (OKOK, so penultimately already :), I doubt that the “Connecticut for Lieberman” fallback option ~ being prettymuch an Inside Baseball thing ~ has made much of a difference in the primary. Surely Most of the Minority who deem it an Important Negative would be voting Against Joe anyway, even if the Three-way Thought had never crossed his mind. / What’s killing him isn’t the November Petition. It’s the War ~ and, the Perceptually-related generalized Bushiness as Alleged. [With which, the Lamontista Ad-men have done a Brilliant job of phoneybaloney persuasive Presentation. ]
2. B. Minich: the keen private Eye of the skilled Sleuth will in due course Detect that the Constitution State is Likely [not yet Certain] to have at least a Five-Way Race for US Senator on Nov 7: to wit, among candidates labelled Republican, Democratic, Connecticut for Lieberman, Green, and Independent Party CT. / There may, or may Not, also be a Concerned Citizens Party offering; I dunno about that one yet. [CCP = Anti-Abortion, mainly] Apparently ~ sadly ~ there’s no Libertarian, as Sean indicated here awhile ago.
3. And now: Brendan. / I’ve been Expecting this poll to show what it Shows. Not that I have any Inside sources or data, I only have my Gut. (SHADDUP! :) But yes, said stipulatedly-Very-Large-Array antennae :> have been picking up the cosmic Background transmissions which translate to: “Oy! Joe is Screwed, here.” :>
PREDICTION: Ned 58%, Joe 42%.
And Furthermore, my same intuitive Wavelengths report that the Turnout will be a CT Dem Statewide Record. Breaking 40% ~ and, not Inconceivably, Pushing 50. (Or perhaps even, Pulling it. / Apologies to Garrison Keillor :) Thus possibly Refuting our cherished contention that a Little Lord Neddy win would be a function of the Unrepresentative Sample of the True Grassroots which a typical CT D Primary constitutes.
HOWEVER: if So ~ all the MORE reason why Senator Joe should Be not Afraid, and press forward with his “Connecticut for Lieberman” candidacy in November ~ “ground troops” or No ground troops. / For IF ~ understandably Crushed by the Rejection from the Party to whom he has dedicated his whole adult life ~ he should decide instead to just Pack it in for a lucrative Consultancy someplace or other, THAT’S precisely When he would be, for the First time, Defying the entitlement of Connecticut’s whole Electorate to make a meaningful democratic [small-d] choice of US Senator. / BECAUSE: the stupidass CT Republicans, being politically Nearsighted to the point of Legal blindness, have idiotically bequeathed their irrevocable Nomination to a ramblin’ gamblin’ rover” who vows that he will stay in the race until (a) the Cows come home or (b) he Breaks out of Single Digits, whichever comes first. / Me, my money’s on the Cows. Moo. :>
************
and Finally: there’s this. / http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-absentee0803.artaug03,0,4724572.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking / Oy veh ist mir. :}
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:44:05 pm
A 13-point lead is pretty sizeable, but Quinnipiac is far from the most reliable polling outfit around. This particular survey was in the field for a *week* for goodness’ sakes.
A former boss of mine often described polls as a snapshot in time. That’s appropriate — just like time-lapse photography, a poll that’s in the field for more than 2-3 days is going to be streaked and blurry — not at all a clear picture of what’s going on.
That’s not to say that Joe’s actually ahead; again, 13 points is a big spread even in a flawed poll. But I would not put much stock in these numbers.
August 3rd, 2006 at 7:49:39 pm
If Lieberman loses the primary by double-digits, I think any independent bid he may launch will slowly sink out of sight by November. Why? Lack of an organizational structure for one. Also, the Dems will see this as a shot across their bow from the Left. Expect Hillary and Company to start shifting Left, leaving St. Joe in the wilderness by himself. Finally, money. If Lamont appears viable as a Dem and likely to easily beat the Republican, I think the traditional Dem donors will shun Lieberman.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:00:39 pm
“As noted here, the “20% of Connecticut’s registered Democrats who turn out for the closed primary in the middle of the summerâ€? are not self-evidently representative of “the people.â€?
Brendan-
Nearly two out of three Americans - “the people” - believe the country is on the wrong track and worry about the future and their children. Bush is the engineer on that train and Lieberman is one of his friggin’ conductors. That’s what Lamont is pointing out. If Bush is driving the country into a ditch, why vote for a guy like Lieberman who is enabling him?
Next week a majority of Democrats are voting against the status quo. By November, a majority of Americans will.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:15:11 pm
Except Lamont had nothing to do with the Lieberman black-face thing. Typical lying rightwing sack of shit that you are.
Nice arguement. Which elementary school playground did you learn it on? I suppose I shouldn’t expect better from you.
Let’s see:
1) Hamsher raises money for Lamont
2) Hamsher shoots commercials for Lamont
3) Hamsher promotes a “blogosphere day” for Lamont
4) Hamsher’s blog is linked on Lamont’s blog
5) Lamont has publically thanked and praised Hamsher for her efforts numerous times.
6) When Lamont appeared on the Sunday morning TV shows, he brought four people with them, one of them Hamsher.
7) Hamsher pulled the photo down after Lamont asked her to.
The only way Hamsher could be closer tied to Lamont would be if she was sleeping with him.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:15:37 pm
Heh. If that idiot Hamsher were any closer to Lamont, she’d be behind him (hat tip: Groucho Marx).
Speaking of idiots, Max definitely wins the award for the most obnoxious post of the day. Nice job, asshat.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:00:08 pm
Kos and company better enjoy this victory, because it may well come at the price of losing the war. It seems clear to me as a Hoosier Independent (in a state where the Democrats look a lot more like Joe Lieberman than Ned Lamont) that if the Democratic party can’t find room for Lieberman — in wartime, no less –, it sure is no place for a guy like me.
As much as I may like an Evan Bayh or Mark Warner, if the Democrats can’t even support a statesman like Lieberman for Senate, I can’t imagine turning over our security and my life to anyone beholden to Markos Moulitsas’s delusional view of the world.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:48:53 pm
A-F***ING-MEN, Traveler.
I feel precisely the same way: “if the Democratic party can’t find room for Lieberman â€â€? in wartime, no less –- it sure is no place for a guy like me.” Well, I might leave out the “in wartime, no less”; I’m not sure what relevance that has. But if the Democrats’ “big tent” can’t fit Lieberman, it can’t fit me or a lot of other people who don’t like the Republicans.
Dane, you’re completely out of your mind. At least Sean’s condemnation of Lieberman was rational, although IMHO entirely wrong. But yours is just total unmitigated crap. You’d vote for DeLay over Lieberman? Lieberman is not principled and not honorable — and his decision to let all voters statewide decide the election in November, instead of leaving the decision up to registered Democrats in August, proves it? That makes absolutely no sense. Nor does your description of Joe as “spineless.” News flash: JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH YOU, DOES NOT MAKE THEM SPINELESS!!! I don’t go around calling Murtha or Feingold “spineless”! The accusation that Lieberman is “spineless” is sheer fucking lunacy. “He has no principals beyond winning and political expedience.” HUH?!? What the hell does he gain, in terms of “political expedience,” by his pro-war stance? NOTHING!! If Joe Lieberman were truly “spineless,” he would revoked his support for the war as soon as the political winds changed, like John Kerry and John Edwards and practically every other Senate Democrat with presidential ambitions did as soon as the Deaniacs reared their heads. But Lieberman stuck to his guns, and he is going to lose this primary because of it. And you accuse him of political expediency?!?! Think about what you’re saying!! He must be the WORST political calculator in the whole freakin’ world if he thought that being pro-war would be politically expedient in deep-blue Connecticut!!! Your “analysis” is wretchedly ridiculous. You disagree with Lieberman on the war — fine, I respect that. But for heaven’s sake, don’t be such a God-damn fool spouting total nonsense like saying that Joe Lieberman is “spineless” because he’s not sufficiently left-wing for your tastes. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that he is placing political expedience over principle on Iraq, and you’ll realize that if you can think about it with a clear head for five seconds.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:40:39 am
Joe, I would agree with you on your point about the party shift thing if it were not for the fact that Lamont was down by double digits then Lieberman announced that he would run as an independent if he lost the next set of polling after that showed Lamont a little in front. After that the lead grew.
Brendan, I stand by my position that Lieberman is a spineless waffling whiner. What you do not understand Brendan, is that those of us who saw through Bush’s bullshit that lead us into this bullshit war that we knew would be untenable (Bush the elder knew it was untenable for crying out loud) and that we knew was a distraction form the actually fight against terrorism as opposed to whatever the hell Bush felt like saying it was about this week are sick and tired. We are sick and tired of the Bush grandstanding and bullshitting and lying. And we are sick and tired of guys like Lieberman who are too stupid to realize there is a problem in Iraq and the way the war on terror is being fought by Bush. Who are too pigheaded to say perhaps my initial analysis on this was in error. And are too spineless to turn stand up and fight for the working people in this country who are being sent over seas as canon fodder for one of the biggest mistakes this country has ever made. And I’m also sick and tired of tip toeing around this stuff. Enough! A spade is a spade and Lieberman is a dick. And if you are too stupid to see that the war was a colossal mistake then you are a whole lot dumber than I thought.
Honestly, this is not about liberal and conservative. Looking at the Pew survey Andrew linked to I’m not particularly Liberal. But I do realize that the war is idiotic. Afghanistan sure that made sense, it had a clear objective. And you know what Bush screwed that up too. This is about too stupid to govern versus realistic enough to realize it is time for a new course. And at the moment this wrath is being taken out on Lieberman because he is the poster child for useless opposition. He is in the opposing party and he refuses to oppose Bush. But he is more than happy to fight for all kinds of anti libertarian anti liberal kinds of censorship. Enough, he can go.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:47:00 am
As a side not, I really rather like Mark Warner. I voted for him in the Democratic primary. I voted for him Against Sen. Warner for Senate. I voted for him for Governor and I will continue to support him so long as he does not lose contact with reality. I’ve also heard good things about Evan Bayh. Warner stands for the fiscal discipline that has been a part of Virginia history since before the revolution. He also stands for a certain common sense liberalism and education. If there were more Democrats like Warner running we’d have a better party for it.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:06:25 am
One last thing, Democrats are different state to state. Trying to argue a San Francisco Democrat is the same as a Virginia Democrat is the same as an Indian Democrat is the same as one from Connecticut is silly. All politics is local, and just because Liberman and Connecticut don’t fit any-longer doesn’t mean a guy like him is a bad fit for Indiana Democrats. At the end of the day they guy you elect is representative of you not the other way around.
There is one other side to this. If the Democrats expect to start winning elections again they need to be shaken to the core out of their stupor of complacency. And a man who was presumable the safest of safe senators in this years elections getting nixed by voters in the primary could well be enough to get the other politicians in the Democratic party to wake up and start paying attention to what their constituents want, and perhaps get them out there to start doing it. Or I may be to optimistic in this regard. But to be honest the Democrats have long been an opposition in some sort of self absorbed stupor and that needs to end as much as the failed policies of the Bush administration need to end.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:06:36 am
Max & dcl -
Not being conservatives or republicans, I’m sure you guys think that the GOP is one big goose-stepping party. All we do is sitting in leather-padded armchairs, drink brandy, smoking Cubanas, and comment on Interest Rates while making Croquet jokes.
Listen to me rationally for a minute. Seriously. Just let go of the kneejerk for a sec and read what I’m saying here.
One of the prime polling leaders for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 is Rudy Guliani. The man is pro-choice, pro-gay, and in most respects is social liberal. In effect, he’s the thinking man’s Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Who’s number two in those polls? Typically, its Condoleza Rice. A black conservative woman. Not really the image you would place with the GOP as its flagship leader.
The conservative party does not shun those who do not tow the party line. If they have qualities that conservatives are looking for, they are accepted.
I’m not saying that the GOP is Xanadu or Utopia, but it tolerates dissention. If it didn’t, McCain would never have had a serious run at the presidency or still have a shot at it again like he does.
For example, Condi is an intelligent experienced administrator who would keep at least some of the good Bush policies in place (yes, some of them are good to conservatives). Guliani, though very liberal, is a proven advocate for victims and for aggressively dealing with law and order issues. Further, many conservatives consider his leadership qualities to be without question. I’m not sure I would go that far, but they are pretty good.
Now, Condi is not ideologically contrary from most of the GOP but Guliani certainly is and so is Schwarzenegger. Both are fairly respected figures in the GOP with one eyeing reasonable presidential hopes.
Joe Lieberman has been a pretty reliable liberal. Yes he has. Nobody gets a 90% liberal voting record by bucking with the party on every other bill.
People complain all the time about his vote to convict Clinton, but a ton of Democrats are thankful to him for that because it provided cover for those other congressperson to avoid flak when voting not to convict. Hell, Clinton thought so, he’s campaigning for Joe.
So what is the one issue that is bringing the far left (and KosKids are the far left) out like droves to defeat Lieberman? Iraq. Pure and simple. There is a massive effort, supported by major Democrats in office, to unseat Lieberman because he will not tow the line of redeploy or that we should have never gone in there.
Despite his consistent and near uniform liberal voting record, he is considered inferior due to his position on Iraq. Now its the voter’s rights to vote for him they like and vote Joe out if they don’t want him for sure.
But don’t sit there acting like its because he did a poor job, or he’s a centrist, or that he’s chummy with the President. Its because he disagrees with the party on one issue.
And the far left is trying to make its statement bold and loud: ‘If you don’t follow our principles, we will work to beat you in the primary. If we can beat Joe Lieberman, we can beat you too.’ That gentlemen, is a message that does not abide dissention or divergence. It demands adherence.
Now, you can feel free to attack as you like. I would like to hope for rational response though.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:10:11 am
Brendan’s right: anyone insulting Lieberman as “spineless” or given to “political expediency” has their head up their ass. dcl’s vapid rant in response confirms it. dcl, your picture should be in the dictionary next to the word “oleaginous.”
August 4th, 2006 at 8:25:00 am
Elder Loy, your posts would be about 100% more interesting and informative if one didn’t have to wade through the waters of your RanD
August 4th, 2006 at 8:25:05 am
Lojo, it’s odd that people complain about Lieberman’s vote to convict Clinton, considering that Lieberman didn’t vote to convict Clinton. I guess some people are ill-informed.
Dane, if every single word of your rant above was true, it still would not remotely contradict a single word of what I said about how absolutely fucking ludicrous it is to claim that Lieberman is all about “political expediency.” What part of HE IS ABOUT TO LOSE HIS SENATE SEAT BECAUSE HE IS STICKING WITH AN UNPOPULAR POSITION don’t you understand??? If you want to call him “stupid,” fine, you’re wrong, but at least there’s a shred of logic there. Hell, even calling him evil is more sensible than calling him a slave to political expediency. Calling him politically “spineless” is sheer nonsense.
August 4th, 2006 at 9:32:28 am
I really don’t understand the hoopla. Somehow, following the democratic process, wherein you vote for the man with whom you most agree, is akin to some kind of purge. Nobody’s throwing him out of the party. They just want somebody else in the party to represent them. If that sends the message: “Represent us or we’ll vote you out”…. GOOD!
P.S. Re: “Nedmentum.” I believe we’re going with “Nedrenaline.”
August 4th, 2006 at 7:04:52 pm
Lojo-
Here is a rational response. If Condi Rice or Rudy Guiliani win the Republican nomination, I will vote Republican in 2008.
I’m saying this because there is no chance in hell this is going to happen. Guiliani and Rice are Republican window dressing, the way Christie Todd Whitman, Colin Powell and J.C. Watts were Republican window-dressing.
Besides the fact that the Christian Right won’t be able to stomach Guiliani’s positions on abortion and gays, he won’t be able to get past the whole screwing around on his wife while Mayor thing. Just you wait. If Rudy looks like he has any chance, which frankly I don’t think he will make a showing at all in the southern primaries, expect your friends at the RNC to Swiftboat him on his extra-marital affairs.
As for Condi, she is already being turned into Colin Powell. She is being set up to fail in Lebanon by the neo-cons.
I also like how you bring up John McCain. You mean the same John McCain who was the target of Karl Rove’s smear campaign in South Carolina where voters were called and push-polled into believing that McCain’s adopted kids were the product of him having sex with a black woman?
Lojo, I hope you are not as naive as you sound.
August 4th, 2006 at 9:11:17 pm
mad max has mastered the art of saying that which is not.