Lieberman's Last Three Days

Over the past three days, Lieberman has defended the Republican leadership over Mark Foley, joked about torture with Imus, and race-baited Al Sharpton, even though Lieberman had asked Sharpton for support.  Meanwhile, Ted Kennedy is going after Lieberman for calling himself a 'John F. Kennedy Democrat'.

Credible polls are showing between a 6-10 point lead for Lieberman, and that sounds about right to me.  During the primary, Lamont was the leader of the progressive movement.  He became bigger than himself, and it was a movement campaign where progressives of conviction saw in Lamont a way to represent our values in the political process.  That generated a huge surge in support and momentum.  After the primary, Lamont shrank back to a normal candidate, playing to local issues and moving away from the strong progressive stances he had taken in the primary.  It actually kind of reminded me of the Clark campaign after Clark jumped into the race.  

My sense of what is going on is that the race in Connecticut needs to be renationalized, because it's on grand questions of national purpose and morality where Ned Lamont has the advantage.  If it's a localized race, Lieberman is the known quantity.  Lieberman's even running on that theme, of experience.  Lamont must make the case for change, and the progressive movement is where that case is being made.  The Foley scandal and the torture bill, where Lieberman adopts the far right status quo, are creating new ground every day for this race to be reshaped.

Tags: clark, Connecticut, CT-Sen, Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont (all tags)



Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

Look i'm not buying the 20-point lead either. But you know what? Lamont ISN'T doing that well. This race is reminding me of Phil Angelides' campaign in California. Lamont is BLOWING this just as badly.

First, his campaign ads SUCK! It's not reassuring when you get all these progressives giving each other high fives whenever one of his dumb ads is released. He is preaching to the choir and isn't making the case for change. He's allowing Lieberman to define the race and is being squeezed between Republican support for Liberman, his support among independents, and his one-third support among Democrats.

I fear Lieberman will NOT caucus with Democrats and is just LYING in order not to lose his support among Democratic voters.

This race is completely winnable...but his anti-Iraq ad was terrible, his Red Sox-Yankee ad was just stupid, and his child care ad was cute but ineffective.

Lamont has to make the case that a vote for him is a vote for A DEMOCRATIC Senate! At the very least it would force Lieberman to declare his intentions to caucus with Democrats more forcibly. That would reassure me somewhat.

If you want my opinion, I think he needs to get Bill Clinton to campaign with him, because Clinton's strongest support within the Democratic Party is pretty much the same as those who still support Lieberman. I'm sure that many of them believe that Clinton still supports Lieberman, given his campaigning for him this past summer.

How do you all like your "big dog" right now?


P.S. Zobgy is such a liar. Last week he said that Lieberman was leading by about 4 points. His own interactive polls showed it tied. Nothing has happened since then that would warrant such movement.

by JackBourassa 2006-10-05 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

 No Show Joe is a Repug!  Get used to it.  Big deal if he caucuses with the Dems; when he votes against "his" party's majority, he always explains it as being a free thinker and "bi-partisan", and gets to hide his Repug colors.

 No Show Joe knows that his "bipartisanship" philosophy doesn't look as real calling himself a Repug, so he pretends to be a Democrat so he can push his phony politics.

 Bill Clinton should campaign for Lamont in the last 2 weeks of the campaign, and do it more than once.  As No Show Joe is currently trying to do to Ned, remind people that a part of you is Who you hang with.  Clinton hangs with Ned, King George hangs with No Show Joe.  Who does Connecticut want to hang out with?

 Finally, Angelides campaign SUCKS!!  I can't stand King George, and i HATE Phil's commercials(seemingly the only ones he has) putting AHHHnold with the King.  It aint working, and doesn't tell us Californians why AHHnold is really a POS like AHHnold's definition of "special interests"( the unions of California employees) and as the all time record holder for campaign contributions from businesses and lobbyists.  And how has AHHnold kicked Phil's butt?  By moving towards what to AHHnold is  the middle while Phil just keeps putting out stnkin ads.

by ocdemocrat 2006-10-05 10:39AM | 0 recs
Listen up.

Speaker Reid


Speaker McConnell

It does fucking matter and Lamont needs to win.

by MNPundit 2006-10-05 12:38PM | 0 recs
I'm a fuck up.




It still fucking matters despite my screw up.

by MNPundit 2006-10-05 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

I think you oversell the role of alleged national progressive momentum and identity (which I take it is actually more of a euphemism for attention from the blogs), and undersell that Lamont is trying to win over Independents and Republicans instead of Democrats.  The primary was "our turf" because our small numbers could cover more ground, and our partisan message and alleged ideological extremism were harder to cast as liabilities.  The week that Lamont won the primary he was trailing by over 20 points in the three way polls.  If it was a deadheat with Democrats in early August, less than two months later Lamont has made huge pick ups among Dems to get to this point.  By these measures, Lamont hasn't lost any momentum, and we should all be really impressed with his candidacy.  

Also, I think everyone who is taking 6-10 as the likely result on election day is ignoring a lot of evidence.  First, the ground game for Lieberman will probably be even worse than it was in August.  Who are the Lieberman die hards?  You think lobbyists from Washington will all bus up to Connecticut and beat the pavement for him?  Second, the ballot issue is also likely to cost him at least a couple points.  Schlessinger's name ID is about zilch.  Some number of Lieberman voters will definitely fall out between these polls and the election.  And the likelihood of conservatives and Republicans actually making it out on election day seems to drop with every passing news cycle.  I like the bad polling b/c it will keep the good guys hungry and fighting.  But if this race poll within 5 in the firs week of November, I like our chances, and 6-10 isn't that far off.

If I'm Lamont, I'm using the predatorgate quote everywhere I can, and I'm drawing a direct comparison to the Clinton years.  Lieberman's biggest liability is his tag as a GOP rubber stamp and as a good kisser.  That quote is the embodiment of his bogus, hypocritical moralism and his bi-partisanship-by-bending-over method of representing Connecticut.

by msbatxnyc 2006-10-05 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

The week that Lamont won the primary he was trailing by over 20 points in the three way polls.

That is false.

by Matt Stoller 2006-10-05 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

OK, yeah.  Looking back "the week of" is wrong, it was the Q poll from 7/20 I was thinking of, which is more like 3 weeks.  Still, that's a lot of ground.  However, reviewing all the polls from August, it's clear that Lamont really has lost some ground, rather than simply losing momentum.  So my first take is completely off, and if anything Matt is underselling Lamont's recent struggles.  Rasmussen had the race within five for basically all of August, and Q and others had polls in that range as well.  Interesting b/c it sheds some light on why Lieberman is playing so much footsie with the GOP right now.  As they took to the media to dis-endorse Schlessinger, Lieberman secured his position and got a boost.  Man, we should have gotten behind an astroturf effort to help Schlessinger or something.  

Given all that, Lamont's best shot right now might be  appeals boosting his stance as a moderate on everything other than the war and attacking Lieberman's credentials as a centrist based on the war and Bush.  In that sense, the Hastert thing is that much more important.  Lamont needs to make the sale on Lieberman being a de facto right-wing Republican.  

by msbatxnyc 2006-10-05 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

I remain pessimistic about this race. The netroots has bet the farm on Connecticut and it looks increasingly likely that Lieberman will win. Again, I don't see much evidence that the progressive blogosphere knows how to win over moderates and centrists. We seem more interested in pumping each other up with all those shout-outs of "Fitzmas!" and "Nedrenaline!" rather than focusing on the complex calculus required to GOTV and take back control of Congress.

Do the math: with few exceptions campaigns exclusively devoted to turn out progressives, and only progressives, are doomed. The GOP base is more reliable (so far) and much larger than our base -- by millions.

by BrklynDad 2006-10-05 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

As far as I'm concerned, it's a win simply if Leiberman is forced to remove the "D" from the scroll screen. Lamont losing will suck, but at least he doesn't represent us any more.

by Memekiller 2006-10-05 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman's Last Three Days

I don't think this race has changed at all or is likely to. I posted on the night of the primary that Lieberman figured to lead the general election polling by high single digits, simply based on the new math with indies and Republicans in the mix. IMO the crtiticism of Lamont is misapplied other than the failure to insist on a string of debates including Schlesinger. He needed that early in the cycle. The closer to election day the fewer minds will change. We can dream about Lamont somehow snatching support from Lieberman in each of the three categories but the fact remains by far the most logical blueprint for a Lamont win is Schlesinger doubling or tripling his support level and so far no threat of that.

I am glad there has not been singleminded focus on this race by the progressive blogs during the general election, which is what I feared.

And I do agree with the comment in this thread that the progressive movement only understands how to inspire progressives and not win support elsewhere. Granted, we are birthrighted to have liberals in Connecticut or Massachusetts.

But I'm in Nevada. Newsflash: liberals are smack uphill here in a statewide race. This state, like many others, will embrace an outstanding moderate Democrat but liberals will be routinely rejected. I don't think the progressive blogs get that, that certain states or districts simply won't vote for the progressive candidate. In the primary here Dina Titus was markedly superior to Jim Gibson, in debates and overall campaign. But I voted for Gibson since I know the way this state votes. Review Columnist Erin Neff wrote the same thing, that she wanted a Democrat to run the state and she was certain Gibson had much greater chance to win a general election as a moderate. Latest polling confirmed that dynamic, with Titus retaining only 59% of Democratic support. You can't just look at registration figures to determine partisan levels. Many of the Democrats I know here are moderate to slightly conservative and they will vote for a Republican instead of a liberal Democrat. That is simply fact and the primary voters and progressive blogs do the party a great disservice by inept handicapping and forcefeeding progressives in races where they do not fit.

by jagakid 2006-10-05 11:47AM | 0 recs
by estebban 2006-12-25 11:53PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads