SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Lieberman?

So I read Chris's piece on the Survey USA polling data.  I'd like to highlight a few weird and interesting pieces regarding Lieberman.  I noted last month that Lieberman's numbers were not cracking.  That trend changed in April, he's now sinking in response to Lamont's candidacy and the negative press coverage.  What is very interesting is that he's taken a hit among Democrats, with a drop of two in approvals and a rise in six of disapprovals, but that's not where most of the damage has been done.  Among independents, Joe's has just been crunched, with a ten point drop in approval rating and a twelve point rise in disapprovals.  That's a net approve/disapprove change of eight points among Democrats, and twenty two points among Independents.  Wow.

The second important nugget to draw out is that liberals have crossed the threshold against Lieberman.  Last month, approval among liberals for Lieberman was forty nine, and disapproval was forty one.  Now forty nine percent of liberals disapprove of Joe, and forty six approve.  And yes, liberals are the ones who vote in the primary.

I think Joe's going to jump.  The problem for Joe is that the independents are running away from his even faster than the Democrats.  That's really interesting, and I could posit a few guesses as to why this is going on.  Jerome has blogged about the 'indycrat' phenomenon, where it turns out independents trend very closely to Democrats.  And Chris has written about how the progressive netroots actually track closer to popular American opinion than the Democratic base.  Now, take this with salt, but that's what I think is going on in Connecticut.  When I registered to vote, I strongly considered registering as an independent.  I felt that the system wasn't something I wanted to be a part of despite my progressive leanings.  Psychologically, the netroots is probably more similar to the apathetic voter and their distrust of 'the system' than perhaps we might think.  I mean, yes, we're politically junkies, and independents aren't, but there is a mutual dislike towards insiders like Joe Lieberman.  That might explain the killer drop among independents.  

Regardless, it's a big problem for Lieberman, because it means that even if he does run as an independent, it's going to be very tough to win.  It looks like his popularity was an inch thick and a mile wide, and it's cracking.



Display:


Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (none / 0)

I suspect that the main reason why independents are quick to drop lieberman is simply because they have no loyalty to democrats.


by sterra on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:47:07 PM EST

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (none / 0)

That doesn't explain why they are leaving, though it is does explain why it's easy to get them to leave.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:12:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0)

I'd think that would give them a lot in common with Lieberman.


by ElitistJohn on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:20:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really? (none / 0)

LOL! The perfect response!


by Oregonian on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 11:35:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents (none / 0)

Are Connecticut primaries open?  When would Lieberman have to file as an indy?

I'm notoriously skeptical of polls early in a mid-term election but the above really does indicate that something is going on in CT.  I still have to believe, however, that Lieberman is a huge favorite in a Dem primary but CT is not a state that I know much about.  I do remember that Lowell Weicker went the indy route and got elected as Governor.

Officially leaving the Dem. Party would be a real humiliation for Lieberman.  I have to believe that he will fight hard to avoid that.


by howardpark on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:45:27 PM EST

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents (none / 0)

I believe he would need the proper ammount of signitures by the day after the Dem. primary to qualify for the ballot. Unless he jumps now.


by MNPundit on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:55:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here's to hope (none / 0)

I hope that Joementum jumps now. That would force many DC Dems to have to take a stand. They can't be wishy washy about who they would support in CT. Let's get that on the table and put Schumer and the DSCC on the spot.

It will also give Lamont instant credibility. He will receive a ton of media and his name ID will go up tremendously. He could then have a real shot in Nov.


by ab initio on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:56:59 PM EST

Why not the Goopers for Joementum? (none / 0)

Why has no one suggested the possibility that the Rethugs will hand him THEIR nomination? Hell, I'd bet his old pal Bush would show up for THAT convention, welcome him as a convert. Just in time for Ned to stomp Joementum into the ground!
by sjs1959 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:59:08 PM EST

Re: Why not the Goopers for Joementum? (none / 0)

Remember, the last time this possibility came up it was denied all around so currently that's all the information we have on it.


by MNPundit on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:56:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why not the Goopers for Joementum? (none / 0)

Not to mention we have an example of what the electorate does when such a thing happens.

Google Randy Kelly.


by redstar66 on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 11:14:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

If Lieberman should somehow manage to pull this one out while remaining a Democrat, does this mean his numbers will shoot back up immediately afterward, as Lamont supporters hold their noses and support the nominee?


by One Hand Clapping on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:11:47 PM EST

Re: SUSA USA: (none / 0)

There is going to be a HUGE backlash at the Convention.

Democratic members of the Town committees are openly supporting Lamont now. We shall see what happens but watch this space on May 20 for results! I'll be there. Who wants the first phone call from the floor with the total?


If all politics is local- then it's time to support your local Democratic Town Committee.
by JJonMyDD on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:31:23 PM EST

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (none / 0)

Matt: I'm not sure I agree with your analysis. There is no magic to Lieberman's approval sinking below disapproval among liberals. Nor his sinking approval among Independents. If we posit that, since Lieberman has not spent a dime (of his unlimited warchest) and that Lamont has gotten 3-4 months of uniformly great press, the 46% OF LIBERALS who still approve of Lieberman are going to be awfully hard to pull away. Knowing that, and knowing that independents never show up (if they're even allowed to, I'm not sure) in primaries, where the hell is Lamont going to get 50% from? He can't win with 46% of liberals supporting Lieberman. He can't even win with 40%. I'm guessing he needs that number to go down to 35 or something. Tell me where Lamont gets 50% of the vote on primary day, when he's being outspent 7 or  8 to one starting (I take it) today? This is still very much just wishful thinking, and the primary is only 100 days away or so.

Also, Joe's shrinking popularity among independents, combined with the presence of 2 semi-serious Republicans now, makes it very dicey for him to leave the party and still win. I seriously doubt he's even considering it. In any case, wait until he starts going negative on Ned before you assume he's worried about losing. No way he goes down without trying to muddy up Lamont, and so far his ads are pure positive.


by ColoDem on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:05:04 PM EST

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (none / 0)

I agree, it will be difficult, but I can't help but be optimistic given Pat Toomey's amazing showing against an institution like Senator Arlen Specter in 2004.


by Skaje on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (3.00 / 1)

That, along with now-Senator Sununu's win over Bob Smith in New Hampshire, are the shining lights out there, for sure. But remember a couple big differences. The biggest one is that both Toomey and Sununu were sitting congressmen. They had political bases to start from and were somewhat known. Sununu of course had the most famous name in New Hampshire politics as well. And both were very well funded, competitive with their opponents (thanks to Club for Growth in Toomey's case).

Lamont started out completely unknown, which has meant spending a huge chunk of cash just introducing himself to CT voters. He's started to do so now, which is why his numbers are up. But he's also down to a few hundred thousand in cash on hand, while Lieberman just went on the air statewide and has some gajillion amount of money in the bank (and more where that came from). Lamont's money came mostly from small donors on the web. And how high can that go?

Actually, this race is following pretty closely the standard story line for the troubled incumbent versus decently funded insurgent model. At first, the insurgent gains, because voters are cranky with the incumbent and the faceless, unsullied insurgent becomes the vessel for voters to throw all sorts of unhappiness into. But the insurgent spends all his/her cash getting known, after which -- surprise! -- the incumbent starts campaigning, including spending huge amounts of money. And then the insurgent becomes less of a shining knight and more of just-another-candidate-to-choose-from. And all voters are hearing are messages from the incumbent, first positives to shore up the base, then negatives when the insurgent is spent out and can't respond. In the final stages, voters begin making better-the-devil-you-know judgments, and presto, the incumbent wins by 15 or whatever.

The mistake insurgents and their supporters always make is to assume the gains they make early as they're becoming known will continue steadily all the way to 50. But in fact, all of those gains are happening when the incumbent is ignoring you and hoping you go away (or in the case of CA50, working on their own primary). The incumbent hasn't even started campaigning yet. Hasn't started spending money on glossy, positive ads. Hasn't started leaking ugly stories to the press they've known and cultivated for years about the challenger. Hasn't brought the Ted Kennedy's and Bill Clinton's of the world in to campaign and make a big splash.

This is why incumbents with even decent numbers (and Lieberman has better than that) almost never lose. Strike that: They actually never lose.


by ColoDem on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:44:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (none / 0)

We don't know what Lamont's name rec is. I'm willing to bet it's still low. Your argument is premised on the idea that these remaining 46% of self-ID'ing liberals are, by now, familiar with Lamont and have decided to stick with Joe.

I just don't think that's the case - but we'll know more by the time the next poll comes out.


by DavidNYC on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (3.00 / 0)

Here's a question: are Democrats more liberal than Independents?

I know that normally, you would expect the Democrats to be more liberal.  But right now, liberals are feeling very unrepresented by the party.  Is it possible that centrists actually feel at home calling themselves Democrats, whereas true liberals consider themselves Independents?


by joshyelon on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:16:24 PM EST

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (none / 0)

I think you're on to something here.  Indies in America are moving further and further to the left.  Many Independents in western libertarian-type states are VERY liberal, even to the left of Democrats.  They often don't identify with the Democratic Party because they are very populist and anti-establishment, to the point of being against parties and party structures.

The trouble is, they don't vote in primaries.  In fact, because they HATE parties, they eschew voting in primaries.  That is why name ID is infinitely more important in general elections than primaries.  The party activist class and committed geek voters like us vote in primaries...and we seek out to know the candidates.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

antiestablishmentarian (none / 0)

Your thinking comes very close to my rationale for registering independent all of my voting years up until 2000. Though I have yet to this day to vote in a primary...

I have always been wary of "parties".  However I wouldn't say I was more left than a mainline Democrat... just perhaps less fond of being pigeon-holed.


by kfractal on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There are very liberal Democrats (none / 0)

There are also very conservative ones.  And a lot of Libertarians.  In fact, I would bet if you really broke down the "Indie" label, you would get one third conservative, ranging from very slightly to religious nutjob, one third liberal, ranging from very slightly to communist, and one third libertarian (some, but not all or even most, also Libertarian).

Libertarians (both small and large L) are on our side more often than they care to admit.  For example, in the above combination, two of the three groups would naturally be against the Iraq war, therefore "Independents" in general would be by a similiar percentage.


by Geotpf on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 09:28:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Change title of post to... (none / 0)

..."There are very liberal Indepedents".


by Geotpf on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 09:29:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SUSA USA: Progressive Independents Leaving Li (3.00 / 1)

Lamont's money came mostly from small donors on the web. And how high can that go?

Very very high.  Moveon hasn't moved on this.  Your analysis of the race is off, though I would say generically that you'd make a great insider.


by Matt Stoller on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:20:57 PM EST

Bingo (none / 0)

There hasn't been an exisiting model for what's going in Connecticut right now. To take a cookie-cutter approach to this campaign is just hopelessly simplistic. There are just too many variables at play, too many "what-if's?" for anyone to state they have a handle on what is going on yet. And certainly someone not from Connecticut wouldn't really have a clue.

A few things we do know for certain are:

--Lamont is increasing is name recognition daily.
--Money will not be a deciding factor.
--Lamont will easily get the 15% of delegate support at next month's convention he needs to force a primary. That's significant because it's an open vote. If Lamont were to get upwards of 30% it's believed Lieberman would not risk a primary at all and would go Independent. such is the volatility of the voters though no one really knows if Lamont can get that many delegates to stand on principle against a three-term Senator.


Join the Nedheads at YouTube.
by Scarce on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 12:14:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

On the ground in Connecticut (3.00 / 0)

(Full discloser:  I am a staffer for Ned Lamont.  What follows is my view.  It isn't any sort of official campaign statement, but it hopefully reflects what a lot of us are feeling.)

Are Connecticut primaries open?
No.  You must be a registered Democrat to vote in the primary.  Republicans have until May 8th to change parties.  Independents have until a few days before the primary to make the change.

When would Lieberman have to file as an indy?
A day or two after the primary.  The only way he could do this would be if he started collecting signatures before the primary.

Why has no one suggested the possibility that the Rethugs will hand him THEIR nomination?
This had been discussed in the press, including an endorsement by Chris Shays (R CT-4).  Republican leadership has said the idea is dead and there are two Republican candidates already, with a third being rumored.  They are Paul Streitz, who is running on defending the Connecticut-Mexico border, and Alan Schlesinger running on support of Bush and the need to privatize social security.  A third candidate, Jack Orchulli, who ran against Dodd last time, is also rumored to be considering another run.

There is going to be a HUGE backlash at the Convention
It will be very interesting to see how the vote turns out.  All we need is 15% of the delegates to get on the ballot.  Anything else is gravy.  You can bet, however, that Lieberman operatives are doing everything they can to contact delegates and party leaders to keep things under control at the convention.  Read this story to hear about one blogger/delegates call from the Lieberman camp.

If we posit that, since Lieberman has not spent a dime (of his unlimited warchest) and that Lamont has gotten 3-4 months of uniformly great press  However, Lieberman's campaign has been on the ground very hard here.  They've been running advertisements, first radio, now TV, and the ads are pretty weak.  Meanwhile, Lamont has been getting good press, but it has only been a month, maybe two.  Remember, Lamont declare just over a month ago.

As to Lieberman's unlimited war chest, it is worth noting that a lot of Lieberman's money has come from couples that have contributed $8,400.  How do they do that?  Each person contributes $2,100 to the primary campaign and $2,100 to the general election.  These people are maxed out and cannot contribute more.  Also, only half of the money that has been contributed can be used in the primary.  It would be interesting to find out how much of Lieberman's war chest is reserved for the general election.  I'l bet it is at least half a million.

Lamont's money came mostly from small donors on the web. And how high can that go?
As Matt said, very high.  Everyone who contributed $5 can contribute another $5 bucks this month.  MoveOn hasn't stepped in.  DFA hasn't stepped in.  

There hasn't been an existing model for what's going in Connecticut right now.
I think this is very important.  If we play the traditional ground game of building up a large war chest and counting on media buys to swing low-information, episodic voters win the game, we don't have a chance.  If we follow Lazarsfeld's observation "that many voters regard family members and close personal friends, and not the mass media, as major influences in the decision making process".  What we need to be doing is spreading the word virally to all our friends, neighbors and relatives, in part the way folks have been doing very creatively in the Nedhead's group on YouTube.


by aldon on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 08:22:04 AM EST

Lieberman's a douchebag (3.00 / 1)

Let's not get too complicated when it comes to Joe Lieberman, because that is giving him too much credit.

I'm a relative moderate (well, actually, more of a mixed bag nut job), and I hate Lieberman to the ends of this earth.

He is arrogant, self-aggrandizing and an outright jerk.

When presented with internal opposition, he threatens to walk instead of asking fellow Democrats what he can do for them.  That tells you everything you need to know about Joe.

Whether it's shilling for Israel or covering Bush's ass on Social Security, Lieberman is pretty half-assed even as conservative Democrats go.


by jcjcjc on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 09:44:45 AM EST

Re: Lieberman's a douchebag (3.00 / 1)

I think you nailed it on that one.  I would go one further and suggest that most Democrats in general consider Lieberman the main reason for Gore's lost presidency back in 2000.  There's a taint on that guy that don't wash off.

[putting on geek hat]

And, he looks a lot like Darth Sideous.


by Faustic on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 03:23:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I voted for Harry Browne mainly because of... (none / 0)

...Lieberman's position on the ticket.  Of course, my California vote was, and always will be, completely worthless in presidential campaigns.  I just love the electoral college-not.


by Geotpf on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 09:37:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm curious (none / 0)

When Lieberman wins the primary by a comfortable margin, will Matt Stoller...

a)  Admit that he had absolutely no insight into this race?

or...

b)  Admit that he was just trying to talk up a campaign that he really knew had no chance whatsoever.


by JPhurst on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:25:24 PM EST

Re: I'm curious (none / 0)

No, what he will do is say the Deamocratic Party establishment, DSCC, Chris Dodd, Obama and everyonelse never gave thier guy a chance and if they had Lieberman would have lost.  That would be my guess.


by THE MODERATE on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 01:49:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm curious (none / 0)

Actually, Matt has already admitted that he was wrong about Ned Lamont.  I remember it very clearly.  Matt will argue his point full out, but when he is proven wrong, he admits it.

Here is what happened.

We had a meeting at my house where we introduced Ned to some bloggers.  Matt arrived early, with Sterling Newberry, and some folks from PoliticsTV.  We chatted as we waited for Ned to show up.

I did my little song and dance about Ned, and Matt tried to tear down everything I said.  He talked about how so many people have so much riding on keeping an incumbent in power.  He talked about how vicious they would be.  He challenged me on everything I said.

Ned showed up and Matt and his friends grilled him.  Afterwards, Matt simply nodded his head and said, "Wow, he's really good."  Ned is really good.

Go over to YouTube and check out some of the videos about Ned, especially some of the recordings by ctblogger

Of course it takes more that a good candidate to run a winning campaign.  It takes a good campaign manager and a winning strategy, so Matt and his friends grilled Tom Swan, Ned's campaign manager, as well.  Sterling Newbury donated to the campaign on the spot.

Taking on an incumbent is rough work.  By all conventional wisdom, Lieberman should win by a landslide.  But these are uncommon times and uncommon people.  Ned Lamont will give Joe Lieberman the toughest battle he's ever faced.

Who will come out the winner in the end?  My pick is Ned.  We'll find out in August.  But, then again, I don't have the hubris to claim that others have no insight into the race.  I'll simply do my due diligance, just like Matt and others have been doing.


by aldon on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 08:22:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lieberman FEARS a primary! (none / 0)

In this thread,

howardpark said:

"I still have to believe, however, that Lieberman is a huge favorite in a Dem primary"

and ColoDem said:

"Tell me where Lamont gets 50% of the vote on primary day"

and JPhurst said:

"When Lieberman wins the primary by a comfortable margin"

Fellas, I am a lifelong resident of Connecticut, and I came here to tell you that

LIEBERMAN IS V-E-R-Y AFRAID OF A PRIMARY WITH LAMONT!

And, here is how & why I can say that with confidence:

I took special note back in 2004 of the particular timing of when Lieberman dropped out of the 2004 Democratic presidential primary race, a timing which happened to be just before Connecticut was itself to have its own Democratic presidential primary.

Now, why do you suppose that Lieberman, being a Connecticut favorite son and all, did not at least run in the 2004 Connecticut Democratic presidential primary for ha-ha's to at least accrue all the local political capital and local glory that a native son typically gets doing such?

Well, I strongly believe that Lieberman strategically avoided running in the 2004 Connecticut Democratic presidential primary because Lieberman had concluded that he would have LOST BADLY in such and that he would have thus been profoundly humiliated in and by his own native son state!

You see, Lieberman already knew back in 2004 that because of his nutcase pro-Bush hawkish Iraq war position that he was already dogmeat with the progressive Connecticut Democrats that typically dominate Connecticut's Democratic primaries, in which only registered Democrats can participate.

Now, if back in 2004 Lieberman already knew that he was dogmeat with the Connecticut Democratic primary-voting base enough to scare him out of running in the 2004 Connecticut Democratic presidential primary as a native son, you can just imagine how much MORE Lieberman fears that same progressive Connecticut Democratic primary-voting base now in 2006!

So, despite all the haughty talk by the pro-Lieberman types, I really think that Lieberman already believes and fears that he will LOSE to Lamont in a Connecticut Democratic senatorial primary in 2006, just like Lieberman feared losing in the Connecticut Democratic presidential primary back in 2004!

So, the question therefore is, in 2006 will Lieberman be a coward AGAIN and run away AGAIN from a Connecticut Democratic primary, just like the coward he was back in 2004 when Lieberman dropped out just in time to avoid the 2004 Connecticut Democratic presidential primary?

I say, if Lieberman did it in 2004, he can certainly do it again in 2006.


by hartford for lamont on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 03:13:59 PM EST

So (1.00 / 1)

When Lieberman wins the primary by a comfortable margin, will "hartford for lamont"

a)  Admit that he had absolutely no insight into this race?

or...

b)  Admit that he was just trying to talk up a campaign that he really knew had no chance whatsoever.


by JPhurst on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 03:19:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.