CT-Senate: Lieberman's Number Sunk During 2003 Campaign for President

Sign Up for Ned Lamont now

From the subscriber section of polling report (sign up here), check out these long-term trends in Lieberman's approval rating in Connecticut according to the Q-poll:

Quinnipiac University Poll. Jan. 4-9, 2006. N=1,369 registered voters statewide. MoE ± 2.7 (for all registered voters).

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joseph Lieberman is handling his job as United States senator?"

              Approve      Disapporve      Unsure
1/4-1/9         62            24             13

Looks pretty solid, right? Well, if you go back over the last two years, it is pretty solid:

             Approve      Disapporve      Unsure
Jul            67            23             11
Mar           67            22             11
Feb         69            20             12
Jan          73            15             12

              Approve      Disapporve      Unsure
Nov           71            23             12
Sep          66            22             12
Aug           66            20             13
Jun             66            15             12
May             63            24             14

Lieberman's approval rating does seem to be slowly sinking from its high point in early 2005, but certainly not at a rate that will make him vulnerable within the next few months. For Lieberman to be in trouble, there needs to be another catalyst that would cause his numbers to drop at a faster rate.

Ladies and gentlemen of the netroots, that catalyst would appear to be an actual campaign. During 2003, when Lieberman was running for President, it would appear that the larger news profile that came with him running for President caused his numbers to sink rapidly:

              Approve     Disapporve     Unsure
11/03           52            36           12
10/03           54            34           12
7/03            51            33           17
4/03            53            25           22
3/03            60            28           12
9/02            58            29           13
7/02            64            26           10
5/02            65            23           10
2/02            64            21           15
12/01           71            19           10

Before he ran for President, Lieberman's approval rating was in the high sixties. However, during his campaign, it crated into the low fifties. The more people saw of Lieberman, the less they liked him. Those of us who closely watched primary polls in 2003 saw this happen in state after state. In almost every state, Lieberman started with a big lead. However, as the campaign went on, he crated and eventually fell behind almost every other candidate in almost every single state. The more people saw of him, and the more people saw alternatives to him, the less they liked Lieberman.

Given all of this, I submit that Lieberman's approval rating is very soft. If he were subjected to an actual campaign, I am confident that his numbers would take a sharp, sudden tumble.

I know we can give Lieberman a real campaign, too. Already Democratic committees in Connecticut are rebuking him. MoveOn might come in with a million dollars. We need to provide the 1,000 volunteers that will push Lamont past the exploratory phase. Sign Up for Ned Lamont now. Watch Lieberman's numbers tumble when he is finally exposed to sunlight.

There's more...

MyDD February 2006 Straw Poll

It's a new month, and thus its time for a new straw poll.

Go vote now.

Here have been the previous results (January, December, November):

First Round
                       Jan     Dec     Nov
Feingold        34.1    28.1    25.7
Clark             27.6    22.1     28.4
Warner          13.7    15.6     10.6
Edwards        12.8    11.3     12.2
Richardson      4.6      4.6       4.3
Unsure             2.2      8.0       6.6
Clinton            1.9       4.9      6.2
Kerry               1.8       3.0      2.2
Bayh                0.6      1.6       1.9
Biden               0.4      1.5       1.3
Vilsack            0.4      0.5        0.5
Others*            --         --         --

Eighth Round
                       Jan     Dec     Nov
Feingold        37.3    32.7     31.8
Clark             29.8    27.3     34.4
Warner          17.3    23.5     15.3
Edwards        15.6    16.4     18.4

"Unsure" took a beating last month. Perhaps allegiances are starting to form. Perhaps there was just more poll stuffing on behalf of the top candidates. Everyone except Feingold, Clark and Edwards actually either lost ground or stayed flat.

And here are the Dailykos results, and the Dailykos trends. It is amazing to think that just seven months ago, Clinton and Feingold were tied. There has been clear downward movement for Hillary, and clear upward movement for Feingold and Warner over the long term. If Feingold rises any further, he will start hitting Dean levels of support ala 2003. While Matt is absolutely right, the netroots are still a lot more powerful now than they were three years ago. Progess has been made.

A new candidate has been added to the February poll: Tom Daschle. I don't imagine he will get many votes, but he seems to be running as much as anyone else on this list.

Go vote now.

Remember that running a shadow campaign for President is the requirement to be in this poll, not online support. If online support was a requirement, I would have dropped Vilsack, Biden and Bayh from these polls a long time ago. But this isn't about online support: all eleven of these folks are already running a shadow campaign for President. Gore isn't: no leadership PAC, no staff, no anything. If the Gore folks out there want Gore to be included, then they better start a serious Draft Gore movement that contains most of the trappings of a shadow campaign: a real email list, lots of pledged donations, press releases, a professional website, and actual staff. Unless that happens (or unless Gore goes ahead and does that himself) he isn't going to be included in these polls. And no amount of whining will change that.

Go vote now.

There's more...

Good morning Senator, welcome to a new dawn.

As your staff has probably already alerted you, your office has been barraged by e-mails, faxes and phone messages imploring you to either vote no or abstain on the upcoming cloture vote in the Alito confirmation.

I realize that you have heard in the media, and perhaps from your own advisors, that this massive outpouring of sentiment should be taken with a modicum of salt, due to the fact it has come from the Internet activists and bloggers.  After all, conventional wisdom dictates that this group exemplifies the far extreme in political thought, and is not representative of the greater constituency you represent.

But ... Before you make your final decision on this momentous vote, please take a moment to reflect upon the future. Not just from a moral or ethical position (in which the vote against cloture would be the imperative), but from a pragmatic, political one.

The Republican Party, which at the present time holds such a stranglehold upon all three branches of government, did not gain that position of power overnight. It was a long, calculated battle waged over many years, utilizing a grassroots network of motivated activists, which put them in this position.

You too now have the power to harness such a force... but you must first recognize it in order to utilize it.

There's more...

Reflections on Joe Lieberman

Senator Joe Lieberman has recently announced his resignation, pending expectations that he will probably lose his next Senate race. For many on the far left, Mr. Lieberman was a hated figure; a traitor on issues beginning from his loud support of the Iraq War.

Mr. Lieberman, on the other hand, came to dislike the far left in equal measure. After they defeated him in the 2006 Democratic primary, he ran for Senator as an independent. He went on to win that race by the high single-digits and never forgave the netroots or the Democratic Party for what he thought they had done to him.

Mr. Lieberman has spent the rest of his life attempting to block all that the netroots hold dear. He was the only Democratic senator to support Republican candidate John McCain, even going as far as to speak at the Republican National Convention. During that time Mr. McCain seriously considered the Jewish senator as his running mate.

Then, during the health care debate, it was Mr. Lieberman who put the death blow onto the public option. This was probably the dearest provision in the bill to online activists, hoping to use it to create a single-payer, universal, government-run health care system (what conservatives call socialist health care, an accurate description in this case). Mr. Lieberman’s role in the defeat of this dream further enraged the netroots community.

All this does little to speak well of neither the netroots community nor Mr. Lieberman. The former overestimated their power in attempting to defeat the senator; their influence over the Democratic primary electorate turned out not to extend to the general electorate, where Mr. Lieberman won as an independent. Since that election, the senator has made the far left pay far more than it would have if the netroots had just stayed quiet.

But Mr. Lieberman comes out the worst. A high government official should never let his or her emotions drive him to make decisions. Doing so can be dangerous for the country’s health. Yet since 2006 Mr. Lieberman’s entire career seems to have been dedicated to anger-fueled retaliation.

Perhaps the senator deserves to be angry, perhaps not. But public servants should not behave in the manner Mr. Lieberman been doing. Things such as the public option are serious matters, not tools to get petty personal revenge. They affect hundreds of millions of Americans. They are part of a very important debate over what policies the United States must take. Deciding to oppose something like the public option as retribution for a personal matter is not responsible.

It is probably a good thing that Mr. Lieberman has declared his resignation.

--Inoljt, http://mypolitikal.com/




Advertise Blogads