Lamont Leads Lieberman, Irrational Exuberance Grips Nutroots®!
Why irrational? First, the big headline:
Anti-war Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont has surged to a razor-thin 51 – 47 percent lead over incumbent Sen. Joseph Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. This compares to a 55 – 40 percent lead for Sen. Lieberman among likely Democratic primary voters in a June 8 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.
In possible general election matchups:
* Lieberman defeats Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger 68 – 15 percent;
* Lamont beats Schlesinger 45 – 22 percent, with 24 percent undecided;
* Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger.
THAT’S why it’s irrational; Lieberman leads by 24% as an independent, and he will surely run as one if these Democratic primary numbers hold. That means that the most likely outcome of all this agitation is one less Democrat in the Senate. Is this the grand Nutroots® strategy? Drive everyone out that doesn’t meet the right levels of policy ‘purity’?
“Hey, we’ve only got three seats, but at least they vote exactly the way I want them to…”
The thing that I find interesting is that the “razor-thin” lead is one point more than Bush’s “broad-based mandate” in 2004.
Fargus, how is that observation relevant to a localized campaign in a blue state? If you are trying to point out that conservative exuberance over the GOP win in 2004 is similarly irrational, I would remind you the so-called “broad-based mandate” was the result of a national election which kept the White House and Congress in Republican hands. It’s apples and oranges.
Now, as someone who voted for Bush, I thought the “broad-based mandate” idea was a little over the top, but the figures from that proclaimation are a lot more convincing that the reported division of party voters in a blue state primary (the apparent majority of whom, as Mark points out, will ultimately have their efforts frustrated with the election of Liberman anyway).
I say Lieberman should become a Republican so we’ll have someone to kvetch about other than Chafee… and Snowe, and Collins, and Specter, and McCain, and Hagel… never mind.
He was the first president to win by a majority since his father.
The whole word choice of ‘mandate’ was established by HRC, but the press was in no rush to correct her. however, in bush’s defense he recieved 11.5 million more votes. than 2000, with increased supprt form EVERY deomgraphic group with the exception of Phds and high school drop outs.
The poll actually helps Lieberman. his previously held margin would turn away his supporters, having them believe he has already won. Now the Lieberman supporters have a reason to go vote. (Quinnipiac University is in Ct…very curious.) Whle the moe is 2%, I have a feeling that other polls will not reflect the closeness of the race.)
I wasn’t saying that they’re directly comparable. Just a difference in wording, is all.
And mtl, I’d disagree sharply with your analysis of why Lieberman will probably win the primary, or your “feeling” that other polls will disagree.
Quite simply, I believe this to be the most foolish political act that has occurred in my lifetime.
The Nutroots actions will gain them nothing. Lieberman will run as an Independent and win, losing the Dems one crucial seat.
It also serves to drive their party even further to the left, which hurts them nationally.
It’s a loss all around for the Nutroots and the Democratic Party.
Every single time I think to myself “how could the Democratic Party be so foolish?”, they find a way to top themselves.
I hear Lieberman will still caucus with the Dems when he wins as an Indy. Does anyone think there is a chance that we could get him to caucus with us instead? Is it absolutely out of the realm of possibility for a change in party affiliation?
Kavon, I think there’s pretty much zero chance Liberman switches to the GOP. Other than foreign policy, he’s about as liberal as they come.
Evan,
Does getting him to caucus with us really change anything?
My understadning is that he can: a. caucus with the Dems, b. caucus with the GOP, or c. not caucus with either.
Is this understanding correct and what effect does it really have?
I’m not sure of the source, but I have heard that Liberman has already stated he will caucus with the Dems if he wins as an independent. If this is true, then it doesn’t change anything – he is effectively a Democrat in the same vein as Vermont’s independent (and retiring) senator Jim Jeffords.
I believe he has to caucus with one of the parties in order for his committee assignments to be arranged appropriately, but again, I’m not 100% sure on that either. Bottom line is that if Liberman wins as an independent, it’s a net loss for the Dems, but not any kind of gain for the GOP (which is why it’s a stupid strategy for the Dems to get behind Lamont, who will probably not win the senate seat).
So true.
There are center-lefties who aren’t nutso consumed with the Liberman/Bush hug and consider Liberman to be a well reasoned voice of their party on more issues that just the war…if ever there a reason for center-left Dems to make the switch, this is it.
Thanks Evan! I think your analysis is correct.
He did, but since he’ll be backed by a wider range of voters he’ll have the leverage to vote exactly as he pleases. Definitely makes it more interesting.
I have been saying this for a while…this is the worst nightmare for the establishment Dems and they have got to be praying the 3rd party run doesn’t become a trend. Think of Democrats running in red states, this is an effective distancing (from the nutroot sentiment) for them.
Me thinks that’s why Clinton is headed to CT.
“And mtl, I’d disagree sharply with your analysis of why Lieberman will probably win the primary, or your “feeling” that other polls will disagree.”
I’ll probably be here when the next poll comes around, or at least the when elections results are posted. I still don’t see Lamont breaking 40%.
I concur with Evan on the Lieberman remaining in the democratic caucus. I can’t find the exact quote, but I seem to remember him saying something to that effect. lieberman is a dem, and will always be a dem-his reelection will have no impact on the actual senate numbers.
THAT’S why it’s irrational; Lieberman leads by 24% as an independent, and he will surely run as one if these Democratic primary numbers hold. That means that the most likely outcome of all this agitation is one less Democrat in the Senate.
I’m not so sure about that, Mark. If Lieberman loses the primary, a lot will change. Virtually all of the national Democratic party will support Lamont (albeit reluctantly). They’ll have to support the legitimate Democratic nominee. That will mean there will be enormous pressure put on Leiberman to drop his independent bid, particularly given the real risk that such a run will torpedo the chances of the various Democrats running in Connecticut house races and give the Republicans a chance to pick up a Senate seat. So there is a real chance, I think, that Leiberman would eventually drop his independent run under pressure from his colleagues.
Moreover, the current poll has the GOP candidate polling at only 9%. If this becomes a legitimate three-way race, expect the GOP to put some money and effort into trying to get their guy high enough to squeak out a win. And any additional support he gets will come directly from Lieberman’s numbers. So even if this does turn out to be a three-way race, I wouldn’t expect Lieberman’s poll numbers to remain as favorable as they are now. That’s particularly true if he loses handily to Lamont in the primary and looks like, dare I say, a Sore Loserman by refusing to accept the verdict of the primary voters.
“That will mean there will be enormous pressure put on Leiberman to drop his independent bid, particularly given the real risk that such a run will torpedo the chances of the various Democrats running in Connecticut house races and give the Republicans a chance to pick up a Senate seat.”
If Lieberman is no longer a Democrat, why would he care about any of that?