John Kerry leads George Bush 48-44 percent of Florida RV’s, according to a new Florida Insider Poll conducted 10/12-14 — a 7 point gain over the previous Insider poll taken just before the 3rd presidential debate.
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
March 28: RIP Joe Lieberman, a Democrat Who Lost His Way
I was sorry to learn of the sudden death of 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman. But his long and stormy career did offer some important lessons about party loyalty, which I wrote about at New York:
Joe Lieberman was active in politics right up to the end. The former senator was the founding co-chair of the nonpartisan group No Labels, which is laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign on behalf of a yet-to-be-identified bipartisan “unity ticket.” Lieberman did not live to see whether No Labels will run a candidate. He died on Wednesday at 82 due to complications from a fall. But this last political venture was entirely in keeping with his long career as a self-styled politician of the pragmatic center, which often took him across party boundaries.
Lieberman’s first years in Connecticut Democratic politics as a state legislator and then state attorney general were reasonably conventional. He was known for a particular interest in civil rights and environmental protection, and his identity as an observant Orthodox Jew also drew attention. But in 1988, the Democrat used unconventional tactics in his challenge to Republican U.S. senator Lowell Weicker. Lieberman positioned himself to the incumbent’s right on selected issues, like Ronald Reagan’s military operations against Libya and Grenada. He also capitalized on longtime conservative resentment of his moderate opponent, winning prized endorsements from William F. and James Buckley, icons of the right. Lieberman won the race narrowly in an upset.
Almost immediately, Senator Lieberman became closely associated with the Democratic Leadership Council. The group of mostly moderate elected officials focused on restoring the national political viability of a party that had lost five of the six previous presidential elections; it soon produced a president in Bill Clinton. Lieberman became probably the most systematically pro-Clinton (or in the parlance of the time, “New Democrat”) member of Congress. This gave his 1998 Senate speech condemning the then-president’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal as “immoral” and “harmful” a special bite. He probably did Clinton a favor by setting the table for a reprimand that fell short of impeachment and removal, but without question, the narrative was born of Lieberman being disloyal to his party.
Perhaps it was his public scolding of Clinton that convinced Al Gore, who was struggling to separate himself from his boss’s misconduct, to lift Lieberman to the summit of his career. Gore tapped the senator to be his running mate in the 2000 election, making him the first Jewish vice-presidential candidate of a major party. He was by all accounts a disciplined and loyal running mate, at least until that moment during the Florida recount saga when he publicly disclaimed interest in challenging late-arriving overseas military ballots against the advice of the Gore campaign. You could argue plausibly that the ticket would have never been in a position to potentially win the state without Lieberman’s appeal in South Florida to Jewish voters thrilled by his nomination to become vice-president. But many Democrats bitter about the loss blamed Lieberman.
As one of the leaders of the “Clintonian” wing of his party, Lieberman was an early front-runner for the 2004 presidential nomination. A longtime supporter of efforts to topple Saddam Hussein, Lieberman had voted to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq, like his campaign rivals John Kerry and John Edwards and other notable senators including Hillary Clinton. Unlike most other Democrats, though, Lieberman did not back off this position when the Iraq War became a deadly quagmire. Ill-aligned with his party to an extent he did not seem to perceive, his presidential campaign quickly flamed out, but not before he gained enduring mockery for claiming “Joe-mentum” from a fifth-place finish in New Hampshire.
Returning to the Senate, Lieberman continued his increasingly lonely support for the Iraq War (alongside other heresies to liberalism, such as his support for private-school education vouchers in the District of Columbia). In 2006, Lieberman drew a wealthy primary challenger, Ned Lamont, who soon had a large antiwar following in Connecticut and nationally. As the campaign grew heated, President George W. Bush gave his Democratic war ally a deadly gift by embracing him and kissing his cheek after the State of the Union Address. This moment, memorialized as “The Kiss,” became central to the Lamont campaign’s claim that Lieberman had left his party behind, and the challenger narrowly won the primary. However, Lieberman ran against him in the general election as an independent, with significant back-channel encouragement from the Bush White House (which helped prevent any strong Republican candidacy). Lieberman won a fourth and final term in the Senate with mostly GOP and independent votes. He was publicly endorsed by Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani, among others from what had been the enemy camp.
The 2006 repudiation by his party appeared to break something in Lieberman. This once-happiest of happy political warriors, incapable of holding a grudge, seemed bitter, or at the very least gravely offended, even as he remained in the Senate Democratic Caucus (albeit as formally independent). When his old friend and Iraq War ally John McCain ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, Lieberman committed a partisan sin by endorsing him. His positioning between the two parties, however, still cost him dearly: McCain wanted to choose him as his running mate, before the Arizonan’s staff convinced him that Lieberman’s longtime pro-choice views and support for LGBTQ rights would lead to a convention revolt. The GOP nominee instead went with a different “high-risk, high-reward” choice: Sarah Palin.
After Barack Obama’s victory over Lieberman’s candidate, the new Democratic president needed every Democratic senator to enact the centerpiece of his agenda, the Affordable Care Act. He got Lieberman’s vote — but only after the senator, who represented many of the country’s major private-insurance companies, forced the elimination of the “public option” in the new system. It was a bitter pill for many progressives, who favored a more robust government role in health insurance than Obama had proposed.
By the time Lieberman chose to retire from the Senate in 2012, he was very near to being a man without a party, and he reflected that status by refusing to endorse either Obama or Mitt Romney that year. By then, he was already involved in the last great project of his political career, No Labels. He did, with some hesitation, endorse Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump in 2016. But his long odyssey away from the yoke of the Democratic Party had largely landed him in a nonpartisan limbo. Right up until his death, he was often the public face of No Labels, particularly after the group’s decision to sponsor a presidential ticket alienated many early supporters of its more quotidian efforts to encourage bipartisan “problem-solving” in Congress.
Some will view Lieberman as a victim of partisan polarization, and others as an anachronistic member of a pro-corporate, pro-war bipartisan elite who made polarization necessary. Personally, I will remember him as a politician who followed — sometimes courageously, sometimes foolishly — a path that made him blind to the singular extremism that one party has exhibited throughout the 21st century, a development he tried to ignore to his eventual marginalization. But for all his flaws, I have no doubt Joe Lieberman remained until his last breath committed to the task he often cited via the Hebrew term tikkun olam: repairing a broken world.
Despite Strategic Vision’s leanings, the Boca Raton News story has SV admitting that Kerry picked up 5 points in Ohio from the debates. No other specifics were given about their Ohio numbers.
The Newsweek poll that showed Kerry with a lead among men while Bush leads among women simply shows that that poll is absolutely worthless. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that the gender gap is about 8-10 points and that there is simply NO chance that Kerry will win the men while losing the women. Can’t possibly be true and any poll that shows otherwise is a complete waste of newsprint. The most ridiculous part is that Newsweek editors print this result with a straight face, without even bothering to mention that if true it would be an immense historic shift in voting patterns!
In answer to the Texeira pronunciation question, on the assumption that Ruy is too busy crunching numbers to respond, I have it on good authority that his last name is pronounced Te-SHER-a.
I will take a stab at the question about the newly registered voters:
According to zogby, Kerry has a small lead among newly registered voters 49-42.
I suspect that most of the undecides among the newly registered voters will go to kerry. I think it will end up being something like 55-45.
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10022
Hopefully this will help the democrats change the 39D to 35R. to 40D 34R, and with the massive get out the vote effort, maybe even a little better.
Teixeira, a Portuguese (and Brazilian) surname is pronounced “Teshera.”
partial answer to Bob H —
I’m sure you know much of this generally and are looking for specific numbers, but the polls of late have been showing an increasing divergence between ‘sure to vote’ voters — Bush lead, all the way to ‘registered’ — Kerry lead, sometimes substantial. It is difficult to say what level of turnout means which candidate gets what since it depends on WHOSE supporters turn out! A lot of the ‘registered’ voters not turning up as likely are probably recent registrants, including a large proportion of them young and concerned about the draft. THAT demographic’s turnout may well determine the presidential AND the Congressional outcome.
I understand that the number of new registered voters in CO. is so huge that the Sec. of State has said that people will have to work night and day to complete the data entry before 11/2. That augurs well for Ken Salaszar and Kerry/Edwards in that more new voters in that state are more likely to be Dem supporters than not. Anyone have a view on that?
I have been wondering about the simple advantage of always having your name listed first in the publishing of survey after survey. In the asking of the questions the names are usually rotated, but in reporting results Bush is almost always listed first. Bush, then Kerry? Why not Kerry, then Bush?
Hi everyone,
Well, I am very happy to see this poll as I live in Palm Beach County (Jupiter) Florida and I have to say that I was getting very worried about Kerry’s numbers and him not being able to gain any ground on Bush. I also have to say that the Repulicans down here are very hungry for a Bush win and I see more Bush stickers on cars that I do Kerry stickers. I am apart of the democratic club down here and the democrats don’t appear to be very motivated. I can’t believe it since this was such a democratic county. Julia
If you track Dale’s Electoral College Breakdown, the numbers slowly get better and better. He doesn’t post this latest florida result, and if he did Kerry would be ahead. I also agree that the Bush/Rove campaign is spinning in circles right now trying to get a grip! Yes!
Much Kudos to Our Guy for a brilliant performance in the debates with an historical result of turning the race around!
“He would rather protect his rich friends than help you all in the middle class”
That’s a democratic campaign that stands up and fights!
I think this election will be determined by two factors: turnout and fraud. Maybe the high Democratic turnout will cancel out the Republican fraud.
Neither factor can be assessed by polls right now.
New newsweek poll puts kerry down by 2 among reg. voters, and down 50-44 among likely voters.
However, This poll seems extremely strange. It has Bush with a lead among women, and kerry with a lead among men. I somehow don’t believe it.
This election has reached the tipping point. BC04 is flying apart at the seams, the media (pathetic as they are) have juicy stories just landing in their lazy laps — Voter highjinx abounding, more Bush docs, Iraq spiraling and the Dow puckering. Is there enough time? Kerry 52% Bush 46%, Kerry +40 EVs
How does one pronounce
TEIXEIRA?
The new Newsweek poll shows Bush ahead by a few points with registered, more ahead with likely, voters.
What was interesting in the article, and the first time I’ve seen it broken down was this concerning new voters: “Kerry now leads Bush 57 percent to 36 percent among those who identify themselves as first-time voters”
Turnout.
Addy
Can Ruy make some comments about how turnout is likely to affect the race, and what he guesses it might be? Kevin Philips discussed this last night on NOW, and seemed to imply that a 55% turnout combined with Bush approval at 47% or so means Bush is swept into the trash. 55% would seem to favor the good guys?
Altough this post is not about polling I felt it was an important read in attracting conservative swing Republicans.
“The conservative case for Kerry ”
Clyde Prestowitz
Washington, DC
http://tinyurl.com/4g7ov
As a former Reagan-administration official, registered Republican, born-again Christian, and traditional conservative, I am going to vote for John Kerry. So are many other old-line Republicans. Here’s why…
TERROR … Oct.27 …. I’m not afraid of no stinkin terror, I have a handy supply of duck tape & plastic
It’s been noted on another thread already, but the Washington Post poll (ending Oct. 10) shows a tie, both in LV and RV in Florida.
This is all great news to me. In my heart, I think I’d started to concede Florida to Bush. Having it in play is huge. Assuming Kerry gets Pennsylvania (and I saw one report that Bush was pulling out of there to focus on Ohio and Florida), then either Ohio or Florida would likely be enough to put him over the top. It gets a bit tricky with other states, but it would look awfully good. I’m very excited about having two big targets to pursue instead of just one.
Speaking of seniors in the swing states, there are huge numbers of “snow birds” who travel between FL and the northern swing states of OH, PA, MO and WI. And many of them have children who are aware of the health care problem.
It makes sense that Rove wants to keep inserting distractions like Mary Cheney in order to prevent focus from resting too long on any substantive issues.
I guess we should expect that on October 27 there will be a “terror alert”.
Furthermore, Strategic Vision is a Republican pollster. More so than other pollsters, Strategic Vision show stronger support for Bush. Yet even they say that Kerry picked up many points in Ohio, Wisconsin etc
This poll is particularly encouraging, partly because Insider pollster Matt Towery is a Republican. The analysis argues compellingly that health care reform gives Kerry serious traction with seniors, who have the highest turnout rates. I hope the Dem campaign takes note and runs strong health care reform ads in OH, PA and MO, as well as FL.