John Kerry leads George Bush 50 to 41 percent of New Hampshire LV’s, according to a Center for Applied Public Opinion Research Poll conducted 10/18-21 for Franklin Pierce College. The poll scored Bush’s approval rating at 45 percent.
John Kerry leads George Bush 50-48 percent of Florida LV’s, according to a SurveyUSA Poll conducted 10/22-24.
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.
phatcat — thanks for the statistical analysis. That kind of work is beyond my abilities. I intend to savor the salt of a Kerry victory long after November 2.
KerryWillWin — thanks for raising the obvious question. You do a better job of supporting my suspicious question, which centered on the strangeness of undecideds breaking for Kery in New Hampshire but not elsewhere.
Matt: If undecideds are supposedly breaking to Bush at 5:1, how come Kerry’s lead is GROWING there this week after last week it was declared a tossup.
Take the undecided voter issue with several heaping handfuls of salt. The report makes the case that undecided voters in NH (7.9% of the sample) are leaning heavily Bush, and that the Bush campaign should be heartened that this is really a close race.
Not only does this not pass the common sense test of the Incumbent Rule, it doesn’t pass the survey analysis integrity test. If 7.9% of the respondents are undecided voters, that translates to an undecided sample size of 36. That’s an extremely small sample size, and prone to ridiculous levels of sampling error (+/- 16). Strangely, the report mentions strong Bush approval ratings among undecideds, but doesn’t publish the actual number. In any case, if Bush polls a 60% approval rating, all we know is that his actual approval rating is somewhere between 44% and 76%, which is hardly enlightening.
With sample sizes this small, drill downs become nonsensical and I’m very surprised they tried to use the undecideds to make a case that Bush has hope in this poll. If anything, the poll is even worse than it appears for Bush, since the sample overrepresented Republicans by 5 points (unless the results were weighted, but they make no mention of it). If the results were weighted to reflect actual party ID patterns, Bush would be down even more.
I agree with Green Dems assessment also. I think Kerry republicans will get the ball over the net for our guy on Nov. 2. The dynamics of the race haven’t changed that much for several months despite poll gyrations: Democrats are highly motivated and they are all in Kerry’s court. Republicans are split. Christian conservatives and rural republicans will vote for Bush come hell or high water, but common sense republicans will split three ways: 1) hold their noses and vote Bush, 2) hold their noses and vote Kerry, or 3) stay home. Factor into this mix the liklihood that first time voters and independents are trending to Kerry, and you have a Kerry win. Actually, I think the only unanswered question at this point is – will it be a Kerry squeaker, or a solid Kerry win. The proof of this can clearly be seen watching Bush yesterday begging his base to get out and vote.
Clinton showed the way, that Democrats who seek to represent Middle Class Americans are the ones who get a chance to help lesser Americans.
We didn’t invent the DLC merely for the hell of it. You have to plow that middle ground to win.
I therefore agree with Green Democrat’s assessment about the chance for new alliances. Assuming a Kerry victory, the Republican party implodes. While success has a thousand fathers, failure is a bastard, and everyone will be looking for THAT baby’s daddy.
Meanwhile, the Repubs who are annoyed at the rightwing freakazoids will clamor to Arnold, McCain, and Rudy to retake the party for 08.
Need to drill down in the New Hampshire poll. Undecided voters are breaking for Bush by a ratio of 5 to 1. Is the undecided vote breaking to Bush in any other state?
Kerry’s strength in libertarian-leaning New Hampshire suggests (not surprisingly) that more fiscally conservative and culturally laissez faire Republicans may be trending Dem. This shouldn’t be surprising to anyone who has been paying attention, of course. This is not your father’s Republican Party anymore. The GOP of limited government, individual liberty, and personal resposnibility is finished, replaced by a big government, fiscally irresponsible Christian conservatism at home and a belligerent and messianic interventionism abroad.
I suspect that collaboration between Democrats and moderate libertarians could prove enduring, but I worry that the so-called war on terror combined with the GOP’s new love of populism could put white working class voters solidly in their column for a generation, and draw in enough Hispanics with such an agenda to make it a lock. Although, with Kerry doing so well among independents (and apparently now new voters) that might just be paranoia…
Is this the same SurveyUSA that has a 22 point lead for Bush in Tennessee? I’m not sure I trust that outfit. I think Rasmussen’s Florida Bush trend makes more sense–steadily dropping from a high of a little over fifty and flatlining at 47 or so. (Or about where he was six weeks ago.)