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.
Marcia,
Not to be a contrarian, but I fail to see how either FL or NH is out of play in ’04. Nor have I seen any justification from you for this position, other than “but they are.”
I believe discounting either FL or NH in ’04 is a strategy upon which Democrats embark at their own risk. The simple truth is, Gore lost FL (officially) by 537 votes, notwithstanding the fact that a third-party candidate running to the left of Gore pulled some 94,000 votes. As a matter of simple math, I think FL HAS TO BE in play in ’04. And as I previously mentioned, FL in recent elections had been trending more Democratic — in addition to Gore, Clinton carried FL in ’96. More northeastern retirees (who tend Democratic) are continuously moving into FL, and second-generation Cuban-Americans are less likely to be Republican than their parents were.
As for NH, that was another state where Nader pulled more votes than Bush’s margin of victory. And Clinton carried NH twice. NH has more entolled independents than either Republican or Democrats, so if courting the independent vote is important, NH is a state we can’t overlook.
I would also posit that TN is in play, in addition to the states already mentioned.
I disagree with Wishful’s statement that “historically, self-described Independents are Democrats in disguise.” As you can see from my two previous posts covering 7 different states, the Gore-Bush breakdown among Independents varied widely, from about even in Nevada and Arizona, to a Bush margin of better than 2-to-1 in Arkansas. In the key states of Ohio and Missouri, Bush’s margin among Independents was 16 or 17 points.
One thing I think that is getting overlooked is the fact that a good portion of Republicans are seriously annoyed with the Bush administration and it’s policies.
Fiscal conservatives, foreign policy multilateralists, moderates, libertarians, and pro-privacy pro-civil liberties christians all have some level of disgust.
The main problem is most of these people believe that another 4 years of Bush is preferable to any potential democrat. The question is what are their objections to voting for the democrats and can any of the issues where they object to Bush be wedged effectively enough to peel them off?
One thing to remember is regionalizm effects the Republican party just as much as it does the Democrats. For example the Western states are mostly libertarian and fiscal conservatives. Social and Religious issues don’t play nearly as well in Arizona as they do in Louisiana.
The Republicans have been using wedge issues to peel off various portions of the Democratic base for years, I think it is time we fought back. While this may not gain many percentage points it has the same effect as grabbing independants and will probably get some of them as well.
This is not to say I don’t think attempts to increase participation overall via voter-registration, youth and minority outreach, and GOTV efforts isn’t worthwhile. Single women and latinos are probably the best sources of new votes for Democrats. Both groups lean heavily our way at rates of around 2-1 and both groups have such low rates of turn-out that if even only a few can be convinced to participate that still translates into a lot of new Democratic voters.
With respect to Colorado, Californians are the problem, not the solution. The ones who left California are Republicans; the ones who stayed are Democrats. These influxes have just made Colorado a more conservative state. We used to elect Dems as Governors and Senators. No more. The only Dem holdouts are in the Denver and Boulder area. The rest of the state is red, red, red.
Historically, self-described independents are democrats in disguise. They prefer the “independent” label for vanity purposes because it avoids the stigma associated with being a talking-point following partisan. Winning this “independent” vote (whose “independence” isn’t determined by willingness to swing their vote but by their own arbitrary determination) therefore is rarely the accomplishment it seems.
Terry, Yes, the blue states lost several votes due to the 2000 census. I used as my reference for those numbers the map on John Edwards campaign site. You can find it at:
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/
I agree with you that in a two-man race, there would have been no question that Gore took Florida. I think Nader got something like 75K votes from there. But that was in 2000 and this is 4 years later.
Ron, let’s go back to those states I mentioned and talk about 2004, not 2000.
Arkansas is extremely winnable by Wesley Clark. The “native son” thing will take that state out of the red column if he’s the nominee. With Kerry or Edwards, there’s less of a chance, but a chance. Kerry’s military credentials and Edwards’ southerliness will play well.
Bush used the NRA heavily to defeat Gore in W. Va. It’s usually a pretty middle-of-the-road state, but convince them that “da gubmint” is coming to take their guns and they’ll head for the polls to defeat the dastardly creep who would dare such a move. Gore NEVER countered the NRA charges there, just kept going on an on about prescription drugs for seniors. Also, West Virginia has suffered economically under Bush AND that steel tariff fiasco didn’t play well.
Nevada is heartily miffed at becoming the nuclear waste dump for the country’s power plants. Nuff said.
Arizona is fairly conservative but not as right-wing as a lot of the solidly red states. It did go with Clinton in 1996, mainly because of the budget balancing. With the present deficit, Arizona is definitely risky for the GOP.
Colorado has had a pretty massive influx of Californians in the past 4 years. It did go to Clinton in ’92, so who knows?
The point of the whole discussion is that Bush has some vulnerability. What the Dems need to do is figure out where he’s most vulnerable, and get a candidate who can take advantage of it. Because make no mistake, the Bushies aren’t going to give us this one.
If you have some ideas on other states, anyone, feel free to share them. But I don’t believe that either NH or FL is in play. I’d like to be wrong on that, however :-}
Marcia,
Not doubting your electoral vote numbers, but all the Gore states plus Arkansas and West Virginia would have equaled 277 electoral votes in 2000. Did those states really lose 6 electoral votes overall?
Btw, I have to think New Hampshire is also in play. Bush barely won there in 2000, and there’s a pretty good chance that the Democratic nominee will be from a neighboring state (Dean and Kerry).
As for Florida, imho, there is no question that Gore would have carried Florida in 2000 in a two-man race (Bush won officially by 537 votes, whereas Nader, running to the left of Gore, picked up 94,000 votes). Florida had been moving toward the Democratic Party in years up to and including 2000. What’s the source for a reversal of course now?
For the states Marcia mentioned,
Gore got 47.1% of the two-party vote in Arkansas, and lost the 33% listed as Independents 30-62. He would have won by getting 41% of the Independents, so the Democrat needs to improve by 11% among Independents.
In West Virginia, Gore got 46.9% of the two-party vote, and lost the 21% who called themselves Independents by a 34-62 margin. Bush had a slight lead of less than 1% among the 79% who self-described as Democrats or Republicans, so Gore needed to win the Independents by 2 points, rather than losing them by 28. Gore’s main problem in WV was that Bush got 25% of the Democrats.
In Nevada, Gore got 48.15% of the two-party vote, while carrying the 28% listed as Independents 45-43. He would have needed 60% of the Independents to overcome Bush’s advantage among the 75% who self-identified as Republicans or Democrats.
In Arizona, Gore lost the 24% Independent share 44-45. He would have needed over 61% to overcome Bush’s lead among the 76% who self-identified as Republicans or Democrats.
In Colorado, Gore lost the 29% Independent share 39-44 (with Nader getting 13% of Independents). Gore would have needed 66% of the Independents to overcome Bush’s 57-43 advantage among among the 71% who self-identified as Republicans or Democrats.
So of these 5, the only one which would have flipped in 2000 by adding 14% to Gore’s percentage of Independents was Arkansas. That’s not to say they’re unwinnable, but winning any of them probably involves some improvement in the Democratic share of the Democratic and Republican vote, rather than just winning a large share of Independents. In Missouri, Ohio, and Florida, by contrast, the Democratic nominee can win by a relatively modest increase of 10 or 11% among Independents.
I am glad to see that independents have little faith in Bush’s abilities. My concern is that these same independents might have even less faith in those of his opponent. I think that Rove and his crew will address this issue. They realize that they can’t sell Bush using the economy, the war, his lack of concern for anyone but the rich, or anything else for that matter. The possible exception is the spector of terrorism. More alerts will follow this year in an effort to convince Americans that only Bush is capable of protecting America. (I know it’s funny but let’s not try to laugh too much.) They will characterize Bush’s opponent as even less able than Bush. Just in case all else fails, I’m sure that Bush, Rove et alia will be leading services to pray for an attack. If you think that this last point is ‘too over the top’, understand, these are same people who have committed this country to a frivolous war in Iraq and have plans for others if re-elected.
Paul,
I live in Ohio. I live in NE Ohio, which is the most progressive part of the state, and it’s becoming increasingly conservative. Ohio now has a GOP governor, two GOP senators, the majority of House Reps are GOP, and both the State House and the State Senate are controlled by the GOP. And…..look at the bill they passed yesterday in regards to gay unions.
I base my judgement on Florida on what I read. Those articles that have dealt with Florida’s political leanings have pretty much said it’s more Republican. They may not be accurate, but until I see something else to the contrary, I’ll have to take their word for it.
Both states MIGHT be winnable by Dems with the right candidate, but for now I just want a change of administrations and , IMO, the states I listed are more open to move into the “blue column than are either Ohio or Florida.
Aren’t the conclusions (1,2,3) always true? I would submit that any “Independent” that leans conservative is by definition not an Independent. Equivocation is a liberal trait, not a conservative one.
I’m just curious what the numbers are regarding independents perception of Bush as a person. I don’t think there is any question that when you push people who are not hardcore cons on what they think of Bush’s policies, the numbers are bad. But so much of what people seem to dig about Bush is the fact that he seems like a decent and regular guy to many people.
How does that perception play into the mix?
Marcia, Why do you say taht Ohio and Florida are more Republican than they were in 2000? Is that based on registration, polling data or just the results of the 2002 elections?
Ron,
The problem is that Florida is a lot more Republican today than it was in 2000. So is Ohio.
I think Dems need to look to states like W. Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada and maybe even Colorado……..all are pretty much fed up with the Bush policies and are open to listening, at least, to a Dem candidate. Now, which candidate can best appeal to the voters in those states?
Oh, and if the Dem candidate retains ALL the Gore states and picks up only Arkansas and W. Virginia, he wins 271 electoral votes. 270 are needed to be elected.
In response to Longshot, Bush got 51.7% of the two-party vote in Missouri, and Gore got 48.3%. Independents cast 23% of the vote, and broke 55-38 for Bush. The party vote was a wash, so Gore needed to carry Independents, by doing 9 points better among them.
Ohio was almost exactly the same–each candidate got 9% of the other party’s voters, the party vote was 38-37 Democratic, and the 26% identified as Independents went for Bush 54-38.
And of course any improvement at all would swing Florida, where Gore actually carried Independents 47-46.
What was the polling universe? Registered voters or likely voters ?Typically makes a difference– when the sample comes from “registered” voters the results skew more liberal/Democratic, at least marginally.
Longshot has a good point…these overall polls are interesting, but the overall vote isn’t what elects a President. Can Democrats overcome Republicans’ virtual lock on the Southern and Great Plains states and get enough electoral college votes to win?
…then hope. “cynics didn’t build this country. optimists did.”
get people at the company picnic talking politics, and so on.
as for the subject independents, yes, i agree, and clark or edwards or kerry could probably do a better job of it than dean, but, of course, he’s supposed to get all of those young people fired up.
I almost hate reading your posts because they give me hope. Hope is probably not a good idea right now for a liberal, and someone working in a profession that is being carted offshore wholsale. If these new immigration restrictions pass… well… I’m frankly terrified of what that means. And the GOP run the country right now.
So I almost hate reading your posts. But damn, I wanna hope.
Ok — those are the stats today. Assuming the parties motivate their base as well as in 2000, what is the Indy split needed to swing a couple of states to the Democrat nominee — +9%, +2% ?
And which states(s) ?