A Fox news/Opinion Dynamics poll released August 5th found that “While not moving the race numbers much, the convention does appear to have improved Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry’s image with the public. At the same time, President George W. Bush’s job approval rating is at the lowest point of his presidency.”
Opinion Dynamics President John Gorman added “What we see post-convention is actually a strengthening of the polarization in the electorate. Kerry voters are now more confident in their man and more committed to him… The ability of the Bush campaign to paint Kerry with a negative brush has been diminished and so has the chance for any major electoral movement. Given the closeness of the race, this may diminish the value of trying to use television to persuade voters and enhance the value of traditional get-out-the-vote efforts. With roughly equal numbers of voters on each side, getting them to the polls becomes crucial.”
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.
yep… everyone has gotta tell someone.. .create the cells and keep talking… it works.
Even then, we’re going to have to feel the pain. Sort of like cutting a leg off to stop the gangrene before it kills the patient.
AlleyKat, I’m talkin to every one I can. I lost a job because my boss was a Republican. My bumbper sticker says”Left Wing Christian For Kerry” you be surprised how many of us out there. I was always pretty much middle of the road voter untill this guy got selected by the supreme court. I know it’s not cool to have one party in control of the whole thing but, this time I hope the Dems get control of the House and Senate with Kerry as President. It’s going to take at least 2 to 4 years to get this mess GW and rest of the R controled Congress has screwed-up…..
Sara, you’re a little off on your medieval history. Connally served in the Trickster’s first term, then got caught up in the AMPI scandal. He joined the Republican Party in the spring of 1974, which prompted the great line that it was the first known instance of a rat jumping onto a sinking ship.
Bless you, Ed. Please talk to any Bush-supporting friends. I wish I could understand how Republicans can support Bush when there are intelligent, consistent, well-informed Republicans (who I may not necessarily agree with) who could move their party forward with honor.
I was one of those misinformed voters who voted for Bush. I liked that compassionate conservative bull XXXX . Personally, I think the extrmeist religion thing he has going on is a big turn off with me and I was happy Kerry made reference to it in his speech. When did God become a Republican?
The bounce may not have shown up much in the first horse-race polls Monday, but all polls I’ve seen later in the week have shown at least some Kerry-ward movement, and various state polls (from ARG and not-so-credible Rasmussen) also look brighter. Plus, as many have said, the poll internals are all so solid Kerry that you have to figure many of the undecided are just Kerry votes waiting to happen.
I heard reports that on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade this morning, traders seeing the job numbers broke into a chant of “Kerry! Kerry!”. Can anyone confirm this? We may view this as the day the back of the Bush administration was broken — a clear end to job growth (maybe going to negative territory), and renewed fierce fighting in Iraq.
Sara, that’s an extraordinary report if true. It reminds me of 1980, when Gene McCarthy and Ralph Abernathy came out and endorsed Reagan. It was obvious Carter was in unusually deep trouble. Any guesses on who these mystery statesmen are?
I understand plans are in the works for a leadership PAC made up of at least four retired GOP Senators, all with extensive Foreign Affairs experience, to announce a week before Bush’s Convention, a Republicans for Kerry effort. I gather the idea is full page ads in Wall Street Journal, Barrons, NYTimes and WaPo and maybe others with lots of recognized signatures, and with the theme being the need for significant changes in approach to Foreign Policy. (My source is someone who knows about one of these retired Senators efforts to solicit signers.) The advertisement would then be reprintable, and available for easy distribution in places where such “names” would influence things.
So — as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the resignation of Richard Nixon, we can call it the Ghost of Nixon/Conally play — for those who remember John Connally’s leadership of Democrats for Nixon — for which he was paid off by being made Sec. of Treasury in Nixon’s second term — but the dastardly act was done in the 1972 McGovern race.
The Senators involved are so senion, they will not be looking at appointments — and well fixed enough that Bush cannot do them in.
The post ends with the comment that getting people to the polls is crucial. Yes it is but persuading moderate Republicans and independents is also crucal and possible. Many moderate REpublicans are open to the idea of not voting or voting for Kerry if apraoched politely one o one. There is a lot of dissatisfaction about Bush’s extremist religion, budgt deficets, and misiformation about the war.
The Kerry campaign needs to set up a means for us to write personal letters to undecideds. And we all need to talk to our Republican friends about how party loyalty might mean getting rid of a leader who is leading the party the wrong way.
This is what I postulated on the bounce threads before, that it didn’t really increase Kerry’s support so much as deepen it.
> I can’t wait to hear the spin from the White
> House and Treasury Security John Snow-job on
> these numbers. 32,000 new jobs in July is an
> absolute shocker and will change the dynamics
> of the race in terms of how many Americans will
> view the economy. The consensus number
> predicted from July from a cross section of
> economists prior to the report’s issuance was
> 243,000 new jobs. To top it all off, the already
> bad June numbers were downgraded from
> 112,000 new jobs to 78,000.
From WaPo:
‘We’re not satisfied,” Treasury Secretary John Snow told reporters in Pittsburgh. “We’re encouraged, though, by the fact that the unemployment rate came down.” ‘
So the “unemployment rate came down?” Let’s see what Karl Rove can make of that line, in the Chimp’s TV commercials.
—
I’m sitting here in Finland, thinking this is sweet on so many levels. 11 more weeks, and unless Kerry turns out to be absolutely abmysmally bad in the TV debates or Al Qaeda does “Shrub” a big favor, we are going to see America resume its leadership of the free Western world again. After four long years of Bushit.
Can’t wait.
MARCU$
On the basis of your analysis, Ruy, as well as my own gut feeling, I just left a message for my county Democratic Chair volunteering to help with our local GOTV efforts. This is something we need to start talking up among the party faithful.
I can’t wait to hear the spin from the White House and Treasury Security John Snow-job on these numbers. 32,000 new jobs in July is an absolute shocker and will change the dynamics of the race in terms of how many Americans will view the economy. The consensus number predicted from July from a cross section of economists prior to the report’s issuance was 243,000 new jobs. To top it all off, the already bad June numbers were downgraded from 112,000 new jobs to 78,000.
This is Bush’s worst nightmare. The economy needs to create 150-200,000 new jobs each month just to keep up with population growth.
Yup, we’ve certainly turned the corner with the economy. Bush has taken us down a blind alley. I’m seriously looking forward to observing how the Bush Admin will spin its “Stay The Course” economic message after two straight months of these horrible job numbers.
More goo- ,er, I mean *bad* news for “Shrub”:
http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/06/news/economy/jobless_july/index.htm?cnn=yes
Job growth shock
July payroll growth far shy of Wall Street forecasts; unemployment rate slips to 5.5%.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) – Hiring by U.S. employers slowed significantly in July, according to a government report Friday, as the number of new jobs added to payrolls came in far below Wall Street expectations.