An Epic/MRA poll of “active voters” conducted from August 4-10 reports a 49-42 advantage for John Kerry in Michigan, with 3 percent for Nader, and 6 percent “unsure.”
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.
“This is going to get ugly in the very near future.”
When John McCain bested Bush in NH back in 2000 and became the darling of Dems, independents, the media and others hungary for authenticity, Bush, feeling cornered, turned to his base in SC; and boy did it deliver.
Look for that again. As Bush and his far right sponsors begin to sense that things are slipping away, we can expect an avalanche of vitriol from those wonderful people who gave us Bob Jones Univ. and the sludge about McCain’s family. Don’t be surprised when Repubs start talking about Gov. McGrevey being palsy with Kerry.
These people have no shame when it comes to winning elections. Its going to get very ugly.
Kerry is kicking off two weeks of economy focused campaigning, and I’m sure he’ll be going to Ohio quite a bit. Ohio does offer one of the best contrasts between what GW says about the economy and what is actually going on. I’m sure the Kerry people would also like to strengthen and secure that 9 point swing ARG is reporting.
I think the cross-country whistlestop tour was a great thing to do between the convention and the olympics, but now its time to get back to the battlegrounds.
Kerry needs to build on Ohio.
This is going to get ugly in the very near future.
It would be nice if the Kerry team could use Bush’s need to go intensley negative against him. Bush is in a corner, and there should be a way to play that to Kerry’s advantage – perhaps by giving the media a narrative about what Bush is being forced to do. If we can get the media to start throwing around terms like ‘desperate’ when they cover Bush attacks, it would help.
Anything that forces Bush to spend more resources on ground that was assumed to be already his, is a good thing as long as Kerry doesn’t spend too many of his own resources.
Just got off the phone from a long conversation with a high school friend from SW Ohio — much of it talking Politics. Look — Kerry needs to get back there and talk Economics and Jobs — but he should also send Wes Clark in to talk Military talk — particularly around Dayton. (They love him in Dayton because of the Dayton Agreements forged at Wright Patterson.) Edwards needs to visit Hamilton and Middletown, both of which are near bankrupt because of the loss of the steel fabricating industry. They won’t win a majority in that neck of the woods — but apparently there are lots of pick-up votes to be had.
Everyone has been assuming that OH would be secure for Bush so the latest ARG poll is very encouraging. Kerry can pin him down there for a long time. It will also be interesting to see if there is any bounce from the winger-lite convention or whether voters are further alienated by smirking Bush, sneering Cheney and the Swift boat attacks. So far the trend is promising. As the election gets closer swing voters appear to be more comfortable with a president Kerry.
With any luck JK will have the blue states sewed up by Labor Day. That leaves two months to take some states Bush won in 2000. Best bets: NH, NV, WVA, MO, & (drum roll) FL.
Now something else! I wonder how this resignation of New Jersey’s Governor Will affect the Polls? The Right Wing is really starting to through the XXXX now.
American Research has posted a poll for Ohio, taken from 8-9 through 8-11. It has Kerry at 48% Bush 45% Nader 2% Undecided 5%. On the heals of the new Florida polls that have Kerry up 6 and 7 points, things are looking pretty damn good!!
I hate to see EDM engaging in this semantics game (even though it was probably unintentional).
A seven point advantage in Hawaii is a ‘strong lead,’ but the same advantage in Michigan means the state is only ’tilting towards’ Kerry.
I think in these times a seven-point lead is a pretty strong no matter what state you’re talking about.
According to Salon.com GWB, while in Florida, said that a national sales tax is “an interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously.”
Yahoo! says that JK is about to start a two week capaign push on the economy and taxes.
I believe this is the break we need. Team Kerry needs to go to the juglar with this comment from Bush. And if he does, I believe, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado will be ripe for the picking. And that would create an insurrmountable electoral lock.