George Bush leads John Kerry 48-46 percent among nation-wide LV’s, with 3 percent for Nader, 2 percent for none of these and 2 percent not sure/refused, according to a Harris Interactive Poll conducted 9/20-26.
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.
Smooth, the best you can do is point out that Kerry confused Treblinka with Lubyanka? It’s surely no small deal to the parties involved, but (1) most Americans didn’t catch the gaffe and won’t cry wolf over it once it’s explained, and (2) at least Kerry didn’t confuse Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. You tell me which gaffe we’ll still be paying for in years to come.
Gee, our friend Smoothie sounds…almost rattled, all of a sudden:-)
—
Maybe you will join the distinguished club of Hugh Hewitt , Townhall.com and Lucianne.com now? I’ve just ventured into the Conservative Echo Chambers of Horrors, and virtually all the journalists and bloggers — with the above mentioned exceptions — reluctantly conclude Kerry did better than expected whereas the Chimp wasn’t on top of his game.
MARCU$
thanks bill.
by the way, i think a great meme about this debate should be:
“President Bush looked lost, senator Kerry looked President.”
Only watched a few minutes of the debate since it started 2:00 AM GMT. However, it seems virtually all Internet pundits (Instapundit, PoliPundit, Kausfiles, the NRO Corner among the Kerry-bashers; Sullivan, Drezner, Josh Marshall on the center/left) think Kerry won on points!!! Not a perfect performance, but independent voters who thought they “knew” Kerry from the Swift Vets for Truth ads etc. will be pleasantly surprised. And it seems the focus was mostly on “Shrub’s” track record rather than Kerry’s senate votes.
It is way too early for all the gloom-and-doom predictions (or gloating predictions of a “landslide” by the other side) to start. If Kerry does well in the remaining two debates and if the Democrats can focus relentlessly on this Administration’s track record rather than irrelevant issues like who did what in Vietnam, anything can happen. But the real wild card is Iraq and Afghanistan. A dose of bad news may finally sink “Shrub’s” credibility. Or Osama bin Laden might be captured a few weeks before the elections… We just don’t know.
MARCU$
a little off topic, but i need to vent. IT took oreilly about 1 minute to start distorting the truth on his show today. He only sited the battleground polls in his tpm that showed bush winning. he ignored all the polls in pa and mi that show kerry winning. unbelievable.
Folks asked about reactions to Republican efforts to squash new voter registrations. This morning’s NY Times had an editorial condemning Repub Sec. of State in both Ohio and Colorado. Of course, NYT is not the ‘real world’ and folks must get this message to the local areas, but it’s a start. T.J.
Rui Tavares, try Air America http://www.airamericaradio.com/
I know you can listen to it there and also they have good comments. Without broad band you might not be able to watch it….
I suspect that the Michigan poll is an outlier. America Coming Together has pulled its staffers out of Michigan (I am told) and reassigned them to other states where the need is greater. I think that this is a sign that ACT is confident.
euzoius, Coldeye et al,
Some really smart people are virtually guaranteeing major legal battles in both OH and FL after Nov 2.
Gallup isn’t a polling firm, it’s a marketing tool.
Rasmussen Sep 30
K B
National 46 48
FL 49 48
MI 46 45
MN 47 46
OH 47 48
PA 49 45
I’m with Coldeye–where, indeed, is the outrage at these multiplying stories detailing various nefarious activities by these battleground Republican secretaries of state? Inventing out of whole cloth the most preposterous technicalities, technicalities beyond one’s imagining: registration paper being “too thin”, etc. Republican elected officials are operating as openly anti-democratic with no backlash accruing to them whatever. Are there just too many stories out there for these to break through? Is this type of chicanery just “expected” by the public in post 2000 America? One certainly hopes that our Republican friends are sowing the whirlwind with their disdain for democracy.
UT going for K/E? More lawn K/E signs than B/C in UT? Must be heresy there in UT.
I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, but there’s lots of folklore about things like this having predictive value. Ex: So called “barber poll”. Ask barbers around the country what they’re hearing. In 92 they predicted Bush pere, but Clinton won.
Then there’s the groundhog’s shadow and aunt martha’s rheumatism.
Rasmussen just reported Bush-Kerry tied in sixteen battleground states. Bush had been up by two points last week.
Coldeye, Regarding:
“Am I the only one who is just getting sick and tired of these games the Republicans are playing to supress voter registration or turnout, in places like Florida, Ohio, and Colorado? Look, I understand the need to prevent fraud but these little games don’t have any connection to that. They are more like the old poll taxes and literacy tests – the real purpose is to keep legitimate voters for the other side out of the process, and that’s just wrong.”
Those are some valid areas of concern for Dems; However, if newspaper reports are to be believed, Dems are putting themselves in a position to commit massive fraud unlike we’ve never seen before. Already fraudulent voter registrations have been uncovered in:
1. FLA, where NY voters, up to 20,000, were found to be registered in NY & FLA
2. WIS, The found a few dead Dems registered to vote
3. NEV, More dead Dems registered
4. OH, absentee Dems voting twice
5. IA, More Dem absentees voting twice
There have been other reports, but I can’t recall them off the top of my head. These alleged frauds appear to be committed by certain Dem leading organs in these states.
Alternatively, I have seen reports of Rep Secy of State discarding legitimate Dem voters cards. Who
knows if they are just throwing out forged ballots or what the truth is.
I just get the impression we may have 15 Floridas this year with all the lawsuits and recounts, if all these reports of fraud are to be believed.
First it’s Gallup, second it’s not a person, it’s a polling firm.
Given that all these polls are either tie or Bush +3, Bush probably has a one or two point lead. Given the DNC’s superior registration efforts, even one of the top guy working for the Bush campaign says that he’ll need a 5 point lead on election day to win.
Also of interest is that Rasmussen’s tracking poll has shown no pro-Bush drift at all in the weeks leading up to the debates. He has Bush consistently up on average of +2. Even the pollsters will tell you that tracking polls are much better indicators than 3-day snapshot polls. So Bush is leading by 2-3 heading into the debates. This is bad for an incumbent, horrible for a war-time incumbent, and beyond dismal for a war-time incumbent with no major domestic initiatives and a lackluster economy under his belt. Add in that many more would swing to Kerry if he would just show more clarity and leadership (Rasmussen reports today that 17% of voters are still persuadable, LA Times puts the number at 20%).
The stage is set for Kerry to swing things back his way during the debates. One thing he’s got to do is explain clearly his vote to authorize presidential authority for war. It’s simple, really -just say “Look, I think the president should have big stick when negotiating with tyrants to disarm. But I NEVER would have authorized such an incompetant rush to actual war, without good intelligence and a plan for keeping the peace. And I never would have administered the occupation with such pathetic incompetene.” Bush will reply with a smirk and some sound bite like “Well I’m glad he cleared that up”, but it won’t stick because it really does clear the issue up once and for all.
By the way, there is a transcript of Edward’s Imus interview on MSNBC.COM. It’s fun reading – he really is a charming person. Almost makes one whimsical for a switch in the ticket – or an Edward’s run in four or eight years.
I think the lead in Gallop’s OH poll showing RV for Kerry by 4 pts vs. down in LV reflects all the new registrations in OH. Our registration deadline is monday, October 4th at 9 am, so we are putting forth one more great push this weekend to get people registered. After that, its get out the vote.
polling results from ogden, salt lake, provo
K/E yard signs and bumper stickers 4 to 1 over B/C
Democrats are outregistering new voters in Ohio by margins of 10-1. These new registered voters may be a reason Kerry leads among registered but not likely (you can’t be a likely voter if you’ve never voted, in most polling models). However, the Ohio Republican Secretary of State has for weeks tried to disqualify most of the new registrations, on the grounds that they are on paper that is too thin and might get mangled in the mail. On this bizaare basis, he even tried to disqualify registrations contained in an envelope, or those that were hand delivered. And he’s trying to disqualify voters who don’t vote in the precinct in which they live. This makes no sense at all, because absentee ballots are allowed, and they are received and recorded in the state capital, far from where people live.
Am I the only one who is just getting sick and tired of these games the Republicans are playing to supress voter registration or turnout, in places like Florida, Ohio, and Colorado? Look, I understand the need to prevent fraud but these little games don’t have any connection to that. They are more like the old poll taxes and literacy tests – the real purpose is to keep legitimate voters for the other side out of the process, and that’s just wrong.
Interesting that Gallop has Kerry leading in OH in RVs. Someone here suggested he might be throwing a bone to his critics. Awful that we have to speculate like this, but that’s what he gets for putting his own credibiltiy in doubt with specious methodology. If that lead however, reflects something real and measurable in the real world, then it could spell real trouble for Bush.
Kerry has been up in every single non-artisan poll conducted in michigan for the last 3 months. Every single poll. Even before that, there are only 1 or 2 polls where he was behind by a point or 2. Even During the Republiucan convention.
The DFP poll is probably an outlier. My guess is that Kerry is up by 2-3 points. Given the Arab American vote aainst Bush and the huge union strength in Michigan. Kerry should carry it by 5-6 points.
This was Harris’ online poll, remember. They weight demographically and also use “propensity weighting”, which adjusts the results for likelihood to be online vs. offline.
Todays Det free press poll for michigan has kerry’s once comfortable lead down to 2 points, within the moe. DFP claims that as discussion has shifted to iraq over last 10 days, support for kerry has DECREASED among woman.
What gives??