1
   

Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

 
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 05:31 pm
SierraSong wrote:
Except that he predicted a Kerry win on his own website on 9/30/04 and a month later (just days before the election) announced on The Daily Show with John Stewart that Kerry would win. Hah. He's a hack.


The quality of a pollster is not in the editorials he gives, but whether or not his numbers prove accurate. Just for the record, here is the editorial Zogby gave on 9/30/04. Saying a month out that the race is Kerry's to lose is not the same as a guaranteed win, is it?

That is a real deception on your part, Sierra.


[quote]The Race Is Still Kerry's To Lose...By John Zogby



Tonight President George W. Bush and his Democrat opponent Senator John Kerry will engage in their first of three debates. Historically, these televised presidential debates have had a significant impact on the final outcome of several elections. In 1960, a polished and articulate Massachusetts Senator named John F. Kennedy showed that he could compete with a more experienced and older sitting Vice-President, Richard Nixon.

And in 1980, when Americans seemed to have made up their minds about not voting for President Jimmy Carter, they needed to be assured that his opponent, Republican Ronald Reagan was more than a dangerous ideologue or a Grade B actor. Reagan delivered one of the great knockout blows in presidential debate history: Are you better off than you were fours ago?

Tonight's debate is especially momentous because the race is extremely close, the two sides are very polarized, and there are only a small number - perhaps only 6 million voters nationwide - who are genuinely undecided. The stakes are important for both candidates, but much more so for Mr. Kerry.

In May of this year I wrote a column arguing that Senator F. John Kerry would defeat President George W. Bush in the November election. I based my conclusion on several factors. First, that Mr. Bush was posting weak numbers for an incumbent. In fact, the last three incumbents seeking re-election with numbers like his all went down in defeat . Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and the President's father in 1992.

Second, I noted that Mr. Kerry led the President by double digits on four of the top five issues : the economy, health care, the conduct in the war in Iraq, and education. Third, is Mr. Kerry's own history as a good closer, who has famously reached for victory in the throes of defeat several times before notably from a dismal 2003 to victories in the Democratic primaries.

I think even more today that if John Kerry loses this race it will be because he has blown an opportunity rather than from any innate strength of the present incumbent.

Since mid-August, the President has had several good weeks in tandem with a tepid performance by his opponent, but even in the glow of his post-convention bounce, Mr. Bush is still posting barometric readings that are over 50% negative. In my last column, I noted that Senator Kerry had to start giving his base something to energize them. He began to do that with his strongest statement against the conduct of the war in Iraq to date on Monday (September 20), followed by daily attacks on the war every day since. Remember, this is a candidate who gets about 45%-47% of the vote just by showing up. That is the purely anti-Bush vote. Kerry's problem has been that up until last week he had not given his base anything to grab on to. This group does not want to hear that he would do the same thing in Iraq all over again.. They want a genuine alternative and the Senator has been missing his target with the convoluted, nuanced statements of a professor leading a seminar and not the clear, bumper sticker, crisp messages of a successful campaign.

But the Massachusetts Senator still has aces in his hand that he can play. First, the President's numbers are still not good. Despite a few outlier polls that show a large single digit or even a double digit lead for Mr. Bush, my poll has the President's lead at only 3% and the average of all the public polls (as of this writing) is only a 4 point lead. Mr. Bush is only polling at 46% to 48% both nationally and in many key battleground states, hardly victory territory. And his barometric readings are still more negative than positive.

The best that can be said is that the President's numbers are still better than Mr. Kerry's. But my polling reveals another important fact . Mr. Kerry has more room for growth than the President. He has to first consolidate his base with an anti-war message that his base wants. He need not worry about accusations of flip-flopping on this issue because that is what the other side says about him and they are never going to vote for him under any circumstances. This alone will bring him to parity with the President in the polls.

From there we see a startling statistic: only 16% to 20% of undecided voters feel that the President deserves to be re-elected. Forty-percent of this relatively small group feel that it is time for someone new. They seem to have their minds made up about the President and have been given no reason to vote for Mr. Kerry. What is most important to this group? They agree with Mr. Bush on values, leadership, the war on terror, and likeability. They prefer Mr. Kerry on the economy, health care, the war, and education.

The debates will take on a special significance this year. The stakes are extremely high. Will Mr. Kerry be able bridge the likeability gap? Can he find his bumper sticker messages to make his point to those who want a change? Will he be able to put the President on the defensive on the war, health care, the economy, etc. without appearing to be bullying a leader that Americans seem to like? And can he make a connection with the war in Iraq spinning out of control and a squandered opportunity to pursue Osama bin Laden with full global support by alienating long-time US allies and dissipating US troop strength?

Will the President be able to force Mr. Kerry on the defensive by revealing the Senator?s changing positions? Can he do as he did successfully during the Republican National Convention by effectively linking his leadership on the war on terrorism with the ongoing war in Iraq? Can he finesse the three debates by just showing himself to be a plainspoken guy next door?

The pressure is really on Mr. Kerry to give a strong performance in both the debates and in the remaining five weeks of this campaign. If he is the John Kerry who defeated popular Governor Bill Weld in the Senate race of 1996 and the one who came from dismally low numbers in 2003 to win the primaries in 2004, he will win this race.

As of this writing this race is still John Kerry?s to lose.

John Zogby is the President and CEO of Zogby International, an independent polling firm and writes this column for the Washington, DC and St. Louis Business Journals where it first appeared.

(9/30/2004) [/quote]
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 06:10 pm
Regardless of wat Zogby said on the Daily Show with John Stewart-and after reading your interpretation of what he said on the website I really do not know what Zogby said on the Daily Show-what matters with a pollster is how close his numbers get to the final result.

So once again, for the last three Presidential elections, Zogby has gotten both the popular vote winner correct and the margins of victory correct to within 1%. No other pollster can even come close to making that claim. That is why Zogby is the best pollster, the pollster whose numbers mean the most.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 06:58 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Regardless of wat Zogby said on the Daily Show with John Stewart-and after reading your interpretation of what he said on the website I really do not know what Zogby said on the Daily Show-what matters with a pollster is how close his numbers get to the final result.

So once again, for the last three Presidential elections, Zogby has gotten both the popular vote winner correct and the margins of victory correct to within 1%. No other pollster can even come close to making that claim. That is why Zogby is the best pollster, the pollster whose numbers mean the most.


Zogby is a Democrat. He may appeal to you and your ilk, but he's definitely not the best pollster. However, if you want (and need, apparently) to believe him when he predicts a victory for Lamont, then go for it. You'll just whine and screech voter fraud when your guy loses, anyway.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 07:53 pm
Zogby might be a Democrat, but his final numbers predicted a one point popular vote victory for Bush in 2004, (Bush won by two points), and a much, much smaller margin of victory for Clinton in 1996 than anyone else was predicting.

He has not predicted a victory for Lamont, and even if he did I would count it as only his interpretation of what the numbers say. It is Zogby's unrivalled ability to put up the correct numbers-the numbers closest to the actual election tally-which makes him the best pollster.

Once again, in the last three Presidential elections, Zogby has correctly predicted both the winner of the popular vote and the margin of victory to within one point! Nobody else has done that, nobody else comes close to doing it, and that makes Zogby worth more than all the other pollsters put together.

Put that in your ilk and smoke it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Oct, 2006 08:12 pm
SierraSong wrote:
Except that he predicted a Kerry win on his own website on 9/30/04 and a month later (just days before the election) announced on The Daily Show with John Stewart that Kerry would win. Hah. He's a hack.


SierraSong wrote:
Zogby is a Democrat. He may appeal to you and your ilk, but he's definitely not the best pollster. However, if you want (and need, apparently) to believe him when he predicts a victory for Lamont, then go for it. You'll just whine and screech voter fraud when your guy loses, anyway.

Sierra, are you completely ignoring all the info we just gave, or does it just seem that way?

There's two separate things here. Zogby's editorial comments, and Zogby's actual polls. In his editorial comments, Zogby was off-kilter in 2004, up till the end when he predicted that Kerry would capture at least 311 electoral votes. However, his polls told a different story, and got the actual margin pegged almost exactly.

It doesnt matter whether Zogby is a Democrat - when we are evaluating his numbers (rather than his editorials), the only thing that counts is whether his numbers have stacked up. And they have - demonstrably.

He may not be the single best pollster, but his polls have sure gotten closer to the end result than those of most other pollsters. Keltic brought the numbers. So how can he possibly be a "hack"?

I mean, what are you arguing here? Yes, take Zogby's personal editorials, comments on TV shows etc. with a grain of salt, we already agree on that. But what started this discussion was that Keltic brought a Zogby poll on the CT race - and Zogby's polls have stacked up against others very well.

Again, I'll make a reservation regarding this being an online poll and the questions that exist re that -- but how you can possibly argue that Zogby is a "hack" when you are facing numbers from successive elections that show his polls having pegged the race practically as well as anyone else? Or is it just that you're not reading anything we say, and only come back time and again to repeat your own talking point?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 04:34 am
Quote:
It doesnt matter whether Zogby is a Democrat


Indeed, nothing else much matters to JW/SS. She's a movement activist and her perceptions are determined by this membership, as are her behaviors here.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 06:12 am
nimh wrote:
Again, I'll make a reservation regarding this being an online poll and the questions that exist re that -- but how you can possibly argue that Zogby is a "hack" when you are facing numbers from successive elections that show his polls having pegged the race practically as well as anyone else? Or is it just that you're not reading anything we say, and only come back time and again to repeat your own talking point?


Online polls are garbage in, garbage out. Zogby ranked around 6th among the pollsters in the 2004 election, with Rasmussen and Survey USA coming in far ahead in accuracy.

You depict him as 'editorializing', but his comments on his website on 9/30/04 were pure analysis. And he was dead wrong. He's a hack.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 07:43 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
It doesnt matter whether Zogby is a Democrat


Indeed, nothing else much matters to JW/SS. She's a movement activist and her perceptions are determined by this membership, as are her behaviors here.


Speaking of behaviors here, most of us operate from our own perspectives and form our opinions based on those perspectives and our best instincts. Yours, for instance, appear to be firmly lodged in Leftist/Socialist if not Marxist doctrine wrapped in arrogant judgmentalism, and, in your own words, you consider anybody with a different perspective to be "dangerous". Thus you attack Sierra personally instead of her point which seems to be typical of your particular POV and ilk.

Sierra, on the other hand, does not attack anybody personally but, right or wrong, states her point of view and defends it as she sees fit. I prefer her way and see it is far less dangerous than yours, even if her take on something is proved to be wrong.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 08:58 am
SierraSong wrote:
You depict him as 'editorializing', but his comments on his website on 9/30/04 were pure analysis. And he was dead wrong. He's a hack.


Nimh's right. You don't answer a single point anyone makes.

When it comes to pollsters, what matters are his numbers. I really don't care very much about his editorial, analysis, or whatever you want to call it. If analysis is not opinion, then what is it?

When you look at polls, you look at the numbers. That is what you want to see. What the individual pollster thinks those numbers will mean down the line is fairly irrelevant. It's how accurate the numbers are.

Your account of what Zogby wrote is also a little off. He said that one month out, it was still Kerry's race to lose. That's a far, far cry from a Joe Namath like guarantee of victory, isn't it? Oh, I think so.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 09:09 am
SierraSong wrote:
Zogby ranked around 6th among the pollsters in the 2004 election, with Rasmussen and Survey USA coming in far ahead in accuracy.


Excuse me, but how do you get more accurate than coming within a single point in three straight elections.


Because, you might not know this, but I am pleased to inform you that for the last three Presidential elections, Zogby has gotten both the popular vote winner correct and the margins of victory correct to within 1%. Nobody else has come close to that.

But perhaps I am wrong. Please list five polling services which, for the last three Presidential elections, correctly predicted the popular vote winner and got the margin of victory CLOSER than 1%. A tall order, that, but I am sure you have the figures.

I am especially interested in how Rasmussen has stacked up.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 11:27 am
SierraSong wrote:
Online polls are garbage in, garbage out.

I tend to agree... they may be the future, but they're not there yet.

However, Zogby does both online and regular polls. The one Keltic brought here a coupla pages back was indeed an online poll. But his phone polls have been very accurate. And that refutes your claim that he's nothing but a hack.

SierraSong wrote:
Zogby ranked around 6th among the pollsters in the 2004 election, with Rasmussen and Survey USA coming in far ahead in accuracy.

You depict him as 'editorializing', but his comments on his website on 9/30/04 were pure analysis. And he was dead wrong. He's a hack.

Like Keltic said, editorialising, analysis, whatever. Rasmussen's analyses also tend to be biased. Its their numbers you want to be judging. And Zogby's stack up well.

kelticwizard wrote:
Your account of what Zogby wrote is also a little off. He said that one month out, it was still Kerry's race to lose. That's a far, far cry from a Joe Namath like guarantee of victory, isn't it? Oh, I think so.

Hmm, Keltic, I wouldnt pursue this line ... I already pointed out twice that Zogby predicted that Kerry would win with at least 311 electoral votes right on the eve of the elections... No, when it comes to Zogby's personal comments / editorials / analyses whatever, he was clearly wrong right up till the end.

Point we agree on is that that doesnt reflect on his actual polls, because the numbers of those have stacked up well.

kelticwizard wrote:
I am especially interested in how Rasmussen has stacked up.

I dont remember exactly about previous elections - Rasmussen was horribly off about one presidential election (2000?). But it did very well in 2004, as I already noted above; it was the fourth best in getting the numbers for the two candidates right.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 07:04 am
We really ought to, in that "ought" sense we intend when speaking of the sad disappearance of animal and plant species, maintain an "in loving memory" text-album of Just Wonder's threats regarding how badly we'll feel when the next election disappoints us democrat-favorers.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 04:41 pm
About those Zogby polls - or rather, specifically (note, SierraSong), the Zogby Internet polls.

Whereas Zogby's phone polls have a very good track record (as Keltic has already repeatedly pointed out re the Zogby polls on Presidential elections), the value of his Internet polls is often questioned.

To take a small detour, the Tennessee Senate race gives a good example why. Here's a graphic portrayal of how different pollsters have tracked the race (up till 4 October):

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/926/tnsenbypollster1003smlvb5.jpg

And the explanation:

Quote:
Charles Franklin helped me prepare the following chart, which shows how the various polls tracked the Ford margin (that is, Ford's percentage minus Corker's percentage). The chart draws a line to connect the dots for each pollster that has conducted more than one survey. The light blue dots are for pollsters that have done just one Tennessee survey to date.

The chart shows a fairly consistent pattern in the trends reported by the various telephone polls, both those done using traditional methods (particularly Mason-Dixon) and the automated pollster (Rasmussen). Franklin plotted a "local trend" line (in grey) that estimates the combined trend picked up by the telephone polls (both traditional and automated). The line "fits" the points well: It indicates that Ford fell slightly behind over the summer, but surged from August to September (as he began airing television advertising).

As Barone noticed, the five automated surveys conducted since July (including one by SurveyUSA) have been slightly and consistently more favorable to Ford than the three conventional surveys (to by Mason-Dixon and one by Middle Tennessee State University). But the differences are not large.

The one partisan pollster - the Democratic firm Benenson Strategy Group - released two surveys that showed the same trend but were a few points more favorable to Democrat Ford than the public polls. This partisan house effect among pollsters of both parties for surveys released into the public domain is not uncommon.

But now consider the green line, the one representing the non-random sample surveys of Zogby Interactive. It tells a completely different story: The first three surveys were far more favorable to Democrat Ford during the summer than the other polls, and Zogby has shown Ford falling behind over the last two months while the other pollsters have shown Ford's margins rising sharply.

This picture has two big lessons. The first is that for all their "random error" and other deviations from random sampling, telephone polls continue to provide a decent and reasonably consistent measure of trends over the course of the campaign. The second is that in Tennessee, as in other states we have examined so far, the Zogby Internet surveys are just not like the others.

In short, generally one can be sceptical about Zogby Internet polls (Sierra, note the emphasis).

To complicate matters, however, the Zogby Internet polls have actually been pretty much in sync with the other polls in Connecticut, as another pollster.com post (also from October 4!), whichis also in general relevant to this thread, clarifies:

Quote:
Connecticut: More House Effects

Our Slate Senate Scorecard update for tonight focuses on a new Rasmussen poll in Connecticut that shows Joe Lieberman leading Democratic nominee Ned Lamont by ten points (50% to 40%).

Tracking the Connecticut Senate race especially challenging because the most active pollsters in the state have shown consistent differences in their results -- at least until today. See the chart below (courtesy Charles Franklin), which shows Lieberman's margin over Lamont (Lieberman's percentage minus Lamont's percentage):

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/7859/ctsenbypollster1004smlvy4.jpg

Both the Rasmussen automated surveys and the conventional, live interviewer phone polls conducted by Quinnipiac University showed Lieberman's margins narrowing since July but holding fairly steady over the last month. However, until the survey released today, the Rasmussen surveys have consistently shown a closer margin than the Quinnipiac Polls.

Read on..
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Oct, 2006 04:44 pm
More on topic, perhaps:

Quote:
Polls lagging, Lamont gives campaign $2M

Behind in the polls, Democrat Ned Lamont has given $2 million to his campaign to unseat three-term Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Lamont has contributed $8,751,500 of his own personal wealth to his Senate bid, including a $2 million check he wrote on Tuesday. The latest poll showed him trailing Lieberman, 48-40 percent, with Republican Alan Schlesinger at just 4 percent. [..]

Sixty percent of respondents in the Hartford Courant/University of Connecticut poll released Wednesday agreed with Lamont that going to war with Iraq was wrong. Lieberman, however, won support from nearly one-third of anti-war voters and 70 percent of those who supported the invasion.

"Lieberman has managed to do exactly what he set out to do after his primary loss. His goal was to finesse the party issue by appealing to independents and Republicans without completely alienating Democratic voters," said Monika L. McDermott, the research director at the center. "He's pulled it off so far." [..]
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Oct, 2006 11:18 am
Quote:
Lieberman mum on how he'll vote for gov.

16 October 2006

Sen. Joe Lieberman [..] won't say whether he supports the state's Democratic candidate for governor.

Lieberman told The Hartford Courant [..] that his decision on whether to vote for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell or Democratic New Haven Mayor John DeStefano will remain private.

A recent Quinnipiac University survey showed Rell with a 33 percentage-point lead over DeStefano.

DeStefano supported Lieberman before the Senate primary, but has since thrown his support behind the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont. [..]

Lieberman also declined to comment Friday on whether he thinks the nation would be better off with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives. "I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer," Lieberman told The Courant.

Lieberman has said he would remain a member of the Senate's Democratic caucus if he wins Nov. 7. [..]
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 03:27 am
Quote:
Lieberman likes Bolton for UN job

BY HELEN KENNEDY
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman yesterday endorsed controversial Bush appointee John Bolton for a permanent slot at the United Nations - putting him at odds once again with Democrats, including his Senate colleague Chris Dodd.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/462453p-389064c.html
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 02:39 pm
nimh wrote:
Quote:
Lieberman mum on how he'll vote for gov.

16 October 2006

Sen. Joe Lieberman [..] won't say whether he supports the state's Democratic candidate for governor.

Lieberman told The Hartford Courant [..] that his decision on whether to vote for Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell or Democratic New Haven Mayor John DeStefano will remain private.

A recent Quinnipiac University survey showed Rell with a 33 percentage-point lead over DeStefano.

DeStefano supported Lieberman before the Senate primary, but has since thrown his support behind the Democratic candidate, Ned Lamont. [..]

Lieberman also declined to comment Friday on whether he thinks the nation would be better off with the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives. "I haven't thought about that enough to give an answer," Lieberman told The Courant.

Lieberman has said he would remain a member of the Senate's Democratic caucus if he wins Nov. 7. [..]


Are you insisting that he reveal how he will vote?
Will you reveal who you plan to vote for,in every election?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Oct, 2006 07:42 pm
Kind of apples and pears, no?

The man is trying to keep Democrats voting for him by vowing he's a real Democrat, and lambasting Lamont allies for doubting it - but he wont even say whether he actually wants the Democrats in control of the House of Representatives!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 08:02 pm
Oh dear...

Not just does Lamont appear to be toast by now, but some of his more rabid supporters appear to have lost it - or perhaps had already lost it - I knew there had to be a loony left in the US somewhere -

(I'm talking about Matt Stoller, from the second quote in the piece below, of course. Scary stuff.)

Quote:
AFTER LAMONT?:

TNR The Plank
10.31.06

One week from election day and the Lamont recriminations game has already begun. The Nation's John Nichols lays the blame for Lamont's troubles squarely on his campaign:

    Precious time was lost in late August and early September, as the Lamont camp tried to frame new themes for the fall campaign. Instead of driving home the message that Connecticut can and must send a message to George W. Bush and those members of Congress -- like Lieberman -- who have steered the country into a disastrous war, the Lamont campaign seemed to edge away from the smart and effective anti-war message the took its candidate from obscurity to the Democratic nomination. Perhaps most unfortunately, the Lamont campaign started to sound petty. The daily attacks on Lieberman wore thin. There was too much picayune pondering of whether the incumbent had broken a term-limits promise, and too little emphasis on "Bring the Troops Home" fundamentals.
But MyDD blogger and Lamont booster Matt Stoller is pointing the finger at the Democratic Party "establishment":

    Whether it was a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss, or Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way, or Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King, or Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority, or Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved and practically being forced to not back Lieberman after the primary, or insiders telling Lamont's campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn't go on the attack, it's very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core. With the exception of John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont. (John Edwards is a bit more complicated, but the jury's still out.) [snip] Make no mistake, these DC Democrats are only our temporary allies. They have total contempt for the rules of the party, and they cheered Joe after he faced us in the primary. It is no longer reasonable for them to call for party unity, because they no longer have any legitimate claim to call themselves leaders of the party. They may be leaders for the next few decades simply due to inertia, but it's very clear that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are liars who think nothing of insulting Democratic primary voters who play by the rules. The American people know this. They know that Democratic Senators are moral lepers, weaklings, and that is the only reason we aren't further ahead when the Republicans screw everything up. The Democratic Senate leaders will sell us out at every opportunity, be it torture, Iraq, Alito, Lieberman, the Bankruptcy Bill, or stopping war with Iran. They aren't poll-driven, they aren't fear-driven, and they aren't driven by strategic differences. They are simply driven to beat us down, their voters, by any means necessary. That's why they cheered Joe.
I tend to think Nichols's diagnosis is more on the ball--although I'd add that Lamont's troubles really began in early August when, in his Democratic primary victory speech, he failed to deliver the coup de grace to Lieberman--but I think Stoller's is more noteworthy, especially if the sentiment is widely shared on the left. After all, in January those Democrats Stoller condemns as "moral lepers" may well constitute the majority of the Senate. They'll undoubtedly have their hands full with the White House and their colleagues across the aisle. Are they also going to have to deal with ill will from a sizable segment of their own party?

--Jason Zengerle
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:08 am
nimh wrote:
Oh dear...

Not just does Lamont appear to be toast by now....


I agree with you that it does not seem likely that Lamont will win, judging by the polls.

However, I am not willing to throw in the towel just yet. There are some things which support at least the possibility of a Lamont victory.

A) State races are notoriously volatile. I remember when Reagan ran against Carter, Michigan flipped 10 points in the space of one weekend. When Christy Todd Whitman ran against James Florio for the New Jersey Governor's race, she ran 10 points or more behind for the whole race, and the last day several polls had her 10 points back. Only one had her even. Whitman won the election. State races can go one way or the other with breathtaking speed.

B) Lieberman's victory depends on Republicans almost completely abandoning their candidate and voting for him. Republicans have voted against Lieberman three times for the Senate. Yes, national Republican leaders have strongly hinted that they don't mind if you vote for Lieberman. Yes, Connecticut Republicans are telling pollsters, in large numbers, that they in fact are going to vote for Lieberman.

But next Tuesday, Republicans will be asked to go into the privacy of the voting booth, and pull the lever for the guy they have voted against for 18 years. They will be asked to ignore the fellow from their own party who is fighting an incredible uphill battle not only against an incumbent Senator, but apparently against a party leadership determined to abandon him after he won the nomination. For a Republican, to pull the lever for Schlessinger is not only to vote your heart-it is a vote for the underdog.

Saying that you are going to give up party loyalties for strategic purposes and actually doing it on Election Day are two different things. Maybe it will happen-that Republicans will vote for Lieberman. But I'm not giving up until I see it happen.

C) The mood of the country at the time of Election Day is important, and right now it looks pretty bleak for the GOP. Iraq is getting worse day by day, and the economy is going down. I'm getting the same feeling I got in 1992 when Clinton came back. Early in the campaign, the Reagan-Bush administration had become so entrenched it seemed that nobody was going to challenge it. Toward the end, with bleak news coming in for months, it turned around for Clinton. I remember just before the election, Bush senior got rejected by the Congress on some cable TV bill. It became a symbol that the President was not getting respect on Capitol Hill. Right now, Bush junior is getting defections from his Iraq policy all over the place. It is the same kind of feeling.

I'm not expecting a Lamont victory on Election Day. But I think he's still got an honest shot. Polls for statewide races have been shockingly off before, and Lieberman's large lead is resting on uncharted electoral ground.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 02:03:57