The Lessons of Today's Stunning Lieberman Poll

According to a new poll released today by the nonpartisan firm Research 2000, if Connecticut's 2006 Senate general election was re-run and happened today, Ned Lamont would defeat Sen. Joe Lieberman handily. What is of particular significance in the numbers is that the shift is due precisely to the deception that Lamont supporters had been exposing during the campaign - but which reporters refused to cover both during the race and in the post-election analysis. This deception on the issue of Iraq goes straight to how the media and political Establishment will do anything to keep this war going. And the two lessons that come out of this poll after looking at its details are worth remembering.

As the poll shows, if the race were held today, Lamont would garner 48 percent of the vote, Lieberman just 40 percent and Republican Alan Schlesinger would get 10 percent. This represents roughly a 16-18 point swing from the actual results (Lieberman 49, Lamont 40, Schlesinger 10), and according to today's poll, the major shift to Lamont from Lieberman would be among Democratic and Independent voters.

You may recall that in a post-election analysis I wrote for In These Times, I noted that Lieberman's entire general election strategy was about pretending that, if reelected, he would lead the fight to end the Iraq War. The man literally portrayed himself as the leader of the antiwar movement after he lost the primary. His very first ad in the general election was him looking to camera saying "I want to help end the war in Iraq." During debates he said "No one wants to end the war in Iraq more than I do." It was, as this well-known YouTube video showed, a positively Nixonian enterprise by Lieberman - and it was a deliberate effort to confuse precisely the same Democratic and Independent voters who now say they would vote for Lamont. As I reported:

"Our internal polling showed that somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman's position on the war-a signal that Lieberman's confusion campaign was working."

During the campaign, we did all that we could to point out how Lieberman was lying about his position on the war through as many venues as possible - blogs, candidate speeches, and television advertising making the point that "a vote for Lieberman means a vote for more war" (an ad that Lieberman actually held a special press conference to attack for supposedly being not true). But in the general election's stretch run, the independent validators in the race - the local and national media - refused to report on Lieberman's actual positions and votes continuing to support Bush and the war, and this key slice of Democratic and Independent voters remained confused. They voted for Lieberman because they believed that he perhaps had been pro-war before, but had changed - when in fact the only thing that had changed temporarily was his language, but not his actions.

But now this key group of Democrats and Independents isn't confused anymore because, since the election (and, as predicted) Lieberman has become even more supportive of the Iraq War, and is actually publicly pushing a war with Iran. You can't turn on a television and see a story about the political debate over war without seeing/hearing/reading about Lieberman ratcheting up the saber rattling.

There are two major lessons from this, beyond the fact that as politicians become more supportive of President Bush's war in Iraq and more supportive of a war in Iran, the more unpopular they become.

First, craven politicians like Lieberman will do anything they can to confuse the public about their positions on the war - and they can succeed if the major media refuses to ask them questions or consistently highlight their hypocrisy. Especially on Iraq, we know that deference and stenography are now standard operating procedure. Remember, it was New York Times' chief White House correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller who said that when it comes to the war, journalists are "very deferential because...it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there" and ask politicians tough questions. And you can bet the effort to confuse the public is only going to intensify from both political parties in the coming weeks with the debate over the Iraq War in Congress. We are already seeing politicians trying to pretend that non-binding measures that do nothing to end the war are actually ironclad efforts that will end the war.

Second, this poll should remind us why new and alternative media are so important. We have to continue to develop as many communications resources to get the real story out about all politicians of all parties - Republican, Democrat and Connecticut for Lieberman. We need as many communications tools as possible so that we don't always have to rely on media intermediaries to get the truth out. We need conduits that circumvent those intermediaries to get the truth out - directly (The fact that Markos had to commission this poll in absence of any news organization doing it is just another reminder of why we need said conduits - and thanks for doing it Markos!).

Had Connecticut voters had more information about exactly how Lieberman's campaign to reinvent himself as an antiwar leader was a complete sham, that key segment of the Democratic and Independent voters might not have been confused, and the election - as the poll now confirms - would have gone the other way.

Cross-posted from Working Assets and OpenLeft

Comments

[CarmanK]

I don't think the Lieberman poll is such a surprise. He has behaved badly since re-elected. Bush couldn't have a better friend except perhaps John McCain. The people of CONN were conned in '06, after all Al gore thought he was good enough to be VP. Perhaps '08 and '10 will allow all of us to regain common sense and sanity on the federal level.

[oldtree]

Will the fine people of Connecticut being recall proceedings?

[blabberwocky]

Nice work, Connecticut. I really feel for the Lamont supporters who now have to live alongside the dingbats who bought into Lierberman's crap.
Hopefully Democrats across the country won't repeat the same mistake by voting for Hillary. Support an actual Dem next time around, folks. Study your history!
Edwards'08!

[phillylawyer]

In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve. Presumably, we are still a democracy. As such, the people of Connecticut must live with their "confusion" for another six years. ..... Question: were Senator Barbara Boxer of California and former President Bill Clinton also "confused" when they campaigned for this man, Senator Liebermann, during the primary and subsequently refused to campaign for the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, during the general election? Shame on them if they were confused as their position of power requires them to do their homework. Conversely, if they were not confused, but were facilitators of the confusion, then we are in worse trouble than I can imagine.

[live by the golden rule]

I was stunned that the morning after Lamont's dramatic upset of Lieberman in the primary, all three network's morning shows interviewed the defeated candidate, rather than the victor! When else does that happen? They enabled the defeated candidate to define what happened as some kind of left-wing crazy attack, rather than to let the voters actually take a good careful look at the actual thoughtful person who won. What kind of journalism allows something like that to happen? It simply is inexcusable.

[Vajara]

Connecticut is the home for many of the major insurance corporations, so I wonder if they didn't put baby Joe in his office? I once lived in this state and had more respect for the politics and the people. Now, I think they should apologize to our country for putting a Bush clone in the Senate. Look at all of the damage he has created by voting for more war every opportunity he gets.

[Mykel]

Joe Lieberman isn't just a traitor to his party or his ideology.

He's a traitor to his country.

Innocent Americans have been killed and are being killed because of this war and because of the supporters of it.

I can think of no greater betrayal.

[ajax2]

Since the MSM can no longer lie about Joe's constant war mongering, any U.S. citizen could probably beat him. Well maybe not in Kansas or Connecticut.

[plutorage]

Would somebody please list the names of democratic luminaries who supported Lieberman in the election?

[kittycago]

Jim Amann-house majority leader for one.

[Taan]

Plato warned the Athenians that those who fail to actively participate in their own political process can wake up to find themselves ruled by their inferiors. History repeats its ad infinitum.

[Mike169]

There is no Senatorial recall in Connecticut. I wonder if there's a way he can be removed before his term is up under CT law.

[jungpatawan]

RECALL!!!!!

Does CT have that option?


JP

[emncaity]

When we get guys like Joe Lieberman in Congress, and Bush--twice--in the White House, you have to say we get the government we deserve, and in fact may have reached a tipping point.

[click212]

Please, Lieberman was quite clear about the war from the beginning. Now we are getting folks who believe they were misled. I understand that the American voter is stupid enough to vote against themselves, but now they have the excuse to pass on their stupidity to being misled?

Those folks who voted for Lieberman wanted to "win the war." They are so pathetic voters who think that war solves political and economic conflicts. Grow up.

[kittycago]

Please, Lieberman was quite clear about the war from the beginning. Now we are getting folks who believe they were misled.
----------­----------­----------­----------­-----
that is why we booted him from the Ct Dems who said they were misled.

[Yukon Jack]

Lamont 48%

Leiberman + Schlezinger = 50%.

Leiberman - Schlezinger = 50%

Any way you slice it, (disregarding your contention that an absence of Schlezinger would benefit Lamont), Lieberman wins in a modest landslide.