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

[justfine]

I worked on the Lamont campaign and have always detested Lieberman, whom I voted for twice (but not his first time when I stayed with Lowell Weicker). I voted for him solely because he was a Democrat, but it aggravated me each time. I was at Lamont's headquarters Election Night and when I left the country September1 for a year in Italy I thought that we had elected Ned. Imagine my surprise, shock and anger as I watched in the middle of the night on CNN International as Lamont conceded.

Two days ago I wrote a letter to The Westport News (CT) which was published today. In light of this poll my letter sounds prescient.

"Lieberman Does It Again (and Again)"

Yesterday (Tuesday, 9/11) Senator Joe Lieberman asked General David Petraeus, during Senate hearings on the war in Iraq, changing the topic with the statement "I want to go to Iran" (!) if he (Petraeus) wanted "the authority" (from Congress) to go to Iran.

Last night Senator Lieberman joined Rudy Giuliani, Ann Coulter, Oliver North, Newt Gingrich and other Republican conservatives as they helped Sean Hannity mark the 6th anniversary of 9/11 with the the season's final "Freedom Concert" at Great Adventure in New Jersey.

Unfortunately there is no procedure for the recall of Federal officials."

Thanks David for all your work on Ned's campaign and for your always insightful posts. L'Shona Tovah!

[Socality]

Why is Lieberman still news? He accomplishes nothing and he inspires nobody. Oops, I just described 90% of our Dem congress. Nevermind.

[apduncan1]

This a Holocaust. Plain and simple.

We are no different from the willing Germans of WWII that allowed the Nazi genocide of jews and other "undesirables" to take place.

Shame on us.

[Jjc2006]

Sadly, voters are uninformed. Some by choice, some because they have no time, some because of ignorance.
I am a person with an MA, I am sixty years old and retired. Middle income, well educated just like most of my peers.
Most of them are clueless when I use the phrases alternative media or MSM.
Many of them would rather talk about American Idol than about politics. Some of them even roll their eyes when I bring up stuff.

Finally I resort to using guilt: their responsibility to their grandchildren to be informed, to vote informed.

We came of age in the 60s. I protested, they did not. To be fair, they were all from the middle of the state, conservative farming communities while I was from the city and went home on weekends and hung out with my political active cousins.

But now, there is no excuse. I wander if I am being too assertive and if I am losing my friends. Maybe it is the price we all must pay for being informed and caring. Cause if we don't, who will?

[bar1ed]

i don't understand how the dems allow him to sit on any committee. he only has one interest on his agenda, and that's Israel, period. how does that serve the interest of the American people.

[Doofus]

Simple. If he's not exactly the 51st Demo in the
Senate, he is (as an 'independent Democrat')
the reason there's a Demo majority.

[Yukon Jack]

Joe Leiberman is far too decent a person to be a Democrat. Even though he is now an independent, and his paast voting record is not something that any Republican (or for that matter even Mr. Leiberman, himself) should be proud of, his love of his country is in stark contast with the views of his detractors, who are still stuck in the Democrat Party.

As far as the poll is concerned, chill out: Lieberman, if he ran as a Republican, (with no Schelinger) would trounce Lamont 50% to 48%.

Just wish that Mr. Leiberman found his true home. He does not need or deserve the vile poison he is getting from his so-called friends.

[kittycago]

Just wish that Mr. Leiberman found his true home. He does not need or deserve the vile poison he is getting from his so-called friends.
===============================================
his true home ?he is from Stamford Ct.He does not represent his state he represents himself.That is why we bounced him out of the Ct Democratic Party.

[fedupwithpolitics]

I don't even live in CT but I knew Lieberman was a dangerous liar--citizens of CT are just plain idiots.

[Dan]

I wonder if the Dems and other voters will have the same regrets regarding Hillary, who for the same damned reasons is regarded as the Dems "best" hope.

We won't get fooled again? Hell yeah.

[Doofus]

Regrets? I'll have a few...

HRC is 'muscular on national security',
as is Joe Lieberman, but probably in a more
moderate way if that's possible. I believe
that's appropriate for a presidential wannabe,
by the way.

Prediction: the Demos will nominate whoever
wins in the primaries, once we get around to
having them, *next year*.

If it ends up being HRC vs. Rudy G or Fred T, it's going
to be a very weird election.

Paul/Kucinich - Tag Team 2008 - Give 2 Guys a Chance!

[Bulbul]

None of these research mean anything today, why is then Lieberman, the Bush lover, is the Senetor now and not Lamont, Why Bush is the President and not Gore, who actually won the Presidency, until the Supreme Court manipulated it. And now why is not Kerry the president.. and it continues. And now Thompson prances around being clueless and lazy, we know that, but one has to listen to the Sundays Round Table , how the so called Pundits are saying otherwise ! Pointless to speculate, it could have been it should have been, Can anyone fix the irreparable damage caused by Bush et. al. after 8 yrs of bullying ?

[Grizelda]

Lamont slacked off on his campaign, and let LIEberman win. I believe somebody behind the scenes got to him. The neocons probably made him an offer he couldn't refuse. But, take comfort, folks, LIEberman is toast. He won't win another election. The people from Connecticut don't like being made to look like fools, and won't get fooled again. They will send this sniveling, groveling swine back into the private sector as soon as they get the chance. Unless, of course, he lands some juicy defense contracts to keep the jobs coming...

[llyn]

How low are Bush/Cheney willing to go? Lower than anyone can fathom.

[BARRISTER]

There is only ONE lesson to be learned from " this" and that is that 75% of the American Electorate who vote are MORONS!!!!

[filiusardentis]

I think we've fallen into a trap here in thinking that blame needs to be placed squarely in one camp. In reality, there is enough to go around. This article is important in that it exposes the lies that were made and how they were used to fool many. The bias of the media also needs exposure, so that it will be recognizable when future distortion or simple negligence are used in the future.

[nancytheragingliberal]

As Sam Sedar calls him, "Lie berman" is a joke and a total warmonger for Israel and, in turn, fattening his wallet. He was for war with Iraq and war with Iran. He and Ralph Nader have much in common. Spoilers and inflated egos. People from CT did not do their homework and were duped by this excuse for a human being. How dare he first call himself a Dem. and then an "Independent." He lost to Ned Lamont, then took his toys and played his Independent gig. He threatens the Dem's every chance he gets. Like I said before, "Hey Joe, get lost..Do us all a BIG favor and become the repub. you always wanted to be. "

[researcher]

dont blame this on libberman. put the blame where it belongs on the voters.

politicans have been lying to us for how long?

naive and incompentent voters elect naive and incompentent politicans.

good job conn voters you managed to elect a warmonger.

you now can walk hand in hand with the warmongering red states.

call it hands across warmongering america.

show some courage impeach him.