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

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

Improved definition of Fair & Balanced: LIE-bm on trial at the Hague at the same time as Bu$h Crime Family et al (aka CompCon Cabal).

[richsmith]

David,

You can't continue to go blaming rightist inclinations of the press and media or the mandacity of politicians in general or Joe Lieberboy in particular. The blame rests squarely with an ignorant and/or deluded, short sighted, and self interested voting (or non-voting) population that puts frauds and abominations such as Joe in public office. George Bush may never have won a popular vote, but he came close enough twice to become, with a modest injection of Republican voter fraud, president and decider.

[kbrown528]

You are so right Steve1. I thought the days of buying votes and stuffing ballot boxes was long gone.

This administration of Bush, Cheney, Fredo, and Turd Blossom have opened my eyes on how far and low the Republican party will still go to win.

That we had to watch the image of Bush in his "Mission Accomplished" flight suit striding across the carrier deck at what he thinks is the height of his power, makes me sick.

[ipitombi]

I see/read/hear that name: "Liebermann", and my stomach turns. Seriously. Liebermann is as sleazybuckety as Delay and Abramoff.

[mrcontinental]

Just call him Killer Joe.

[leftLibertarian]

LIEberman: Primo Chicken Hawk who cares more about Israel than the US.

[Facethereality]

I do not understand why most of the American people are surprised who Joe Lieberman is. Joe supported George Bush to invade Iraq. He was not interested for United Sates, he wanted Iraq should be crippled so that no militarily strong Muslim Nation around Israel. Now he is going after Iran for the same reason. President of Iran may be dumb he is not stupid to attack Israel. He knows Israel has quietly developed nuclear bombs thanks to United States. Israel also knows United States will join them in case Iran attacks Israel. Iran is tweaking both George Bush and Israelis.

American people must get involved with US politics and not Washington Lawmakers. They are not interested in our welfare, they are there for their own interest.

[brcd12]

Unfortunately, we Americans have very short memories, and surely by 2010 when the Lie--Man is up for relection, most CT voters would have moved onto the latest Britney/OJ/Paris scandal, and forgotten all about his Iraqi transgressions. You can bet that's what the Lie--Man is banking on too.

[mcartri]

I conclude many of the Dems in CT were what I would eloquently call "Stupid". The proof is that the vast majority of Republicans voted for Joe. They understood Joe literally kissed their war monger president, George W. Bush. The Repugs were not dumb asses.

[rpetrokubi]

The Connecticut voters got what they voted for, just like the rest of America who voted for Bush.

[wanked]

LIERman got desperate about 3 weeks before the election and changed his tune about support for the war. Anyone who fell for that phony change of heart was a giant friggin MORON. BUT BUT BUT BUT he saved the SUB Base. This state is an embarressment among New England states

[lisakaz]

I couldn't understand how anyone could credibly portray Lie berman as anti-war. Then again, look at the Bu$hit the MSM is spewing about a "troop reduction" that is a total sham. At best, we're talking de-surging the "surge", not any real reduction or change in strategy. I am sickened by the headlines I see from AP that is all talking points and based on the inability to expand or even maintain the stretched to the max US resources.

When is the corporate media going to care again about the truth?

[DatelessNerd]

Much of the blame should be placed on so-called "mainstream" Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barbara Boxer.

They campaigned for Lieberman in the primary against Lamont, while knowing that Lieberman would not respect the party's nomination process if he lost.

Clinton went so far as to call Lieberman "a good man, a good Democrat" and someone who "will do you proud." This legitimized Lieberman's general election campaign in the eyes of many Connecticut Democrats.

Clinton and Boxer never returned to Connecticut to campaign for their party's endorsed candidate, Ned Lamont, and undo the damage they'd done.

[Steve1]

I worked the polls last November for Lamont and can tell you it wasn't Dems who voted for Lieberman, it was Reeps who put the man back in office. So, we have Karl Rove to thank for helping Joe raise money and giving him access to Republican donor lists, not to mention Roger Ailes willingness to put Joey on Fake News seemingly on a daily basis.

In addition, it was Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, and many other Senate Dems who deserve credit for both their support for Lieberman and lack of sincere support for Lamont. If those same Dems really cared about this country, why on earth would they have backed Lieberman prior to the election and given him a standing ovation the day he arrived back in D.C. following the election? Why? Because it's a nice little racket they have going up there in D.C., cocktail parties and all, so missing Joe's smug little smile at parties was more important to them than actually voting in a change agent like Lamont. No rocking the boat in the D.C. Dem elite establishment, they won't have any of that progressive Dem crowd in their gang.

[Pneumaticus]

Don't you all ever feel like you're at the senior prom, and that all anyone really cares about is who is the most popular, you know, like who's going to be the prom queen and her king and then who will be accepted into their inner circle at the country club, but you're pretty sure it won't be you because you're wearing brown shoes? Well, you are, and the queen doesn't like that.