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

[Sarasvati]

All my Democratic friends voted for Ned in the primary and general election. Before the primary, Connecticut Democratic Party chairman, John F. Droney Jr., a Lieberman supporter, said: “I think to be terrorized through the summer by an extremely small group of the Democratic Party, much less the voting population, is total insanity for a person who is a three-term senator." Nothing like a little lese majeste to put the great unwashed in their place, no? Ned Lamont disappeared from sight after his primary win - I believe he went on vacation - when he should have gone on the offensive; also, he wasn't a very effective debator. Some voters were offended that some senators, specifically Chris Dodd, had wrongly put political loyalty above personal friendship and principle when they endorsed Ned. So much for the understanding of the electorate. Many high-level Dems felt it was a win-win situation for the party. How stupid is that? The only people I know who voted for Lieberman in the general election were Republicans. I'm interested in finding out if there's a way to start an independent recall movement..­.I've inquired, and received no answer. Traitor Joe Lieberman is as nauseating as he is dangerous.

[KansAmerican]

Liberman is a bigger liar than Bush. Lieberman is much more a representative of Isreal than of the state of CT.

[OB]

Maybe he fooled some of the Democrats and some of the Independents but the Republicans knew where he stands and stood on the war.They voted overwhelmingly for him!I don't blame the media for everthing as they are only showing what the average tv viewer wants to watch. HL Mencken a 30s newspaper man said "nobody ever lost money underestimating the taste of the Amereican public" He also said, do to that, we one day would have a moron for a president!

[kbrown528]

In some cases I think that educated voter is an oxymoron. My seventy eight year old parents are still voting along party lines. My mother didn't know Rudy was pro-choice till I told her.

Makes you question just what the MSN really is. Biased news, someone's mouthpiece, or investigative reporting.

We now have enough outlets available for educating the voter WHEN people think it's important enough to find them AND the capacity to weed out the bull and discern the truth. Don't give the MSN that much credit about the war. They all seem like a herd of cows to me. I for one prefer those "lefty blogs".

[Doofus]

The poll shows that, finally, someone was able
to persuade Demos & Indos in Connecticut that
they should vote for Ned Lamont. And who was that
someone? None other than Smokin' Joe Lieberman.

Who would have guessed?

'Better late than never' unfortunately does not apply.

[flipside]

Smokin Joe's last name was Frazier, not Lieberman. By the way, are you by chance a resident of Connecticut? Who would've guessed?

[olephart]

"somewhere between 12 and 15 percent of the population said they simultaneously opposed the war and supported Lieberman's position"

Never over estimate the intelligence of the American voter. About the same percentage of people who are dirt poor vote Republican. Look at the non millionaires who support Steve Forbes' flat tax or a national sales tax in place of the income tax. Mathematical illiteracy is not a virtue. Recent statements by bin Laden show that even a crazed killer living in a cave in Pakistan knows more about American Politics than a substantial number of voters.

[researcher]

Well stated. olephart

Incompetent voters elect incompetent politicians.

it is called a republic.

Churchill once stated he feared the future of England’s democracy when he talked just five minutes with a voter on the street.

[flipside]

Either you have failed to do any real research, or you simply took Sir Churchill's statement out of context. A republic and a democracy, by the way, are worlds apart.....

[flipside]

I should add that Churchill never had 5 minutes to spend with anyone on the street. He was busy making history...­.......

[stlrfan]

A Connecticut Yankee in King Bush's Court. Only 5 more years of this idiot be proud Ct.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Laughable, how many commenters above do not understand voting mechanics, specifically the difference between primary and general elections.

In the democratic primary, those registered Democrats who chose to vote chose Lamont.

In the general election, the voters at large chose Lieberman.

Mr. Sirota could have also highlighted above (as he has before) the whole charade of Joe's sudden founding of the "Vote-for-me" party, but that's a jackass of a different color.

[Doofus]

Without going much into the details again,
CT is a bit odd in only allowing registered
voters to vote in primaries. The result was
that Lamont was selected by a *very* small
set of Demo voters, who were evidently outside
the mainstream of the CT electorate, way back
then. It made for a very tough campaign, as it
turned out.

[darcy]

Doofus, Lamont got 40% of the vote in the general. Lieberman got 50%, so only half the voters chose him, and most of the half were Republicans.

[Doofus]

To clarify, 'CT is a bit odd in only allowing registered
voters to vote in their own party's primary.'

[DLB]

Wow, an article that proves beyond all doubt that the anti-war left-wingers are a day late and a dollar short. But then, they are the same crowd that lied to the American people about what the democrats would be able to do if they controlled congress. They said if the democrats were in charge the troops would come home. We had a troop surge.

[altohone]

Pretending like the corporatist DLC'ers are actually Democrats is a stretch.

The DLC'ers like Hillary, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid, Levin and Shumer, etc. are the ones that lied, not the anti-war majority of voters.

[DLB]

"Pretending like the corporatist DLC'ers are actually Democrats is a stretch."

If you think that, you're an extremist.­Every party has its liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

The anti-war movement are liars for saying that the democrats would change the course of the war, period. If Bush can be blamed as a liar for saying that Iraq had WMD and they were not found, then the anti-war movement are liars for the same reason.

[leftLibertarian]

There are many libertarians who were against the war from the start.

The Democrats are a joke, a party without the BALLS to impeach the Bush and Cheney for their many crimes.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. A man with principles and the BALLS to take on bush and cheney.

[DLB]

"The Democrats are a joke, a party without the BALLS to impeach the Bush and Cheney for their many crimes."

Speaker Pelosi is intelligent enough to know that trying to impeach Bush would be useless. It worked in Clinton's favor. Why you and others on the left can't figure that out is beyond reason.

[BunkerBoy]

Craven indeed. How HoJo ever got the reputation for being a principled, straight-shooting, bi-partisan nice guy, I'll never understand. It's always been and forever will be about him, and he will do whatever it takes to keep his seat. The opportunistic scumbag even kept his name on the CT Senate ballot when he was running for VP.

[koromuso]

I think this whole discussion is a little disingenuous. As I understand it, a Republican can go into the polling booth and pull the lever for an Independent or a Democrat, so long as the voter is not voting in a primary.
A good many people in Connecticut voted for Lieberman because he is quite successful and bring home the bacon...th­e pork. Such voters seemed to feel that it was in their (short term) interests to re-elect him. In addition to this, you can be SURE that a number of Republicans voted for Lieberman, either because they support Bush's war or they wanted to screw things up for the Democrats.

So, unhappy as people in Connecticut are with Lieberman, it does not follow that if there were a re-election tomorrow, Ned Lamont would win it. You could COUNT ON a number of spoilers to vote for Lieberman for the reasons stated above.

[Opus007]

I live in CT. Lieberman would lose.

[darcy]

I live in CT too, and I think Lieberman would lose. He won because Republicans voted for him and - I think - funded his campaign. And of course the likes of Chris Dodd ignored Lamont.

[shaggles]

A big factor was the refusal by the party and by major Dems to get behind Lamont. That was a disgrace and they (we) are suffering for it now. Imagine how much more the Dems could get done if they didn't have to placate Lieberman to keep him from caucusing with the Reps. Lieberman is a prick but the Dems did it to themselves ( and Ned and us too.)

[Opus007]

I agree. And he should have never been allowed to keep his seat on the Armed Services Committee. Did you see him at the Senate hearings just itching to get into Iran.

[Graywolf48]

The sad fact is that the DLC and the Democratic apparatchik like Rahm Emmanuel, et al, were terrified of Lamont's candidacy and gave him little, absolutely minimal support. The DLC wanted Lieberman, really as the Democratic nominee, but if need be as an "independent" Democrat.

However, because Lieberman's ego was bruised by the refusal of most mainstream Democratic politicians to fully support him against Lamont, he is now vindictive. Now he will make life extremely unpleasant for the Democrats and taunt them with threats of bolting to the Republican side and upsetting the balance of power. The reason he doesn't is because he's of more value to the Republican's right where he is now. If the Republicans regained the majority in the Senate, the electorate would hold them responsible for not getting out of Iraq. As it is now, the Democrats are taking the hits because few Americans realize they are a thin majority in name only and it requires 60 votes to over ride a Presidential veto. American voters are not very knowledgeable when it comes to how our government works and are very easily manipulated by government propagandists and the massive Republican noise/spin machine.

Lieberman is an deceitful, wicked man. He just may end up taking a Presidential cabinet job before the 2008 elections. If the Democrats pick up a clear, veto proof majority in the Senate, Lieberman will end up in the dustbin of history along with the other Quislings.

[zjr909]

I'd like to follow up on something Donald said in an earlier comment: about most people not getting their news from the web. As a lifelong liberal, I only found out about the blogs a couple years ago - and only because someone at work told me about them. Prior to that, I used to relish the few progressive op-eds I would encounter in papers like the Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer and even Washington Post. But I had no idea - I mean NO IDEA - such a world as Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, TrouthOut, Truthdig and so on even existed. To me, that's scary as hell that even a dyed-in-the-wool liberal going back even beyond the 1960's had no earthly idea what was out here on the web. And I only discovered Countdown less than a year ago! So, please, don't be too hard on the average Joe, who I guarantee you hasn't been initiated into the real internet world (you know: the one they're trying to kill by gutting net neutrality).

[Opus007]

We better stay on top of the net neurtrality issue. There are a lot of interests that would benefit from putting a crimp in that line.

[Justtellthetruth]

They should boot him the hell out of office before he starts the war he REALLY wants in Iran.

No one has been as active as Lieberman in fomenting conflict with Iran.

[AsaNisMasa]

are there any laws on the books in CT about recalling their senators?