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

[OtayPanky]

Ned Lamont may have been the world's nicest guy, and he also had the right take on Iraq, especially compared to Lieberman. (You could say the same thing about John Kerry.)

But it would have taken can a MUCH more effective campaigner to get the job done in CT back then...and Ned Lamont was no Barack Obama.

That's the biggest lesson here, from where I sit, not the lesson about better information dissemination.

Like it or not, the sizzle sells the steak. David Sirota, you should know that by now.

[konchster]

Actually some of us know what steak tastes like

[Thorn]

I think that's a good point. And note that Sirota spends almost no time claiming that Ned Lamont is even relevant here. He is not. This is a question of shifting national mood. Right now, others who could beat Lieberman include:

(a) Hartford's dog-catcher;
(b) the decayed corpse of Eugene McCarthy; and
(c) some lint.

That said, on what basis should CT recall their senator? He didn't mislead the voters.

[Economike]

some lint, heh heh ..

[darcy]

Thorn, very very funny!

[CaptainObvious]

"Like it or not, the sizzle sells the steak"

That would be a clever quip, if only it were true. Usually, when I order steak, they don't even start cooking it until after I've ordered it. And they never seem to cook it exactly the way I like it.

[mivogo]

You're absolutely right--and it was worse than that. Lamont came across as a smug, patrician, one trick pony. It wasn't just the "sizzle"__it was the fizzle. Lamont was a loser from the start.
He was Kerry with much less know-how. Thank God the Dems got rid of Kerry early in this Presidental campaign.

[RobertPaul]

How about a recall?
If the people of CN are really that upset, go for it!

Who would have thought that Grey Davis could have been recalled..­.er...neve­r mind....bad example.

[EW]

Did you mean the people of CT? But by all means, recall the SOB!

[Wilbur]

Recall is NOT an option for removing a U.S. senator from office in Connecticut. It was mentioned on HuffPo earlier this year by other posters.

Wilbur

[Doofus]

There's NO recall procedure in Connecticut.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0082.htm

[MrLiberal53]

A recall sounds good. Doesn't David Letterman live in CT? He'd be a great U.S. Senator. Or almost any of the reporters at ESPN, which is also located in CT. Stuart Scott in the U.S. Senate- cooler than the other side of the pillow.

[DavidJames]

If ever a senator deserved impeachment its Lieberman., but I do not think that you can impeach a senator. Perhaps he can be tried for fraud. He is certainly guilt of fraud.

[Opus007]

The MSM has no credibility with me- they are just White House stenographers. The internet is so much more current and in depth. I would love to know if we in CT could impeach or recall Lieberman. Democrats in CT loathe Lieberman. I thank MoveOn for having their primary and getting behind Ned Lamont. Lieberman lost and went whiming to the press and ran as an Independent. I would say the Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, Watebury Republican etc. covered Lieberman at least 3 to 1 over Lamont. Lieberman had the media bias in his favor and the Republicans just abandoned their candidate. But anyone in CT that did not recognize Lieberman as a hawk is not paying attention. Remember when you mother used to tell you "actions speak louder than words."

[brutus948]

Don't worry AIPAC has his back. He'll never get impeached. I'm more worried about him becoming president.

[kittycago]

I am all for impeaching Lieberman ,Bush and Cheney.

[dreamsmasher]

Maybe among Democrats Lieberman would not be re-elected but the voters have already shown once that they did not agree with the Democrats tactics of trying to force Lieberman into sharing their polluted views.

I think we need to do away with ALL party affiliations where everyone would be independent therefore allowing these elected officials to actually represent his/her constituents and not the party he/she belongs to.

[ManhattanMC]

Dreamsmasher-

Start with your own dreams.

How dare dems try to pin Lieberman down-try to find out what he would really do before voting for him ?

All party affiliations-every man for himself ?

And this would accomplish---what ?

[CaptainObvious]

For one, people couldn't make the dreadful mistake of "voting down the party line" without knowing a damned thing about the people they are voting for, besides that they belong to the same party as the voter.

[CaptainObvious]

BTW, what advantages (besides election funding, which should be made public anyway) do YOU see in maintaining the current partisan system? Perhaps you are one of the elite who is profiting from the status quo?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

"Confused" is too kind.

This country suffers from an epidemic of willful denial.

We are complicit.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

"...the major shift from Lamont to Lieberman ..."

Or versa visa.

[castlerider]

I like the word "Craven"
It portrays an obsession, which is cbviously how Lieberman is. Obsessed to maintain his power and place his way of thinking on all us mere peasants who so wish we could be among his rich elite.
Remember the hissy fit Lieberman threw when VP Al Gore placed his support behind Dean in 2004? The way he cravenly attacked Dean, saying he belonged in a "spider hole" of history, or something like that, because of his feelings about the Iraq war which actually proved now to be right on... Very telling now, after we've seen what the man's made of.
Gore was right on, too.

[snaggster]

Please! They voted for the guy with name recognition. This voters' remorse is getting old. People need to make informed choices or not vote. Blaming it on the politicians and/or media is bull. There was more than enough info about him before the election.

[Donald]

I'm sorry, but I find that an incredibly smug statement.

Not everyone has the luxury, as we do, of sitting before a computer to spend long stretches of time online. Close to two-thirds of the country still depend upon ABC, CBS, and NBC and their daily paper to deliver the news.

Unbeknownst to most of that particular demographic, the ground has shifted over the last 10-15 years, from a nominally indpendent Fourth Estate to a media that has fallen increasingly under corporate control.

Therefore, while Uncle Walter and Aunt Esther can see for themselves that things aren't going so well for either them or their neighbors, that same corporate-owned media is telling them that Britney Spears is drunk again and not wearing any panties.

Who's fault is that?

[Wilbur]

I concur with "snaggster." I don't buy the idea that people should not be responsible for knowing what the heck is going on. I would wager that many of those who now have "buyer's remorse" for re-electing that little Connecticut crockpot (LIEberman) knew who was on "American Idol" and who won "Survivor" (I'm proud to say I've never watched either show for one second!). It's time for Americans to take some personal responsibility for knowing what the hell is going on in their country, their states, their counties and their local communities. And in the WORLD!

Wilbur

[flatus]

"Confused" is a nice word for it.

[KaneandAbel]

You know the neo-cons have been lying their way all through. Whenever any neo-con has tried to get his-her way they resorted to lying. They believe that to reach their end-goals its perfectly allright to lie, steal, kill to as many people as possible. In fact the-more-t­he-merrier

So all "right" thinking people should have understood that LIEberman is no exception. That he would do that - lie to get re-elected - is but natural. That he would be a Bush stooge in the democratic hen-house is understood. I find the Connecticut voter nieve response to LIEberman false propaganda campaign as too guilible. Its not enough to just blame the corporate-­controlled media for that.

And as the post suggests, these were democrats and independants who shifted. The democrat and independant voters are supposedly more aware and less moved by ideology as the republican voters are - who vote more in the line of you are either for us or against us kind of herd mentality.

Anyway, either way the voters and the American public are going to pay the price for such uninformed choices. And its very very accutely felt in this particular case of LIEberman winning. But I hope and expect that these are the lessons of democracy.

But the real sadness lies in the fact that ONE LIEberman election in the critical senate is actually going to cost countless innocent American and Iraqi ( and possibly Iranian - I fervantly hope not though !!) lives and the countless families - men, women, innocent children - in Iraq becoming refugees. Thats the tragedy! All else is semantics.

[avergejoe]

Spot on. But make that neozioncons.

[kirotahoe]

i am sick of traitor joe