Lieberman's support among CT Dems proving to be hollow

[CTLawGuy]

via www.mydd.com

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=6c637968-b6a5-4f57-a9b3-cf2c0db5e1ef

Lieberman:
Republican approve: 70%, Disapprove: 27%

Democrat approve: 54%, Disapprove: 41%

Republican approval has stayed the same lately, but Lieberman's negatives have been rising fast among Dems.

This shows that Lieberman's support is hollow

Tracking Dems: Approve/Disapprove
4/18: 54% (-2)/ 41% (+6)
3/20: 56% (0) / 35% (-2)
(Lamont enters race 3/11)
2/21: 56% (-2)/ 37% (+1)
1/20: 58% (-1)/ 36% (0)
12/13: 59%(-12)/ 36% (+12)
No poll in Nov
10/24: 71% / 24%


Looking at the difference between 3/20 and 4/18 it looks like Ned may have put a dent in lieberman espcially by making a significant increase in Joe's negatives.

I'm interested to know what happened in Nov that caused Joe's negatives to rise by 12 and positives to decline by 12.

But 41% disapproval in your own party means something's wrong.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. How are primaries done in Connecticut

BTW, what is the date?

If Lieberman falls to a level where it appears Lamont can beat him, will Republicans be able to cross over and save their man?

[jonnyblitz]

3. CT DEM primary is August 8, 2006 according to DU research

forum:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1646

[CTLawGuy]

4. in CT

primaries are CLOSED. That means Joe's Repub buddies cannot cross over and save him. In fact you must switch parties (if you have declared another party already) before May I think, if you want to vote in the other party's primary.

The date of the primary is August 8, if Lamont can get on the ballot.

To get on the ballot you must either:

1. Get 15% or more of town party delegates to vote for you at the CT Dem nominating convention May 20th. (Lamont is likely to do this)

2. Get 2% of all CT democrats to sign a petition to put you on the ballot. Must be done by May 20th. (Lamont is doing this too)

It is a possibility, as Joe has not foreclosed it, that Lieberman would run as an independent.
In order to do this, Lieberman would have to get 7500 signatures one DAY after the August 8th primary. Which, if Joe were to lose it, would be impossible. If Joe wants to get on the ballot as an independent, he must start signature collection during the primary (which is IMPOSSIBLE to do in secret - which means he would only hurt himself by doing it).

The most conceivable way that Joe could get on the ballot is to drop out of the party publicly and run as an indie.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Thank you both

!!

[Pab Sungenis]

8. This is why all the Generals are knocking Rumsfeld now.

Between August 1st (if he wants to spare him the embarassment) and August 9th (if he doesn't), Bush is going to name Lieberman Secretary of Defense.

Plus, then, CT's Republican governor will appoint a space filler until the election -- not that Joe isn't a Republican now.

[mike_c]

2. a Lieberman candidacy is win-win for CT republicans....

CT dems need to pay attention to that in the primaries.

[Rose Siding]

5. Iraq war deaths increased dramatically the month before that poll

And there were nearly as many in Nov-

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Maybe that's why his number dropped.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. And right before that poll was finished

Joementum started beating the war drums for Bush Wars Episode III -- The Iranian Connection.

[dolstein]

9. Sorry to spoil your chronology . . .

but accordingly to the figures you've cited, the 4/18 disapproval rate amont Democrats is five points higher than it was in December and four points higher than it was in February. As much as you'd like to claim that Lamont's entry into the race produced a sudden groundswell of hostility torwards Liebermans, the numbers don't bear that out. Indeed, when you consider that the margin of error is plus or minus 4%, it becomes hard to draw any meaningful conclusions.

In any event, why do you think the views of the 41% of Democrats who disapprove of the job Lieberman is doing are any more important that the views of the 54% of the Democrats who approve of his job performance.

[CTLawGuy]

10. how many Dem senators do you know

have over 40% disapproval from DEMS?

Chris Dodd: 24% Dem disapproval
Ted Kennedy: 17% Dem disapproval
John Kerry: 21% Dem disapproval
Jack Reed: 14% Dem disapproval
Lincoln Chafee (R): 34% DEM disapproval
Charles Schumer: 19% Dem disapproval
Hillary Clinton: 13% Dem disapproval
Olympia Snowe (R): 21% Dem disapproval
Susan Collins (R): 26% Dem disapproval

Dems dislike Joe more than Collins, Snowe or Chafee.

Joe is running TV ads in CT now. He's worried. He should be.

[dolstein]

11. Again, why do you ignore the majority of Democrats who support Lieberman?

NT

[CTLawGuy]

12. 54%

is a pathetic majority.


in your own party.

I think people are more motivated when unhappy than when happy.

So I think disapproval is an important stat.

[dolstein]

13. How typical of you to use the term "pathetic majority"

After all, it was Bush's "pathetic majority" that reelected him. And the fact is, the left-wingers around here have never been able to muster even a pathetic majortiy. Having never mustered a majority, it's really no surprise that left-wingers prefer to devote their time and energy to defeating Democrats rather than Republicans. After all, left-wingers would rather have a "principled minority," no matter how impotent it may be, than a pathetic majority.

If people don't like Lieberman, fine. Don't vote for him. But I've noticed a pretty strong resemblance between the Lieberman lynch mob and the people who crippled the Democratic Party back in the 1968-1972 period. And as a liberal, I see very little difference between the Lieberman lynch mob and the Freepers. Both groups are comprised of hateful, spiteful absolutists who have zero tolerace for people who deviate in any way from their rigid ideological framework. In short, both groups are decidedly anti-liberal.

[CTLawGuy]

14. A sitting incumbent needs more support in his own party

than 54% in order to be comfortable.

I keep wondering why a "progressive Dem senator (except for the teeny tiny insignificant issue of Iraq)" has a favorable rating of 70% among Republicans. Surely he would have been branded a traitor a long time ago?

[dolstein]

15. In the primary perhaps

but someone with bipartisan support wouldn't be at risk in the general election. It's true that Lieberman will face a greater challenge in the primary than the general election, but Lieberman's hardly toast.

As for why Republicans in Connecticut are so supportive of Lieberman . . . it's not because he votes like a Republican. On the environment, education, civil rights, abortion rights, labor issues, gun control, etc., he has a liberal voting record.

I suspect Republicans in Connecticut support Lieberman because (a) they don't have a credible candidate of their own and (b) Lieberman comes off as a reasonable, fair minded guy. He manages to disagree without being disagreeable. And of course, having a left-wing lynch mob attacking him at every opportunity makes Lieberman more attractive to Republicans. They probably figure that if the left-wing doesn't like Lieberman, he must be ok.

[Josh]

16. By the same token

chances are that the Republicans cited here, most of all perhaps Chaffee, have near or equally bad records in their own party. Then again I'm just guessing here, but it stands to reason.

[CTLawGuy]

19. I think a lot of LIeberman's repub support comes from the

fact that he is buddies with Bush, that he goes on Fox News and bashes Dems for criticizing Bush.

[Don1]

18. Interesting.

Except that you are wrong.

First, Lieberman is not so pro-civil rights recently as you make him out to be. He voted against habeas corpus for crying out loud. Let's not forget, too, that he was all for an impeachment of Clinton, but not for a censure of George Bush. Bush has gone up against the Constitution and Lieberman has rolled the red carpet out for him.

Second, your argument is inconsistent. You accuse darboy of not taking into account the margin of error. Then, you say that Lieberman has the support of the "majority" of Democrats. If you consistently applied the margin of error, though, then Lieberman might only have 50% Dem support which is not a majority. Your original argument could be okay, so long as you remain consistent with it. Therefore, either Lieberman might not have the majority or anti-Lieberman sentiment might be on the rise. You have to pick one.

Finally, you accuse liberals of being anti-liberal who would like to be pro-liberal on issues. Lieberman voted against his party and with Republicans 1 in 6 times in 2005. It would not be too bad, except that the issues are of utmost importance to his base. Liberty and peace are very important to us. And it is up to Lieberman to represent us, not the other way around.

In summary, Lieberman has not deviated slightly from a "rigid ideological framework." He has deviated more typically than the average Democrat and on significant issues of vital importance. 1 in 6 times, he votes for the Republican agenda. In those cases, he is voting against the Constitution and against peace. We are not "hateful" as you would call us, because we love our fellow man. We prefer to have someone representing us who feels the same way...someone who believes in universal health care...someone who believes in peace...and someone who will protect the liberty of all men, whether they are held at Guantanamo Bay or not.

[Josh]

20. That's a little unfair -

on what basis do you suggest that Lieberman was "all for impeachment" of President Clinton? I know he criticised him on the Senate floor, which is probably what you're referring to, but that was a long time before impeachment proceedings ever came up, and if you'll recall, he voted no every step of the way in that regard.

[Don1]

21. You're right.

My mistake. He was for censure, not impeachment. Here is an excerpt from Lieberman's statement on the matter:
"With that understood, I do believe the Constitution allows for one recourse that would provide a means for us as the people's representatives to register our and their disapproval, and would, I believe, help us to bring appropriate closure to this terrible chapter in our nation's history. It is well within the Senate's constitutional prerogatives to adopt a resolution of censure expressing our contempt for the President's misconduct, both that which is charged in the articles and that which is not. Such a censure would not amount to a punishment, nor would it be intended to do so. What it would do, particularly if it united Senators across party lines and positions on removal, is fulfill our responsibility to our children and our posterity to speak to the common values the President has violated, and make clear what our expectations are for future holders of that highest office."

So, really, you can replace my first point with the following:
"First, Lieberman is not so pro-civil rights recently as you make him out to be. He voted against habeas corpus for crying out loud. Let's not forget, too, that he was all for a censure of Clinton, but not for a censure of George Bush. Bush has gone up against the Constitution and Lieberman has rolled the red carpet out for him."

Thank you for your correction.

[Josh]

24. You're welcome?

Not sure if I'm reading sarcasm from your post or not, but I think there's a huge difference between censure and impeachment. Remember most of the American public wanted Clinton censured, and it was the preferred option of the Democratic Party and the White House at the time, too.

But just in case you were being genuine, and not like some other people I've found around here, you're welcome, and have a nice day. :)

[Zynx]

23. I'm no absolutist as anyone who as argued with me would atest.

However, Lieberman is a festering boil on the ass of the Democratic Party that should be removed if the proper opportunity presents itself. It is not just that he holds Republican positions, but he goes out and he criticizes other Democrats for not holding them. What's more is that he virtually declared any criticism of Bush's foreign policy treasonous. In so doing, particularly on the Iraq War, he has made it very difficult to form a consensus since he is a very well known national figure in the Democratic Party who supports a position that is so right-wing that it is impossible to reconcile with views of the party.

[Zynx]

22. Since Democrats are naturally inclined to support their own elected

officials, it is simply stunning his disapproval ratings among Democrats are that high. There is something terribly wrong with a Democratic politician when his or her strongest support comes from the opposite party.

[RedTail Wolf]

17. I do not like the sad sack Senator, No I do not

Bad choice for Gore then ...crappy Senator since. He's more Republican than Democrat and I was sure at one time he'd flip. I guess we need him if we are gonna take it back but I do not like him ,,,I do not like green eggs and ham and I no not like Lieber Man

[saltpoint]

25. Just a gut call here, but I think Ned Lamont is being underestimated

by the Lieberman camp.

And again -- just a hunch -- I think Lamont wins that primary.