[lbo-talk] What's the matter with Connecticut?

Carl Remick carlremick at hotmail.com
Mon Oct 16 08:27:39 PDT 2006


[If the Dems can't obliterate Joe Lieberman in November they should turn themselves into a recipe-swapping club or something. No. 1: In an election universally deemed a referendum on Iraq, the overwhelming majority of CTers agree with Lamont's stance on the war. No. 2: "No-Show Joe" Lieberman -- the senator with the second-worst attendance record -- is pitching himself to voters with this message: "Experience matters." There's enough cognitive dissonance there to trigger a stroke. The following is from the WashPost election blog:]

Posted at 09:20 AM ET, 10/16/2006

Conn. Senate: Lamont's Challenge

As we stood in a hotel ballroom on Aug. 8 listening to Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman acknowledge that he would lose the Democratic primary to businessman Ned Lamont but remain in the race as an Independent, one question kept coursing through our mind: Can he possibly win?

Now, two months later, Lieberman and Lamont have swapped roles. Polling shows the incumbent with a high single-digit edge and even the most fervent Lamont supporters admit that he has not run an ideal race to date. Now the question is: Can Lamont win?

The answer is yes, but not without a few breaks.

Let's look first at why Lamont went from primary winner to general election underdog.

For most of the primary, Lamont effectively cast the race as a referendum on Lieberman -- especially his support for the war in Iraq. That approach had Lamont up by double-digits with the Aug. 8 primary date rapidly approaching. Then on Aug. 2, Rev. Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson came to the state to endorse Lamont, a move aimed at shoring up his support within the all-important African American community.

The decision to bring in two such high-profile (and controversial) liberals was widely panned by neutral observers who argued that Lamont was comfortably ahead and needed to pivot toward the general election, not play to primary voters.

Although Lamont's primary win was less convincing than originally expected -- 52 percent to 48 percent -- it seems as though his campaign was operating under the assumption that Lieberman would decide against running as an independent in the fall. Wrong. Emboldened by his closer-than-expected primary loss, the incumbent began an aggressive effort to cast Lamont as a liberal who was out of step with the average Connecticut general election voter.

Relying on a consulting team that reflected his new independent status (Republican Neil Newhouse is the pollster, Democrat Josh Isay is the media adviser), Lieberman quickly changed the dynamic of the race from a referendum on his eighteen years in the Senate to one on Lamont's lack of political experience.

In one particularly effective ad, a light bulb is shown on screen. A narrator asks: "Still waiting to hear a new idea out of Ned Lamont? Here's an idea for you: Experience matters." Another commercial features testimonials from Connecticut residents about Lieberman's work to save a submarine base in Groton. "If Ned Lamont was the Senator there would be no sub base today," says one Groton resident. Another calls Lamont a "rookie."

While Lieberman has sharpened his campaign message, Lamont has struggled to define himself as anything other than a single issue candidate (his opposition to the war in Iraq) and has failed to return the focus of the race to Lieberman's time in the Senate.

In the first few weeks after his primary victory, Lamont seemed content to accept the plaudits of national Democrats and the activist community -- forgetting that he still faced a well-funded and aggressive incumbent Senator who began on Aug. 9 to define his challenger in the minds of voters.

In recent weeks Lamont (and his campaign) seem to have awakened, running ads that seek to remind voters that they may not know Lieberman as well as they think they do. One particularly effective commercial shows footage from 1988 when Lieberman was challenging Republican Sen. Lowell Weicker. In it, Lieberman promises to never miss more than 300 votes and vows he will never have one of the worst attendance records in the Senate. A narrator notes that Lieberman has missed more than 400 votes and had the 2nd worst attendance record among Senators. Lieberman then says: "After 18 years it's time for someone new. It's time for a change." The narrator notes: "Finally, he's telling the truth."

It will be interesting to see whether this ad -- the best run by Lamont so far in the general election -- will move the numbers. The latest independent poll in the race, which was conducted by the University of Connecticut, showed Lieberman ahead 46 percent to 39 percent. As he has done in every general election poll, Lieberman held on to roughly one-third of self-identifying Democrats while winning Republicans by a whopping 67 percent to 15 percent over Lamont and carrying Independents 45 percent to 37 percent.

Aside from the head-to-head numbers the poll carried other good news for Lieberman. Fifty-seven percent of those tested approved of the job Lieberman was doing in the Senate compared to 39 percent who disapproved. And, interestingly, Lieberman -- never considered the most charismatic of politicians -- carried a 49 percent to 33 percent edge over Lamont when voters were asked who they would rather "chat with at a party."

Lieberman led Lamont despite the fact the majority of Connecticut voters disagree with his position on the war in Iraq. Only 34 percent said the United States made the right decision by invading Iraq, while 60 percent said it was the wrong decision. Fifty percent of the sample favored setting a timetable for U.S. troops to leave Iraq, while 47 percent wanted to "leave [the] date open" to depart Iraq. Even so, 44 percent said Lieberman came closer to their views on important issues while 39 percent chose Lamont.

All is not lost for Lamont, however.

First, he is down only seven points to a three-term incumbent with less than a month to go before the election. Second, Lamont continues to use his personal wealth to fund his campaign -- ensuring that he will be at financial parity with Lieberman.

Third, Lamont is on the side of a majority of Connecticut voters on the biggest issue of the day: the war in Iraq. If the election were decided simply on whose position on the war more accurately reflected the Connecticut electorate, Lamont would likely win. While that is an unrealistic scenario, the fact that voters in the state are soured on the war should provide Lamont with a major opening to cast doubt on Lieberman's judgement on any number of other issues.

Fourth, remember that Lamont is the official nominee of the Democratic party -- meaning that he will benefit from the party's statewide turnout efforts. Lieberman, on the other hand, must try to build a ground game designed to turn out his voters, no easy task in just a few short months. Lieberman's lack of a formalized get out the vote effort could well mean that his actual performance on election day may not live up to his current polling prowess.

This race continues to fascinate us -- as a political junkie and a Connecticut native. Lieberman and his campaign team deserve considerable credit for fundamentally altering the dynamics of this race in the weeks following his primary loss. But, Lamont can still win the race and appears to be on the right message track entering the final three weeks. We will be watching closely.

<http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/>

Carl



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list