SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Don't Get Your Hopes Up

THE PLANK APRIL 17, 2008

Don't Get Your Hopes Up

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

The New York Times editorial page blog goes after Joe Lieberman today, citing a poll which purports to show that if the Senate election were held in Connecticut today, Joe Lieberman would lose to Ned Lamont 51% to 37%. This, the Times and other liberal bloggers allege, shows that Lieberman ran for re-election on false premises, claiming he was a "loyal Democrat," and that Connecticut voters have buyer's remorse.

Let's take a look at the poll. First, it was commissioned by the Daily Kos (which the Times doesn't bother to mention, instead linking to a blog called "My Left Nutmeg,") and conducted by an obscure outfit called "Research 2000." That should tell you something, given Kos's history with Lieberman. But even the poll's own findings show it to be inaccurate. 48% of poll respondents said they voted for Lieberman in 2006 and 43% said they voted for Lamont. Lieberman actually won the 2006 election, however, 50% to 40%. So the poll's own purported sample is biased in favor of Lamont.

Statistical errors aside, the Times editorial board obviously has a dog in this fight, as they endorsed Lamont in the Democratic primary. But Lieberman ran -- very obviously -- as a pro-war candidate in 2006. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has actually paid attention these last few years, never mind the voters of Connecticut, that Lieberman winded up endorsing the presidential candidacy of John McCain -- who supports a continued presence in Iraq -- over either of the two Democrats, who claim the war is a failure and support withdrawal. The antiwar left can complain about Lieberman all they want, but they lost fair and square. To say that Lieberman somehow tricked the voters of Connecticut two years ago is just desperate.  

--James Kirchick

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 24 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

24 comments

Research 2000 is not "an obscure outfit" - at least not unless you define "obscure outfit" as "one that James Kirchik has not heard of". They've done regular polling in this primary season and before.

The much-referenced Pollster Report Card that Survey USA regularly updates - see www.surveyusa.com/.../surveyusa-report-cards - notes 11 primary contests so far that Research 2000 polled. That's about as many as Strategic Vision, PPP or InsiderAdvantage.

Research 2000 doesnt do badly either: it comes in at a shared 8th place out of 38 in the ranking according to median error; and 16th in the ranking according to average error, still in the top half.

Not a top pollster perhaps, but apparently more reliable than Rasmussen, Zogby, Mason-Dixon, LA Times, Strategic Vision, Marist, PPP, or InsiderAdvantage polls.

- jobeek2

April 17, 2008 at 7:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CT voters are not surprised by Lieberman's stance on the war.  But they had every reason to expect that he would not be working against the party's interests in the general election.  I find it totally plausible that CT voters have buyers' remorse.  There is no technical reason to doubt this poll.  The 2% difference between the votes the poll subjects say they cast and the actual outcome is well within the margin of error.  Kirchick just doesn't want to admit that his boy Holier Than Thou Lieberman conned defrauded the voters of CT to get himself elected.  Reid is absolutely correct to insist that Lieberman will keep his committee positions even if the Dems get firm control of the Senate.  And when they do, Lieberman she be thrown the hell out.  Would that be breaking the party's promise to Joe?  So effin what?  He deserves no less.  His real break with the party came when he went beyond disagreeing with the majority stance on the war and accused Democrats of betraying the country by publicly criticizing Bush's godawful mess.

Lieberman is a first-class, grade-A prick.  He belongs in the company of Bush.  The worst thing Gore ever did is elevating this back-stabbing SOB to a position of public prominence.  

- roidubouloi

April 17, 2008 at 8:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The New York Times editorial page blog goes after Joe Lieberman today, citing a poll which purports to show that if the Senate election were held in Connecticut today, Joe Lieberman would lose to Ned Lamont 51% to 37%. This, the Times and other liberal bloggers allege, shows that Lieberman ran for re-election on false premises, claiming he was a "loyal Democrat," and that Connecticut voters have buyer's remorse."

Even if the poll results were accurate they would still be meanigless.

We don't elect people bt talking to  pollsters, we elect them by casting a ballot on election day.

The left never learns this is why they keep losing elections.

- jacksondyer

April 17, 2008 at 8:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lieberman ran as a very obvious pro-war candidate in 2006? Huh. I guess somebody should have told Joe Lieberman, because he sure didn't seem to think that Lieberman was running as a pro-war candidate:

www.youtube.com/watch

I mean, when a candidate says, "Nobody wants to get our troops out of Iraq more than me!" during a campaign, how exactly are voters supposed to realize that he is "very obviously" the pro-war candidate?

- rhubarbs

April 17, 2008 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

",,,Lieberman WINDED [caps added] endorsing..." -Kirchik WOUND up writing a non-cogent, as well as a non-grammatical post.

- JackR

April 17, 2008 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jaime:

1. People are notoriously dishonest about who they voted for or whether they voted at all. You can't site that stat with any certainty that it means anything. It's quite possible that 3% of Lieberman voters are now ashamed and did not admit it. In fact, it's probable.

2. As others have said, Research 2000 is no obscure.

3. Lieberman ran as a fraud. While he claimed support for the war, he apologized for the war and backed away from it. Now he accuses anyone who opposes it of treason.

- virginiacentrist

April 17, 2008 at 8:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Lieberman endorsed McCain he should have done the honorable thing and switched parties by becoming a Republican, or at least resigning from his committees and stop aligning himself with Democrats. If he had joined the Republican party or aligned himself with them, he probably could have kept his committee seats since the Senate would then be 50-50, and if he was non-aligned the Dems. would have had the lead, but he would have shown his honor. I believe the non-alignment would have been most honorable, but his becoming a Republican at least admits where he stands. As it is, the current state is basically disgraceful. Shame on Reid too for not enforcing party discipline.

- blackton

April 17, 2008 at 9:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey Kirchick,

Get a clue!!! Ask any of the Dem CT voters who pulled the lever for JoeMentum in 2006 if they expected him (based on HIS representations in the general election) to: 1) endorse McCain for President in 2008; 2) "volunteer" to speak at the Repub Convention; 3) all but endorse a ridiculous charge that Barack Obama, the Democratic frontrunner, is a Marxist; or 4) stick with HIS pledge to help put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. CT voters have buyers remorse because Lieberman LIED!!  The question isn't whether the Blowhard (Sen. Leiberman to you) won the election "fair and square".  The question is whether he lied to the people of CT while doing it.  It's ok to be an apologist for Lieberman; but could you please state as much up front?

- ncunning

April 17, 2008 at 9:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie, below , expresses his displeasure over a new poll finding that Connecticut voters, if they had

- Anonymous

April 17, 2008 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh jamie, there goes all the good will you earned with the funny Nation J Street post

- bendreyfuss

April 17, 2008 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The analysis here is flawed.   The sample is not somehow innacurate because respondent-reported voting doesn't match what happened in the election.  This is normal US voter behavior in surveys - national polls taken shortly after 9/11 showed that Bush "got" 60% of the vote in 2000; now they often show him down in the 40's.  This is a reflection of current views of the candidates, not a factual representation of what happened.  If you weighted a survey to make it model the actual vote you'd be seriously distorting the results, voter past behavior is not an immutable demographic like Age or Gender, but a political statement similar to Party Identification or Ideology.

Thus, the "fact" that James cites as discrediting the poll actually directly indicates that there is buyer's remorse among CT voters.  A 5 point swing this soon after an election would scare any consultant working on an incumbent's re-election campaign, and rightly so.  If Senators served 2 years, Joe would be in serious trouble; of course, if he faced the voters every two years he might not be acting so directly counter to his 2006 campaign promises.

- paul7e

April 17, 2008 at 10:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jamie,

Leaving aside your points about Lieberman, you demonstrate breathtaking ignorance about polling, As others have pointed, Research 2000 is by no means obscure.  This is something you could have discovered with a 5 minute internet search, but apparently you didn't think it worthwhile to actually look.  Second, if the pollster is halfway decent (and Research 2k is), it should be irrelevant who commissions the poll.  DailyKos obviously has a horse in the race, but Research 2k does not, and they're the ones doing the polling.  Also, the composition of the poll in terms of who voted for Lieberman and who voted for Lamont is well within the poll's 4% margin of error.

- AlanSP

April 17, 2008 at 10:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JackR said:  ",,,Lieberman WINDED [caps added] endorsing..." -Kirchik WOUND up writing a non-cogent, as well as a non-grammatical post."

Congrats you found a badly conjugated verb in the post. How does that make his post ungrammatical or non-cogent?

- jacksondyer

April 17, 2008 at 11:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

AlanSP who carea what the poll says? The election is over and if Conn. voters will get a chance to either throw him out or keep in 2012.

Till then all these polls are mere talking points. It maked lefty dummos feel good but it don't amount to a hell of beans.

- jacksondyer

April 17, 2008 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Joe Lieberman asked and got the endorsement of Bill Clinton in his fall 06 campaign. I cannot think of any GOP candidate, then or now, who would ask Clinton to come to his defense. He ran as an "independent Democrat". That was misleading. The voters in CT should get another crack at him, properly identified as he truly is, a Republican. No shame in that. Some of my best friends are....etc.

Lieberman is a Republican. Come out of the political closet. I sense that if CT voters had to do it again, Lamont would at least have a 50/50 chance of beating tnr's former presidential endorsement.

- thejauntyboulevardier

April 18, 2008 at 12:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

God help me, but I actually find myself largely agreeing with jacksondyer and (somewhat) agreeing with Kirchick.  Both are right in arguing that CT voters basically knew what they were getting when they voted for Joe in 2006.  He was staunchly pro-war (with some nods towards ending it "soon", those quotation marks are key), and his past views were obviously known.  Jackson is right that it is rather irrelevant what voters think of Joe know, caveat emptor - you get what you pay for.  My only quibble is with Kirchick's willful incongruity that people would be upset with the way Lieberman has acted during the 2008 campaign.  Listen, the short of it is that Lieberman ran as an "independent Democrat" in 2006, it is more than reasonable to believe that he would generally support the D positions in the Senate (which, outside of Iraq, he generally has).

What galls me, and I'm sure a number of other people, is the way he has conducted himself this campaign.  Holy Joe has basically sold out the presumptive Democratic nominee, and done it in an incredibly self-serving manner  Lieberman's entire quest is to get fawning press coverage of Lieberman.  I would have no qualms about Lieberman following his own conscience if he would do so in a non-public way, one NOT guaranteed to get him adoring coverage by the media.

- mundye

April 18, 2008 at 1:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The left never learns this is why they keep losing elections"

And that's why the democrats control the house and senate and the majority of state legislatures..oh, and will pick up more seats and more state legislatures this cycle, because they "keep losing elections."

The party of Joe is done. He will get a spot as sec-defense if McCain wins and go lobby when his term is up if he loses.

- mpatrickhendri

April 18, 2008 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is this even relevant, may I ask? A poll about an election that's four years away? Are you kidding me? And, as far as we know, there may be no second match up between these two anyway.

Given the fact that the polls for this November's general election are considered suspect, why would anyone pay the slightest bit of attention to a poll about a contest that's almost half a decade off?

- BHLnyc

April 18, 2008 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As long as Leiberman gave the Dems control of the senate, he fulfilled his side of the bargain.  

- Lymon1

April 18, 2008 at 10:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the polling results, I remember a poll shortly after Jesse Ventura took office in 1999 in which more than 50 percent of Minnesotans claimed to have voted for him. He actually got 37 percent of the vote. (I voted for Ventura. Or do I merely prefer to claim that I voted for Ventura?)

Making Lieberman SecDef in 2009-2011, to put his name indelibly on the Gandamak in Iraq that McCain's policy will inevitably create and the collapse of U.S. military power, would almost be worth it. Except that when Lieberman takes the fall for the failures of McCain's policies, the GOP would suddenly remember that Lieberman is a Democrat and blame us for their own failures.

- rhubarbs

April 18, 2008 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

IIRC, George Wallace called himself "an independent Democrat." For comparison's sake.

- tomeg

April 18, 2008 at 11:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For those non-Plank obsessives: I wrote an item in defense of Joe Lieberman yesterday. Jon Chait wrote

- Anonymous

April 18, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For those non-Plank obsessives: I wrote an item in defense of Joe Lieberman yesterday. Jon Chait wrote

- Anonymous

April 18, 2008 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jackson - you may be right--there may be another more apt word than "non-grammatical" for mis-conjugating a verb, but I don't know what it is.  As for "non-cogent", other posters have handled adequately the proposition that Connecticut voters probably didn't expect their senator to support the 2008 Republican nominee, nor to impugn the patriotism of Americans who opposed the war, to mention two of the other acts of malfeasance listed.

- JackR

April 18, 2008 at 7:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close