home

Lieberman Shifts Strategy

Update: Lieberman, fearing a loss, shifts his strategy:

Facing a likely defeat, Lieberman has scrapped plans for a massive and costly get-out-the-vote operation on primary day, according to several Democratic sources. Instead, he will shift some of his resources into more television commercials designed to highlight his accomplishments for the state, in hopes of boosting his battered image....a landslide loss to Lamont could complicate Lieberman's hopes of winning a fourth term in a three-way general election contest.

Lieberman's internal polls show him losing:

Another campaign adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss strategy, said the public poll tracked internal campaign surveys. "The race has been headed in that direction for a while," the adviser said. "It's a fairly accurate reflection of where the race is."

Liebermnan's strategy changed at the last minute, fearing a big loss:

The Lieberman campaign, fearing that low voter turnout in the primary would favor Lamont, had plans to build a get-out-the-vote operation bigger than any seen in a state race in Connecticut. But in the face of discouraging polls, campaign officials concluded this week that the money likely would be wasted.

Why are we so focused on the Lieberman-Lamont race?

Lieberman's struggle has drawn national attention because it illustrates the power of antiwar activism in the Democratic Party and because of its potential implications for other races in the November midterm elections.

Update: The Lieberkidz try a thug strategy against Lamont.

*****
Original Post:

How worried is Joe Lieberman? With all the issues out there to differentiate himself from Ned Lamont, he's now picking on Lamont's wealth.

Yesterday the Quinnepac poll showed Ned Lamont ahead of Joe Lieberman by 54 to 41%. Today Lieberman acknowledges that his internal campaign polling shows him trailing Lamont, although he says the margin isn't as wide and he "hopes" he can win. Note that he isn't even saying he believes he can win.

Turning out more moderate Democrats who are not as keen to show up at the polls is going to be the key, the three-term senator said.
"We do a lot better" among Democrats who say they are not likely to vote, Lieberman said, which means the most hyped-up voters are, not surprisingly, mostly Lamont backers. In any case, he said, ""it's my nature to continue fighting for a victory until Tuesday evening and beyond.

His minions, such as they are, are still collecting petition signatures, which signals to me that he doesn't yet have enough. He also sounds somewhat defeated:

Lieberman said it bothers him that many voters say they "appreciate the work I've done and they respect my integrity" but plan to vote for Lamont anyway because of the war. He said he won't change his mind on the war because he thinks "it would be disastrous mistake for America" to set a deadline for the troops to pull out. That would only encourage "a brutal enemy," he said.

You can look at me. I'm not George Bush," the senator said.
He said, too, that "I am about more than just Iraq."

It's not just the war, Joe.

Two state teachers unions have endorsed Lamont over Lieberman, who has voiced support for experimental private school vouchers.

In interviews in recent days, voters also cited Lieberman's vote for an administration-backed energy bill, his refusal to support a filibuster against Alito, and other issues.

As for Lieberman's inistence that the Democratic party is so important to him, remember this?

His decision to seek two offices at once in 2000 was an irritant to some. Had the Gore ticket won, Connecticut's GOP governor would have been able to appoint a Republican to fill Lieberman's Senate seat.

Four years later, at a point in his own short-lived presidential campaign, Lieberman announced a symbolic switch in his residence -- to New Hampshire, part of a futile attempt to win the first-in-the-nation primary.

In other Lieberman's news, Joe has turned down Stephen Colbert's latest offer to be on the show before the primary. Crooks and Liars has the video of Colbert's latest offer.

I wonder what Joe's campaign will do in the next few days. Will the workers be making a heavy pitch to get voters to the polls or will they have given up? If they realize they don't have enough signatures and Lieberman loses the primary, I wonder if he'll admit it or just claim he decided against an independent run for the sake of the party? Will anyone believe him?

< Hillary Clinton Says Rumseld Should Resign | Friday News and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Thu Aug 03, 2006 at 11:32:14 PM EST
    He's in a tough spot. At first I thought his threat of an Indie challenge was a bluff to scare Democrats into voting for him, then I realized me might mean it since this is a guy who whose arrogance is second to none. If he takes a drubbing next Tuesday, then he might reconsider but I think if he loses by a couple percentage points he might be tempted to go for it. That will totally alienate him from DemoLand, including his participation in the DLC. What gaineth a man to be elected...? He'll be doing some serious soul searching in the next few days. My prediction is that he will lose by a 5 or 6 percentage points and then emtionally announce he will not run in the general election. What do I base that on? What I wish to happen, of course. :D

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 06:32:26 AM EST
    WWell one is, Mr. Lamont is on Israel's side, according to his web site. I am a bit curious as to where his kids attend school. I know quite a few teachers who send their kids to private school. Someone needs to warn him though if he wins, he had better march in lockstep with the rest of the dems, or he will be Liebermaned.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 06:47:34 AM EST
    Or they could warn him that he shouldn't march lockstep with a republican president in defending a disastrous and ill-conceived war. Or perhaps they could warn him not to attack members of his own party when they express reservations about said war.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:03:58 AM EST
    And if you get in Hell's way, Hillary, you'll be next.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:33:23 AM EST
    c-law: He's voted 90% of the time with the dems. Not good enough! Out with you! We are a single issue party now! Be gone!

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#6)
    by theologicus on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:14:47 AM EST
    Why are we so focused on the Lieberman-Lamont race? Good question. As much as I will relish Lieberman's going down in flames, I think we need to look at Lamont without illusions. Billmon and Lawrence of Cyberia explain why. The War Party Two Cheeks Of The Same Arse

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#7)
    by soccerdad on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 08:38:11 AM EST
    theo good links as usual Billmon is right on target. The train to hell in the Middle East left when Israel attacked Lebanon the station and there is no stopping it. The neocons are going for broke, its either they will get everything or no one gets anything

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:47:55 AM EST
    Wile, The 90% figure is misleading. He's voted the right way on some issues but his problem is that when it comes to actually fighting the repubs on, well, anything, he's either nowhere to be found or on the other side of the isle. Take the Clarence Thomas confirmation. He criticized dems for opposing Thomas, then withheld his own no vote until it was meaningless. But even this misses the larger picture. Iraq is the issue. Iraq is, and should be, very important to all Americans. More important than, say, voting with the dems on a spending bill. Lieberman's constituency realizes he's dead wrong on Iraq and they want him out. I also think he may have raised some red flags when he suggested that questioning the war during wartime was undermining the president and the war effort, and therefore should be avoided. Right. So we shouldn't question a war during a war...we should wait until it's over when we can look back and safely say "yep, that was a disaster." It's laughably stupid. I'd like you for just one moment to imagine a republican Lieberman: A member of the republican party who is at loggerheads with his party on the central issue(s) of the day (war, torture, dissent). One who has been called "my favorite republican" by an incredibly polarizing democratic president. One who is being challenged by republicans but is so beloved by democrats that they are willing to vote for him in his primary, donate to his campaign, write editorials on his behalf, and even bus other democrats into his state to come to his aid. Do you think perhaps the republican party might have a legitimate reason for wanting him out?

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    Wile, The 90% figure is misleading. He's voted the right way on some issues but his problem is that when it comes to actually fighting the repubs on, well, anything, he's either nowhere to be found or on the other side of the isle. Take the Clarence Thomas confirmation. He criticized dems for opposing Thomas, then withheld his own no vote until it was meaningless. But even this misses the larger picture. Iraq is the issue. Iraq is, and should be, very important to all Americans. More important than, say, voting with the dems on a spending bill. Lieberman's constituency realizes he's dead wrong on Iraq and they want him out. I also think he may have raised some red flags when he suggested that questioning the war during wartime was undermining the president and the war effort, and therefore should be avoided. Right. So we shouldn't question a war during a war...we should wait until it's over when we can look back and safely say "yep, that was a disaster." It's laughably stupid. I'd like you for just one moment to imagine a republican Lieberman: A member of the republican party who is at loggerheads with his party on the central issue(s) of the day (war, torture, dissent). One who has been called "my favorite republican" by an incredibly polarizing democratic president. One who is being challenged by republicans but is so beloved by democrats that they are willing to vote for him in his primary, donate to his campaign, write editorials on his behalf, and even bus other democrats into his state to come to his aid. Do you think perhaps the republican party might have a legitimate reason for wanting him out?

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:51:05 AM EST
    Apologies for the double post.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    And by "isle" I of course mean "aisle."

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    c-law...excellent point. Wile won't be heard from again, unless it's to blindly repeat the same RNC talking points.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#13)
    by Lww on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    Billmon is the man. I bet they call him an anti-semite.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#14)
    by theologicus on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 01:40:58 PM EST
    I bet they call him an anti-semite. Yes. Along with so many others.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#15)
    by theologicus on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 02:35:16 PM EST
    Bulletin. This just in: Senator Lieberman calls for Rumsfeld resignation. File under Profiles in Courage.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    theologicus- How transparent. Were it not true (is it? link?) it could have first been uttered on Comedy Central. last month he said this:
    Lieberman told Fox News that the calls for Rumsfeld's ouster are a distraction from the larger picture. "We're in the middle of a war -- you wouldn't want to have the secretary of defense change unless there's really good reason for it and I don't see any good reason at this time,"...
    link

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#17)
    by theologicus on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    Squeaky, It gets better: Lieberman replied, "Yeah. Yeah Yeah. -- No,. No, it is a "yes"." Joe Liberman says Rumsfeld should go

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 03:15:07 PM EST
    C-law: Holy Jumpin Jim Jeffords, I hope you don't have a problem with people from out-of-state come in to help their candidate. Fire Dog Lake may be disappointed.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 04:21:46 PM EST
    I hope you don't have a problem with people from out-of-state come in to help their candidate
    80% of jumpin' Joe's $$ comes from out of state ... and at this point his main supporters are DeLay, Coulter and the Young Republicans he's paying the room and board for.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    Sailor: you forgot the rest of the quote:
    Fire Dog Lake may be disappointed.
    I know Ned's money is all from in state.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 05:46:24 PM EST
    Ernesto writes:
    That will totally alienate him from DemoLand, including his participation in the DLC.
    Based on the Demos are treating him he mostly won't care. SD writes:
    The train to hell in the Middle East left when Israel attacked Lebanon the station and there is no stopping it.
    Uh, even for you that statement is beyond belief. I mean, you do remember Hizbollah crossing the border into Israel, killing Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two, don't you? Your judophobia is flashing brght red inb 20' tall letters. et al - Keep it up everyone. The more moderates you run off, the less chance you will have. I just love it. Earth to SD! Earth to SD! Come im SD!

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 05:55:49 PM EST
    I know Ned's money is all from in state.
    Nope, the seat is too important to leave to a bush lover. At least Lamont's OOS $$ comes from Dems. And ya gotta wonder, when most of lieberman's recent money comes from rethugs, and he's employing rove's tactics and employing rethugs and OOS chem industry lobbyists to harass Lamont's campaign stops, WTF would anyone vote for lieberman.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 06:21:23 PM EST
    Holy Jumpin Jim Jeffords Wile! You say people...and then firedoglake. I'm pretty sure you're not talking about democrats busing in to help a republican. Are you? Also you haven't addressed my little thought expirement. Tell me what you would think of a republican Lieberman. See, the problem is it isn't people coming in to help "their" candidate. It's people coming in to support a candidate from another party...because he represents the views of that party. You see the difference? No?

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 06:28:58 PM EST
    Also, ppj, no one is running off moderates. It's the voters in one state. They don't want to vote for Lieberman. And it's a crisis for repubs because Lieberman is the favorite demo-republican of the moment. 'Member democracy? Sates' independence? God I miss the old republican party.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:09:55 PM EST
    Keep it up everyone. The more moderates you run off, the less chance you will have. I just love it.
    This from a guy that believes creationism should be taught in schools and "evolution is just a theory".

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Sailor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:25:05 PM EST
    I mean, you do remember Hizbollah crossing the border into Israel, killing Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two, don't you?
    Apparently this commenter is incapable of of realizing this thread is about lieberman. jim, try to stay on topic ... or are the new meds preventing you from making a coherent response? TL, at some point you have to realize that no matter how much you love your crazy uncle, he has to be put 'away.'

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    ahh...have to love the blogosphere. It will have an impact on campaigns in so many ways. Time for some trivia? The 'heckler' in the photo at the diner was no ordinary heckler. He's a registered corporate DC lobbyist as TPMmuckraker has reported. He wasn't very welcoming to an interview, but he sure had plenty to say at the diner. The full range of his lobby interests can be found Here, but the funniest piece of trivia is what he did when working the Mondale campaign....well, maybe the FEC didn't think it was so funny

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimcee on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 07:54:06 PM EST
    What I find interesting is that by a constant attack against Lieberman because of his stance on the WOT, the anti-war Dems seem to be inevitably inviting a three-way race. Connecticut being a rather liberal state the Republicans are more liberal than most and more likely to vote for a pro-WOT Lieberman than vote for thier own party's predetermined Repub nominee/loser. If the choice is between the incumbent who is a liberal Democrat but is strong on national defense issues and a country club trust fund gazillionaire? I think they will choose the lesser of two evils. In a pragmatic sense Lieberman saved high-paying blue collar jobs when he prevented the Groton shipyards from the Pentagon's cleaver a year or so ago. It is doubtful Lamont could have done the same. To keep Lieberman from the Dem nomination will be a Pryhic victory for the Lamontites because Lieberman will win as an independent in the general and being a man of honor he'll still be a liberal Democrat on most issues. And he'll continue to p1ss off his new found enemies.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#29)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:43:45 PM EST
    jimcee...have you ever even been to Connecticut?? Most of the Republicans there have a lot more in common with Lamont than Lieberman.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 09:50:06 PM EST
    DON'T BELIEVE THAT LIEBERMAN IS THROWING IN THE TOWEL ON THE GOTV EFFORT, says Kos today:
    The extent to which the field campaign is being cut seems to have been greatly exaggerated by their own campaign. Lieberman staffers are taking their $60 a day and knocking on doors and making phone calls at this very moment.
    Lamont still needs EVERY VOTE and EVERY PHONE CALL, EVERY GOTV VOLUNTEER and EVERY DOLLAR of our contributions. It ain't over till the polls close and the votes are counted.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 10:18:49 PM EST
    Sailor, thanks for the heads-up on the off-topic comment. I've been in court all day and am just now coming online. I'll check the comments as soon as I check the news and if Jim's comment is off-topic, it will be gone.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 04:56:13 AM EST
    C-law: I don't think Lieberman represents the evilmeanrethugslovinhaliburtons due to the fact he votes 90% with the peacefulangelicdems.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#33)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:03:51 AM EST
    As bad as his support for Bush's Iraq policy was, I am also disappointed by Lieberman for his recent statement that he is considering running as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary. How sad that he may do to Connecticut what an independent candidate named Nader did to him and this country in 2000. After the 2000 election I remember seeing Republican partisans in Tallahassee appearing before the tv cameras with t-shirts that read "Sore Loserman" (an attempt at humor by the GOP to mock the Democratic ticket of "Gore - Lieberman"). Given Lieberman's recent behavior, little did the GOP partisans know how prescient those t-shirts were.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:33:38 AM EST
    Wile, See my earlier post RE: "90%" talking point. I'm starting to worry Ernesto may be right. You're just going to keep popping in and saying "90%," like it means something.

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#35)
    by john horse on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 06:48:06 AM EST
    the anti-war Dems seem to be inevitably inviting a three-way race.
    Lets set the record straight. Lamont has said that if he loses the Democratic primary, he will support Lieberman, even though he disagrees with Lieberman on Iraq. That is the way it is supposed to work. The losing candidate agrees to support the winning party candidate. As far as I can see the only people "inviting" Lieberman to run as an independent are Republicans. I'm sure they are doing so because they have the best interests of Democrats in mind (satire alert!)

    Re: Lieberman Shifts Strategy (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    Ralph Nader gives us a little background on the "me, me, meeeee" candidate, Joe Lieberman. No wonder Republicans love hm. link