Decision ‘08

Lieberman Still Has Double-Digit Lead

Not in the primary, where the latest poll shows his lead over Ned Lamont is 6, but in the actual election:

The size of Senator Joseph Lieberman’s advantage in his reelection bid depends on which general-election race Connecticut voters are asked about.

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll of the race shows likely voters awarding Lieberman an almost-forty-point lead, 61% to 23%, over Republican Alan Schlesinger, assuming Lieberman runs as a Democrat.

When voters consider him as an Independent, though, he collects just 44% support, versus Democrat Ned Lamont’s 29% and Schlesinger’s 15%. Our April survey showed Lamont winning only 20% in a three-way scenario.

The reluctance of many Democrats to support Lieberman was highlighted early in the campaign season when our December poll found former Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker picking up 32% of the vote while running as an independent against Lieberman.

Due to the anger many Democrats have about Lieberman’s continuing support for the war in Iraq, it is not clear whether Lieberman the three-term Senator will win re-nomination from his own party. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll on the Primary Race shows Lieberman nursing a six-point lead over Lamont. Lieberman had a 20-point lead over the challenger in our previous survey.

Let me highlight this sentence again, since my critics seem to think I’m mistaken that it is Lieberman’s stance in Iraq that has resulted in the Lamont challenge:

Due to the anger many Democrats have about Lieberman’s continuing support for the war in Iraq, it is not clear whether Lieberman the three-term Senator will win re-nomination from his own party.

While I’m answering my critics, I’m taking a lot of flack for referring to the Murtha and Kerry plans as ‘cut and run’. Fine - call it what you will, it makes no difference. Who is stupid enough to think that the plans are not an admission of defeat? Regardless, Bush is the president, and as long as he is, you can rest assured that our commitment to Iraq remains strong. 2,500 dead is sobering and heartbreaking - but we lost over 3,300 on D-Day alone. We’re winning - we will win - and I’ll leave it to others to explain why ‘immediate withdrawal’ is substantively different from ‘cut and run’.

Nevertheless, I’ll use another term - how about ‘premature withdrawal’ - in place of ‘cut and run’ from now on…

UPDATE 9:08 a.m.: Let’s keep this in perspective, too:

Lieberman is viewed favorably by 67%, unfavorably by 29%. Lamont is viewed favorably by 41%, unfavorably by 37%.

14 Responses to “Lieberman Still Has Double-Digit Lead”

1 Fargus Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 8:04 am
“Premature” is a value judgment, innit? Those proposing it certainly don’t think the withdrawal is premature, so even what you seem to paint as such an innocuous characterization is an attempt to reframe the debate in your terms.
2 Mark Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 8:06 am
Yes, Fargus, I want to frame the debate in my terms - isn’t that what politics is all about? They don’t think it’s premature, I do - I can’t put value judgements in my writing? This is a blog, and I’m not a reporter…
3 Fargus Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 8:10 am
I’m not saying you’re not entitled. Not in the slightest. Only pointing out that even what seems innocuous to one can carry a large amount of condescension and dismissal. If that was the issue with “cut and run,” I only bring up that there’s the same issue with “premature withdrawal.” It’s your right to call it whatever you want, but I assert that it’s not in the slightest incumbent upon the Democrats to explain their support for “premature withdrawal,” since that’s a reframing of the debate in your terms.
4 KM Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 8:44 am
I’ve always liked “surrender.”
5 dmac Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 8:57 am
“…but I assert that it’s not in the slightest incumbent upon the Democrats to explain their support for “premature withdrawal,”

You’re entirely correct, Fargus. But please note that it’s the Dems who are forever screaming about the GOP “questioning their patriotism” ad nauseum during this debate. If they really feel that they don’t have to explain their position any further, hey, no problem - just shut their collective pieholes about it, and get on with their business. Their continuing focus on this particular statement belies a bit of projection on their part, wouldn’t you agree?
6 mikebdot Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 9:03 am
I completely agree with Fargus. Surprise…

Would an acceptable frame be “Withdrawal prior to Iraqi approval”? That is the real argument here. As long as Iraqis want/need us there, we should stay. If they want/need us there and we leave, I think it would be acceptable for the Iraqis to claim “premature withdrawal”, but if the have no qualms about us leaving, how can the phrase “premature withdrawal” be used anyone without being blatantly accusatory?

I think “immediate withdrawal regardless of what the Iraqis want/need” (which seems to be many democrats current position, but maybe they have talked to the Iraqis?) is definitely grounds for the frame “cut and run”.
7 russel Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 9:04 am
When is the GOP going to make Ron Paul their House leader? If that man was in that position, America would not be in this mess.
8 dmac Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Or, to put it another way, if the Dems feel so sure of their position in this matter, then they should stop running when actual votes are put to the matter in both halls of Congress. Every time we get these types of debates, the GOP brings up their proposals for a vote, which then leads to the inevitable Dem whining about how unfair it is that they’re actually being asked to be held accountable for their rhetoric.

The Dems don’t want to be responsible for anything when the chips are down - they only want to feed on the carrion that’s left over from the hard slog, if things happen to go awry. We’ve debated this before, as when Murtha voted against his own amendment last year - time to put your cards on the table, or you’re just another bloviating party with no convictions whatsoever.
9 dmac Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Mike, I agree with you - surprise!
10 mtl Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Every democratic position seems to fail to consider the Iraqi’s wishes…

To leave an ally in the field, while they wish you to remain would be perceived as cutting and running by that ally.

If they ask us to leave, and/or provide a timetable- we should give it a great deal of consideration.

Mark’s postion seems to incorporate the Iraqi opinion. The few dems who are calling for a timetable, completely ignores the relevance of the Iraqis. One is a position of isolationism, where other countries opinion means very little, the other is one of international responsiblity.
11 peter Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I read a few days ago that a recent poll showed that 80% of the Iraqis surveyed wanted America to establish a timetable for withdrawal. I don’t remember where I read it, and I don’t have the time right now to research it. However, it would be interesting to see if there are reliable surveys which indicate Iraqi public opinion, as it certainly would be no shocker if they wanted foreign troops off their soil.
12 mtl Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
But apparently, the postion of the Iraqi’s is underreported.

It should be a very publicly discussed condtion, but both sides fail to discuss it.

I have the time to go looking for the numbers and will report back with what I find.
13 mtl Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I think I got one that can be gnawed on a little, haven’t read enough to form an opinion of the poller’s skew…but so far it looks reasonable…

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg1

“Support for Timetable

Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”

There are, however, variations along ethnic lines. Sunnis are the most unified, with 83% wanting US forces to leave within 6 months. Seventy percent of Shia agree on having a timeline, but divide between 22% who favor withdrawal in six months and 49% who favor two years. Among the Kurds, on the other hand, a majority of 57% favor reducing US-led forces only when the situation improves.”

There are three more paragraphs…on the timetable topic, but definitely some meat for discussion.
14 mtl Says:
June 20th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Ok, it is from January 06. But if I were a proponent of withdrawal sooner as opposed to open end, I would find heart in the survey.

The problem(?) is that the Iraqi’s are the ones that need to decide the timetable, and assert their national legitimacy,- which their NSA director appears to have done in his statements regarding troop withdrawal in today’s WaPo.

I’ve always been a fan of having the Iraqi’s tell us when to go, and now they appear to be doing that. 6months-2 years? Time is just a small factor in the larger picture, (with the exception of the US soldiers that will me maimed or killed in exchange for this time- my decison to support open ended is not taken lightly, but we have been fighting for time since the fall of Saddam, nothing significantly else.)