Four days ago the Rasmussen Reports announced the latest Lieberman-Lamont poll. It showed Lieberman with a 45%-43% lead–a statistical dead heat. Rasmussen notes this situation is virtually unchanged since immediately after the Democratic primary when Lieberman had a five-point edge of 46% to 41%. The poll breakdown, not unexpectedly, shows Lieberman enjoys the support of 62% of Republicans. After a review of the issues, Rasmussen concludes, “Iraq alone probably won’t have as much impact on the general election as it did on the contentious Democratic primary. But Connecticut voters also tend to trust Democrats more than Republicans when it comes to the economy, immigration, and taxes.”
A month ago, a Quinnipiac University poll had Lieberman 49% to 38%, a bit larger margin than the Rasmussen figures. Poll Director Douglas Schwartz, pointed out, “Ned Lamont’s Democratic primary win was based on a very small percentage of voters statewide. He must expand beyond this base if he is going to beat Lieberman.”
The most interesting poll results came immediately after the primary when a CBS-New York Times poll probed the demographics of each candidates’ supporters. Here are those figures:
The contrast between this exit poll and the CNN one taken at the end of the 2004 election showing the Connecticut support for John Kerry against George W. Bush is especially fascinating and is shown in the third column. The stars mark aggregated data for men and women which is the way the CBS poll reported its data. The CNN poll had no data on voters by education. Since the Kerry income figures used different ranges I add them here as follows: $15-30,00: 65%, 30-50,00: 61%, 50-75,000: 56%, 75-100,00: 47%, 100-150,000: 68%.
There are some surprising numbers in these polls. The first, and perhaps most troubling is that Lamont managed to poll only 55% of the votes of African Americans, considerably less than Kerry and not much more than those of Lieberman. In fact if one uses the usual political polling margin of error Lieberman and Lamont are virtually even when it comes to the votes of African Americans. The Lamont web site does not inspire confidence in his ability to inspire people of color. A section titled, “On the Campaign Trail” has only white faces! “Campaign Trail, Part Two,” has one person of color. In other words out of 25 pictures of Lamont campaigning only ONE shows a person of color. That this should occur in 2006 with a candidate who supposedly styles himself as a progressive leaves me shaking my head. Either Lamont or his staff have a rather large blind spot. From Lamont’s pictures one would think there were no people of color in Connecticut!
The other interesting demographic concerns income. Kerry had percentages of 65% for those making under $30,000 and 65%, for those in the $30-50,000 range. Lamont actually lost these low income voters to Lieberman! Then we move on to the union voters. As a one time Democratic candidate who caucuses with organized labor I am appalled that the Lamont web site has no photos of people in union jackets or wearing union pins or in front of factories. Lamont lost a fair amount of the organized labor endorsements to Lieberman in the primary so one would think his strategists would make an attempt to woo back this bedrock of the Democratic Party. His issues page does not help, making no mention that I could find of support for raising the minimum wage or for what have come to be called Wal-Mart bills that penalize corporations who do not provide health insurance.
Lamont’s position pages remind me of those of so many other Democratic candidates in that they present the usual laundry list of issues without any controlling principles or even a metaphor to link them all. It is not quite as bad as the 100 plus pages of the infamous Kerry Plan for America, but appears sired from the same parentage. It reminds me of an incident I discussed in the Strange Death where I joined a friend at a local Democrat’s fund raiser and we asked her what she was for. “Why I’m for jobs, education, and the environment, or course,” answered the candidate.
In the end, the Lamont polling data and the Lamont campaign site offer a troubling picture for Liberal Americans. The math is not hard to do. By selling out to the GOP, Lieberman has brought a large number of Republican voters into his column. If Lamont hopes to win he needs to not only rally his base but also make sure he can count on traditional Democratic constituencies such as people of color, low income and blue collar voters. I will predict right now that if he does not, he will lose. This leaves Benedict Lieberman in an interesting position that probably requires another post.
But there is a larger issue on the table here and that is the one that has plagued the Democratic Party for at least two decades: what does the Party stand for? Lamont built his candidacy on the Iraq War. But beyond that he seems to offer only the usual laundry list. To me, Liberal America’s prime value is that government exists to keep the playing field level. If we ignore people of color, if we ignore low income voters and if we ignore union voters, then what faith do these people have that we will keep the playing field level? The script is so shopworn it is all but falling apart: take people of color and organized labor for granted. Who else do they have to vote for? The reality is that many times they just don’t vote at all. I am on record as saying that ignoring the Latino vote cost John Kerry the presidency. I hope Lamont does not make the same mistake.
As some of you know the title of this post is a play on the title of my book. Those who have read the book know I do not believe Liberal America is dead. Neither do I believe Ned Lamont is dead. But he is in critical condition. A few key moves might bring him back.
Why? Because he has to win. It does not take a genius to figure out if Lieberman wins he will have a debt to pay when the devil comes to call. As we all know, pacts with the devil do not have happy endings.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
