The 2010 Senate picture continues to get wilder this morning. Three updates:
Connecticut; Rob Simmons has dropped out of the Republican primary, leaving WWE magnnate Linda McMahon to face Richard Blumenthal. Yesterday, Blumenthal apologized for exaggerating his military record. He still has a lead in the polls, but nowhere near the commanding, 30-point leads he once held.
South Carolina: The first trial heat poll out of South Carolina shows Republican incumbent and conservative movement icon Jim DeMint leading Democrat Vic Rawl by only 50%-43%. The only other poll on this campaign had been a generic ballot test from early December, showing DeMint up by 9%, with a lot of voters thinking DeMint spent too much time endorsing conservative candidates nationwide rather than paying attention in South Carolina. So, the poll is believable, and DeMint likely is in some trouble (until Rasmussen shows him up by 27% next week).
This campaign goes up on the competitive seats chart. The current winning percentage for Rawl sstarts at 3%. That figure is if the election were held today, and is not a projection on the future trends of the campaign.
California: In a hard to believe poll, Survey USA shows Carly Fiorina ahead by 23% in the Republican primary in California (and Meg Whitman back ahead by 27% for Governor). This poll isn't like any of the others on the campaign so far, but combined with the others it actually gives Fiorina a 1.3% lead in the primary.. If Fiorina does win the Republican nomination,that is good news for Barbara Boxer. While Boxer only leads Tom Campbell by 4.7% (92% current win %), she leads Fiorina by 8.3% (98% current win %).
All told, these updates improve the Democratic position in the overall forecast by 0.09 seats, for a new total of 52.17 seats. This is another high, post-Evan Bayh's retirement, for Democrats in the Senate forecast.
This was supposed to be a nice quiet evening, the calm before the storm. Instead, we get a safe Senate seat in Connecticut that might not actually be safe anymore. The New York Times is reporting that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has lied about serving in Vietnam:
At a ceremony honoring veterans and senior citizens who sent presents to soldiers overseas, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut rose and spoke of an earlier time in his life.
"We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam," Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. "And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it - Afghanistan or Iraq - we owe our military men and women unconditional support."
There was one problem: Mr. Blumenthal, a Democrat now running for the United States Senate, never served in Vietnam. He obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records.
The deferments allowed Mr. Blumenthal to complete his studies at Harvard; pursue a graduate fellowship in England; serve as a special assistant to The Washington Post's publisher, Katharine Graham; and ultimately take a job in the Nixon White House.
In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, he landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.
This campaign is not polled very often, but what few polls there are show Blumenthal lead of anywhere from 13% to 36%. And yes, the 13% lead is a Rasmussen poll.
This campaign should not have been a problem, but it might be now. It remains to be seen whether the NYT report will hold up, and also whether a story like this can erase such a large lead. It is entirely possible on both counts.
The biggest problem of all is that the nominating convention to get on the ballot for the Democratic primary is this coming weekend. This story is still unfolding, so there is no way to have clear answers to either the two main questions (is the story true? does this finish Blumenthal with the voters?) by Friday. A second way to get on the ballot would be for someone to file 7,500 signatures by June 8th, which is doable but still tricky given the lack of any other campaign, the lack of clarity on the two main questions, the compressed timeframe, and the holiday weekend.
It would have been better if this happened a month ago. Or, it would have been better if Blumenthal didn't exaggerate his record. Whatever the case, it is still possible for Democrats to win this seat. For one thing, Blumenthal's numbers might now collapse. For another, if Blumenthal's numbers do collapse, other polling has shown Democratic Rep. Chris Murphy ahead by 7%.
Democrats are facing a difficult enough political environment that being saddled with a few disastrous candidates could turn 2010 into 1994. Coakley was weak in Massachusetts, in Illinois Giannoulis also had a scandal break out the week before his primary, in Pennsylvania Arlen Specter's party switch actually made him really unpopular, and now this. All four of those states should have been wins, but at this rate maybe none of them will be. The Democratic Party is recruiting, or at least backing, some pretty damn sucky candidates this year.
Massachusetts--Coakley up by 8%: A new poll on the Massachusetts Senate campaign shows Martha Coakley up by 8% over Scott Brown, 49%--41%. This is precisely in line with the overall polling average, which now gives Coakley a lead of 8.2%, down / up from 8.2% yesterday. Coakley's win % remains at 91%.
Just in case there was any doubt, a Coakley loss means that health care reform is over. Expect some Blue Dogs to balk at any bill if Scott Brown wins, and expect some Progressives to balk at voting for the Baucus version of the bill if Brown wins.
Connecticut--Blumenthal dominant, Lieberman despised: Quinnipiac is the latest polling firm to find Richard Blumnthal way, way ahead for Senate in Connecticut. He leads the Demcoratic primary 85%-4%, and the general election by 35% over Rob Simmons and 41% over Linda McMahon. This campaign ended the day that Dodd retired, and Blumenthal entered. I only follow general elections within 18.50%, so unless something changes dramatically, this will not appear on my Senate forecast updates.
Also of note--Quinnipiac provides further evidence that Joe Lieberman suffered real damage from his actions on the health care bill:
Connecticut voters disapprove 54 - 39 percent of the job Sen. Joseph Lieberman is doing, one point off his worst grade ever and a steep drop from a 49 - 44 percent approval November 12. Republicans approve 61 - 35 percent while Democrats disapprove 67 - 27 percent and independent voters disapprove 57 - 36 percent.
It is small comfort, but Joe Lieberman's health care backstab made him very unpopular in Connecticut. This is probably his last term in the Sneate.
Nevada--polling alternatives to Reid: A new PPP poll looks at alternatives to Harry Reid in the Nevada Senate race. The results are not good for Democrats:
PPP tested Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, and Secretary of State Ross Miller as possible alternatives to Reid.
Goodman comes out the best, leading Lowden 42-40 and tied with Tarkanian at 41. 43% of voters in the state have a favorable opinion of him to 21% unfavorable, and he's viewed positively by Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
Berkley and Miller both post numbers pretty similar to Reid. Berkley trails Lowden and Tarkanian by identical eight point margins and Miller has a 10 point deficit against Tarkanian and an 11 point one against Lowden.
The problem for Democrats is that Oscar Goodman is already mulling a run for Governor--and as an independent, not as a Democrat. As such, it is highly unlikely that Democrats would ever clear the field for him. and he is, um, colorful. He really is more Governor material than Senate material.
Ignoring the numerous horserace machups in the PPP poll for a moment, here are the favorable ratings of the candidates they polled:
Oscar Goodman (I): Favorable 43%--21% Unfavorable
Danny Tarkanian (R): Favorable 33%--24% Unfavorable
Sue Lowden (R): Favorable 29%--22% Unfavorable
Ross Miller (D): Favorable 18%--16% Unfavorable
Shelley Berkley (D): Favorable 27%--27% Unfavorable
Harry Reid's favorables were not tested, but he does have an approval rating of 36%--58%. This likely makes Shelley Berkley a better bet. Even if she doesn't poll better right now, she has more potential.
Ohio--Brunner closes gap on Fisher: Rasmussen has new numbers on the Ohio Senate race. Like their December numbers, they show Republican frontrunner Rob Portman ahead of both major Democrats. In a reverse of their December numbers, Jennifer Brunner (down 3%) does better than Lee Fisher (down 7%). In December, Brunner trailed by 7%, and Fisher trailed by 2%.
Here are updated victory odds for the Ohio Senate race, looking only at Brunner vs. Portman and Fisher vs. Portman:
The DSCC has threatened to back Fisher over Brunner's lack of funding and her standing in the polls, but this poll might cause them to step back a bit.
In Ohio, the filing deadline for the Democratic primary is February 18th, and the primary is on May 4th. In Nevada, the filing deadline is on March 12th, and the primary is on June 8th. See all filing deadlines and primary dates here.
Blumenthal leads Rob Simmons 59-28, Linda McMahon 60-28, and Peter Schiff 63-23.(...)
Blumenthal's numbers in this survey are quite a stark contrast to Dodd's.... [Dodd] trailed Simmons for the 11th consecutive time in a publicly released poll, 44-40, and also found himself locked in a tie with McMahon at 43.
Democrats score a 32% boost in Connecticut Senate polling in one-day, and it is called "a blow" to their Senate election chances.
It's not like the PPP poll, or Blumenthal's entry into the campaign, were secrets. The same article in The Hill noted that Blumenthal will run. Further, PPP had tweeted about Blumenthal's dominant polling position 12 hours before The Hill published its article. Yet further, anyone writing about Connecticut politics should have already known that Dodd was in serious, perhaps insurmountable re-election trouble, while Blumenthal is by far the most popular politician in the state.
As I've said, the media still continue to take their cues from whatever the latest Republican talking point of the day is. Old habits die hard, or perhaps not at all.
Dodd's retirement is the best news Democrats have received in any Senate campaign in months. Any other characterization runs afoul of all existing empirical evidence.
Of course, be wary when the first set of blind quotes you read from party strategists after a retirement is "[Fill in the blank's] decision may turn out to be a blessing." As we wrote above, that's probably true regarding Dodd.
And then, at the end of the same paragraph:
The fact is that retirements, party switches, etc. hurt a party -- period.
Yeah, retirements always hurt a party. PERIOD!!!!! Except that, at the start of this same paragraph, the author wrote that Dodd's retirement helped Dems. Awesome.
Update 3--The Hill changes the article: The Hill has edited the article and no longer claims Dodd's retirement is bad for Democratic electoral chances.
The net effect of Byron Dorgan's and Chris Dodd's retirements on the Senate picture is that Democrats will now lose North Dakota instead of Connecticut.
Losing North Dakota In North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan's retirement is a real blow. North Dakota is a pretty red state (Cook PVI R+10), the national environment is pretty favorable to Republicans right now, and Republican Governor Jim Hoeven--who is likely to run--is a very popular figure.
This is made worse given that Byron Dorgan is about the most progressive figure we could have hoped for in North Dakota. While Ed Schultz is a clear exception, even he probably can't beat Hoeven this year. Schultz is unlikely to run, anyway.
All of this makes it extremely difficult--almost impossible, really--to hold the seat this year. A right-winger is now very likely to replace a pretty good Senator in Byron Dorgan.
Gaining Connecticut Chris Dodd was all but toast in Connecticut. He trailed well known Republican Bob Simmons by 10%, and also trailed little-known Linda McMahon. It is not impossible that Dodd could have held the seat, especially if, as was seemingly likely, Linda McMahon won the primary. However, his retirement improves Democratic odds to hold the seat dramatically.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is now the likely Democratic nominee in Connecticut. Blumenthal will announce that he is running at 2:30 p.m., a couple hours after Dodd officially announces his retirement. In the mid-November Quinnipiac poll of Connecticut, Blumenthal sported a gaudy 78%-13% approval disapproval rating. Public Policy Polling, which just completed a Connecticut poll that included numbers on Blumenthal versus Simmons and McMahon, writes "Democrats will keep the Senate seat in Connecticut now."
In the same way that defeating Hoeven is virtually impossible in North Dakota, defeating Blumenthal is virtually impossible in Connecticut.
*****
For the Senate, the net result is that Democrats will now lose North Dakota instead of Connecticut. It is not a disastrous trade, though not a great one, either. A loss in Connecticut would have been easier to reverse in 2016 than a loss in North Dakota. Further, as I already mentioned, Byron Dorgan is pretty progressive for a red state like North Dakota. Short of Ed Schultz becoming a Senator, it will be difficult to get a progressive in that seat anytime soon.
Perhaps worst of all, Blumenthal was a lock to defeat Joe Lieberman in 2012. Back in Februrary, Blumethal led Holy Joe 58%-30% in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Now, Democrats are going to have to find someone else to dump Lieberman in 2012. Whoever else they find will simply not have as good a chance as Blumenthal.
On net, the Senate forecast remains the same. Democrats are expected to lose five seats in November, resulting in a 55-45 Senate. The Governor's races will be looked at in another post.
Blumenthal leads Rob Simmons 59-28, Linda McMahon 60-28, and Peter Schiff 63-23. It would take an epic collapse for him not to be Connecticut's next Senator.
Barring something truly shocking, Richard Blumenthal will be the next Senator from Connecticut. Now, we just need someone to dump Lieberman in 2012.
As Schultz pointed out on his show last night, North Dakota requires that candidates maintain residency in the state for five years prior to running for the Senate, and he has lived in Minnesota for the past two years -- meaning he is not eligible for the position.
So, this really does appear to be a Connecticut for North Dakota swap.
Update 3--Schultz is eligible: It appears that states cannot actually set requirements about who runs for US Senate--only the Constitution can. This means that Schultz is eligible to run for Senate.
On the off-chance that Hoeven does not run, and Schultz does, it would be pretty awesome for Dems and Progs alike.
A new Connecticut poll this morning from Quinnipiac shows incumbent Democratic Senator Chris Dodd improving his position for re-election quite a bit. Dodd's prospects are still very much uphill, but they are an improvement none the less:
Quinnipiac, May 20-25, 1,575 RVs, MoE 2.5 (March numbers in parenthesis) Simmons: 45% (50%)
Dodd: 39% (34%)
Dodd: 41% (37%)
Caligiuri: 39% (41%)
While these numbers are still very much uphill for Dodd (it is never good for an incumbent to be around 40%), there are come factors working in his favor:
Rob Simmons has $20 in the bank. That isn't $20K or $20M, but $20.00. Simmons failed to raise money during what should have been a great time to build a warchest.
The economy will be better in 2010 than in 2009. By this time next year, the economy will likely be growing again, jobs will probably be returning, and health care reform will have been passed.
Two of the most important advantages held by challengers are absent in Connecticut. Simmons is not raising the money to define himself (53% of voters don't know who he is), and by next year Democrats should be taking credit for an economic recovery largely based upon the stimulus package and other recent policies. As Senate banking chair, Dodd will be able to take credit for many of those policies, himself.
Overall, reports of Senator Dodd's demise appear to be premature. In fact, rather than the general election, he might actually face more trouble in the primary from businessman Merrick Alpert, who right now only trails Dodd 44%--24% among registered Democrats. Alpert can self-finance, and is a veteran opposed to the American military presence in Afghanistan. With nearly two-thirds of Democrats now sharing that position, Alpert might have a real shot. A 20% advantage in a primary one year out is not much of an advantage at all.
The situation in Connecticut is clearly fluid. Just as Dodd'd general election prospects improve, the real possibility of losing in the primary emerges. This far out, it is difficult to make an assessment with any accuracy, but no matter what the future holds for Connecticut, it now appears to be the most interesting Senate race in the nation (again).
In the wake of the AIG bonus scandal, Connecticut Senate Chris Dodd is in serious trouble for re-election. In fact, the odds are now that he will lose, as a new Quinnipiac poll shows him trialing Republican challenger Rob Simmons by a whopping 16%:
This simply must be the result of the AIG scandal. Could anything else have possibly hurt Dodd so badly over the past twenty-five days? It is a painful irony that Dodd is the one taking the fall on this, given that he was the Senator trying to write stronger limits on executive compensation into the stimulus package, and it was other members who stripped it out. The Democrats who were in the room know what happened, and might be able to help Dodd if they fess up on who stripped the language.
Otherwise, not to be bleak or anything, it might not be possible for Dodd to recover from a deficit like this. It is true that a Research 2000 / Daily Kos poll taken just before this Quinnipiac poll showed Dodd ahead of Simmons by 5%, so one of those polls (or both) is very, very wrong. So, it is probably best to wait for a third confirming poll to develop a better sense of the campaign.
However, if the Q-poll is correct, than this is better than the advantage Bob Casey started out with against Rick Santorum in 2005, and akin to the advantage Tom Udall started with in New Mexico in 2007. Those campaigns ended up in 17.36% and 22.66% blowouts respectively, as the incumbent and incumbent party never recovered. I'd be hard pressed to find any incumbent Senator that has ever recovered from a 16% deficit. While the so-called "incumbent rule," where challengers gain the overwhelming percentage of undecideds in campaigns with incumbents, does not hold up as well as it used to, it is still safe to say that trailing by 16% with a name ID over 90% is a bad position. What is worse for Dodd in the poll is that he is also losing by 4% to a lesser known Republican State Senator, meaning that much of his deficit is specific to Simmons, who many Connecticut voters seems to consider an acceptable Republican, rather than just to an anti-Dodd sentiment. As such, retaining this seat will probably require either Dodd not seeking re-election, or Simmons being defeated in a Club for Growth fueled primary.
If Dodd were to step aside, it is a lock that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal would be able to retain the seat for Democrats. A February Q-poll recent poll showed Blumenthal defeating Lieberman by 28% in the general election, and with a 79%-12% approval rating. While it would be unfortunate to lose such a rock-solid chance to defeat Lieberman, recent polling from Research 2000 has shown that Ned Lamont is still primed to defeat Lieberman in 2012 if he decides to run again. Of course, while Lamont and Blumenthal remain solid bench candidates for Democrats in the state, Republicans have their own in Governor Jodi Rell. The same poll showing Dodd down 16% shows Rell with a 72% approval rating. All of this guarantees that Connecticut will be a big state, possibly the top state, to watch on the Senate front for the next four years.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows Lieberman's approval rating in Connecticut is down to just 38%. This is actually record-breaking for the Quinnipiac poll:
"Sen. Joseph Lieberman appears to be paying a high price for his embrace of Sen. John McCain in the presidential race. This is the highest disapproval rating in any Quinnipiac University poll in any state for a sitting U.S. Senator - except for New Jersey's Robert Torricelli, just before he resigned in 2002. Among those who say they voted for Sen. Lieberman in 2006, 30 percent now say they would vote for someone else if they could.
Only 21% of Democrats approve of Lieberman's performance as Senator. Also, 40% of Independents, and 68% of Republicans approve of Lieberman's performance as Senator. It is kind of funny, but also not surprising, that Lieberman's constituents are far more aware of his partisan inclinations than his fellow Senators, or even President-elect Obama.
Lieberman isn't up for re-election until 2012. Given that, since 2006, he has been granted a committee chair, I won't be surprised if he is able to make a recovery. Obama validating Lieberman will, I'm sure, run through just about every campaign commercial Lieberman makes for the Democratic primary, too. Expect at least 42 Democratic Senators to endorse him, and campaign for him, in the 2012 Democratic primary, too. Further, don't expect many, if any, challengers to come from elected Democratic officials in Connecticut, for fear of reprisals should they challenge Lieberman. So, while Lieberman has a low approval rating, he is by no means particularly vulnerable right now.
Also, from the poll, it would appear that the northeast is more progressive than the West Coast:
Connecticut voters oppose 61 - 33 percent amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Republicans support such an amendment 49 - 46 percent, while Democrats oppose it 73 - 23 percent and independent voters oppose it 58 - 34 percent. Men oppose an amendment to ban same-sex marriage 56 - 38 percent while women oppose it 66 - 28 percent.
I always thought the northeast wasn't given sufficient recognition as the most left-leaning region of the country, which I think it fairly obviously is.
In January, I wrote the following about Ned Lamont's endorsement of Obama in which I expressed mild dissatisfaction with the decision. The gist of the post was organized around the idea that the endorsement made sense only if Lamont could persuade Obama to take on the FISA fight strongly because Obama had not been particularly helpful (to put it mildly) during the Lamont campaign.
And while it's not exactly what we're talking about today, I suppose it's worth noting that Lamont endorsed Obama, and then we did win the FISA fight. So my mild concern is now obviated. Lamont made a decision to endorse Obama. I had my reservations, but I was wrong, and the decision paid off.
So thanks, Ned, for what you did. It is possible to work from the inside and make change.
The donors threatening Nancy Pelosi are listed below. I bolded the ones who contributed to Joe Lieberman's campaign for Senate in 2006, when he won reelection as an independent.
Marc Aronchick Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof JB Pritzker Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban Bernard Schwartz Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner
... Adding that Haim Saban is the fiscal sponsor of extreme right-wing hawk Michael O'Hanlon at the Brookings Institution and Lasry was a Bush donor.
... Aravosis notices that 30% of these donors slept in the White House when Bill was President. I don't have any problem with that, actually, I just think it's funny how transparently transactional they are.
Here's the first bit of evidence I've seen on how race will matter from the primary to the general.
The vast majority of Democratic voters say they would support either Obama or Clinton over McCain. But in an Obama-McCain matchup, 14% of Democratic voters say they would support McCain, compared with 8% who would do so if Clinton is the nominee.
One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton.
In addition, female Democrats look at the race differently depending on the matchup. While 93% of women in the party say they would vote for Clinton over McCain, just 79% say they would support Obama over McCain.
A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.
While race is often considered the most important factor, I do not actually think that is the case here. The most obvious parallel, where a sizeable chunk of Democrats chose to vote for an incredibly hawkish maverick style politician with an undeserved reputation for liberal politics, was the 2006 Lieberman-Lamont race. I in fact said that the 2006 Senate race at the time was a test run for John McCain's campaign, and all campaign strategists working on the Presidential race noticed exactly what the limits were of the liberal coalition at that time.
In the primary, Lamont took 52% of the vote to Lieberman's 48%, but in the general Lieberman got 33% of the Democratic vote. And the primary determinant of that chunk was age. That is true right now as well. And frankly, why shouldn't it be? Old people get that that having an old President will mean that their views are better represented. Young people believe that having a young President will mean that their views are better represented. This isn't and shouldn't be a surprise.
As a progressive partisan, it's disappointing that so many older white people are willing to abandon the Democratic Party to send young people into wars just because they don't want a younger African-American male to run the country. And indeed, if you look further at the poll, McCain picks up most of his 'McCain Democrats' among the 26% of the Democratic population who want to keep some troops in Iraq. Most Clinton supporters aren't like that, only a quarter at this point are even considering voting for McCain, I have talked to a few, and the unspoken identity problems are both age and race.
I saw this during the Lamont race, only very few people were actually on our side. It was a scarring experience, and the youth surge had not yet happened the way that it is helping to offset the 65+ advantage for Clinton and McCain. At any rate, Obama's going to have to make up for his deficit by appealing to independents, something which fortunately he is doing against both McCain and Clinton.
Update: I thought this comment is illustrative of the conversations I've had with older Clinton supporters that won't vote for Obama in the general.
As one of those "older white people willing to send young people into wars," I think you just don't get it. First, I am old according to you, 68 to be exact. I protested the Vietnam War, dragged my children and friends to Washington to demonstrate for a woman's right to choose, made phone calls for Jesse Jackson back in '84, and worked for McGovern when there were lots and lots of young people energized to participate - you're not the first ones to get involved.
I, for one, am not going to shift to McCain, but I am part of the fall-off. I am not going to vote for Obama. I am going to vote LIKE Obama. When I go to the polls in November, if there is not a woman at the top of the ticket, I will simply be noted as "present." Then I'll look downballot and vote for the rest of the candidates.
I don't know now whether I will ever get to vote for a woman if Clinton is not nominated this year, but I do know that in the future I will vote for any woman over any man for president - regardless of her qualifications or her background (there have been a lot of male rogues and roués on the ballot over the years, I'm not expecting a female candidate to be perfect). And after all, this year, you and many others are eager to vote for a thinly qualified male over a more qualified female? Think of your own state senator (a part time job, by the way), put him in the U.S. Senate for a year and tell me if you think he or she is qualified to be president. That's how I see Obama - he may make your heart flutter, but so does Brad Pitt.
And so I wait to see what happens this year and if Clinton is not nominated, I just hope I live long enough for someone else to be able to crack the glass ceiling.
Both Obama and Clinton betrayed Lamont and all of us during the 2006 campaign. Hillary Clinton, while she did do a fundraiser for Lamont, had her husband go onto Larry King after the primary and back Lieberman by saying there was no difference between the candidates. At that moment, all of Lamont's establishment support dried up, and we lost 30% of the Democrats in the general election. At the same time, after promising to endorse the winner of the primary, Obama went through Connecticut by train and refused to stop in the state out of fear of challenging Lieberman. He had earlier in the race spoken out at the Jefferson Jackson dinner for Lieberman, his mentor.
I talked to Ned today, and expressed all of this. And he knows it. And nothing can reverse the outcome of that election, which set the stage for the complete Democratic capitulation on Iraq we saw throughout 2007.
A few weeks ago, Obama refused to help out during the Senate FISA fight, when Chris Dodd bravely filibustered the Bush administration's top priority to expand wiretapping authority and immunize telecom companies who had broken the law. The fight is probably coming around again, and Lamont promised he would advocate internally for Obama to actually stand with Dodd this time. I doubt Obama will filibuster, though it would be really good for his campaign and I would become an excited advocate for Obama were he to do so.
Still, I hope Lamont is able to persuade Obama to actually stand for principle. That would make his endorsement truly meaningful.
So now, if you're a Hillary supporter, you're not a real Democrat?
Fuck that noise. There are passionate, hard-working progressive Democrats who support every single one of our candidates, Hillary included.
And I'm sick of diaries that insinuate to the contrary.
Oh, I know, it's primary season. That's just how things are.
Bullshit. We're adults. Let's act like adults.
We're allies. Let's act like allies.
I don't in any way mean to pick on this diarist from Daily Kos that wrote these words. Also, I would state that of course it is possible to be a real Democrat and support Hillary Clinton, and it is also possible to be a "real" progressive and support Clinton. Instead, what I want to take issue with is the notion that all self-identified Democrats are "allies."
The simple fact is that not all self-identified Democrats, including all Democrats in Congress, are our allies. This was made repeatedly clear to me back in 2006, and I am tired of variations on the circular firing squad line being used to defend criticism of Democrats. For starters, the following five Senators are absolutely not our allies, and should not be considered such:
Carper (D-DE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Nelson (D-NE)
Landrieu (D-LA)
In no uncertain terms, these five Senators made it clear that they are not allies of the Democratic Party. This is because all five of them endorsed a candidate who was running against the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2006. If they were our allies, if we were all on the same team, then they would have endorsed the Democratic nominee in Connecticut. Period. End of story. Since they did not, it is clear that whatever relationship they have with "us" is one of convenience that will be broken whenever it suits their personal interests. And the ten Senators who failed to endorse one way or the other in the primary general, including President Bill Clinton himself, are not much better:
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Sabarnes (D-MD)
This is very simple: if you don't endorse some Democratic nominees, you don't get to say that you are on the same team with those endorse all Democratic nominees. People who undertake those different actions are on different teams. Or, more accurately, those who endorse all Democratic nominees are on a team, while those who selectively endorse are on a team of one.
And it doesn't stop there, either. Even before the 2006 election, I was told by some Democrats that I had already lost:
Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, a co-chairwoman of the 47-member New Democrat Coalition, said that 27 of the top 40 contested House seats were being pursued by Democrats who have pledged to become members of the group, which says its chief issues are national security and fiscal responsibility.
"I think there's tremendous agreement and awareness that getting the majority and running over the left cliff is what our Republican opponents would dearly love," Ms. Tauscher said, adding that this was something "we've got to fight."
In this election, both the Religious Right and the secular Left were defeated, and the voice of the moral center was heard.
Don't tell me that I lost the election, and then try and tell me that we are all on the same team. Don't tell me that people who endorsed Lieberman are on the same team with me. We are not all on the same team. That much has been made clear.
Are most Democrats on the same team? Sure. In fact, I would estimate that about two-thirds of Democrats are on the same team (which is about the percentage of Democrats at both the leadership and rank and file level who supported Lamont by the end). But for the rest, it is simply a marriage of convenience. They will break off and form their own team if and when it becomes more politically convenient for them to do so.
And sure, there are people on the left who aren't on the team either. Many people consider themselves progressives before they consider themselves Democrats, and as such will sometimes endorse non-Democratic third-party candidates. However, what I am arguing here isn't a left-right division, but rather simply pointing out many of us do not consider ourselves to be on the "same team." We operate in a broad coalition, that for many people is an arrangement of convenience. That is fine. That is politics. Unless you live in an ideological one-party state, there is no way to successfully operate outside of a coalition. All I am asking is that before people start decrying the circular firing squad or internal debate, don't use the lame defense that we are all on the same team. We are not all on the same team, we are just all in the same coalition, which are two different things. This is especially the case in a primary, which is essentially a fight to lead the coalition. It is important we all keep that in mind, because I believe it helps put internal debate in a more accurate perspective.
As a result of the Iraq war, the current coalition structure in America, which is dominated by the conservative governing majority for at least two decades and continues to be so now, has a reached a breaking point. Realignments in American politics take place when there is no compromise to be had on the major issues of the day, and when the current governing majority is actually in the minority position on those issues nationwide. Iraq is just such a dominant issue on which there is no compromise, and the current conservative governing coalition of George Bush, Bush Dogs, congressional Republicans, and anti-MoveOn, anti-Reid Feingold Senators is opposed to the will of 60% of the American people on Iraq.
We have come to a point where either we will witness the success of the last-ditch effort of the conservative working majority to stay in power, the Iraq Blurring Strategy, or we will witness the completion of the Iraq realignment in the 2008 elections. I explain in the extended entry.
Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 9/10-12. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)
For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?
If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?
Lieberman
Lamont
Schlesinger
All
40
48
10
Dem
25
72
3
Rep
69
7
24
Ind
38
49
9
All of the positive movement for Lamont comes from Democrats and Independents. Lieberman actually slightly improved his standing among Republicans.
This show, I think, the importance of having an honest and open debate about residual troops in Iraq before the next Democratic nominee is decided. Many Democrats and Independents who voted for Lieberman now regret that vote, almost certainly because they feel suckered on Iraq. While I oppose residual forces, I will have far less of a problem with a Democratic nominee who supports them as long as the people who voted for that candidate knew what they were supporting. I don't think that happened in Connecticut, as the media and most of the Democratic establishment never took Lieberman to task for his faux anti-war rhetoric in the general election. I don't want the same thing to happen nationwide in 2008. I want Democrats to know what their nominee will do in Iraq, or otherwise we could end up regretting out nomination down the road, ala many Democrats and Independents in Connecticut.
STATE BLOGS
