Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman Ticket

I'm back for a quick post.  The most intriguing bit of news from the Quinnipiac thermometer on Monday is Joe Lieberman's high favorability ratings.  He took sixth overall, with a pretty good 52.7 percent.  John McCain took third with a slightly higher 57.7 percent.

While Lieberman's high rating went largely unremarked in our discussions, you can be sure it did not go unremarked among the Unity08 crowd, who are stepping up their operations.  And you can be sure that it did not go unremarked among the think tank The Third Way, and Lieberman's staffers and supporters.  They look at their guy and they say 'We beat the best the left could throw at us, and Joe now has a battle-hardened national constituency he did not have in 2004'.

It gets even more interesting, as Michael Bloomberg takes the number seven spot, wtih 51.1%.  The aggregated power of Bloomberg/Lieberman/McCain is formidable when paired with a wounded reactionary base.  If Republicans make the calculation in 2008 that they must run away from Bush, a calculation that seems obvious, then a McCain/Lieberman ticket looks quite appealing.  Both characters have stood against their party, and their financial base will be unparalleled.  Lieberman could just print money in Connecticut, and he'll be able to do that again in 2008.  DC culture will pump massive amounts of cash into their coffers, the GOP base will get behind McCain and Lieberman, and it's not clear to me if the Democratic Party can stay unified in the face of an assault like that, especially because McCain and Lieberman are both setting themselves up as reformers (Lieberman and Schumer may be fighting over ethics right now).

If I'm Joe Lieberman, the Quinnipiac survey adds public support to my belief that I'm going to dominate national politics.  Another run for the White House, this time on the successful politics of unity and purpose, makes a lot of sense.  They are building a stupid brand, Unity08, to make this happen.  They are getting support in the public polling.  And Democrats are certainly afraid to attack Lieberman, setting up a perfect opportunity for him to jettison the party while retaining his relatively high favorables.

We really need to start thinking hard about how to beat back this ticket.  It's not just a progressive problem; these guys are going to have fierce reformer coattails, putting our House and Senate majorities in jeopardy.  I imagine it starts with chipping at their integrity.  I suspect that the $387K slush fund needs to come into play.

Update [2006-11-29 16:49:28 by Tim Tagaris]:(Tim) Following up on Matt's post, I called the FEC to inquire about their progress into the FEC investigation surrounding the $387,000 Joe Lieberman spread around the streets of Connecticut days before the primary. Essentially, the investigation continues and no one will be able to learn about its progress until it is completed.

Unless ... Joe Lieberman gives permission to add transparency to the elongated process.

Until then, only two people receive updates about the progress of the investigation: Tom Swan (who filed the complaint) and Joe Lieberman. Unless both parties give permission to open updates to the public, speaking about it is illegal. When it concludes, it will be assigned an FEC number and become searchable on

Tags: 2008, Connecticut, Joe Lieberman, John McCain (all tags)



Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

We need to analyze how we could have done better in CT as well. How to translate the enabling tendencies of Lieberman to a wider constituency.

by MNPundit 2006-11-29 10:16AM | 0 recs
Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman Ticket

It touched on this in a diary.  Lieberman scares the hell out of me now that he trounced Lamont November 7.  He's empowered.  He thinks he's King of the World.  He won't run for reelection to the Senate.  He's got nothing to lose politically by running as an Indy.  Scares the hell out of me.

by Vox Populi 2006-11-29 10:18AM | 0 recs
sorry to say, I regret taking on Lieberman

This situation is far worse than if Lieberman had won reelection unchallenged. Far, far worse.

I don't think McCain will necessarily choose Lieberman (too different on social issues), but if the Republicans clear the field for McCain and he dangles the possibility of choosing Lieberman long enough, it will do a lot to undermine Democrats and shore up McCain's "independent" credentials.

Now a question about the poll. What is up with Bloomberg's numbers? I seriously doubt that more than 10 percent of those who do not live in the tri-state area have even heard of Bloomberg.

by desmoinesdem 2006-11-29 10:43AM | 0 recs
I don't regret taking on Lieberman

It's because of Lamont winning the primary by talking about the war that put the war as an issue to be discussed on the table and that allowed us to take back both the Senate and the Congress.  I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

by lisadawn82 2006-11-29 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't regret taking on Lieberman

The War was a National Issue. We did not win congress because of Lamont talking about the war.

In fact, its the total opposite. We find ourselves being in the Senate Majority because of the mercy of Joe Lieberman. - even if some here spent countless hours & dollars trying to kick him out.

by labanman 2006-11-29 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't regret taking on Lieberman

The war was a national issue because the success of Lamont in the primary made it open to debate.  

In 2008 the Republicans have 10 more seats to defend then we do so unless the Dems really screw the pooch the next two years we have a better shot at picking up net Repub seats then they have at picking up net Dem seats.  Lieberman must know this because if he hasn't figured it out for himself someone has got to have pointed it out to him by now.  If he pisses us off too much right now he's got to know that there will be major pay back in two years.

I truely don't mean to be bitchy, but what gives you the indication that the Republicans will clear the field for McCain?  Maybe I don't see the signs.  I'll have to look a bit harder.

by lisadawn82 2006-11-29 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't regret taking on Lieberman

Lamont's candidacy probably had a spillover effect in elections like Webb's. I dont mean it was a primary factor, but every single tiny factor helped win that race for Webb.

When you got people like Webb and Tester win by a few thousand votes, I doubt it would have happened without everything falling in place - including the netroots support. I see the Lamont race as an anchor to the renewed enthusiasm in voicing opposition to the war. He made it seem not so fringe for others to voice their opinion on this.

Also Lieberman has had to make some statements on the war I am sure he would like to take back now. How will Lieberman chastise other Dems for differing on the war when he repeatedly pleaded for a big tent? (Oh wait, actually, he is still doing that). But the thing is, we can call him on his hypocrisy if we continue to maintain the pressure. Dean's defeat did not kill off the netroots. They learned from it and some lessons were applied in the Lamont case. That was good enough to help him achieve the improbable by beating Lliberman in the primaries. It just wasnt good enough for the general election. What he needed was time to soften up the general electorate that seemed comfortable with 18 years of Lieberman who was being backed by both major parties insiders and the CT press.

by Pravin 2006-11-30 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: sorry to say, I regret taking on Lieberman

Many here were warned. is it really worth spending millions to challenge an Incumbent Democrat with a 65%+ approval rating ? A former party VP standard who happened to be more conservative on some major issues than most of the progressives here. But also had strong voting records on core Democratic issues like Labor & the environment.

But many here showed so much Hate for a fellow Democrat similar to the hate for Newt Gingrich.

Everyone here was warned that when this adventure was over, Joe Lieberman would even be worst. If the intention was to scare him, the outcome was the opposite.You think he's going to forget this? Enjoy watching his Independent ASS in the next 6 years. If you think he was bad before, wait now.

I know many of you including the very leaders of the netroots community will Not publicly admit it, but you people just turned Joe Lieberman into a both a Star & an Independent. You also turned him at least for now, into the Most Important Senator in congress. He can play & switch & the whole party loses the majority.

For whatever reason, many here cannot seem to accept the fact that many americans in both parties actually like & agree with a Joe Lieberman.

I don't like Joe. I don't agree with many of his actions. But I never believed that it was worth it to try & unseat a fellow Democrat.
He is not the enemy.

If you go after Lieberman, you might as well go after Pryor, Salazar, Feinstein, Baucus, Landriue, etc.

It also allowed the MSM & non-partisan observers to reinforce the idea of left wing radicals within the netroots community.

Joe is definitely smiling from ear to ear right now.

While some here tried to destroy him, the GOP brilliantly did the total opposite, They actually rallied their base to save him.

No matter how you look at it, IT WAS NOT WORTH IT! You just created a Star. A Monster!

P.S. Most americans are neither left nor right. These same middle of the road voters will chose our next President in '08. Stop thinking that everyone thinks like you on every major issue because they don't.

by labanman 2006-11-29 11:12AM | 0 recs
Always remind yourself.

   Joe bolted the party.  Not us.  We played by the rules and won.  It's just simply not our fault that the Democratic leadership was too afraid of pathetic Lieberman him on.  Pathetic = losing a primary six years after being nominated vice president to a complete nobody who had practically no experience in electoral politics. It's also not our fault that Lieberman is a traitor.  We have to stop blaming ourselves for Holy Joe's whims.

by cilerder86 2006-11-29 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry to say, I regret taking on Lieberman

I disagree. 'I like war' Joe ain't gonna be anything but 'under the bus'.


Because the war in Iraq is gonna blow up in his and St. McCain and all the warmongers faces.

We have lost this war.


I just hope Joe and McCain keep up their idiotic calls to 'stay the course' and for 'more troops'. Liebermann is dead wrong on the issues and the people know it.

Why did he win in CT? He won because he lied and the MSM lied about his position on Iraq.

That won't be possible in a national elections.

Especially since you will be paying $10.00/gal. for gas.

Yep. Stick a fork in Liarmann. He's done.

by Pericles 2006-11-29 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: sorry to say, I regret taking on Lieberman

I agree with you 100%. If Ned Lamont had stayed out of politics and stuck to running his business empire, something he is obviously good at, where politics is obviously NOT where he excels, then Joe Leiberman would have none of this power today.

The Lamont loss fell back onto the shoulders of the netroots, who are now being cast as incompetent when it comes to picking winners.  Without the full, visible and brave support of the DNC and Howard Dean - and I mean a total commitment to Lamont - there was no hope for Lamont to win against a guy who is basically a Dem in Republican clothing.  Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Dean appear at ONE Lamont rally?

Whatever the DNC did or didn't do, it wasn't enough.  And Ned should have been told by his strategists that you don't win a primary and then take off for a vacation, allowing Lieberman to immediately start appearing on all the MSM talk shows.

Congrats to the netroots.  You got what you asked for.  And you'll never get what you really want because the REAL stars of the Democratic party are making great headway despite the fact that you can't badmouth them enough.  Educate yourselves. Then figure it out.  And thanks for your help in creating the Lieberman Monster.

by marycontrary 2006-11-29 02:30PM | 0 recs
I can turn your argument around

Was it worth it for some democrats to let Joe off the hook so he can demonize people from his own party? If they worked hard to marginalize Lieberman and have him defeated by a bigger margin in the primaries and really strip him of his seniority, he wouldnt have been able to use the experience factor.

And it is misleading to say Lieberman voted with the Dems on most issues anyway. WHat does that matter when he was a big part of the biggest foreign policy blunder in decades and continues to voice opinions on the bigger future blunders?
This is a guy who is an absolute moron(as implied by Michael Ware of Time when Lieberman made some Forrest GUmpish statements) when it comes to the middle east. THis is a guy who endorses an unqualified guy like Chertoff to lead Homeland Security.

Lamont did not run a perfect campaign, but his campaign achieved enough to enable future activists to learn from this experience and take down a Lieberman type not only in the primary but the general election. Not every election is going to have the fluke convergence of insiders from both parties rooting for one guy to win.
If winning was all that matters, why not just declare affiliation with the party that wins?

by Pravin 2006-11-30 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: sorry to say, I regret taking on Lieberman

"(If McCain) dangles the possibility of choosing Lieberman long enough, it will do a lot to undermine Democrats and shore up McCain's "independent" credentials."

Kerry dangled McCain all summer in '04 and it didn't do him much good.

by Steve in Sacto 2006-11-29 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: sorry to say, I regret taking on Lieberman

I think it actually hurt Kerry to keep floating McCain's name as VP. He made him look indecisive and desperate when he actually met with McCain. He would have done much better to have floated names of bona fide Democrats

by robliberal 2006-11-29 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: sorry to say, I regret taking on Lieberman

Now a question about the poll. What is up with Bloomberg's numbers? I seriously doubt that more than 10 percent of those who do not live in the tri-state area have even heard of Bloomberg.

The poll actually specifically measured this-- for each candidate they recorded a separate number for the percentage of people who said they didn't know enough about the person to form a judgement. Bloomberg's line from the poll was:

7) NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg - 51.1 (44)

So what that says is that 44 percent of Americans don't know anything about Michael Bloomberg, and of the 56% who had heard of him, he got a 51.1% likability rating.

That 44% never-heard-of-him on the name recognition front doesn't look very good to me. It's significantly better than the scores Romney or Bayh or Harry Reid got on that front, but compared to say Guiliani or Lieberman, it's quite low. (Obama, incidentally, though he scored very well on the likability front, didn't do very well on the "who?" measurement either, scoring a 41%, comparable to Bloomberg's score.)

by Silent sound 2006-11-29 11:35AM | 0 recs
What might have been

I believe Lamont might have won with more experienced, professional, traditional campaign management.

Although it is heresy here, I think Bob Shrum would have been ideal because of he could have controlled and managed Lamont, anticipated the Lieberman's Independent challenge and Rove's huge cash infusion, and directed the free media piece of the campaign with much greater effectiveness. Moreover, the pundits would have creamed their jeans.

The winning formula against a Lieberman candidate is Netroots+Rich Guy+Credible Big-Name Consultant. Carville and Begala, for example (more heresy) would have won for Lamont who, as an almost totally inexperienced candidate, got caught in a MSM meat grinder and the tender mercies of Karl Rove who simply outclassed Swan, a talented Golden Glove up-and-comer thrown into the ring against an Andrew Golota.

To continue the boxing analogy, Sonny Liston and Mike Tyson were nothing but prison-bound thugs until they got professional management; then they became world champions.

Political consultants are a necessary evil. They are necessary; only their fees are evil. Our fond notion that Internet amateurs can write campaign commercials and choose advertising agencies at long distance should be abandoned. I don't care how good you think you are, you're not good until you've taken on a Rove/Carville/Shrum professional head-to-head and won.

As obnoxious as it is to have a Rahm Emmanuel's mutilated middle finger thrust in your face, it is a lesson for the unwary. Pretending that he is a bum because he lost a few races--while winning back the House--is a delusion.

When it comes down to anything important, such as winning elections, we need to make piece with the pros. It is not merely that the dragon sometimes win. The dragon usually wins.

Blaming Lamont is particularly asinine. How often do you stumble across a guy willing to dump $20 or $30 million into your action item? There is no such thing as bad candidate with that kind of dough--only bad campaign managers.

Consider Arnold Schwarzenegger who began his challenge to Davis by shooting off his mouth in a most suicidal fashion. Had he not been literally smothered with protection from not one, but three, top Republican pros, he would be off selling Steroids and homoerotic snapshots to chumps.

Was the Lamont challenge catastrophic? Yes and no. Obviously, it not have been if we hadn't taken the risk. But no balls, no blue chips, so we shouldn't whine. The result would have been the same--a thin Democratic majority in the Senate. Some other borderline Democrat would be "in the catbird seat" flirting with the GOP.

The worst consequence is the Netroots got pie in the face. It happens. But we sure as hell should learn from it. Bad candidates like Arnold, Ciro and Ned need a very strong hand at the helm. A guy, or gal, with 20 or 30 campaigns in long-term memory can management the candidate, the candidate's wife, and the campaign.

Netroots activism. Big Bucks. And grey eminence at the helm. That's the ticket.

by stevehigh 2006-11-30 05:50AM | 0 recs
Traditional consultants wouldnt win the primary

There was room for improvement, obviously. But looking at the track record of people like Shrum, I fail to see how they would have done better. If Lamont lost the primary by the same percentage as he lost the general, it would have still been an accomplishment. That is how entrenched the system is.

What appears to have happened is Lamonts campaign suffered through fatigue and there was no great strategy in integrating fresh blood after the primary. The distrust factor probably played a part too considering the party establishment was sending mixed signals. For people like us, who didn't have to work hard on the campaign, some of the mistakes are obvious. But when you go through such a grind, and you are not getting genuine help from the establishment, things will be fucked up from time to time. Unfortunately, with the odds Lamont faced, he needed to run a top notch campaign from start to finish while Lieberman could afford to make mistakes in his campaign.  

by Pravin 2006-11-30 06:01AM | 0 recs
Twenty-six wins not so bad

The 0-8 "Shrum Curse" is at least partly urban mythology. Shrum's losses in presidential campaigns are the same ones anyone would have had. McGovern, Ted Kennedy, Mondale, Dukakis et al. Moreover, he declined an obvious victory when he walked off the 76 Carter campaign after discovering, correctly, that Carter was at least as conservative as Ford. Finally, the Clinton Campaign had their own: Carville-Begala.

The only other winners during this period were the retired Carter guys.

As for the Gore and Kerry losses, those might have been worse without Shrum. The untested assumption that they ran poor campaigns can only be supported by fantasy football.

Besides, we are talking, are we not, about a Senate campaign?

Since 1985, Mr. Shrum has conceived and produced advertising (T.V., radio, print) for twenty-six winning U.S. Senate campaigns.

Eight winning campaigns for Governor

The Mayors of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, Dade County and San Francisco, and the Democratic Leader of the United States House of Representatives, Tom Foley.

--NYU Wagner bio ail.php?whereField=facultyID&whereVa lue=324

Lamont needed an experienced hand at the wheel with Washington connections in the final weeks of the primary and during the general.

by stevehigh 2006-11-30 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Twenty-six wins not so bad

Lamont did need to integrate an experienced hand after the primary. But you give way too much importance to Shrum's impact. How many of those 26 wins were against 18 year or similar incumbents with no major scandal?

And what would have Shrum done to win over individual local party candidates such as Diane Farrell who were unwilling to create synergy with Lamont , or with some local leaders who actually campaigned for Lieberman, or some of the fireuions which stood strong with Lieberman, or NARAL which inexplicably sided with Lieberman over Lamont, or would have prevented Lieberman for being too comfortable with the reception he received from some of his fellow democrats?

The big time consultants did an awful job with Gore and Kerry. They had an easier task going against Bush either time than Lamont going against Lieberman. Just a year ago, it was considered unthinkable to even force a primary with Lieberman. We went from that to Lamont getting 40% in a general election in less than a year.

by Pravin 2006-11-30 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

I don't see McCain putting Lieberman on the ticket.  His base is already less than thrilled with him.  He's probably going to have to put a conservative party line Republican on the ticket to keep his base intact.  But than again this would be a dangerou ticket and maybe McCain would be willing to alienate his base after winning the primary since he won't need them anymore to win if he gets enough cross overs.  I wouldn't be surprised if this hypothetical gains a lot of traction during the primaries though and McCain is forced to rule it out then.

by blueryan 2006-11-29 10:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

The hypothetical is about McCain running as an independent.  I too doubt he would put a Democrat on the Republican ticket.  In 2004, he was tempted to join Kerry's ticket but in the end turned it down because he thought the "unity" ticket would be "too confusing" and be cause partisan strife on both sides.

by Vox Populi 2006-11-29 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

Actually, McCain turned it down because he'd rather run to the right and take the Republican ticket in 2008 than serve as VP for two terms in a Kerry administration that would probably be unpopular (because Kerry wouldn't have been able to immediately solve all the problems Bush created and would be pilloried in the media as a result).

Now it's obvious that the Republican money men have concluded McCAin is their only hope in 2008, so they are starting to clear the field for him.

Lieberman will have to hope that McCain loses and that he can run as an independent in 2012 because McCain isn't going to pick him as VP. He'd be rather old in 2012, but so was Reagan and it's unlikely his ego will have shrunk any by then.

by Cugel 2006-11-29 11:22AM | 0 recs
Get Real, Folks!

Remember Chris' post from yesterday about how the Progressive movement needs a political party?  So would McCain.  If he runs as a Republican, he isn't going to pick Lieberman as his running mate because there are too many Republicans who want the spot and it is the Republican party.  It is one thing to vote for or monetarily support Lieberman as a Senator, particularly to deliver a severe and disheartening blow to the netroots and Progressive movement and quite another to put him a heartbeat away from a 72 year old President who spent 7 years in a POW camp.

Second, Connecticut is smaller than the county I live in.   An 18-year incumbent can run an independent campaign in a small state, but two guys can't run a Presidential campaign all alone.  They could get money and some volunteers, but if it were all so easy, why do we need Howard Dean's 50-state strategy?  It takes a Party to win a Presidential election.  To do the work, raise the money, take possession of the voter files, organize the field operation etc.  Two guys, even with lots of money, can't do it, and the people supporting them aren't, for the most part, real activists.

And thirdly, there would be a Republican candidate.  A real one.  Not Alan Schlesinger, more like Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.  Either the R's pick McCain or they pick someone else; they don't just fold their tents for an electroal cycle and support McCain.  If they want him, they'll pick him.

Finally, take off the blinders.  Joe isn't that important.  He is an awful campaigner for President--remember?  Three-way tie for third?  And now he's 4 years older he's better?  The media would rather have Obama or Tester or Webb or McCaskill or some new face, not tired old Joe.

Lamont lost, but it isn't that cataclysmic, because Coinnecticut is just one small state; it is nowhere close to the US as a whole and a Presidential race is nothing like a Senate election in a tiny little state.

by Mimikatz 2006-11-29 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for

These bastards have drank the Neo-con Kool-aid, they would be very dangerous. Doesn't Lieberman want to attack Iran?

by Abraham Running For Congress When I Turn 25 2006-11-29 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for

As much as I despise Lieberman, he is not alone. Hillary has done nothing to calm down the "attack Iran" sentiment.

by Pravin 2006-11-30 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds

It's amazing what having Faux News on your side will do for your approval numbers.  Just. Amazing.  The clueless Faux News audience just gobbles this shit up.  They have put him up on a pedestal and now the rest of us have to endure his sanctimonius foolishness for the next two years.  

by IsThisOverYet 2006-11-29 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds

Very true, and also a good reason why it's important not to go overboard on the Lieberman thing right now. The base of the GOP is all warm and fuzzy about Joe right now because the GOP did a great job of making him a surrogate success story. But, that'll fade.

Joe has no national constituency beyond the Wise Men that Atrios is always going on about. He won in CT because of name recognition and the general popularity of a long-time incumbent. The voters of CT like the guy, they wanted to keep him, and he had the approval of a large part of the machine of the state. But he has neither the built-in popularity, nor the establishment support outside of the CT.

I think folks underestimate the power of long familiarity and overestimate the speed at which you can bring that kind of popularity down. Lieberman just was too entrenched to overcome in CT. That doesn't translate nationally very well.

by BriVT 2006-11-29 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

McCain-Lieberman is the sort of idiotic idea that the nodding heads always favor that has ZERO chance of happening in the real world.

Why? Because McCain is certainly NEVER going to pick Lieberman! What does Lieberman add to a McCain ticket? He'd help with independents and undecideds.

So what? That's already McCain's strength! He doesn't need more support among moderates and independents, he needs a solid Republican VP candidate who will shore up his base support.

There are lots of loyal Republican voters who will NOT be happy with a McCain candidacy. Their leaders will be telling them to vote McCain because he's the only chance to stop Hillary/Obama/Satan. But they won't be happy about it.

So, nominating a solid wing-nut as VP will help signal to the Republican base that it will be a continuation of the Bush administration!

We tend to forget on these boards that however unpopular Bush is with the rest of the country, he's still supported by the overwhelming majority of Republicans. They certainly didn't vote to "change course" in 2008! They want another 8 years of Bush!

If they're unhappy with Bush, it's because they think he "caved in" to Democrats on Iraq or immigration, not because he was wrong to begin with.

So, McCain makes them nervous and unhappy. They will swallow their anger and vote McCain, but picking a solid-Republican will help reassure them and that's what McCain will need.

If McCain were thinking of running as an independent Lieberman would be the only one who would make sense, but he's running as a Republican! So he needs more credibility with the wing-nuts.

by Cugel 2006-11-29 10:24AM | 0 recs
The media would love this ticket

The biggest threat from this ticket is that the media would go absolutely gaga over it. If you thought the coverage of Bush in 2000 and 2004 was hagiographic, believe me, you ain't seen nothing yet. Even the pretense of objective coverage would be thrown out the window, and all the stories would be about how the McCain/Lieberman ticket was "bringing our country together" and standing up against "those nasty, partisan Democrats." The media would pull out all the stops to get them elected, and it'd be really ugly for the Democrats.

by Angry White Democrat 2006-11-29 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

We got to start google bombing these "moderates" and "independents" with the truth, and we should start now.

by doughnutman 2006-11-29 10:29AM | 0 recs
What is the impact?

Just some thoughts!

I find this poll interesting, being based on how
we generally feel, but when looking at the percent in comparison to knowlege about the candidate it really changes things and with only a polling of 1,623 registered voters.  

Just the fact that they are registered voters tilts the outcome to me.  

"Quinnipiac University's quarterly reading of voter sentiment about national leaders"

"From November 13 - 19, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,623 registered voters nationwide. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.4 percentage points."

"They are well regarded and most Americans are quite familiar with them. Obama's showing is impressive, but four in 10 Americans still don't know enough about him to have an opinion." aseID=990

by dk2 2006-11-29 10:32AM | 0 recs
Changes in the dynamic don't help .....

.... McCain/Lieberman. McCain and Lieberman are closer to each other on economic and military issues. Where they differ significantly is on social issues.

This ticket cannot run on social issues. Period. They can't run a campaign in which they highlight their differences. They'll look like they don't stand for anything, or worse - that they don't have a sufficiently deep conviction in their respective social beliefs that they would rather run with someone who sees eye to eye with them on crucial questions like abortion, gay rights, etc....

Campaign season is about creating contrasts and regardless of what the voters say, they like contrast. Contrast = Choice. McCain/Lieberman cannot create a contrast on social issues. Strip away the social issues from this ticket and what have you got? A corporate ticket! If a real populist runs against this ticket, McCain/Lieberman will get a thumping like no other. Do you honestly think social conservatives will vote for an 72 year-old Republican if they knew that his demise would elevate a social liberal to the office? VP choices aren't important in themselves. They are only important in terms of what they say about the nominee. In this case it tells an already suspicious base that McCain cares so little about their issues that he's willing to put a social liberal on his ticket. This one's a non-starter or a doomed ticket. Don't fret.

by crazymoloch 2006-11-29 10:33AM | 0 recs
Ever wonder why these...

.... tickets are called dream tickets?

by crazymoloch 2006-11-29 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Changes in the dynamic don't help .....

True.  McCain has been working overtime trying to convince the wingnuts that he's a conservative christian.

I expect that within the next 6 months McCain will be 'reborn'  Complete with being dipped into a mercury laden lake.

by JJCPA 2006-11-29 10:47AM | 0 recs

   I really don't think that this unity ticket is going to happen.  But we should always be prepared to deal with fake moderates, who claim to be reformers.  They anger me more than the conservative Republicans who scream their hypocrisy from the rooftops.  This is one incontrovertible reason why a unity ticket will never work.  Lieberman is an egomaniac - he does not want to be vice president.  This is now below Holy Joe.  Does anyone think that the man who has his own party will play second fiddle to McCain?  No way this happens.  We have to prepare for McCain getting the Republican nomination, or for Lieberman running by himself as an independent.  Both would be dangerous for our chances in 2008.

by cilerder86 2006-11-29 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

It is not that far fetched. It appeaes the Unity Party will have a candidate probably Bloomberg possibly even someone else.

by robliberal 2006-11-29 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

What is the real purpose of the Unity Party? To throw the election to the GOP by taking votes away from a Clinton, Edwards, Gore, etc. ticket.

by robliberal 2006-11-29 10:48AM | 0 recs

   The egomania ticket would not win.  But they would steal most of their votes from Democrats and especially from the now Democrat-leaning independents.  It might be enough to throw the election to a Christian Dominionist/Fascist Republican ticket.  The most likely outcome is that none of the three tickets would get the majority of the electoral votes.  In any case, we need to discredit these losers now.

by cilerder86 2006-11-29 10:58AM | 0 recs
Not necessarily.

Why wouldn't a McCain-Lieberman Ind. ticket pull at least as many (if not more) GOP voters away as Dem. voters?  Both are ultra-hawks on Iraq--McCain wants to send in even more troops--and the war is increasingly unpopular not only with Dems but with Inds.  "Reformer" credentials or not, if we're still in Iraq in 11/08 (more likely than not at the moment), I don't see too many of the voters who went Dem in '06 switching to a ticket that not only wants to "stay the course" but double down with the lives of other people's sons and daughters.

by lonemorriscodem 2006-11-29 11:33AM | 0 recs
four letter words

like "Iraq"

... also, it seems to me that if some combination of McCain/Leiberman/Bloomberg were to run together, the operative question would be, for which party's nomination? I'm fairly sure the netroots can beat them in a Democratic primary, so the question is, Republican, or Independent?  If Independent, then our candidate has to worry about garnering maybe 40% of the national vote, and our task becomes debunking their reformer image within the Democratic base - a fairly easy thing for the netroots to do.

If the "Unity" ticket runs under the Republican label, there's a lot more to worry about.  On the other hand, it's not clear to me that any of those guys could survive a Republican primary.

by Shai Sachs 2006-11-29 10:59AM | 0 recs
Iraq will still matter

I don't think much of these "favorability" ratings. At this stage, they are like the straw polls, they are about name recognition. The pro-war candidates are going to sink as Iraq deteriorates. Their positions will be even more thoroughly discredited. And their big push to start anothe war with Iran will not make them more attractive. So this thread is so speculative it's not even worth blogging about. The only thing that changes the equation is if Iraq and war are no longer issues. I think that's unlikely.

by cmpnwtr 2006-11-29 11:18AM | 0 recs
m/l ticket
I brought this up several times on various site since Nov. 7th and it generated little interest - It is good that it is starting to register - Both of these creeps are loved by the MSM and Fox drools over joe. It will happen. There will be all sorts of fake drama at convention time (will he or won't he ? Oh the excitement!) then joe will humbly accept his friend's outstreched hand as he (again) ascends to vp martyrdom (yes, that's the way he will play it. Good of the country and all that, and if they lose, well, he will still be the 'decider' senator). And which dem is going to nail him? after all the hugs and kisses on his return to the senate?
And most unbelievably, lieberman will get a pass on Iraq, because, "After all", he'll say "most of the country got it wrong, too. But we meant well."
by john in california 2006-11-29 11:32AM | 0 recs
Be Much More Sensible To Worry About the Bird Flu

pandemic killing most humans on earth or even an asteroid hitting the earth than a McCain/Lieberman ticket.  Even the asteroid is much more likely.

Bloomberg may be a grave threat.  Even Bloomberg/Gropinator, if they could overcome the constitutional problem - which some have speculated is possible.

But McCain/Lieberman?  A farce.

It is always good to do the right thing.  Opposing Joe Lieberman was the right thing to do.  That sucker is no longer a threat no matter what the polls say.  His presidential run was a joke and things ain't got no better.  

McCain is politically suicidal.  Proves it over and over kissing up to the lunatic right, talking about sending more troops to Iraq.  

NASA is planning on doing something about that asteroid.  The rest will take care of itself.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-29 11:43AM | 0 recs
Anybody think that a serious Indy bid is possible?

I have a hard time envisioning that a strong Independent/Unity presidential bid would be possible, but then again I've been surprised by plenty of things before.

If it did happen, I thing a Lieberman/Bloomberg ticket might be a possibility.

by LSdemocrat1 2006-11-29 11:46AM | 0 recs
You guys are forgetting something

Joe Lieberman won because of Republican support...Ned Lamont beat him among Democrats two times.

That new Q-poll is nothing more than garbage. I would love to see Joe make a run at the big spot in '08...I'll be more than happy to report on all the dirty tricks he pulled during the campaign (race baiting flyers, 387K in petty cash, Richard Goodstein attacking Lamont at Ted's in Meriden, Lieberman's numerous lies).

Ned showed that you shouldn't be afriad to take a DINO like Lieberman on. Everyone knew Lamont's crusade to take Joe down was going to be an uphill battle but if the Democratic Party would have simply showed more courage to take on Joe, the outcome could have been different.

It's easy, any Democrat who disagrees with Joe should take him on at FULL FORCE. Chellenging him head on is the only way to take Joe's that simple.

A McCain/Lieberman ticket doesn't stand a chance.

by ctblogger 2006-11-29 11:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

The first thing is to try to rid the nation of the notion that John McCain and Joe Lieberman are moderate mavericks. Pictures speak a thousand words, we need online kiss floats. A g**gleb*mb project for 2008 would do well to start with those two (and Rudy Guiliani).

by ltsply2 2006-11-29 11:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

Pass bills in the Senate, make it inevitable that we increase our majority in the Senate - then see if Lieberman will continue his tack to the right. He won't be so chipper when his two years are up and the Democrats have a solid majority.

by ariely 2006-11-29 11:57AM | 0 recs
CT-Sen '06 will not repeat in '08

If McCain runs for the GOP nomination and then bolts for Unity '08 I think it's unlikely the dynamics of CT-Sen '06 will play out again.  The GOP will not nominate a cupcake and support McCain, but rather will do everything they can to ruin him as a sore loser traitor and, despite the Broderite bukkake, the GOP still owns enough of the noise machine to do some Swift Boating damage.  Unity '08 will not have a three time prior history of winning the electorate; It won't have long time patronage allegiance and/or well-tested GOTV; It will not be facing novice candidates with no statewide/national experience.

It's possible the right combination of events and bad nominations from the Dems and the GOP could put the right Unity '08 ticket over the top, but my guess it will be quite different from CT senate race.

by Steve in Sacto 2006-11-29 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

You can't run a campaign without a party.  See my comment above.  Even a rich guy can't buy an organization and volunteers off the shelf.  The people behind this aren't going to do the work, and I can't see Bloombertg getting an army of excited volunteers like Dean did.

by Mimikatz 2006-11-29 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

The Unity Party would not even need all that to throw the elections to the GOP. If they could pull 5, 10, 15% of the votes in some states they could change those states from our nominee (Clinton, Gore, Edwards, etc.) to the GOP (Romney, McCain, Rudy, etc.). What puzzles me about the Unity Party is you have both Democrats and Republicans behind the formation of it. What is the real purpose of it?

Another possibility no one has mentioned is that a losing Democratic candidate could also end up as the Unity Party nominee if it is not McCain or Bloomberg. I am not saying they would but hypothetically what if Clinton is the Democratic nominee and Edwards went the Unity Party route, what if Edwards is the nominee and Clinton went Unity Party, etc. What if someone who does not run in the primaries at all decides they would agree to it?

If an evangelical right wing extremist ticket such as Roy Moore/Tancadero gets on the ticket it would possibly balance out any damage that might be done. If we somehow end up one or two major third party candidates in 2008 we are in for a real mess. My fear is that could put the neo-cons back in power for 8 more years.  

by robliberal 2006-11-29 12:38PM | 0 recs
m/l Ticket

Joe won because a lot of indies and 30% of dem voted for him - That what he and McCain are counting on - McCain will get the Repub nomination as long as he kisses the Falwell ring and says he won't appoint an activist judge - Niether Gulianni or Bloomberg can get past them and niether can a mormon - Frist is out - They will swallow McCain rather than lose all power - And the christian right loves joe - He's observant, disparges Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and stuck w/ bush - They will get behind this ticket, and so will a lot of big money.

by john in california 2006-11-29 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Thermometer Adds Support for McCain-Lieberman

Could McCain/Lieberman be defeated nationally due to their views on Iraq?

by CountMippipopolous 2006-11-29 01:12PM | 0 recs
Please, what is the scenario????

Can the author, Stoller, please specify what scenario he has in mind here?

Scenario 1): McCain loses GOP nomination and hooks up w/ Lieberman on Unity08 ticket.
Scenario 2) McCain wins GOP nomination and chooses Lieberman as running mate (with a and b scenarios having Lieberman switch parties or not, I guess)
Scenario 3): McCain never runs for GOP nomination, goes straight to Unity08 deal (not happening).

This is frustrating in the extreme, having a thread like this and one last week about Whittman as Lieberman communication director from several sites (Washington Note was one I remember), and not one of these prominent bloggers actually outlines the scenario.

The post then gets commented on based on different assumptions in different commenters' heads.

The dream ticket appears out of thin air?

by demondeac 2006-11-29 05:33PM | 0 recs
Good Question

McCain-Lieberman in a third party challenge? That would be a gift from god. Like TR, this bull moose might push the GOP into third place. Woodrow Wilson, as you will recall, did quite well that year.

Against a fractured GOP, Hillary would wipe the street with the three of them. Gore, Kerry, Edwards or Obama would do the same.

McCain-Lieberman with the Dem or Rep nomination? Yes, that's scary. But one would have switch party, and both have declined to do so when offered the chance.

by stevehigh 2006-11-30 05:55AM | 0 recs
Lieberman's numbers

Holy Joe is a national figure and has been since 2000. He had an early lead for president in 2003 based on that recognition.

He has recently benefited from a wave of national publicity that had the net effect of portraying him as both a moderate--like most of the population--and a winner.

Because of his base of recognition, it is not surprising that his well-publicized "comeback kid" victory has pushed him up toward the top in favorability ratings.

The people padding Lieberman's numbers are not at all like people on this board; they don't know or give a rat's ass about the 2008 election during the middle of the 2006 Christmas shopping season.

They only expressed an opinion about Lieberman (or John Kerry, et al) because someone asked them.

I think the Lamont challenge, though unsuccessful, served warning to conservative incumbents--especially in blue states--that they might face a serious primary challenge if they consistently ignore the wishes of their liberal constituencies.  

Joe Lieberman pulled off a hat trick, made possible by his deep roots in CT, his national reputation, and above all by an astonishingly weak GOP incumbent. Few reasonable politicians will imagine that they can easily win re-election if they face a similar Netroots/Rich Guy challenge. Even a failed primary assault would likely leave them bloodied and weak against a typical GOP challenger.

Lieberman's high numbers and Kerry's low ones will move closer together, perhaps even flip-flop.

Why? Because of an iron law of politics: You're never as good as they say you are when they say you're good, and you're never as bad as they say you are when they say you're bad.

Fortunately for our side, Holy Joe's ego is as big as all outdoors. Believing his own press clippings got him where he is today: a putz who got lucky. How many incumbent senators drew a GOP guy who went gambling in a Groucho mask.

I give Holy Joe this much credit: He fought like a shithouse rat. But it's better to be lucky than smart, and the bitch goddess Fortuna will soon be blowing on some other guy's dice.

by stevehigh 2006-11-30 05:29AM | 0 recs
Need to paint Lieberman as an idiot

We were unable to convince the vast majority that Lieberman is an extremist when it comes to the middle east. What we can do is paint him as a fool. Compile all his statements together, his track record in supporting Bush appointees like Michael Brown and Chertoff. Other contradictory statements. Marginalise the fucker. REPEAT. REPETITION is the key . Keep saying the same stuff long enough and it will seep in at some point into the mainstream. That is what the right wingers do.

by Pravin 2006-11-30 06:06AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads