Exit Poll: Lieberman's Defeat Was About Bush, NOT the Iraq War

By: Lowell
Published On: 8/9/2006 10:01:33 PM

Courtesy of Salon Magazine and a CBS/New York Times exit poll from yesterday's primary in Connecticut, it turns out that "only 60 percent [of Iraq war opponents] cast their votes for Lamont, which means that 40 percent of war opponents voted for Lieberman."  According to Salon:

...a more significant factor than the Iraq war was opposition to President Bush generally. Fifty-nine percent of all voters said that Lieberman "was too close to the President," and although no exact numbers are provided, it was that group which "voted overwhelmingly for Lamont." The most reliable factor in the Lamont win seems to have been not opposition to the war specifically, but a more generalized disapproval of President Bush and of Lieberman's support for the president.

In other words, even if you buy the Rove/Bush b.s. that opposition to the Iraq War means you're somehow "weak" (yeah, heckuva job by the Bush Administration on the whole Iraq situation and the "war on terror" in general - VERY strong!), it's simply not true that the vast majority of Democrats yesterday were voting against the pro-Iraq War candidate.  No, it's much simpler than that:  Democrats detest Dubya and his Democratic enablers.

By the way, my favorite line from yesterday comes from Rep. Rahm Emanuel, head of the DCCC (and one of the sharpest minds in American politics), who said of Lieberman's defeat:

+óGé¼+ôThis shows what blind loyalty to George Bush and being his love child means. his is not about the war. It+óGé¼Gäós blind loyalty to Bush.

And my least favorite line from yesterday comes from Joementum, who said:

The old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand.

Seriously, I'm not making up this sanctimonious claptrap.  Uh Joe?  It's called D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y, maybe you've heard of it?  Also known as an E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N, one that you L-O-S-T?  Ee gads.

Lowell Feld is Netroots Coordinator for the Jim Webb for US Senate Campaign.  The ideas expressed here belong to Lowell Feld alone, and do not necessarily represent those of Jim Webb, his advisors, staff, or supporters.

Comments



No prize for 2nd place (Josh - 8/9/2006 11:40:46 PM)
Wasn't it Joe who famously said there's no prize for 2nd place in American politics?

How desperate must Joe be.  I know he's a nice guy, but he's gotten himself in bed with one of the most failed and hated politicans in American history.  Is 3 months of degredation and cutting the Democratic Party off at the knees his version of a cupie doll?

How pitiful, and what an insult to Democrats and Democracy.



Joe with Chris Wallace (1994) (Mark - 8/10/2006 2:51:02 AM)
Lieberman speaking to Chris Wallace in Nov 2004:

  LIEBERMAN: ... In the end, my own feeling is, looking at the polls, but intuiting, based on people I talk to, is that, although Senator Kerry got a lot of votes, 56 million votes, more than any Democratic candidate for president in history, but there's no prizes for second place in American politics.



That Should have been 2004 n/t (Mark - 8/10/2006 3:01:49 AM)


have faith in Joe to do the right thing (davebain - 8/10/2006 1:19:39 AM)
Joe will do the right thing, but not until he sees the new polls with his own eyes. One can hope that this business of running as an independent was just a ploy to coerce Dem primary voters who feared the loss of his seat in a 3-way race. He may never admit it was a bluff, but I expect he will back down when two things happen 1) enough time has passed for everyone to cool off and to give plausible deniability to his threat of running indie having been just a primary campaign tactic, and 2) Mark Warner calls him and offers him a good position in the new administration (hhmmmmm).

One thing could not be more certain: his previous service should be considered relevant still, but it simply isn't; whether he is remembered by history as a spoiler /sore loserman or an able leader depends completely on just this defining moment. If he waits too long to pull the plug on this independent run folly, he risks being eternally too controversial a figure to even get a decent public speaking engagement outside of synagogues.

Joe has earned my respect through his lifetime of service. Let's give him the opportunity to bow out of this race and move on to other challenges in a dignified manner.



Joe is delusional (mosquitopest - 8/10/2006 5:22:55 AM)
Joe is delusional and needs a reality check.

His rationalizations are killing me...and unfortunately he could negatively impact alot of folks in November.

I think Joe needs to get down to earth and realize that there are some things more important than Joe.

Buzz Buzz



Why didn't this jerk, er, I mean Joe fight like this in 2000? (Doug Garnett-Deakin - 8/10/2006 6:36:47 AM)
I remember a contest where he DID get a majority of votes and he backed down with the establishment. Where was his rhetoric then? Where was his fight then? Pah, why isn't that brought up more in the media? I can't write here how sad and angry he makes me. Just think of him folding in 2000 in a real fight.