Politics Thread of the DayFollow

Damn Ioph, bored much?

In the games arena, many people are quite happy since he's considered to be one of the more vocal anti-game senators. Of course, most people have no clue where Lamont stands on the issue, but then again with the potential voting being very much split up, it's anyone's guess as to who will win- Joe going independent means that (most likely) that the Dem vote up there will be split, giving grounds for a republican upset. But, it might also give Pro-Joe pubbies in the area to vote for him, since he's no longer running as a democrat. Who knows?

Yes. Yes, I am.I don't see too much risk of that. If anything, the few CT Republicans would probably be better off voting for an independent Lieberman than the Republican nominee.

Lieberman's big problem was his suggested closeness to Bush, especially on the issue of Iraq. From what I've heard, the Republican response will be to say "See how far left those wacko liberals are? They voted for that cut & run Lamont guy!". But, at present, 60% of the American people are opposed to the war. Wanting to bring the boys home is a mainstream feeling these days, not a fringe idea.

I'm not aware of many Republicans either who are opposed to bringing the boys home. It's just of question of how (which of course translates into when).

I love how the talking heads are all saying that this is a sign of the direction the Democrats will be taking in the next presidential election. Yeah, an ultra-angry anti-war stance, harping incessantly about Bush failures and what's wrong with the world. Haven't tried that one yet!

Lieberman will win as an independent easily. The republican nominee has all but thrown in the towel so as to not pull votes away from Lieberman.

Yup. CT is such a hard core blue state that a talking monkey could win the election as long as he's not a Republican talking monkey. Lieberman likely will win the general election if/when he runs as an independant.



There's certainly some of that coming from some commentators, I don't think that's representative of the conservative response to this. It's more of a "see how a small but vocal group of far left wackos can hurt the Dem party more then we ever could?". It's taken more as an indication of the split inside the Dem party over this issue, then any idea that the party as a whole is moving left. The vocal minority is, and that's polarizing issues, not only between Republlicans and Democrats, but within the Democrat party itself. It's taken as an indication that this minority will push moderate Democrats off the ticket where and when they can, which IMO will hurt Dem chances at winning seats in the general election in the long run.



Sure. When you put it in that broad a term, you're correct. But people "wanted to bring the boys home" back in WW2. That didn't mean that they supported a plan to withdraw halfway through the war though. You can't take a large number opposing something in a poll to automatically translate into a large number supporting a position in opposition to that thing. 60% opposing the war does not mean 60% supporting a candidate who opposes the war.

I think it's critical that people understand this. It's that flaw in logic that is convincing those vocal people on the far left that they've got far more support then they really do. Of course you'll get lots of people who'll say that they want to see our troops come home and an end to fighting. But when you start breaking down the particulars, most do not want that to happen without some form of "victory".

That fringe can win a Dem primary in CT purely on their opposition to the war. But they cannot *win* a general election on that alone. I'm going to say the same thing I said back in 2004, and for much the same reasons. I think a lot of Liberal analysts will be unhappily surprised by the results this November. I think they are looking at the polls and the surveys and the language of their "side" and thinking they've got a lot more support then they really do and are not going to win back nearly as many seats as they think they are. In fact, I would not be surprised at all if the Republicans increase their seats during this election.

Of course, if that happens, it'll be blamed on voting machines and fraud. After all, their survey and polling analysis can't just plain be wrong, now can it?

57% want a timetable to withdraw. 61% want at least some withdrawl before year's end. 60% oppose the war and 62% oppose Bush's handling of the war.

This isn't some nebulous "Gee, it'd be nice if we could bring the boys home" thought -- it's people saying that they oppose the war, they want a plan to get us out and they want us at least partially out before the new year.

If you want to try to spin that into something besides "opposition to the war is mainstream", knock yourself out. Try to provide some numbers though instead of your own guesses, assertations and conjectures.

And everyone's definition of "withdrawal" means the exact same thing, right? Everyone's use of the term will exactly fit into any specific political plan for such a withdrawal, right? Wrong. That's the illogic I'm trying to point out here. That 57% or 61% are all in agreement on a very broad idea. But it's when a politician proposes a specific plan of action that those people will realize just how not in agreement they are on the particulars.

You parrot the poll number, yet overwhelmingly, every single time a politician (like Murtha for example) has proposed an actual plan for withdrawal and an actual setting of a timetable, it's been massively opposed both in Congress and by the people. As I've been saying all along. Polling people about whether they want our troops to withdraw or have a timetable for withdrawal is *not* equivalent to "do you support Murtha's withdrawal plan?". Not surprisingly, the apparent massive support for such a thing disappates when an actual plan is drawn up and proposed.

That fact should be a wake up call to Democrats. That's what I've been trying to say. Because a general election is very much like the more specific question I just mentioned in that last paragraph. And, just as in the difference in numbers between the broad "do you want withdrawal?" and "do you support this particular withdrawal plan run by this particular person?", you'll also see a difference in numbers between support numbers for "anyone but a Republican" and "This particular opponent to that particular Republican".




How much of that 60% oppose the war because they don't agree with the way Bush is handling it though? More to the point, how many oppose it because they don't think Bush is being "strong enough", rather then that we're there at all, or we haven't withdrawn yet?

Again. You can't say specifically why any of those people picked that position in the poll. And once again you're effectively comparing the war and Bush's handling of the war to an ideal alternative. Once a person or plan actually steps up and presents itself as an alternative course of action rather then just a vague "we should do something else!", the numbers will change dramatically.

They always do. But it seems like those on the left place way too much value in poll numbers and spend much to much time trying to use polling numbers to imply support for them, when the polls don't actualy do that at all. I'll say it again. You cannot translate a negative view for one "side" into a positive view toward the other. Despite the fact that this might seem like reasonable logic, it's really not.

I *really* do think that the Dems are in for a shock this November. I could be wrong, but I'm getting the same vibe I got in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Dems hyping issues they think Republicans are doing poorly on. News agencies taking that hype and presenting that as support for Dems. Dems taking those reports and smuggly being sure of victory. And then when the votes are counted... Defeat followed by confusion over how it could happen, and finger pointing about fraud and such.

Echo chambers make things appear to be going your way and makes it look like everyone is on your side and supporting your "cause", and the more you keep blasting away on it, the more it seems to be true. But those things, while they do impact polls, and surveys, and news coverate (which are all based on how things "appear"), then don't really affect how people vote that much. I just think that the Dems have been making the same mistakes over and over. I said more or less this exact thing right after the 2004 elections. No one believed me. That's fine. But I'm seeing the same patterns again. We'll see what happens.



The polls don't really mean that. They really don't. They're just answers given to questions. People don't think long and hard about poll questions. They simply answer them. And many of them answer them based on what they've seen or heard being talked about in the news. That's where the echo chamber effect occurs.

When people vote, they tend to either vote their party (which tends to prevent short term issues like the War from affecting them), or they vote based on a whole gambit of issues that they've considered (of which the war is just one), or they vote for the person based on a "gut feeling" regardless of party or platform. None of those are going to directly reflect the results of this poll and this poll alone.


It's funny because this reminds me a heck of a lot to a Zogby poll that Smash linked and crowed about during the weeks prior to the 2004 election. The poll showed that "the economy" was the single most cared about issue among likely voters. Well. Smash knew (as apparently all Liberals do) that the Dems are "strong on the economy", so this surely meant a victory for Kerry and total defeat for Bush. I argued first that the poll was pretty skewed (and it was), but also that he was still looking at one issue and assuming that this one issue's responses meant support for Democrats. I argued for quite some time that he could not take a large number of people polling about the economy to mean support for Democrats, much less Kerry in particular. And hey! I was right. Imagine that...

You're making the same mistake. Assuming that opposition to the war automatically means support for another specific alternative. But at the end of the day, you don't mark on a ballot the guy you don't want in office. You mark the guy you *do*. You don't agree with a plan to disagree with someone else's plan. You agree with someone else's actual plan. And those are totally different things...

Can I ask when the last time an independent won a seat in a general election, has it ever happened?

Do you think a McCain/Lieberman could start a viable third party in American policitics if they so choose?

Every sane person on the planet is opposed to war. No, he did not discredit that statement, but it doesn't make what he said wrong. I do think the dems are in for a "shock", although I think the republicans are in greater need of one.

But Lieberman was dumped because he didn't oppose the war. A war he voted for. So basically he's being pushed out of the Dem party because he's not willing to backpedal on something. Something that should be a sign of integrity is apparently not acceptable within the Dem party in CT. *That's* what's going to make moderate voters concerned. Because if Joe Lieberaman, who's quite a bit left of moderate on most things, can get dumped from the Dem ticket purely for disagreeing on one issue, then what hope do moderates have that the Dem party will do anything for them?

I just think you're misunderstanding the issue. It's not really about how many people oppose or support the war. It's about how many people think that voting out a politician purely because of his position on the war is a good thing. It's about whether a party can allow people with differing views within itself. Lots of Republicans support the war. Lots of them don't. But we don't see them being bashed by other Republicans one way or the other for it. Ok. Maybe some conservative commentators may bash away, but we don't see Republican voters following them and voting out anyone who doesn't follow what they want.





Sigh. Sure. But voting out one of your most senior party members becuase he disagrees with you on the war *is* fringe. You're talking about numbers. But what I've been trying to say all along is that it's not about the numbers, but the degree. The polls don't show that. They use carefully worded questions to capture anyone who has *any* opposition to the war, or wants *any* withdrawal of troops. It doesn't ask a question like "Would you dump a politician that supports 90% of your views purely because he disagrees with you on the war?"

Ok. Actually, they did (sorta). And the results were 29% would be more likely to vote for that person, 38% would be less likely, and for 39% it wouldn't make any difference. Um... That means that for the "middle" Joe Lieberman's support should be pretty much a wash. And in the opinion of American's as a whole it *is* a wash. But for Dems in CT, it's such a huge deal that they tossed him out despite having a massively high Dem voting record. The poll was generic in terms of the member of Congress. One would think that having 90% Dem voting record would/should shift those numbers a bit into the "wouldn't matter" range.


So yeah. That's fringe Joph. And that's going to push the middle away from the Dem party. Guaranteed.

Edited, Aug 10th 2006 at 10:05pm EDT by gbaji

Well. There were 9 in 2005. One can only assume the number has increased in the year since then.

I don't know for sure. But then that's the point, right? I *don't* know. Because no one in the Republican party really make that big of an issue over it, one way or the other. Certainly, we don't demonize our members because of their position on the issue.



Um... Which is *exactly* why Lieberman was dumped. His support for Bush with regards to the war in Iraq. In fact, I'd bet that particular poll question was asked specifically because of Lieberman (it's not like this issue wasn't known before recently).



That's not the issue. Even by the "generic member of congress" numbers, the act is pretty far off the middle. What this means is that those numbers don't run across party lines. They run with them. That 38% presumably represents almost all Democrat voters in that poll. The 29% likely represent mostly Republican voters. The 38% represents "the middle".

It's the massive tilting on this issue that is the problem. And before you go there, I'll freely admit that much of it is perspective. After all, presumably the "more likely to vote" range is just as far off the middle, as the "less likely" catagory, right? The difference being that you're not going to see that in either a primary or general election. If someone is more likely to vote for an incumbant that voted for and still supports the war, you wont see this as a shift or an upset. And the general election is going to play out along the broader public (and presumably represent a wash as the poll would indicate). But in the Dem party primary, that 38% number just put a huge billboard up advertising their presence. Because dumping an otherwise well supported and liked incumbant over that issue and that one issue alone is pretty obvious.

That's why it'll be seen as the Left pushing the middle out of the Dem party.



Again. Not the issue. You'd need to show that Lamont somehow was *better* on those other issues. Normally, an incumbant isn't going to be unseated in his own primary unless there's something *huge* that makes someone else more desirable. What this tells the rest of the world is that at least in CT, Dem voters believe that the one issue of support on the war outweighs all other's.

And that's "fringe". Again. It's not about the position on the war itself. It's about the action to toss out an incumbant over that one issue. It's about the degree of opposition to the war, and how far one is willing to go to express that opposition. This tells moderate voters that the voters in CT will go quite far in their opposition. And that's going to scare a lot of moderates away. Even if it's just perception, it's still going to do some damage.

Well, yeah. that *is* the point. You made a statement of fact and I asked you to back it up No, I don't. If I can assume that both are identical on their stances on topic X, Y & Z then those topics are largely moot when deciding between the two.

The one major difference between the two was their position on the war. Aside from that, you're voting for the same guy. You just said that Lieberman was "left of center" on most issues. So is Lamont. According to his website, Lamont says he's for civil unions. He's pro-choice. He's against school privatization, for universal health care and believes in comprehensive immigration reform.

What exactly am I losing by voting for Lamont that I'd be gaining with Lieberman except issues involving the war? It's not to the exclusion of all others, it's because all the others are effectively the same regardless of who's in office. Explain to me these other issues that I'm somehow short-shifting by making the war my deciding factor between two Democratic candidates.

Um... That's the issue here. Lieberman dared to *not* toe the party line on one issue. He got dumped in the primary by his own party voters for that. Lamont did not win because he's an "outside the party" thinker. Exactly the opposite in fact. Of course, that does assume that "opposing the war to the exclusion of all other things" is now the Democrat party line. But if it's not, then you do have a fringe element effectively hurting the Dem party from within. If it is, then you've got the Dem "party line" moving away from the middle.


Either option hurts Dems with moderate voters. Period.


And I really think it goes beyond that. It's not like Lieberman was shoving his nose up Bush's butt or anything. He simply chose to *not* take part in the partisan attacks on Bush, and chose to stand up for his own decisions regarding the war (ie: not backpedaling on the issue). That's what got him in hot water with the moveon.orgers. And that's what cost him the primary election.


Oh. And Joph? Do you *know* what Lamont's record is in terms of hitting other Dem party issues? I don't. You implied earlier that you didn't either. But your arguement only works if we assume that he is just as inline with the party as Lieberman was on all other issues (with the exception of the war). Given that Lieberman has one of if not the highest rating in terms of Democrat party voting, that's pretty darn unlikely.


We can debate this all day long, but at the end of the day a long term member of Congress who was the Democrat party candidate for VP just 6 years ago has been defeated in a primary election. That's virtually unheard of in politics. If you don't think that represents a significant shift in position within the party and/or a significant hi-jacking of the party, I just don't know what else to say. It's not like he suffered a scandal. He simply held a political opinion. And not even one that's unheard of among Democrat's in Congress. Again. If you don't think this doesn't sent a message to other Dems, you've really got your head stuck in the sand. It says loud and clear: "Don't cross the party line, or we'll Lieberman you!".


And just to follow tradition: What you just saw with Lieberman is the political equivalent of the brownshirts in the back of the room, removing anyone who doesn't fit in well enough. Yeah. I'd be worried. ;)