With the release yesterday of the latest Quinnipiac Poll, which shows Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman trailing challenger Ned Lamont in next Tuesday's Democratic primary by a prohibitive 54 percent to 41 percent margin, we now have some hard numbers to add to what's been the growing impression of many political observers for the past several weeks: Joe Lieberman isn't just going to lose the election, he's going to get clobbered.
With the release yesterday of the latest Quinnipiac Poll, which shows Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman trailing challenger Ned Lamont in next Tuesday's Democratic primary by a prohibitive 54 percent to 41 percent margin, we now have some hard numbers to add to what's been the growing impression of many political observers for the past several weeks: Joe Lieberman isn't just going to lose the election, he's going to get clobbered.
Joementum is running backwards in Connecticut. When Quinnipiac polled in early June, Lieberman held a 15 point edge. In its poll of July 20, however, Lamont had pulled into a four-point lead. Now, he's up by 14.
Which, as events would have it, is the identical figure as the percentage of voters who say they haven't yet made up their minds. Most Connecticut Democrats have made their choice, which is against the war in Iraq and, accordingly, against Joe Lieberman.
The voters rejecting Lieberman are nothing if not principled. It's not that they personally dislike Joe -- his approval rating among Connecticut Dems is still more favorable than unfavorable, though by a narrow margin. The main reason Lamont supporters are voting for Lamont is clearly Lieberman's support for the war. Fully 44 percent of Lamont voters cite it in the new poll as their main reason for backing Lamont; 94 percent cite is as one of their reasons.
So Lieberman isn't losing because a blogger lurks behind every tree in Connecticut's bosky dells. He is losing because Connecticut Democrats, like Democrats everywhere, have had enough of the war in Iraq, and because they have the one and only Democratic senator who's put himself on record not merely in favor of the war but in opposition to those who would criticize -- or, as Lieberman would say, undermine -- the president for his initiation and conduct of that war.
Many of my fellow pundits read all kinds of sinister meanings into Lieberman's pending defeat, including a purge of moderates from Democratic ranks. But, as Michael Tomasky demonstrated a couple of days ago, the moderate forces within the Democrats' Senate delegation are still very much alive and well. Next Tuesday, in fact, Connecticut Democrats will be doing exactly what small-d democratic theorists would have them do: decide an election by opting for one clear policy alternative, as personified by one candidate, over another personified by the incumbent.
From a big-D Democratic perspective, Connecticut's Democrats are doing what Democrats are hoping a clear majority of voters everywhere will do this November: reject incumbents who have supported the failed policies of this administration, the war most particularly. Far from being some kind of martyr to the fickleness of Democratic voters, Joe Lieberman has actually turned himself into one of the first victims of the popular groundswell against Bush and his war.
The question is, why would any influential Democrat choose to support Lieberman's independent bid to maintain his seat, which the senator has said he'll wage if loses the primary? By late Tuesday night, Lieberman will not only be the party's foremost outlier on the question of the war. He will also likely be the rejected incumbent of an overwhelming majority of his state's Democrats. For any prominent Democrat to continue to support Lieberman under those conditions is to tell the party rank-and-file that its votes don't matter when they dethrone the longtime friends or associates of Democratic higher-ups.
A Lieberman independent candidacy, moreover, could also put Connecticut in play in November, setting up a three-way race in a state that Lamont, based on his momentum, his favorability rating, and his embodiment of the overall sentiments of state voters, would likely win in a two-way contest. Republicans may see an opportunity to wage more of a campaign against Lamont, or Lamont and Lieberman, than they would had Lieberman run unopposed. But the only way the Republicans would even have a shot in Connecticut, a deeply anti-Bush state, is if Lieberman wages a three-way race. Even if they don't have a shot, a three-way race still complicates the overall strategic picture for the national party, extending into the fall an intra-party debate that Connecticut Democrats are entitled to have settled next Tuesday.
So the real question here is for Lieberman himself, who protests that he will remain a Democrat come what may, and a loyal member of the Senate caucus if he's re-elected as an independent in November. First, I think it's likely that if he opts to keep running, he'll lose again. A strong primary victory by Lamont will give the challenger both the legitimacy and momentum to carry the state in November whether or not Lieberman is on the ballot. For that matter, any number of Lieberman's Democratic supporters are likely to take the primary result seriously if Lamont wins it handily. If Lieberman runs as the overwhelming rejectee of his party, he can count on his support from all wings of that party to dwindle to a hard core -- and not a very large core at that -- of Liebermaniacs.
But putting aside the prospect of inflicting a double defeat upon himself, Lieberman should understand that he also threatens his own political legacy by opting to run as an independent. His protestations that he still identifies with the Democrats and cares for their cause will be mocked by every word he utters and move he makes as an independent candidate. If he loses by a margin as large as the current polling indicates, his continued candidacy will surely affront his fellow state Democrats, and pose an otherwise avoidable problem to the national Democrats he still claims to support. With the party focusing all its energies on gaining control of the House and Senate this November, and with Connecticut Democrats poised to gain one to three House seats in Connecticut, one thing the Democrats don't need is the Lieberman-vs.-Democrats game continuing into overtime as November approaches. The game's over, Joe. The party needs to focus its attention on picking up seats this fall.
Joe Lieberman can go out with class. Or he can go down as the guy whose last act in electoral politics was a spoiler. The choice is entirely his.
Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of The American Prospect.
