August 4, 2006

WHO'LL THEY HATE NEXT?:

Lieberman More Popular With Republicans Than Democrats: Favorable image dips further among Democrats (Lydia Saad, 8/04/06, GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

has faced mounting difficulties among fellow Democrats in his home state of Connecticut over his pro-Iraq war stance, possibly culminating in his defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary election for his seat that takes place on Tuesday. Local polling suggests he may very well lose that election to ardently anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. Although many pundits insist all politics is local, new Gallup polling shows that Lieberman's reputation has been sinking among Democrats nationally, not just among those from his home state.

The latest USA Today/Gallup poll finds Lieberman with the worst ratings from Democrats nationally since Gallup first measured his image in 2000. As a result, he is now more popular with Republicans than with supporters of his own party. Among Republicans and Republican "leaners," a plurality of 46% view Lieberman favorably, while 27% view him unfavorably. Democrats are more evenly divided in their attitudes, with 38% viewing him favorably and 32% unfavorably.


Obviously he should be running as a Republican, but are Democrats really going to turn out to vote against an incumbent they view favorably?

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 4, 2006 2:31 PM
Comments

Just prior to the Jane Hamsher blackface debacle, the Quinnipac poll had Lamont over Joe, 54-41.

Pretty bad for a three-term incumbent standard bearer, just a week before the election.

Imagine how Lieberman will campaign in 2007/8 if he wins as an independent. His endorsement of a GOP candidate (McCain or Guiliani) would be a nice fork in whomever the Dems pick.

Posted by: ratbert at August 4, 2006 3:18 PM

If he wins as an independent, what's his status going to be as far as committee assignments?

Posted by: b at August 4, 2006 4:21 PM

His status will be no status same as Bernie. I hope no Republicans vote for him.

Posted by: erp at August 4, 2006 5:25 PM

If control of the Senate wer close they'd offer him chairmanships.

Posted by: oj at August 4, 2006 5:33 PM

oj: If control of the Senate were close, he wouldn't be about to be purged. Purges are for clear winners, or clear losers, and we know which one the Dems are...

Posted by: b at August 4, 2006 6:33 PM

He has already made clear how he will vote in organizing the Senate. Democrat. He will not change that pledge in the General Election, instead he will re-emphasize it.

Posted by: h-man at August 5, 2006 3:18 AM

Why?

Posted by: oj at August 5, 2006 8:09 AM

Because running as an independent, he will need to have a large percentage of Democrats to win. If he pledges to organize the Senate for the benefit of Republicans, he might "slightly" increase his vote totals with Connecticut Republicans, but with passions running as high as they are he runs the risk of losing "all" Democrats. (his thinking is that everyone who voted for him in the primary, will stick with him in the General) I'm presuming that the present Republican candidate stays in the race.

If the Democrats need his vote to get control of the Senate, I think they will be willing to give him more power than Republicans will.

Posted by: h-man at August 5, 2006 12:07 PM

Yes, but he cxan run as a Republican (or the GOP can just withdraw its scandal plaqued candidate) and then he gets all the GOP, most I and many Ds.

Posted by: oj at August 5, 2006 2:02 PM

Indies don't count as Democrats, see Jeffords and Sanders, even if they vote with them. They are counted as I's, not D's.

Jefford's greatest moment changed the majority because he was deducted from the Republican count, not because he was added to the Dems.

Posted by: erp at August 5, 2006 4:55 PM
« FRUITY?: | Main | WHIPPED INFLATION THEN: »