![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/primaries_45x35.gif)
![[Quiz]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/quiz_45x35.gif)
The Fix Talks Back: Bellwether Project, Lieberman and More
To kick off the joint Washington Post/washingtonpost.com Bellwether Project, politics editor John F. Harris and I hosted a live online chat yesterday to field readers' questions. We weren't able to get to all of the questions, so I plucked a few of the best of the rest to answer here.
Steamboat Springs, Colo.: Do you see the Lieberman primary challenge as a bellwether, or is it peculiar to very blue Connecticut?
The Fix: No race in the country is drawing as much national attention as Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's challenge from wealthy businessman Ned Lamont in the state's Aug. 8 Democratic primary. While we tended to limit our bellwether picks to general-election races rather than primaries, the Connecticut contest is certainly a bellwether of sorts -- it shows the depth of dissatisfaction within the Democratic base toward the war in Iraq.
The Quinnipiac poll released recently showed Lieberman down by four points among those most likely to vote in the Democratic primary -- an extremely troubling sign for the incumbent. Some in the Democratic consulting world are predicting a double-digit loss for Lieberman in the primary, arguing that Democrats -- for whatever reason -- have decided they want him gone.
As I've said before, I think it is not just the fact that Lieberman has supported the war but how he has expressed that support that has gotten him into this bind. Many liberal Democrats view Lieberman as sanctimonious and scolding when it comes to Iraq, and I think it is his tone (more than his stance) that has provoked the outpouring of vitriol toward him on the liberal left.
Should Lieberman go down in the primary, expect other Democrats -- especially those thinking about running for president in 2008 -- to become more tepid in their support -- or more vocal in their criticism of -- the Iraq conflict.
Glenside, Pa.: Will the Bellwethers try to identify key voting blocs such as "soccer moms," "security moms," "office park dads." The demographic du jours discussed include Starbucks Republicans.
The Fix: While microtargeting is all the rage in campaign politics, the Bellwether Project is not an attempt to slice and dice the electorate in that way. Rather, its goal is to present a blueprint for readers to guide them for the final 100 days or so before the midterm elections. It's a guide to the issues, demographic trends and races that will likely determine which party controls the House and Senate next year.
We'll leave the voting patterns of married women who live within a 30-minute drive of a city of 100,000 people or more and spend $25 or more a week at Starbucks and $50 or more a week at Barnes & Noble to the political targeting experts.
Herndon, Va.: Regarding the Virginia U.S. Senate race: At this time it appears to me that Mr. Webb is the right candidate for the wrong race. Unless Allen stumbles, or Webb can raise umpteen million $, does this look to you like a race with a lot of publicity, but an easy win for Allen?
The Fix: When Jim Webb, a former secretary of the Navy during the Reagan administration, won the June Democratic primary it seemed like Sen. George Allen (R) was in for a very tough race. That may still be the case, but Webb's continued poor fundraising may mean that we never see a fair fight between the two candidates.
Allen ended June with $6.6 million in the bank compared with $424,000 for Webb. In the early going of the general election, it appears that Webb learned the wrong lessons from his primary race against former technology lobbyist Harris Miller, in which he was outspent but managed to win. That is a rarity in modern politics. With a politician as savvy as Allen, if Webb can't slim the current financial margin significantly he will have a very hard time staying competitive.
For those Fix readers who say I concentrate too much on how much money candidates have, remember that without money to fund a grassroots organization and run a media campaign, most voters will never hear the candidate's message -- no matter how compelling it is.
By Chris Cillizza |
July 25, 2006; 4:26 PM ET
| Category:
House
,
Senate
Previous: 2008: The Case for Barack Obama |
Next: Parsing the Polls on Bill and Hillary Clinton
Get This Widget >>
Posted by: Truth Hunter | July 26, 2006 10:59 AM
I've been trying to figure out why I've developed a negative feeling towards Liberman. Simple support for the war, doesn't do it. Too many in Congress were either suckered by the Administration or simply were playing politics with it.
Lieberman however has a long-term view of the Middle East (really long term) unlike the average American, and how he's handling that is the focus of all of the problems he's having.
I think J. Crozier hit it on the head. Lieberman has been sanctimonius and scolding about this. As a result all of his other work as a "party regular" are being overshadowed by that approach.
13 days and counting.
Posted by: Nor'Easter | July 26, 2006 10:53 AM
Ohio's Senate candidates have touched off an ad war already, and it's only July. Does Sherrod Brown have the resources to respond effectively to DeWine attacks all the way to election day?
Attack ads often merit some kind of response, and the DeWine camp's first showing was one that employed doctored 9/11 images to attack Brown's security record. Obviously the Brown campaign should respond; it can't risk being painted as weak on security from the outset, and it's probably advantageous to point out such an unabashed use of 9/11 to score votes.
But can the Brown campaign keep doing that?
Posted by: peter | July 26, 2006 9:07 AM
J. Crozier, you are absolutely correct. If it was Lieberman's antiwar stance, then a lot of other Democrats would also have primary challenges - Maria Cantwell, Hillary Clinton to name a couple. It's in the way he goes about it, which is more offensive (in my view) than the position itself.
Posted by: Jeff | July 25, 2006 6:52 PM
"As I've said before, I think it is not just the fact that Lieberman has supported the war but how he has expressed that support that has gotten him into this bind. Many liberal Democrats view Lieberman as sanctimonious and scolding when it comes to Iraq, and I think it is his tone (more than his stance) that has provoked the outpouring of vitriol toward him on the liberal left.
It is the way that he has made his stance, constantly berating his fellow Democrats and making nice with Sean Hannity and getting the kiss from George W. Bush that have really ticked off a lot of Democrats.
Posted by: J. Crozier | July 25, 2006 6:49 PM
I take your point about money. But remember that money was the reason some like yourself made John Morrison the front runner for the Montana US Senate Democratic nomination even though most of us knew better in Montana (but what do we know?) Jon Tester walloped Morrison with much less money. A true "grass roots" organization isn't built with money. It's built with people.
Posted by: Alan in Missoula | July 25, 2006 6:49 PM
Okie: "The Bellwether Project frames the upcoming midterm elections around eight central questions, listing the House and Senate races that best illustrate those questions."
The primary you mention is not a midterm election. Your primary today would be an appropriate Bellwether topic.
Posted by: Nor'Easter | July 25, 2006 6:30 PM
Are you going to say ANYTHING at all about the Oklahoma primaries?
If I have to keep on reading all this drivel about Lieberman, at least you can throw us a bone?
Added excitement -- the Oklahoma presidential primary, by law, is tied to the NH primary (one week following).
Posted by: We read in Oklahoma too! | July 25, 2006 5:46 PM
The Connecticut Senate contest is less of a bellwether race and more the chosen battleground upon which netroot Democrats have decided to attempt to demonstrate their influence within the Party.
I would assert that we have a middle management uprising whereby the netroots primarily and Howard Dean to a less visible degree believe the existing senior management of the Party is out of touch with the voting public. What remains to be seen is whether those who quickly rose to middle management positions can actually deliver the work force (voters).
Read an analysis on how the netroots are an extension of the Dean 2004 presidential campaign and how the success or failure in Connecticut may impact the future influence of Dean and the netroots...here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com/2006/07/political_strategy_examining_p.php
Posted by: Daniel DiRito | July 25, 2006 5:44 PM
So, when is the national party expected to back its heavyweight endorsements with heavyweight money? What are the chances national Dems will give Jim Webb $8 million to $10 million to wage his campaign? If not that much, how much?
Posted by: Jim A. | July 25, 2006 4:37 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
You are right that the electorate are tired of Lieberman's scolding, superior moral stance. I remember when he piled on Clinton with his sanctimonious speech on the Senate floor.
Clinton's rush to publicly support Lieberman recently doesn't elevate Lieberman, it just diminishes Clinton. And shows Lieberman's desperation, and the true direction of his supposed moral compass.
"The Fix" is in, so to speak, Lieberman will be pushed off of his podium.
http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com