Swing State Project

« NE-01: Moul (D) Makes it Official | Main | OH-02: McEwen to Challenge Schmidt »

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

CT-Sen: Lamont-Lieberman vs. Toomey-Specter

Posted by DavidNYC

Over at DailyKos, Adam B raises an interesting comparison. But first, a little background. In 2004, conservative PA Rep. Pat Toomey challenged incumbent Republican Senator Arlen Specter for the GOP nomination. Toomey came remarkably close, losing by just 51-49, or 17,000 votes out of over one million cast. If the wind had puffed ever so slightly more in Toomey's direction, he would have pulled off the remarkable feat of knocking out a sitting Senator in a primary.

There are, of course, a lot of differences between Toomey-Specter and Lamont-Lieberman. We can pore over those at length in due time. But if you accept for the moment that we can legitimately compare the two matchups, I wanted to toss some more numbers at you.

The CT primary is around six-and-a-half months from now - Aug. 9th. In October of 2003, also about 6 to 7 months out from the PA primary, Quinnipiac (the same pollster I referred to below) did a poll on the senate race in that state. This time, I just want to look at Dem voters in CT and GOP voters in PA (forget about tags like "liberal" or "conservative").

Job Approval
Specter among Republicans: 57-30
Lieberman among Democrats: 55-29

Favorability (favorable-unfavorable-mixed)
Specter among Republicans: 49-18-25
Lieberman among Democrats: 50-15-28

Six months out, Specter was looking pretty comfortable. But as Adam notes, the race tightened considerably in a very short amount of time, and Specter came within a hair's breadth of an early retirement. Lieberman's numbers are virtually identical.

Now, on to those differences. The most obvious is that Toomey had held political office, whereas Lamont is a newcomer. Toomey also had big money from the Club for Growth and the grassroots. However, Lamont himself is wealthy and has allegedly promised to spend over a million dollars of his own on the race. Plus, MoveOn and perhaps DFA might get behind him, too. Moreover, the entire top-tier GOP establishment (including Bush, Cheney, Santorum and Rove) showed up in PA to bail Arlen's sorry ass. Will Clinton, Kerry, Gore (hah) and Dean (double-hah) do the same for Joe?

Now, we can definitely debate the wisdom of whether Lamont should take on Lieberman. I'm fairly torn, but I'm personally leaning toward "yes." However, I doubt we'll come to any kind of resolution, or shed more light on the subject. I'd wager that we're all very familiar with all the pros and cons - which is why I'm more interested in discussing what's likely to happen, not whether it should happen. And on that score, I definitely think Lieberman is beatable.

Posted at 06:38 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Connecticut | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2091

Comments

The biggest difference: Toomey had a chance. No matter what any poll says, Lieberman is loved in CT and should win the primary with about 70% of the vote.

Posted by: jkfp2004 at January 18, 2006 08:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The biggest difference: Toomey had a chance.

You know what? I'm just absolutely not going to argue with non-arguments like this. I've devoted a considerable number of paragraphs to carefully reasoned, empirically-backed analysis. This site demands a higher level of argumentation than "Just because I say so."

Posted by: DavidNYC at January 18, 2006 09:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Don't have a problem with Lieberman being primaried, in fact it's probably a good thing on the whole for the Democratic Party - with one caveat. Lamont must self-fund. If grassroots and netroots money and volunteers from outside the state are directed to this race, we're missing the opportunity to use our resources in places where it's a net gain for the Democratic column. Our time and our money is not infinite, and IMHO our first goal should be to defeat Republicans, not fellow Dems. But if CT folks want to work to defeat Lieberman, more power to 'em.

Posted by: lpackard at January 19, 2006 12:12 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I agree - I would oppose MoveOn and DFA getting involved.

Posted by: DavidNYC at January 19, 2006 01:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

David -

Please explain why you would oppose MoveOn and DFA getting involved.

You know that these organizations are much more than ATMs for democracy... they can get boots on the ground as well.

Posted by: Fiat Lux at January 19, 2006 05:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Let me just add one note to this analysis: I'm approaching this as someone who would prefer not to challenge Lieberman. But the data is what it is.

Here's what you need to remember: Toomey was an experienced, dynamic, energetic campaigner who presented an age contrast in addition to the ideological one. And Club for Growth's operating as a 527 allowed it to take money in chunks far larger than what Lamont's going to be able to get via MoveOn.

Posted by: Adam B at January 19, 2006 08:15 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Let me clarify: I would oppose MoveOn & DFA raising money (and especially out-of-state money) to help Lamont. I think we need to prioritize, and Lieberman has to be way low on our priority list. Burns, Chaffee, Santorum, etc. need to be a lot higher. If CTers want to mobilize on the ground themselves, then more power to `em. But I wouldn't want to see money going to Lamont - let him self-fund as he's promised.

BTW, Adam, did not mean to imply your endorsement of challenging Lieberman. But as you say, the data are what they are. As to the Toomey vs. Lamont comparison, I agree that Toomey was certainly a stronger candidate than Lamont. No matter what, a result like Specter-Toomey is much less likely in CT. But I still say it's in the realm of the possible.

Posted by: DavidNYC at January 19, 2006 09:17 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Also, Toomey started his race much sooner than this -- he was campaigning a year+ in advance of the primary.

We have no idea if Lamont has any charisma -- all we know is that the anti-Lieberman Deaniacs are so thirsty for an alternative that they'll drink sand.

Posted by: Adam B at January 19, 2006 12:29 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Also, Toomey started his race much sooner than this -- he was campaigning a year+ in advance of the primary.

True enough - but as you noted elsewhere, the PA race didn't tighten until regular people started paying attention. That's not to dismiss all of Toomey's early work - far from it. But it doesn't strike me as being as important an advantage over Lamont as a number of Toomey's other positives.

Posted by: DavidNYC at January 19, 2006 12:52 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=266 answers all your concernsand then some.

May I suggest you 2 read the previous thread also?

Posted by: ctkeith at January 19, 2006 11:05 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I would love to have a more progressive voice in the Senate than Lieberman. I sometimes have a hard time sticking by his side with his hawkish way & unquestioningly pro-israel stances.

Posted by: thegools at January 22, 2006 09:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Lieberman is a great Democrat and I resent that you guys are simply attacking him because he supported the war.

He is has been a strong democrat on almost all of the other issues.

Posted by: nasir at March 29, 2006 05:00 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

>Lieberman is a great Democrat

No, he's not.

>and I resent that you guys are simply attacking >him because he supported the war.

Get over it....the war sucks and so does Lieberman.

>He is has been a strong democrat on almost all >of the other issues.

Once again, no he is not. Look at all the money he has taken from the usual donors to Repugnicans. That, among other things, should tell you that he hasn't been a strong Democrat. Russ Feingold- that is a strong Democrat.

Posted by: Michael Harper at July 23, 2006 03:14 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment