Reduction to a Previously Solved Problem
(crossposted at DemProgress)
In mathematics, a proposition is considered proven if it reduces to a previously solved problem. No discussion, no debate. The question is closed.
So it is in the spirit of presenting a solved problem that I present the following fact, from a recent Zogby poll, one which will probably surprise some very much:
Seventy-nine percent. That's only 2 percent away from everyone-but-whackos, if you remember my theory about the 19 percenters.
So, there we are. Ned Lamont is simply not a fringe candidate, by any sensible definition of the phrase. In the future, people who try to push this Republican talking point can be dismissed and referred to this post. It's a previously solved problem.
No more referring to Ned as out of the mainstream. No more referring to his whacko netroots. Lamont has the support of 79% of Democrats nationwide. Deal with it.
If you can't lend your support to Ned, guess who is lost out in the fringes.
Good stuff.
August 14, 2006 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it the same Zogby who predicted on November 2, 2004 that Bush would get 213 electoral votes and Kerry 311?
Yeah! Awright! Kerry's going to win in 2004!! And just in time too - I don’t think the Democratic party could handle 4 more years of Bush... that kind of strain may make them go crazy and start attacking each other!
Note, Zogby also predicted on Aug 6th: "While I will stop short of a precise prediction, let me suggest that polling evidence shows that Senator Joseph Lieberman will lose the Senate primary to businessman Ned Lamont by a substantial margin."
"Substantial" = 4%. Well, it is more than what Bush got over Kerry.
August 14, 2006 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. I'd like more data points. But 79% is an awfully high number, even if it's substantially off.
August 14, 2006 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, even if Zogby is off by 10 points, that's still a huge number. However, how does the 79% compare to the 48% who voted for Lieberman (and answers to that may need to reduce to my latest blog entry)
August 14, 2006 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it's not a democratic primary anymore. It's now a general election where stats show Lamont trailing Lieberman. It doesn't matter what spin you want to put on it. Lamont is not going to pick up the centrist or right votes. Lieberman's centrist views resonate well with a LOT of voters. Lamont is viewed as liberal under the progressive's-only tent--he cannot disconnect himself from the vitriolic far-left. It is his voter base, but the far left is a minor percentage of the voting masses in Conn.
August 14, 2006 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One hurdle at a time. In this episode we're simply establishing one fact: (if Zogby's poll is anything like realistic; point taken) The line about Lamont's positions being out of touch with the Democratic mainstream is simply...not...true.
(And therefore, Joe's entire reason for running as an "Independent", that he's not going to let extremists steal the party, immediately has no basis in reality.)
Oh, but look! Bloggers! Bloggers!
;)
August 14, 2006 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. The bottom line is that Lamont needs the urban vote to win. The question is what is he going to do to earn it? The Courant has consistently said that Dems need the urban vote to win in CT. How does Lamont turn around the negative impact and suppression of the urban vote by Hamshers racist image?
I disagree. Lamont is viewed this way ONLY because the Democratic party is not defining Lamont for themselves and their party. Lamont should not be viewed as an anti-war candidate, each and every time this is said it should be immediately rebutted. Lamont is the anti-Bush candidate for Americans who want change...and that INCLUDES foreign policy as well as domestic policy's.
THAT is how Lamont should be defined. There is nothing extremist about wanting CHANGE from policies that have been a disaster globally, domestically and financially for America.
Lamont is Pro-America, not anti-war. If the Dem's, allow the right to paint Lamont as an extremist they have no one to blame but themselves.
Hannity is on his show, telling people he would vote for Lieberman if he lived in CT. What Lamont supporters need to do is go back and look at the record, and hammer home all the reasons Hannity would NOT vote for Lieberman when he was the VP on the ticket.
Use all the ring-wing words against them to hammer Lieberman as not being their man today, either.
August 15, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're simply repeating the Republican/Lieberman fantasyland version of Lamont.
People, including in the center, listen to Lamont and hear someone who's level-headed, and has an idea about Iraq with which they -- the overwhelming majority of Americans included -- agree: we need to set a timetable and get out of Iraq.
The only kind of person who would see Lamont as far-left is someone who swallows the Republican/Lieberman talking points.
Now, that's not saying that people may look at Lieberman and think he's served their state well and don't want to change that. But it has nothing to do with "far-left." And Lieberman's doing well enough to make himself look like a kook, Nazi references and all, that his current support may slip.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
August 15, 2006 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
While it is great that 79% of Dems do not view Lamont as some fringe candidate. We are no longer talking about solely democrat votes, as the primary has been won.
What we need to focus on is the general election. Unless 79% od democrats in CT are voting for Lamont..there is a lot of work to be done.
How is Lamont going to peal away moderate votes from Lieberman? He must focus on the domestic policies of Bush and how they ahve been a total disaster for the middle class, in terms of employment, wages and education. He must emphasize how Lieberman wants more of the same, whereas he wants change.
Particularly, the voucher issue and no child left behind are disasterous policies to CT voters that Lamont can grab.
August 15, 2006 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I told SeedFreak, one argument at a time. Now that this one is definitely settled, we won't have to hear it any more and we CAN move on.
It's important to swat the flies.
August 16, 2006 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Small thing, but do me a favor and use the link function for something like, here, "the following fact" rather than making whole paragraphs into mouseovers.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
August 15, 2006 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink