Lamont at the Labrary
Posted by Nathan Kilbert on January 28, 2006 at 2:58PM
Ned Lamont, Greenwich millionaire and potential Democratic Senate candidate, was at the New Haven Public Library this morning. The turnout to meet him was pretty good, with about 40 people in attendance. After some brief announcements by local activists ( Professor Odom will be giving a speech about Iraq at 311 Temple on Tuesday at 7:30), Lamont bounded up to the podium and was greeted by quite a bit of applause. More after the flip...
He's not a physically imposing man, but his face wouldn't look bad on TV. His voice is on the soft side, but it's both impassioned and a little eloquent. Lamont is clearly working on his stage presence -- the impression of one guy with whom Kevin and I talked to after the speech was that he was much better today than he had been in a talk in Hartford a week ago.
But enough of style, here's some of the substance, from both his speech and the audience Q and A:
Iraq -- Lamont said that without a timetable for withdrawal, Iraqis will not take over the responsibility of defending themselves. He advocates a drawdown of US troop levels, getting the reserve units out by the end of the year and redeploying regular combat troops out of the front line areas.
Alito -- Lamont would filibuster.
Civil Liberties -- the PATRIOT act needs to be fixed and Bush's illegal wiretapping should be investigated.
Health Care -- Advocates federal subsidies for health care to increase the competitiveness of US businesses.
Energy -- He condemned the administration's energy plan and urged the development of alternative fuels and energy sources.
Lamont also urged people to check out his website...www.nedlamont.com.
Hopefully, you guys will get to see a little more of Ned Lamont later in the semester, as he is eager to come to talk to the Dems.
But as Kevin said earlier, the YCD does not endorse in primaries.
Comments
Posted by Kevin Bock | January 29, 2006 12:30 AM | Permalink
Here was my take on Lamont (perhaps Emily can post hers as well.)
He's a very personable guy, especially one-on-one and when responding to questions. His stump speech, particularly the opening, needs a little work, but it got much better toward the end, so he's definitely capable of a very good speech. (His "Where was Joe?" series at the end of the speech is particularly good, so watch out for that line over and over again.) He's no Dean or Obama, but he's got as much charisma as your average senator -- more than Lieberman -- and again, he's great one-on-one.
He hasn't quite done all of his homework yet, so his positions are pretty general. He tends also to take a national approach to issues where a mention of CT-specific policy might be warranted. For example, he ducked a question about homeland security funding, despite, Nate points out, recent reports (YDN) of a funding formula heavily biased against New Haven and Connecticut. I can only imagine that his knowledge of the issues will improve as time goes on.
Considering his issue stances are still developing, it's important that he's good at gracefully answering questions. He won't just BS; at one point he plain said "let me get back to you on that one" -- a refreshingly honest answer. He also seems to have the ability to please his base, which is largely composed of, to abuse a phrase, "angry liberal-types" while not killing his chances with more moderate voters. For example, he smartly backed off of a statement he made earlier this week, saying of Bush's domestic spying program, "it's probably illegal" instead of just "it's illegal". The progressive base of the Democratic party will support him no matter what, so use of more moderate language from time to time to court less liberal Democrats is smart. [As a side note, after a little more thought I think it's better to say "it's illegal". This is one of those times where you just need to stand up and say what's right no matter what other people think. I was just looking for a solid example of Lamont dealing with both the liberal and moderate bases of the Democratic party -- which I still think he does well -- so I used the "it's illegal" example without thinking too much about it.]
It was a highly biased crowd of course -- they all wanted to like Lamont -- but people I talked to afterwards (incl. the local DFA leaders) said he exceeded their expectations. In my assessment, he's got potential.
And, as he said to open his speech, anyone who can get college students into a library on Saturday morning is probably doing something right.
Thanks for digging that article up. Pity I couldn't remember any of it for my life at the time. Such criticism would be especially pointed because Lieberman is the ranking member of the Homeland Security committee.
Posted by Kevin Bock | January 29, 2006 01:48 AM | Permalink
I guess I'm not finished, here's some reference on the liklihood of success of a Lamont candidacy. (Remember, he hasn't officially declared yet.) Only 4 such primary challenges of a sitting Senator have been successful in recent times. (The last: in 1992, Mosely-Braun in Illinois? I can't remember the list exactly, although I'm pretty sure the "4" is right.)
The Lamont campaign's favorite number right now is 47. A recent Quinnipiac poll (yes, that Quinnipiac. They've actually got a nationally known political survey institute!) has 47% of self-identified liberals indicating that Lieberman deserves to be on the primary ballot. And 47% saying that he does not.
A couple of problems with this poll: self-identifying as a liberal is not "en vogue" at the moment, even in the Democratic party, so those self-identified liberals represent a small subset of self-identified Democrats. DavidNYC at swing state project suggests that these liberals are more representative of the average primary voter. Especially so this primary, one could imagine. A mid-term election where there are no high profile primary races on the ballot (such as president) won't draw casual voters to the polls in high numbers. The more politically active people (such as those who make a point of voting in a primary) do tend to be more polarized.
While this theory is probably on the right track, I lack any hard data to prove it (anyone have some?). Let's play a few numbers games and hope some real data shows up sometime soon. Nationally, ~20% of people self-identify as liberal, ~25+% as moderate and ~25+% as conservative, (with about 30% unsure). Q-pack's poll doesn't allow respondents to "not know" whether they're liberal or conservative, so most of those "don't knows" will likely end up as moderates when forced. That makes ~50% of the population moderate. (Q-pack doesn't release the internals of their polls, so we don't know exactly what percentage of people are self-identifying as moderates.) This Q-pack poll has self-identified moderates supporting Lieberman's place on the ballot 60 to 30. Thus, if the primary is composed of 30% moderates, liberals will have to support Lieberman by about 54% to 46%. If the primary is 40% moderates, then he needs 57% liberal support.
Both of those are vastly different than the current 47% who say that "someone else deserves a chance on the ballot". Note that there's no current polling on Lamont in particular, so it's not clear how many of those "someone else" opinions will actually translate into support for Lamont. Or, for example, how much Lieberman support will turn to Lamont now that they can put a face to "someone else". Not insurmountable odds (like, say, the governor's race) but definitely not easy.
On the other hand, trends seem to favor Lamont. While still at >60%, Lieberman's approval rating has dropped 11 points in the past year. National issues seem to be going Lamont's way as well. The war in Iraq continues to occupy the largest national spotlight and that's bad for Bush... and for Lieberman. That Q-pack poll says that only 20% of liberals and 40% of moderates agree with Lieberman on the war (although only 40% and 22% respectively disagree strongly enough that they would vote against Lieberman because of it.) Lamont will make Iraq the cornerstone of his campaign, so if bad news keeps coming back from overseas, that will have an impact on this election.
Also going for Lamont, electablity is not an issue in this race unlike in the Toomey-Specter primary two years ago (see a comparative analysis of these primary challenges here, SSP). Whomever wins the Democratic primary will win the Senate seat from CT, so no voter will be scared away from Lamont for fear that he's unelectable.
My point: the "give someone else a chance" movement is most certainly concentrated among a small, informed group of liberals although there is some evidence that other Democrats may be receptive to a challenger. Further, if there ever were a time when the political climate was ripe for a challenge, it's now. Lamont's name-rec is astronomically low, even among political elites, so it's unclear whether he can translate anti-Lieberman sentiment into pro-Lamont support. If he can, then he's surely got a chance. Odds right now? 70/30 against Lamont. He wins 3 in 10.
Those are probably generous odds for Lamont, actually. Anyone else care to venture their predictions?
Posted by Aldon Hynes | January 29, 2006 08:23 AM | Permalink
My wife is working for Ned’s campaign and I want to thank all of you that attended and shared your comments here. Let me toss out a few reactions. I think you are right that his stump speech needs a little work. It is still very much in development, as are his positions and understanding of the issues.
I want to thank Kevin for pointing out the recent report of how the homeland security funding formula is heavily biased against New Haven and Connecticut. I look forward to hearing more thoughts about what you think the issues are and how Ned can best address them.
As to Lieberman’s polling numbers and Ned’s chances, I’m staying very optimistic. The numbers you quoted were without any notable challenger on the list. As a strong candidate emerges, and I believe Ned will be that strong candidate, I expect to see those numbers shift.
One of the issues is that polling data often doesn’t often include how strongly a person feels. For example, I believe that while Lieberman has currently fairly broad support, it is also fairly weak and is likely to evaporate fairly quickly as people see a strong viable opponent.
I see that a lot in discussions with Democratic Town Committee members and it will be interesting to see what will happen at the State Convention.
I enjoyed hearing Ned Lamont speak, and thought he brought some valuable ideas to the table. He was very personable, and for somebody with basically no political experience I was impressed with the ease he had in answering questions and speaking. At the same time his lack of any significant political experience presents a challenge to his campaign. I thought that he did a good job in emphasizing his business background, and his position as an entrepeneur. I thought this made him seem professional as well as sympathetic to small business owners. The audience seemed to respond well to his speech, and I thought it was especially important that he highlighted the need for a focus on a domestic agenda as well as foreign policy concerns. I hope that the dems can bring him to campus to speak, and get involved in the campaign...
Another interesting statement Ned made was he pledged himself to serve only two terms. He did not endorse mandatory term limits, but he made it clear that he thought that too much time in Washington alienated legislators from their constituents. I don't really have an ideological dog in that fight, but it's smart rhetoric, especially given the historically low approval rating Congress has these days.
And it's a rare candidate who will make that pledge and hold to it. I'm reminded of Kent Conrad (D-ND) who pledged to serve only one term in the Senate when he was elected in 1986 (unless the budget was balanced, but that was never going to happen). So in 1992, he didn't run for reelection. But in September 92, the other North Dakota senator (Quentin Burdick -- a great name) died and Conrad entered and won the special election to fill the rest of his term.
Sometimes I feel like my role in the Dems is to be the eccentric old uncle who's always telling long-winded stories that relate only tangentially to the topic at hand. Just don't put me in the home any time soon.
Finally, some hard numbers about the CT primary electorate. According to this, the 2004 Super Tuesday primary in CT was 59% self-identified liberals.
Posted by Aldon Hynes | January 29, 2006 04:45 PM | Permalink
According to Connecticut Local Politics, Joe Lieberman said "There are a lot of people who feel that 18 years is enough for a senator" on the campaign trail back in 1988. I suspect there are a lot more people who believe that now.
(CLP notes the source as
Ravo, Nick. “In the Heat of the Summer, Senate Race Hits a Lull.” New York Times July 10 1988. )
Page URL is
© 2002- Yale College Democrats. All rights reserved.