Swing State Project

« CT-Sen: Schumer and Reid Back Lamont | Main | NY-03: Peter King Says Lamont Supporters Are "Bigots" »

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

CT-Sen: Don't Forget What Jake Javits Did

Posted by DavidNYC

Via Political Wire, Ken Rudin makes the following observation:

For the record, 24 senators have been denied renomination in the past half-century; only one, Jacob Javits (R-NY), attempted to keep his seat in November, and he didn't come close.

Javits lost to Al D'Amato in the Republican primary in 1980. Old, sick, suffering from ALS (aka Lou Gehrig's disease) and badly out of step with the increasingly conservative GOP, Javits was handily dispatched (56-44) by the upstart D'Amato, who was as much a nobody then as Lamont was in January. Javits went on to get crushed in a three-way race in November, running on the now-defunct Liberal Party's line.

But that only tells half the story. Take a look at the results for the senatorial general election in New York in 1980:

Al D'Amato (R): 44.88%
Liz Holtzman (D): 43.54%
Jacob Javits (L-inc.): 11.05%

There is pretty much no question that Jake Javits played the spoiler for Elizabeth Holtzman here. Though he was indeed a member of the GOP, Javits was also a member of that dying (and now fully dead) breed: The liberal Rockefeller Republican. While the ostensibly left-wing Liberal Party had a long history of betrayal which included giving its line to decided non-liberals like Rudy Giuliani, most of the people who actually pulled the Liberal lever would have otherwise ordinarily been voting for Democrats.

In other words, if Javits hadn't run in November, most of his votes would have gone to Holtzman. And as you can see from the percentages alone, that would have pretty much guaranteed victory for the Democrats. If you have any reason to doubt that, spend a few minutes perusing the Lexis archives. You'll see that Democrats - not Republicans - were pleading with Javits to drop out.

Now, all that said, I absolutely don't think that Joe Lieberman could throw the election to Republican Alan Schlesinger, who by all accounts is, charitably, a C-list bum. But he could still screw us by complicating things for CT's three Democratic House challengers. For one thing, the Republican incumbents can simply endorse Lieberman and look like "centrists." For another, he turns what should be a cakewalk election for Lamont into a relatively serious contest, drawing money, time and resources away from other races (including, again, our three House pickup opportunities). I'm sure you can think of other sorts of unpleasantness likely to flow from an indy Joe run.

My point, ultimately, is that, like Jake Javits, Joe Lieberman could and probably will wind up hurting the Democratic Party in the fall if he continues his third-party bid. Of course, Jake Javits was a Republican and owed us nothing. Lieberman, if he has even a shred of dignity left, will drop out for the greater good.

Posted at 06:58 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Connecticut | Technorati

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/mt/mt-track-ssp.cgi/2495

Comments

There is no doubt that Joe L. not psrticipating in Nov would assure an easy victory over Schlesinger-R, however in this election I see Lamont in D'Amato's position reaping the reward of Lieberman & Schlesinger splitting the conservative/republican vote.

Posted by: Predictor at August 9, 2006 10:19 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

On the flip side: if the November Lamont/Lieberman contest does for democratic turnout what the August one did, then we could well win all three house seats in a landslide. This seems to me to be the more likely scenario.

Posted by: Kalil at August 9, 2006 10:55 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Despite my previous misgivings about this primary effort, I am now supporting Lamont's candidacy as I had planned to if he won the primary. I am furious at Lieberman over his unsavory conduct yesterday, both with the unfounded accusations of bloggers hacking into his website and his smug refusal to accept his primary defeat like a man. With that said, much of the fallout I predicted appears to be already taking shape. Remember when I predicted this last month?

"Meanwhile, Republicans in battleground Senate races will run ads against their opponent using Lieberman as their bloody T-shirt right through September and October. "How can Claire McCaskill be an 'independent voice' in the Senate like she claims when her party just voted out their former Vice-Presidential candidate because he only voted with them 90% of the time instead of 100%"? "

Now take a look at what the Republicans are planning to do to Claire McCaskill in the days ahead, according to Time Magazine:

"One of the nip-and-tuck Senate races this year is in Missouri, and backers of Sen. Jim Talent are preparing an attack on his opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, that is emblematic of the sort that will be seen all over the country within 24 hours. "Does Claire McCaskill support the wishes of the angry left by endorsing Ned Lamont's candidacy or will she support the man who was chosen by Al Gore as the Democrat's 2000 nominee for Vice President?" the National Republican Senatorial Committee asks in a statement that will force McCaskill to talk about messy party business instead of her favored issues of government accountability and affordable health care."

I sure hope the Democrats are prepared for the feeding frenzy that is about to ensue for weeks, or my nightmare scenario will play out. National Dems have made the right moves so far, but any further dissent from our ranks will be devastating, and the push for such dissent by candidates like McCaskill and Ford will be ferocious.

Posted by: Mark at August 9, 2006 11:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Interesting that the comments in the last 2 paragraphs of the post at 11:17 mirror a Time/CNN article entitled "Why Republicans Are Loving The Lieberman Loss". http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1224692,00.html

Lets face it, the Republicans are going to fight dirty, we've seen this for years, on one hand weDems are accused of being leftwing nuts (while the Gop moves to embrace rightwing religious fanatics who beleive science is fantasy, and are not crucified for this) or we Dems are called wishy-washy and unfocused and not eletable for those reasons. Well, you can't have it both ways. The "purge" of Lieberman was based in distict philosophical differences regrding his stands on the Iraq War, Supreme Court Apointees and unswerving support for Bush Administration policies as much as it was being out of touch with the political views and population of CT.
McCaskill has little to worry about running against a Bush rubber stamp for the Iraq War & Stem Cell Research Ban & a host of other rightwing theocratic issues.
Bush's approval rating (Survey/USA 7-18 is an upside down 61% disapprove to 36% approve in MO. I would hope that candidate McCaskill can be elected with no worries about the accusations of "liberal" hatred coming from the Rove-neocon collective. Have we learned nothing from 2004?
We need to be clear & focused and not scared rabbits constantly kissing up to and moving to the right out of fear of being called "un-american".
Fight back and prove them to be the vicious hypocrites that they (Gop) are. Paint them as being out of the mainstream, because they are.

Posted by: Predictor at August 10, 2006 02:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Predictor, the article that you linked to is the same one I cut-and-pasted from. I said it was from Time. No conspiracies here, Perry Mason. Did you even read my message?

Posted by: Mark at August 10, 2006 02:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yes Mark, I read both the Time/CNN article and your message. I had seen much of this rationale coming from Gop circles as republican talking points.
My point was that the DLC type candidates or those running in purple/red states will just have to deal with this issue and do it effectively and ferociously and not with capitulation, I should hope.
"Messy Party Business" should be focused on Ney, De Lay, et al, not Lieberman's loss in CT, that doesn't even compare.

Posted by: Predictor at August 10, 2006 02:37 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

P.S. Mark, It was my understanding that if you post & quote an article here, that you provide the link for copyright,etc reasons, so, the "Perry Mason" comment was unecessary. I check out Real Clear Politics too and had just read the article.

Posted by: Predictor at August 10, 2006 02:45 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The exit polling question over who primary voters would vote for in November weren't as encouraging as I would have liked....

49% for Lamont, 36% for lieberman in Democratic voters alone. Exit numbers are not the most reliable, however...

I think the key now has to be winning over independents. Most Democrats will support their party's candidate when it comes down to it... the real battle between Lamont and Lieberman will be for the 50% of registered Dems who did not vote in the primary and for independents.

I am guessing polling is being done immediately for the general election. Can anyone verify who is polling or when it is being released?

Posted by: Ferris at August 10, 2006 10:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

David - Great analysis. I completely agree that if Schlessinger stays the R candidate Lamont wins easy. There are continued rumblings the CT Repubs are going to try to get him off the line and replace him with a credible, self financing R. That's what I'd do in if I were in their shoes. If this occurs, we have trouble on our hands as your Javits example shows. It won't take more than the low 40s to win and with a popular Rell at the top of the ticket that is possible with a credible candidate. Let's pray Schlessinger stays on the line or Lieberman gets out.

Posted by: John Mills at August 10, 2006 12:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Ferris - I believe that exit polling origin was from CBS. Looks like Rasmussen has a new CT Sen. poll out today couldn't copy it as its for "premium" members, but did note that they also have under the "Just Released" category,a R.I. Sen poll with the headline "Chaffee lagging by 6" Don't know if this is a primary or Gen Election poll here, but given the Club For Growth's string of successes I wouldn't be surprised to see Lincoln go down to Laffey.
Good article on Weicker's view of Lieberman's Indy run and a bit of CT history on Indy runs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/09/AR2006080901977.html

Posted by: Predictor at August 10, 2006 01:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

From Chuck Todd - But if you're Simmons, Shays or Johnson, and you realize that the writing is on the wall for Northeastern Republicans (either in 2006 or 2008), doesn't the idea of winning a six-year Senate term seem more appealing? And really, considering Tuesday's huge Dem turnout (particularly among the affluent suburbs), doesn't Simmons have the same shot at re-election as he would at finding 37 percent statewide (which could be a winning number)?

I am very nervous about the Rs waking up and figuring out this is winnable with Lieberman in. We have to get him off the ballot.

Posted by: John Mills at August 10, 2006 01:16 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wouldn't it be unlawful for another Connecticut Republican to now seek the nomination? Don't these filing deadlines mean anything for anybody whose name isn't Charlie Wilson?

Posted by: Mark at August 10, 2006 02:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

In the article, David wrote:

"There is pretty much no question that Jake Javits played the spoiler for Elizabeth Holtzman here ... In other words, if Javits hadn't run in November, most of his votes would have gone to Holtzman. And as you can see from the percentages alone, that would have pretty much guaranteed victory for the Democrats."

That is a very poor argument as you have presented it. What evidence do you have that those voters weren't simply steadfast supporters of Javitz (he did get 44% in the primary, no?) -- supporters whose second choice may have just as often been D'Amato? Reasonable evidence to the contrary: the Presidential breakdown for NY in 1980 was 46.7% Reagan, 44% Carter, 7.5% Anderson (on the liberal line). Carter's number is quite close to that of Ms. Holtzman. The difference between Anderson and Javitz might be explained by loyal Javitz voters who strayed from the Republican Party. One might even suspect that Javitz alomst cost D'Amato the race. Notice that I'm not making that argument -- merely pointing out that the argument you have made is not definitive: There is no reason to think that decisively more of those Javitz voters would have gone for the Democrat, in Javitz' absence.

AM

Posted by: alexandermoritz at August 10, 2006 02:36 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

AM, its common knowledge that the liberal party is the socially liberal, fiscally moderate party full of lots of jewish democrats. Thats why they endorsed rudy- because they didnt like dinkins because of the crown heights thingy. so that javitz was running on the liberal line, the votes he got(pretty common knowledge) are votes of liberal new york jewish voters voting for javitz

Posted by: yomoma2424 at August 10, 2006 03:08 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Mark - Like with NJ in 2002 when the Dems replaced Torricelli with Lautenberg, there is a period of time during which the Repubs can get Schlessinger off the ballot. I am not sure when the deadline is but the clock is ticking.

Posted by: John Mills at August 10, 2006 03:12 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The New Haven Register, which endorsed Liberman in the Primary is running the following article (you have to register to view it)
"Joe Lieberman should accept the results of his party's primary. He lost.
He should reconsider his bid to run as an independent candidate and get out of the race. For an 18-year-incumbent who was the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential candidate, his margin of defeat to Ned Lamont, a poli
(full article contains 453 words)
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17034763&BRD=1281&PAG=461&dept_id=7581&rfi=6

Posted by: Predictor at August 10, 2006 03:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

yomama,

While it may be 'common knowledge' that the liberal party is, according to you, "socially liberal, fiscally moderate party full of lots of jewish democrats," it doesn't follow that in 1980, more voters for Javitz, a well-known liberal *republican*, would have voted democrat, had Javitz not been on the ticket. As I pointed out above, 1980 was not a very good year for the democratic ticket in NY. Carter got barely more of the vote than Holtzman. (44 to 43.35) and John Anderson -- who is neither 'jewish' nor a democrat, received 7.5% on the liberal line. It is actually well known that Anderson voters split almost perfectly into leaning democrats and leaning republicans. So it stands to reason that the extra 4% gained by Javitz on the liberal line over Anderson actually were liberal republican votes that would have either gone back to the republicans or to anyone on the liberal ticket.

Bear in mind that no matter what Javitz had done, the liberal party would have nominated *someone.* The question is whether that hypothetical 'other nominee' would have caused the democrat to get more votes than D'Amato. I don't know the answe to this, and nothing in the post has been at all useful in clarifying the situation. That is my only point here: that nothing in this argument is convincing that Javitz' continued candidacy cost the democrat the senate seat.

So please tell me, yomama (or anyone else): If Javitz had not gotten the liberal party nomination, who would have? (surely not D'Amato) And why would the chance in nominee have caused Holtzman to win the election?

Again, I can't find enough evidence to make a definitive argument either way, though my intuitions are opposite the claim of the posting.

AM

Posted by: alexandermoritz at August 10, 2006 03:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Lefty Holtzman would have had the Liberal line had Javits not run. Javits most definitely cost Holtzman the election, I remember it well.
From Wikipedia:
"Holtzman was the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1980, having defeated such luminaries as former Miss America Bess Myerson, former New York City Mayor John Lindsay, and Queens District Attorney John Santucci in the Democratic primary. She ran against Republican challenger Al D'Amato and incumbent Senator Jacob Javits on the Liberal Party ticket. Holtzman was narrowly defeated by D'Amato, a loss many observers attributed to Javits' splitting with her the liberal and Jewish votes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holtzman

Posted by: Predictor at August 10, 2006 03:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

The analysis of the 1980 race is poppycock and wholly irrelevant to the CT situation.

First, Javits was already the Liberal Party's nominee and had no choice but to remain so whether or not he won the GOP primary. Even if he had asked voters not to vote for him, his name would have remained on the ballot. As it happened, he did not do that because he was an old man, dying and po'ed as much at Liz Holzman fro running against him at D'Amato. He "ran" as a Liberal but had essentially no money and due to his illness, little energy, so his running did not amount to much.

Second, Javits was dying and this was fairly apparent to everyone. Indeed, D'Amato had the brass to make it a campaign issue, even though it made him even more scummy, and it worked. In fact, Javits died the next year.

Third, Javits took moderate Republican votes away from D'Amato as well as Democrats from Holzman, a fact that was amply demonstared at the time.

Fourth, he did "split" votes with Holzman but not so much Democratic or liberal votes as Jewish votes. Two Jews against one Catholic in a statewide New York race at that time was bound to pull some Jews away from Liz. Javits's diehard supporters were largely older Jews -- many of them people who had voted on the Liberal line and before that on the American Labor Party line for decades and adored Javits. In CT, there are not two Jews and there is no constituency remotely like the older Jewish one in New York that has since pretty much died.

The CT race may take mnay shapes but it bears no resemblance to the Javits race. Indeed, in CT, it's the current Republican candidate who will probably wind up, like Javits, with 11% of the vote. The issue for Lieberman and Lamont is which of them can manage to get about 45%.

Posted by: jburke at August 10, 2006 04:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wait, 24 senators have been denied renomination in 50 years? That's essentially 1 every election year, on average. I'm amazed it's that high.

Posted by: KCinDC at August 10, 2006 04:20 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

jburke - Javits died in 1986 not 1981 although it was clear he was sick in 1980.

Do you really believe they are going to leave Schlessinger on the ballot? I sure don't and if they do you have a repeat of this race. Do you really think that Javits votes in 1980 would not have split 60-40 to Holtzman? Common. Doesn't make sense knowing the dynamics of who generally votes on the Liberal line - Dems and Independents who don't want to vote on the Repub line. Without Javits on the line, Holtzman would have pulled enough votes to win.

If you'd like to look at a similar race in CT, check out Weicker-Duffy-Dodd in 1970. Same dynamic same result.

Remember political junkies understand Lieberman's specific votes and stands better than average voters. To many people he will be another Dem in the race and that is a problem if the Repubs field a credible candidate. If Schlessinger stays on the discuss is moot.

Posted by: John Mills at August 10, 2006 04:30 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Correction to the 2nd sentence 2nd paragraph - I sure don't and if they do replace him you have a repeat of this race. Do you really think that Javits votes in 1980 would not have split 60-40 to Holtzman? Meant to say

Posted by: John Mills at August 10, 2006 04:32 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

jburke: "Firstly" - Yes Javits had secured the Liberal nomination as he was usually awarded. Holtzman had also run on the Liberal line in prior office runs and had pursued the Liberal nomination. However, the powers that be in the Liberal Party assumed their incumbent Senator would win his primary primary party renomination and defeat Holtzman in the General, hergo they endorsed Javits over Holtzman.He had a choice after the Gop primary to drop from the Liberal line, he was not forced to run.
"Second" Yes, given his health issues he should have just retired.
"Third" - In that Reagan year election, few moderate republican voters would have voted for Javits, at least not enuf to balance the loss of Liberal voters that Holtzman lost to Javits.
"Fourth" Don't agree that the split was more religious than ideological. The comparisons to CT now are: 1. A sitting Senator lost renomination on his primary party line and will be running on a 3rd party line & 2. The conservative vote will be split as the liberal vote was split in NY in 1980. The fact that Schlesinger is also Jewish could be another point of comparison, but maybe not carrying much weight in the long run, though it certainly would not seem to help Lieberman. There are most definitely points of comparison though yes its not 100% comprable on every point.

Posted by: Predictor at August 10, 2006 05:24 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Wow. Sometimes I feel like some commenters feel they are somehow scoring points by poking irrelevant or non-existent holes in my argument.

OF COURSE the Javits situation is different in most of the details. I was quite explicit in noting that. The only comparison I made was that Lieberman may yet hurt us - in rather different ways than Javits did - by continuing his run. I felt it was important to note this given that Ken Rudin only focused on the fact that Javits lost very badly in the general.

As to the people kvetching about my interpretation of whether Javits screwed Holtzman, fine. You win. I don't care. Even if I'm totally wrong about that point, I still maintain that Joe's continued run can still hurt us. That was the point of this post, and a far more relevant issue for us today.

Posted by: DavidNYC at August 10, 2006 11:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Javits went on to get crushed in a three-way race in November, running on the now-defunct Liberal Party's line.

The party no longer has an automatic line on the ballot, and it's by any definition moribund, but I don't think it's officially "defunct". Their
website has a picture of Hillary Clinton accepting the party's nomination in the Senatorial race.

Before I really knew anything about the anything-but-liberal Liberal Party of New York, I used to prefer to vote for the candidates I supported on the Liberal Party line in hopes of pushing it above the Conservative Party on the ballot, but it never worked. (Nowadays, I tend to do the same thing with the Working Families Party.)

Posted by: Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) at August 10, 2006 11:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment