Ramifications of Lamont's win

Lieberman needs to get out of this race, ASAP.  I don't think I stand alone when I say that, as an American patriot, the last 6 years have been unbelievably devastating.  When Bush was elected in 2000, I didn't agree with the result, but I did  not see a reason for alarm.  After all, he supposedly belonged to a new brand of "compassionate conservatives."  How much harm could be done in 4 (fuck, 8) years, after all? And Lieberman has done nothing to stand up to Bush's transgressions, hence his loss.

Then 9/11 happened and Bush rode that wave to re-election in the most obscene fashion in 2004.  Watching the Republican convention that year was like a Halloween scarefest.   Not to mention the "heightened alerts" every 5 minutes on the news. Whatever happened to those?  But I digress.

Today's race was extremely close.  We cannot claim a mandate with 52%.  This, from redstate.org:

"At the end of the day, movement Democrats have told the Lieberman Democrats that the latter are no longer welcome at the table. The Lieberman Democrats cannot be expected to take this lying down, and they won't. The result of this clash will likely look hauntingly similar to the clash over the Scoop Jackson Democrats in the 1970's. In politics, there is rarely anything new under the sun, after all."

We absolutely cannot allow a Lieberman independent run to fracture the Democratic party at a time when we have an unprecedented opportunity to retake both houses of Congress.  We cannot allow the mainstream media to use Lieberman's candidacy against us.  We must do everything possible to keep this blue seat blue.

I implore you to write to your Democratic Senators and Congresspeople to encourage them to discourage Lieberman from his smuggly egotistical independent candidacy.

Lieberman must withdraw, for the good of the party.

•  Already

  sent Reid an email, begging him to strip Joe of his seats (even going so far as to propose possibly putting some of them up for Lamont).

  by stax on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:01:36 PM PDT

  •  i emailed Feinstein

    just to tell her that I hoped she'd would support Lamont.  Even though she is nearly in sync with Joe on most issues.  Wonder what she'll do.  May have to vote third party in CA, ech.

    I'm pretty sure Boxer will go with Lamont.

    by anthonyLA on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:03:46 PM PDT

•  I agree, minor comment

  Lamont defeated a three term US Senator, and few months ago that Senator had no opponent.

  I call that a clear mandate, percentages in this case don't give you the context.

  by RaulVB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:02:04 PM PDT

  •  Not to mention the fact

    that the turn-out was incredibly high. Lieberman initially justified his possible independent bid by appealing to the possibility that too few people would vote today and that the primary would thus not adequately reflect the wishes of the Dem electorate. But Tuesday's turn-out blew that idea out of the water.

    by machopicasso on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:11:15 PM PDT

    •  Also not to mention

      the fact that most of the narrative in the traditional media supported Lieberman and discounted Lamont as "fringe," "left-wing," "single-issue," "extremist," "inexperienced," etc. A win like this with a large turnout is obviously going to force that narrative to change.

      Lieberman may go ahead with his independent run just out of blind emotion, but I think reality will set in for him before too long. He needs both pressure from his peers to drop out and to be offered an attractive alternative that helps him let go and salves his ego.

      by Alien Abductee on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:31:49 PM PDT

  •  'cannot claim a mandate with 52%'

    Why not?

    If we can learn something useful from the Bush administration, it's to not cede any ground unless your political opponent leaves no choice.

    by Simplify on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:17:50 PM PDT

    •  I disagree with that portion

      I wrote that I think that this is a CLEAR mandate.

      by RaulVB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:19:31 PM PDT

      •  Point taken. My comment --> diary, not yours.

        by Simplify on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:30:51 PM PDT

        •  Oh!, sorry (n/t)

          by RaulVB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:32:27 PM PDT

    •  Especially when

      Lieberman outspent Lamont 3:1 and still lost to someone who had no name recognition six months ago.

      by SCFrog on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:45:05 PM PDT

    •  Wow. 52% is almost like

      real political capital!

      by NYFM on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 03:19:36 AM PDT

•  The story today

  is not about Lamont's win. It's about a surge in the national anti-incumbent mood.

  Up until today, no incumbent member of Congress (either Rep. or Senator) had lost so far this cycle. None. For the first time since 1946. Yet in one night, not one, not two, but THREE incumbents fall. THREE. Lieberman, McKinney, and Joe Schwarz.

  Unbelievable. What's next, does Chafee fall in Rhode Island?

  I sure hope so!

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:02:15 PM PDT

  •  You can count on it

    The mood of the country is pretty clear.

    The real people wants change, a MAJOR change.

    by RaulVB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:04:16 PM PDT

    •  yep

      First a pro-war Dem loses his own party and is forced to run third-party (the first Senator to lose renomination since Bob Smith in 2002), then an anti-war but equally controversial Dem loses to a mainstream progressive, then a conservative GOP incumbent loses to a WAY-conservative GOPer.

      Three incumbents. One night. Coming to a district near you.

      by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:07:45 PM PDT

  •  what do you mean first time since 1946?

    by anthonyLA on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:06:38 PM PDT

    •  first time since 1946...

      ...that no federal incumbent had lost their party primary this late in the cycle.

      Usually one or two incumbents lose their primaries per election year, and this was the first time since 1946 that we went as late as August without that happening.

      by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:08:47 PM PDT

      •  Running toward policial Armageddon.

        it's judgement day fro the war mongers. Only we have a ballot instead of supernatural bullshit.  

        by Salo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:12:46 PM PDT

      •  Didn't realize this

        I think this race has shades of the 1968 California GOP Senatorial Primary where "Mad" Max Rafferty, then our incompentent and destructive School Superintendent, upset Tom Kuchel who was a 16 year incumbent and the Republican Minority Whip.  I don't think this race is the same though.  It has some eerie similarities though.  

        by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:23:35 PM PDT

        •  DON'T MAKE THAT COMPARISON!

          Rafferty went on to lose to Alan Cranston (D).

          Do NOT make that comparison.

          I'd prefer a comparison to the NY Senate race of 1980. Sen. Jake Javits was a moderate Republican, lost the primary to the more conservative Al D'Amato. Javits chose to run as a Liberal (a third party in New York) and was expected to best both D'Amato and the Democrat. Instead, D'Amato won.

          I hope the same is true for Lamont, with Lieberman the Javits of the race. However, I worry that if Republicans choose to abandon Schlessinger and back Lieberman (with strong Independent support as well), he will win.

          by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 08:28:23 AM PDT

•  Please edit...

  Change "his smuggly egotistical independent candidacy" to "his smarmy egotistical independent candidacy."

  Seriously Lieberman is way too oily...

  and I was only kidding 'bout the title.

  by Mumon on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:02:42 PM PDT

•  Don't worry about redstate.org

  We will now build bridges to "Lieberman" Democrats.  These are hard working and well meaning people.  For them Iraq is not central, but health insurance is.

  These people are on our side of the trenches, not with plutocrats, neo-cons and theo-cons.

  Way to go everybody!

  by Shockwave on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:06:31 PM PDT

  •  A lot of the Lieberman Dems

    Were loyalists, first and foremost.  They'd been with Joe for a while and would follow him almost anywhere.  I don't think they'll leave the party for him though.

    by Webster on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:15:05 PM PDT

  •  On CSpan

    There was a Republican caller from CT who didn't like Lamont.  He was going to vote for Joe in Nov.  Why?  Because he lives in, supposedly, the biggest welfare city in the nation (I doubt that claim) and all these years Democrats haven't done anything to help them.  

    Think about that.

    Lieberman (a Democrat) has been this guy's representative for 18 years.  Democrats haven't done anything.  Yet.  He's voting for Lieberman instead of giving Lamont a chance.  

    The people on the ground must have a narrative for the "Lieberman Dems" and an even better one for the Republicans who seem to want to do whatever Fox tells them.

    by fabooj on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:54:58 PM PDT

    •  Wait... LOL

      So this caller was essentially saying "As a Democrat, Joe Lieberman did NOTHING for me in the past 18 years. Now I'll vote for him as an Independent because Ned Lamont is a Democrat, and the last Democrat, Joe Lieberman, didn't do anything."

      Jesus Fucking Haploid Christ on a tricycle. Are they honestly trying to push that broke-ass "Democrats didn't do anything" meme?

      by BullitNutz on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 02:09:55 AM PDT

•  Red State Arrogance

  I think it is pretty arrogant for Red State to state that they know for certain that all of the Democrats that voted for Lieberman will follow him into his independent bid.  That is a very big assumption at best.

  I am sure there are a lot of Democrats in Connecticut tonight who voted for Lieberman, but will support Lamont because he won the primary.

  Red State can pontificate all it wants, but Holy Joe looks like a very sore loser.  

  I remain unconvinced that Connecticut Democrats want to be stuck with the "sore loser" albatross around their necks.

  by LeftofArizona on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:07:05 PM PDT

  •  Joe's self-absorption and similar interests

    will soon become rather obvious to those Dems who voted for him on Tuesday, IMHO.  I can't see Joe running as an Independent against a winning Dem as something the Lieberman voters actually wanted to happen.  My guess is that they voted for the Dem they happened to know these past decades, rather than Joe Lieberman the individual.

    Ned will also get much more publicity and formal backing than before - his messages will sound like sanity in the face of Joe's old-style, Republican-lite lying.

    The more people have seen of Joe as a selfish, defensive asshole who doesn't look out for people other than himself and establishment friends, the more it seems he's caused problems for himself.  Dems who voted for Lieberman will see nothing but his Bush-like campaigning resemblance come November . . . with an official Republican on the ticket, the contrast with Joe will be in years of holding a Senator's office.

    by wader on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:21:07 PM PDT

•  Lieberman was a disloyal Democrat

  Iraq was not the problem.

  by timber on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:08:25 PM PDT

  •  Not really

    He is disloyal now to "his Party.".

    And before he was disloyal to his country by supporting a failed and criminal occupation only for personal reasons.

    by RaulVB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:10:35 PM PDT

  •  oh please

    this election was entirely a referendum on Iraq.  Other than Iraq, Lieberman voted with the Dems 95% of the time.

    This was 100% about Iraq--Joe would be the Dem nominee but for that issue.

    by anthonyLA on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:12:28 PM PDT

    •  He's going to run as...

      ...an indie now.    he's a real Benedict Arnold.

      by Salo on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:13:43 PM PDT

      •  Actually, no

        Benedict Arnold won the colonies the Battle of Saratoga, winning France as an ally in the aftermath of that crucial victory.

        Lieberman didn't even take himself off the ballot for US Senate while running for VP in 2000.

        Benedict Arnold was a hero by comparison. You do him great dishonor by comparing him to Joe Lieberman.

        by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:18:28 PM PDT

    •  It was the kiss, and Iraq, and the

      telling dems to shut up and get in line behind Chimpy.  It wasn't his voting record at all, it was his attitude toward Democrats and the country in general.

      by Webster on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:18:03 PM PDT

    •  Sorry voting for cloture

      Then voting against Scalito, is not "voting with the Dems 95% of the time (made up GOP talking point number BTW)".

      From Schiavo, to flirting with Social Security accounts, to Iraq, it is about more than cherry picking vote tallies, but also how he became the got person for the Fox News crew to slag of "liberal and "lefties" within the party.

      Ben Nelsen isn't getting a primary challenge for his IWR vote, and neither are many other IWR yes votes. This said about party loyalty, but not in the spun and narrow terms in which you are reputing the definition of it. Holy Joe sold the party down the river beginning with his VP debate performance and the 2000 recount and hasn't stopped since but accelerated it to open petulance and disrespect for CT voters who he is supposed to represents

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:21:20 PM PDT

    •  You're unfortunately right

      Lieberman was a disloyal Democrat who was extremely conservative and helped the Republicans on just about every occassion.  This was true of his behavior in the 2000 elections.  If not for the Iraq war, he most likely would not have faced a strong challenge this year.

      I think though that if you want to pinpoint why he lost, it was his declaration that he would run as an independent if he lost the primary.  That really hurt him because it showed him for what he truly is, not a senator driven by morals and principle, but as a politician driven to remain in office.  It was callous and it cost him.  Given how narrow Lamont's mandate is, I think this was the defining moment.  The unrelenting attacks against liberals, his record of betraying Democrats and discussions, and that stupid ad attacking poor, innocent bears didn't help him.  But this whole independent run won't work and likely cost him his senate seat.

      by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:32:43 PM PDT

      •  Lieberman wasn't conservative

        His actual voting record was not that of Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu. He wasn't Barbara Boxer, but he wasn't voting like red state Democrats either. He was voting in the middle between the two.

        Lieberman lost because he was disloyal. Had he not gone on Fox News to bash Democrats all the time he probably would have kept his seat. His acts of disloyalty and undermining the party cost him his seat in the end.

        While the far left would have had issues with him regardless due to the war and Israel, Lieberman could have probably eked out a win had the Democratic base not perceived him as being disloyal. His acts of disloyalty are what cost him the primary.

        by jiacinto on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:35:37 PM PDT

        •  Maybe

          I can't beleive the Israel hatred from some members of the far left.  I guess I'm more moderate, not a far leftist so I guess I don't count but I was really surprised.  I had no idea how much support there was for Hamas and Hezbollah among the left.  

          The war in Iraq is the greatest issue facing our country today, it is more than a single issue.  I think to term it as a "single issue" is really insulting to our brave men and women serving in Iraq, fighting a war for no real reason, risking their lives for all of us who choose not to fight.  It's also stupid to term a generation defining, history defining war as a "single issue".  Lieberman not only supported the war but supported the neocon agenda (the agenda of stupidity and failure) which is pressing us to engage in more wars.  

          by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:44:20 PM PDT

          •  Who supports Hamas and Hezbollah

            I keep seeing this, but no one has pointed anything from anyone who wasn't a troll.  Being against Israel bombing the fuck out of Lebanese civilians isn't supporting a terrorist group.  

            by fabooj on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:00:24 AM PDT

            •  There's a difference

              1.  There are pacifists who oppose all war.

              2.  There are people who don't want the civilian casualities.

              3.  There are people who proposed France threaten nuclear attacks against Israel, question Israel's right to exist, support the destruction of Israel and a permanent diaspora, and people who seem to support Hamas and Hezbollah.

              The first two groups I have nothing but respect for, even if I disagree with them.  The last group, as you say, could very well be trolls.  It's kind of hard to tell.  There have been pro Israel trolls as well.  I dunno, it's difficult to tell sometimes.  I don't want the left to be associated with being anti Israel, that's a disastrous proposition.  And the U.S. needs to work on getting an international force in there right now.

              Black by popular demand!

              I love your tagline, I think mine should be "gay and Californian by birth, liberal by choice" or "Everybody has a tooshie"

              by SoCalLiberal on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:07:20 AM PDT

        •  Maybe not conservative...

          But he did himself no favors with his Schiavo statements, not to mention the whole emergency contraception nonsense.

          On some of the major progressive issues, he chose to side with the other side.  That is his right, of course, just as it is the right of CT voters to take it out on his hide at the ballot box.

          by LeftofArizona on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:45:01 PM PDT

        •  Hey, jiacinto,

          look at polling these days.  Ain't just the "far left" who don't like Liebermanesque positions on Iraq.  So don't be going back to that "far left" crap you love so much.

          by MissLaura on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

    •  Hmmm...

      anthony,

      I respectfully disagree.  I spent four years in Connecticut doing grad work and I still have friends there.  Yes, there was a lot of anger over his support for Bush on Iraq, but other topics I heard were:  Schiavo, not representing CT values, Alito/cloture, "the Kiss," emergency contraception, and a host of others.

      One major issue I heard was that no one outside of New Haven or Hartford ever saw the man when he returned to the state.  The smaller towns never got a glimpse of his face.  (And, during the CT Dem convention, one small town casted all its votes for Lamont because, as they said, Holy Joe didn't bother to show up like he said he would for a talk and didn't bother calling to cancel either).

      I don't deny that Iraq a prime issue, but a lot of Democrats in CT felt like Joe was only in it for himself, which now has been confirmed by his announcement of an independent run.

      by LeftofArizona on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:42:12 PM PDT

    •  Iraq was a symptom [n/t]

      by matt le w on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 01:09:32 AM PDT

•  You're already doing a new diary?

  Wow, you are magic Anthony, pure magic.  Okay, redstate is nothing but a bunch of fuckers, don't waste your time reading them or listening to them.  Listen to Republicans who are in positions of power, either the politicians themselves (if you know any), the millionaire and billionaire movers and shakers, or the people who work for the Republicans in the party.  They're the ones who control things, not redstate or little green footballs.  I don't know any myself but if I did, I'd listen to them, not some crackpots.

  Anyway, Lieberman will lose if he runs as an independent and I think the party will force him out of the race anyway.  Bayh and Hilary Clinton are already supporting him.  I doubt Reid will cross her as he's already plotting to make her the Senate Majority Leader (to avoid her running for president).  I really think that given Lamont's more moderate credentials, this isn't so much a victory for radical leftists as it is a victory for the people of Connecticut and for Democrats.  The fact that Lamont won is a mandate.  If 50.5% is a mandate, then 52% certainly is.  Given the fact that Lamont was outspent, unsupported by the party, and trailed by 50% to an 18 year incumbent...that's a pretty damn impressive mandate.  

  by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:20:19 PM PDT

  •  Correct!

    Lamont SHOULD NOT BE THE WINNER if we apply conventional wisdom.

    Lieberman's politics were crushed in Connecticut.

    by RaulVB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:22:29 PM PDT

  •  I'm assuming you're saying ...

    ...that Clinton is supporting Lamont - not clear from your sentence.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:43:42 PM PDT

    •  That's what I meant

      Sorry I'm kind of on a Lamont victory buzz.  

      by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:45:34 PM PDT

      •  Aren't we all? n/t ;)

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:46:35 PM PDT

        •  From Monteceito Heights to Holmby Hills

          Angelinos who have taken a vested interest in the Connecticut Senate Race are all aglow tonight.  It got scary there for a while.  Especially with the false Candy Crowley reports of Loserman being ahead and the lead narrowing, it was not fun.  But we triumphed.  I think any way you slice it, continuing to support a failed policy without any major changes is just plain stupid.  :)  The Iraq war is more than a single issue.

          by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:53:51 PM PDT

•  Here's Scoop Jackson for you...

  ...courtesy of Roger Morris at the Seattle PI in 2003:

  With another local prosecutor raised to Senate power, King County's Warren Magnuson, Jackson also saw to it that generous appropriations and contracts were sluiced to his home state, especially the Puget Sound area. "Scoop" especially would be known scathingly in congressional corridors as the "Senator from Boeing" for being on-call to the corporate giant.

  But it was in national security that Jackson's impact was deepest. The hawks' hawk, he was to the right of many in both parties. Not even the massive retaliation strategy and roving CIA interventions of the Eisenhower '50s were tough enough for him. Perched on the mighty Armed Services Committee as well as his other bases of power, he went on over the next decade to goad the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, urging the Vietnam War, fatter military budgets, stronger support of Israel in the Middle East and a more aggressive foreign policy in general.

  It was then, 40 years ago, that Jackson began to be linked directly, if furtively, to some of the uglier and little-known origins of the war on Iraq in 2003. Overseeing the CIA's "black budget" for covert operations and interventions from a subcommittee of Armed Services, he was one of a handful of senators who gave a nod to two U.S.-backed coups in Iraq, one in 1963 and again in 1968. Those plots brought Saddam Hussein to power amid bloodbaths in which the CIA, exacting the price for its support, handed Saddam and his Baath Party cohorts lists of supposed anti-U.S. Iraqis to be killed.

  The result was the systematic murder of several hundred and as many as several thousand people, in which Saddam himself participated. Whatever the toll, accounts agree that CIA killing lists comprised much of Iraq's young educated elite -- doctors, teachers, technicians, lawyers and other professionals as well as military officers and political figures -- Iraqis who would not be there to oppose Saddam's growing tyranny over ensuing years or to help rebuild or govern Iraq, as the United States now hopes to do, after the current war.

  By 1969, Jackson was so prominent in military and national security affairs, and so at odds on those issues with many in his own party, that newly elected Republican Richard Nixon thought to name the Washington Democrat his secretary of defense, though the senator declined the job.

  By 1969, Jackson was so prominent in military and national security affairs, and so at odds on those issues with many in his own party, that newly elected Republican Richard Nixon thought to name the Washington Democrat his secretary of defense, though the senator declined the job.

  But Snohomish County's favorite son coveted the White House himself and was soon a sharp critic of Nixon's arms control and détente. Added to his cold warring was even greater zeal for Israel, a certainty that the United States should endorse the Israelis' own hard line -- absorbing the West Bank after its conquest in the 1967 Middle East War, the long-term subjugation of Palestine and an abiding hostility to Iraq and other Arab states.

  {snip}

  His belligerence also exerted (and still does) a kind of extortionist pull on liberal Democrats deathly afraid of appearing "weak" on national defense or in standing up to the Russians and anyone else. There was no question that "Scoop," from the mountains and straits of the far northwest corner of the continental United States, caught the unease and reflexive combativeness of much of America in dealing with a planet we knew so little despite our power. Still, in the '70s, a more worldly post-Vietnam moderation and sensibility in the leadership of both parties appeared to have passed Jackson by, leaving his chauvinism and foreign policy animus marginal, sometimes looking a bit crazed

  by Meteor Blades on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:29:06 PM PDT

•  Well

  Everyone here wanted Lieberman gone, and so the wish has come true. Now you all must deal with the mess, which includes the possibility of that no-name Republican winning the seat in a three-way race should Lieberman remain. Honestly this seat would have stayed blue had Lieberman been left alone. However, every indication here seems to be that the seat will stay blue regardless.

  I just hope to God that this blog isn't filled with CT-Sen posts the rest of the campaign season. There are so many more races that all have been forgotten because of the Lieberman/Lamont primary. Races in crucial states like RI, PA, VA, TN, OH, MO, MT, NV, and AZ are of much higher priority.

  by jiacinto on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:32:33 PM PDT

  •  Always a 'positive' note from you...

    What a guy!

    by RaulVB on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:34:25 PM PDT

  •  I really want to trollrate you right now

    But since you're not a troll, I'll refrain.  You're really just killing my Lamont victory buzz!  I think if anything, this will actually energize people and excite Democrats around the country.  By having Lieberman gone (or marginalized), we help out our Democratic candidates running for house seats in Connecticut.  This victory may also embolden conservatives in Rhode Island to dump Chaffee, which would practically give us the seat.  I have a feeling that despite DLC whining and crying, the top Democrats in the Senate and in the party establishment both nationally and Connecticut will help force Joe out of the race.  Schlesinger, is not just a no name candidate but a fairly crooked character (he makes up fake names so he can further his gambling addiction), and he won't beat Lamont.  

    by SoCalLiberal on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:37:40 PM PDT

  •  Never submit to that kind of blackmail

    That's what this is, Lieberman essentially tried to blackmail the party leadership: support me in the primary, or else I bolt the party!  Well, the voters called his bluff.

    Many people think Joe's still ok, his voting record is still with the party.  These people will recognize that Lamont will be even better.  They will not vote for Joe in Nov.

    Some independents might.  But CT is sufficiently blue that this won't matter.  If the Dem leadership gets behind Lamont, then Lamont will win.  The dems who voted for Joe today don't owe him any loyalty beyond his party affiliation, for the most part.  They won't stay with him.

    by amitxjoshi on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:15:37 AM PDT

  •  Pish

    No Name won't win.  He'll be an also ran.  It's going to be Ned or Joe.  The GOP candidate was polling something like 12 or 13%, because the GOP took on an incredibly bad candidate with baggage--probably because they thought they were offering up a sacrificial lamb.

    Now... they have a zilch running in a three-way.  I think the last poll on the race looked like it was Lamont 40%, Leiberman 40% and the rest divided between the real GOP candidate and undecided and minor parties.

    You really think that Lieberman will lose half of that support to the Republican AND that the GOP will pick up all the loose change, making it a neck and neck etween No Name and Ned?

    Nah.

    Some of the voters who voted for Leiberman will support the Democratic candidate.  His 48% will be bleeding away for the next couple months.

    And some of the Independents will vote for Ned--he's hardly a radical.  

    by ogre on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 12:55:44 AM PDT

    •  On Election Day

      Scheslinger will pull 30%, minimum. The Republicans do have a party-line reflex, just like Dems. Joe might be dead in the water, but the GOP nominee is not.

      by matt le w on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 01:15:34 AM PDT

      •  Ok.

        So... given that Lamont's support in the Democratic party is solid, the question will be what do those who voted for Joe do, now that he's NOT a Democratic candidate?  What will the indies do?

        I think it's fair to assume that the last poll, showing Lamont with 40%, is probably a safe, minimum number for him.

        If No Name gets 30% just because he wears an elephant mask, then Joe's hosed.  30% will be his ceiling, then.

        You've just called it for Lamont.  I rather agree.  And Joe's going to face some serious embarrassment in days to come.  Backers... backing away and endorsing Lamont.  Endorsements... being withdrawn and reconsidered.  And the stupidity involved in his website will blow up in his face.  Accusations of criminal activities by the Lamont campaign are going to look really stupid and childish when it comes out that the website was a cheap, shoddy affair run by incompetents... and that Joe's campaign tried a shabby last minute smear.

        by ogre on Wed Aug 09, 2006 at 01:24:14 AM PDT

•  Liberman's Changing Logic

  for taking a Mulligan and running as an Independent:

  Lieberman had anticipated that there would be a low turnout for the Democratic Primary.  He reasoned that with a low turnout that a disproportionate share of passionate Lamont supporters would deny the majority of CT Democrats their rightful voice (the implication being that Lieberman voters wouldn't bother to take the time to support him in a summer primary when they had better things to do).  This skewed logic was cloaked in typical Liberman scantimonious rhetoric about how a low turnout and victory for Lamont would not be a 'true' reflection of Democratic voter will in CT.

  Except that script didn't play out.  Turnout was much higher than expected and outpaced all previous Democratic primaries for the US Senate in recent memory.

  So much for the will of the people.

  The New Script was immediately rolled-out for his  run as an Independent (courtsey of the NY Times):

  The senator said he was staying in the race because Mr. Lamont had run a primary campaign of “insults” and “partisan polarizing” that relentlessly blamed Mr. Lieberman for President Bush’s wartime policies, which the senator has supported and defended but also criticized at various points.  “For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand,” Mr. Lieberman said of the Lamont victory.

  The arrogance of this new Lieberman Logic for running as an Independent is simply breath-taking.  Big turnout; don't like the results; screw the Democratic Party.

  by Norm DePlume on Tue Aug 08, 2006 at 11:53:58 PM PDT