The 4th district of Connecticut has been the focus of a variety of discussion among the blogs in the week after the midterm elections. One important point is that Christopher Shays is now one of the few remaining "moderate" northeastern Republican congressional representatives. It was his moderate tag in a fairly Democratic region that placed a target on Shays's head going into this election. In 2004, Diane Farrell came within four points to taking down Shays. Yet in 2006, in what we now can recognize as a moderate wave year, Farrell only managed to cut that down to one point in a 51-48 defeat. What does the future hold for Connecticut's fourth congressional district? More importantly, should Ned Lamont now enter into the equation for 2008?
Diane Farrell's 2006 performance was rather disappointing. Her campaign more or less shut down in the final weeks of the election, and her vote totals showed few marked gains from her 2004 performance. To better illustrate the breakdown, I've prepared a table breaking down the votes in the past two cycles by townships in the fourth district. I apologize for the format, as I have no yet fully mastered the art of inserting tables into an entry.
2004 Victor Percentage 2006 Victor Percentage Vote Total (2006)
Bridgeport Farrell 70-30 Farrell 66-32 20,000
Darian Shays 72-28 Shays 67-32 8,000
Easton Shays 60-40 Shays 56-43 3,500
Fairfield Shays 56-44 Shays 53-46 22,000
Greenwich Shays 60-40 Shays 55-44 21,000
Monroe Shays 61-39 Shays 58-40 7,000
New Canaan Shays 70-30 Shays 65-34 8,000
Norwalk Farrell 53-47 Farrell 49-49 22,000
Oxford Shays 59-41 Shays 58-40 4,500
Redding Shays 54-46 Shays 50-49 4,000
Ridgefield Shays 57-43 Shays 51-48 10,000
Shelton Shays 59-41 Shays 58-40 10,500
Stamford Farrell 52-48 Farrell 53-45 31,000
Trumbull Shays 59-41 Shays 58-41 13,000
Weston Shays 51-49 Farrell 52-47 4,000
Westport Farrell 51-49 Farrell 53-46 12,000
Wilton Shays 61-39 Shays 56-43 7,500
One important thing to consider is the closing of most gaps in the voting percentages. There are no instances where the gap between opponents grew more then 2 points, whereas a variety of townships saw closer votes by a spread of 4-6 points. Farrell turned one township blue, where she narrowly defeated Shays in Weston. Additionally, Shays gained no new majority in any township. Yet Shays also gained in Bridgeport, a traditionally Democratic area. Also, Shays closed the spread in the largest of townships, including Bridgeport, Norwalk, and Stamford. Farrell can only boast one such close in the largest of regions, by her 4 point gain in Greenwich.
Another shock in CT-4 is the drop in votes from 2004 to 2006. This cycle shows a total of approximately 210,000 votes for the congressional race. Yet in 2004, 290,000 votes were cast in the same contest. In an election where the Lieberman/Lamont/Schlesinger election and mass discontent with the status quo saw record turnouts, there is little excuse for the drop in voters. Predictably, the drops were felt most in the largest, most Democratic areas. Stamford lost 12,000 votes, Bridgeport lost 12,000, and Norwalk lost 10,000, whereas Greenwich (the largest Republican township) only lost 7,000. Some might cite the difference in a Presidential election to a mid-term, but I would contend that the media coverage and grassroots organizing run this year make up the difference in importance (in the mind of registered voters).
With this in mind, we as the netroots should strongly consider one of our 2006 darlings for future elections to this seat; Ned Lamont. A resident of Fairfield County and a former participant in Greenwich town government, Lamont has his roots planted firmly in the district. To understand why Lamont is an obvious choice, we need to first look at the results from last week's Senate contest.
2006 Victor Percentage
Bridgeport Lamont 58-34-7
Darian Lieberman 60-29-11
Easton Lieberman 56-34-10
Fairfield Lieberman 55-36-8
Greenwich Lieberman 52-39-9
Monroe Lieberman 59-31-9
New Canaan Lieberman 62-29-9
Norwalk Lieberman 47-43-10
Oxford Lieberman 60-28-11
Redding Lieberman 50-43-7
Ridgefield Lieberman 54-37-9
Shelton Lieberman 57-29-13
Stamford Lieberman 45-41-13
Trumbull Lieberman 58-31-10
Weston Lieberman 54-39-7
Westport Lieberman 52-42-6
Wilton Lieberman 58-34-8
On the face of it, the results aren't that encouraging. Lamont managed to win only one township in the district. Yet I ask you to consider these results further. With a three point separation between Farrell and Shays in 2006, Lamont needs to pick up about 6,000 votes to take the district. I feel confident in his ability based on several results noted in the above table. First of all, Lamont's totals in Greenwich are very impressive. Lamont took 39 percent of the vote, and we can assume that almost all of that are either hardcore blue Democrats or local supporters, swung by his community presence or the trends of the year. I think it's safe to assume that of Lieberman's 52 percent, at least 11 percent of them would swing to Lamont. Again, he is a member of the community and I would be shocked if that much of Lieberman's vote totals were Republicans. It's true that Chris Shays has remained relatively insulated from national Republican trends, but as a member of the minority in the next two years he will have little chance to do much pragmatic good for his district.
The breakdown is similar in Fairfield, which borders Democratic stronghold Bridgeport. Lamont took a solid 36 percent of the vote, with Lieberman taking 55 percent. Ned only needs to get close to 50 percent in Fairfield to potentially take the district. Assuming that the rest of the areas that fell for Farrell (where Lamont generally faired decently), I believe that Lamont's closing of the totals in these two townships would swing the seat blue.
Diane Farrell's campaign ultimately dropped in the ball in CT-4. As an outsider to the district and a former resident of a neighboring area, I was very surprised that Shays prevailed while Nancy Johnson fell (she won 60% in 2004!). Both Chris Murphy and Diane Farrell were excellent candidates (maybe Murphy more than Farrell), but I believe that Farrell's own campaign failed to take advantage of this years circumstances. Ned Lamont has proven to be an extraordinary campaigner, and considering the way in which Joe Lieberman won (see establishment GOP support), I believe Lamont would be the perfect candidate to take down Chris Shays once and for all.
Of course, whether this all plays out or not is up to Lamont and his family. This years election was extremely taxing, I'm sure, and Lamont would have to accept what would be in some ways a position with less glory than a seat in the Senate. Nevertheless, if Lamont is truly committed to changing Washington and standing for the people, he will view the fourth district as a perfect opportunity to step foot into Congress and retake government for his constituents. I would urge Lamont, Connecticut Democrats and all of us in the netroots to remember him in future discussions about this seat.