The latest Quinnipac poll has some very bad news for Sen. Joe Lieberman. Ned Lamont leads Lieberman by 54 to 41 points in that poll, and based on the perils of polling in primary elections that signals a likely defeat for the incumbant Senator.
This is bad news for Lieberman (although he’ll probably be reelected as an independent regardless of Tuesday’s outcome), but equally bad for the Democratic Party as a whole. The “netroots” can have a disproportionate effect in primaries where small numbers of committed activists (or activists who should be committed) can swing the results of primary contests. However, when it comes to general elections, being beholden to a group of far-left extremists is a major electoral liability. And already the GOP is working to make Kos’ support an electoral liability. Most people haven’t heard of Kos or blogs, but that doesn’t mean that the things said on blogs like The Daily Kos won’t later be used in campaign commercials and attack ads – the typical Kossack is about as far removed from the average member of the American electorate as one can get.
A Lamont victory would be a major boon for the GOP in 2006 – when a party casts aside one of its own moderates for the crime of trying to get along with the other side, it makes a pretty damning case that the aforementioned party has a few screws loose. A number of people are going to wonder why the Democratic Party threw a former Vice Presidential candidate under the bus, and painting Lieberman as an “extremist” isn’t going to fly. People are sick to death of the climate of stupid and childish partisanship in Washington, and there’s nothing more indicative of that then what the Democrats are doing to one of the few decent politicians left in this country.
Granted, I disagree with 95% of Lieberman’s positions on the issues. On nearly every issue, Lieberman take the liberal, statist position. However, Lieberman is one of the few Democrats on the national scene that is willing to put the interests of the country over the interests of his party. The argument that he blindly follows the President is a ridiculous and idiotic lie. Lieberman has been smeared time and time again, accused of what amounts to heresy against the Democratic religion of unending hatred towards the opposition.
A Republican is highly unlikely to win in Connecticut, but a decent and patriotic man can: which is precisely why I’m guessing Senator Lieberman will get substantial GOP support and defeat the unhinged, unprepared, and unserious Ned Lamont.
“The latest Quinnipac poll has some very bad news for Sen. Joe Lieberman.”
In terms of campaign momentum a week before the election, Lieberman is situated as the 1980 Jimmy Carter compared to Ned Lamont’s Ronald Reagan. Lieberman has lost all momentum and his awful campaign (it’s Lieberman, not Lamont, who was caught “unprepared”) is making his defeat all but inevitable. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a 2-1 Lamont landslide on August 8.
“This is bad news for Lieberman (although he’ll probably be reelected as an independent regardless of Tuesday’s outcome), but equally bad for the Democratic Party as a whole.”
So far, we agree, although I’m no longer convinced that Lieberman, who has not run an even partially competent campaign (including for V-P) since 1988, has what it takes to defeat Lamont in the general election, especially when you consider Chris Shays is also likely to get turned out because of his support for the war. Nationally, however, you’re correct that the Democratic Party could be ushering in a weeks-long PR bloodbath if Lieberman is defeated. The entire storyline of “Republicans on the ropes” will take a backseat to weeks, if not months, of media sharks in a feeding frenzy, with Tim Russert and Chris Matthews forcing Howard Dean and Chuck Schumer to spend their Sunday morning choosing sides between Lieberman and Lamont rather than talk about defeating Republicans. Worse yet, a Lieberman defeat gift-wraps a sword for the GOP to thrust into the bosom of red-state Democrats and shoot holes in their campaign themes. I can hear the ad now, “How can Claire McCaskill be an ‘independent voice for the state of Missouri’ as she claims when her party refuses to support a former Vice-Presidential candidate because he only votes with them 90% of the time instead of 100%?” This is a distraction the Democrats can scarcely afford.
“The “netroots†can have a disproportionate effect in primaries where small numbers of committed activists (or activists who should be committed) can swing the results of primary contests.”
Here’s where your analysis plunges into silliness. Only you and a few self-important Kossacks seriously believe that a Lamont victory would be the product of netroots puppetmasters. Lamont is a wealthy man who was able to afford to get his message out to Connecticut voters….and Connecticut voters thought he was a better man for the job. End of story.
“And already the GOP is working to make Kos’ support an electoral liability.”
Let ’em try. Nobody will pay any attention. Only when national Democratic figures like Hillary Clinton start supporting Lamont will there will be some waffling on the part of certain right-leaning swing voters who were planning to vote Democrat but aren’t so sure if they won’t support Lieberman, the “Democrat” they most admire. Seriously though, this is a career-long pattern on the part of Lieberman of playing the role of a sanctimonious moral ayatollah and then operating in a way that serves the interest of Joe and Joe alone. In 2000, he refused to end his Senate candidacy when running for Vice-President with Gore, meaning if he had become Vice-President, Connecticut’s Republican Governor would appoint a Republican to fill his Senate seat. Now, he refuses to accept the results of a party primary the way everybody else does, which serves the interest of only him and the opposition party. In my heart of hearts, I’d love nothing more than seeing this weasel lose.
“when a party casts aside one of its own moderates for the crime of trying to get along with the other side, it makes a pretty damning case that the aforementioned party has a few screws loose.”
Since when does a intraparty primary represent derangement? Can I assume the GOP “has a few screws loose” as well since they came within a hair of defeating moderate Republican Arlen Specter in a 2004 primary, and could defeat moderate Senator Lincoln Chafee with primary opposition from the right again this year?
“and painting Lieberman as an “extremist†isn’t going to fly.”
Is anybody attempting to portray Lieberman as “an extremist”? You’re making shit up again.
“what the Democrats are doing to one of the few decent politicians left in this country.”
The “Democrats” are in virtual unanimity in supporting Lieberman. It’s Connecticut primary voters that Joe has to worry about. And far from being “one of the few decent politicians left in the country,” Lieberman is one of the smuggest and most sanctimonious POS’s in the Senate today. I want him to win next week (even though he won’t) for political reasons, but if he doesn’t, good riddance!
“argument that he blindly follows the President is a ridiculous and idiotic lie.”
He repeats the opposition’s talking points (often to Sean Hannity on Fox News), namely that dissent against a wartime President is treasonous. Had he not done that last December, he’d be perfectly free to excoriate more movies that he hasn’t seen next Tuesday night rather than watch horrific primary election returns roll in representing the potential end to his political career.
“Senator Lieberman will get substantial GOP support and defeat the unhinged, unprepared, and unserious Ned Lamont.”
That Ned Lamont! What a crazy radical! Try as you might, that won’t fly. He’s the very picture of a moderate, mild-mannered Connecticut WASP and it’s that reason, not the support of Kossacks on an obscure weblog, that Lamont has won over so many Connecticut voters. Two weeks ago, I would have agreed with you on the former, but I’m no longer able to underestimate Ned Lamont’s political skills and overestimate Lieberman and his complete lack of them.
Sometimes casting a moderate out is bad for a party. Take the South Dakota GOP primary elections, for example.
That is not the case here. Lieberman has exactly the same position on Iraq that Bush does. That would get many people in trouble in a GOP primary, but it just ain’t gonna fly in a Dem primary. Far from being a boon to the GOP, I think it has the potential to redefine a number of House races in the Northeast in November where GOPers find themselves in close races. Plus, worst case scenario if Lamont gets elected is that there is another Dem that enables Bush’s disasters. Best case is there’s an energetic, passionate Democrat in the tradition of Wellstone that has the potential to show the progressives there is still room for them in the Democratic Party.
And casting off Lamont in the general is yet another mistake. If there were a real Republican in the general, Lieberman could probably just forget about it. Lamont has all of the momentum and has gained something like 25 points in polls for the general in only a month or two.
The general matchup polls at Lieberman 51, Lamont 29, and Schlesinger (the GOP sacrifici… err… nominee) at 9 by Quinnipac’s numbers.
Lamont has almost no prayer of winning in the general election – he’s a horrendous candidate, he doesn’t know jack about the issues, and his only “momentum” comes from the radical fringe of the party.
I hope he wins anyway – it’ll be the best campaign commercial the GOP has.
“The general matchup polls at Lieberman 51, Lamont 29, and Schlesinger”
Three short months ago, Lieberman was leading Lamont by a 5-1 margin in the primary. How’s that working out for him? He’s an absolutely awful politician who is proudly unresponsive to the will of his constituents. He’ll be very lucky to win in a three-way race and if he does, it’ll be by far less than 22 points.
“he’s a horrendous candidate”
You’re talking about Lamont being a “horrendous candidate”? Guys who go from 60-point deficits to 13-point leads in the polls over the course of two or three months are pretty hard to brand as a “horrendous candidate”. Mark Kennedy sure must have been impressed. He all but stole Lamont’s quirky campaign ad.
Too bad for Lieberman. Unfortunately for him, as far as his party is concerned, he’s a bit of the voice crying out in the wilderness.
Jay:
First, you really seem smarter than a person who would say that a peson who “doesn’t know jack about the issues” has a tough time getting elected in American politics.
If some guy named Ned Lamont–a successful businessman who is not a career politician, stays on message and is charismatic with voters and who probably has about a 2% national name recognition–is the best the GOP has this cycle, I can’t wait for November 7.
The general matchup polls at Liberman 40%, Lamont 40% and Whoever at 13%, according to Rasmussen (Here’s the link. Again.) Three months ago, the same polling firm had Lieberman 47%, Lamont 20% and the other dude 17%. At that time, Rasmussen said Liberman is “well positioned to win another term in Washington,” noting that Lieberman was 20 points up in the primary. You can call 40% of the people of Connecticut the “radical fringe,” but that’s the same radical fringe that’s going to mop up some Republicans in the northeast this fall.
That sounds like a prayer to me. Although you’re stopping just short of calling Lamont a Godless, hedonistic, atheist liberal Democrat, so maybe prayers aren’t his thing.
I agree , lamont is a stiff. I have seen him and heard him. He is a snobbish Connecticut Wasp who is attempting to get the antiwar folks to push him in to office without any real qualifications to back him up. I can tell you as a republican in CT, Lieberman the Independent is going to get GOP support. I sure hope he wins.
On the other hand, if he doesnt, it supports the GOP case that the Dems hare a party of the liberal left. The further they move to the left, the less likely they win. Fact is, the left win of the DEM party has hijacked the party and they are terribly out of touch with mainstram america.