Redstate

I know, I'm on the ground out in Connecticut.

His communications team was a joke. They didn't call back reporters, never publicized events on time. Pulled every boner in the book. Their communications director, Liz Dupont-Diehl, is infamously hated by journalists in Connecticut for failing repeatedly keep promises that she'll answer calls.

His event planning was outrageously poor. They didn't book venues until the last minute, failed to get permits. They failed to call the media in to cover them.

His broadcast media strategy was disorganized. It was a combination of ads hitting Lieberman over and over again on the war, plus a few nice-guy ads about Lamont being a public school volunteer, that kind of thing. They weren't rolled out in any organized fashion and never addressed Lieberman's key argument: that he's an independent thinker.

In fact, the great failure of the Lamont campaign has been from day one to try to appeal to independents, which he would have needed to win. They constantly seemed to try to go for the Democrats which were still hanging onto Lieberman.

Lamont's campaign was one of general incompetency. It's death by a thousand cuts.

Lamont the man? Actually, I met him personally a few times. (as well as Schlesinger). The way he talks in person is nothing like the way he appeared during the debates. Whichever stupid Democrat advisors were telling Lamont what to do, they gave him exactly the wrong advice, to sound like a piece of wood with a mouth. Typical Democrat, just politically stupid.

Schlesinger, by the way, is a smart guy and down to earth, and a hell of a debater, and I definitely think there's a good case to be made that we lost a major opportunity in not backing him and letting Lieberman slip in. Another R in the Senate is better for conservatives than a Lieberman, no matter how you slice it, he may be good on the war but God knows what that Ted Kennedy-esque New Englander is going to otherwise do now that he's "independent of party." I mean, seriously, 6 years ago, would you really have made an argument that you wanted to keep Joe Lieberman in the Senate if you had a chance to get rid of him?

I also live in Connecticut, and heard an interesting anecdote from someone who (unintentionally) met Ned Lamont. In late September, some friends were at the wake of a well-respected city councilman who had passed away unexpectedly, and the line to view the deceased stretched out of the room and out into the street. After waiting about 45 minutes in line, my friends had almost arrived at the front of the line to pay their respects, when a man cuts in front of everyone, kneels before the deceased, while TV cameras follow him. My friends were outraged by this boorish behavior and started yelling at the man, until they were told to hold their tongues because Mr. Barge-Inski was none other than the infamous Ned Lamont.

I have no idea whether Ned Lamont scored any points with TV viewers during his "paying his respects" photo-op, but he probably lost the votes of everyone standing in line! To put it gently, this was extremely "tacky".

Re Schlessinger, if he is really a "terrific debater", maybe he should try to run for a state office in 2008 in order to build his name recognition, then take on Chris Dodd in 2010.

The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.

And frankly, I'd bet he's thinking it too. Despite public declarations of a groundswell of support, he must have known for months that it's probably a lost cause. He's running to build name recognition. Why else would he have stuck through to the end?

Unfortunately, I can't think of any prominent state office that he could run for but he COULD challenge Chris Murphy for Congress, should he win, in the 5th CD next time around. Betcha after 2 years of gridlock in Washington, 5th district voters in 2008 would be more receptive to putting a Republican in again. Schlesinger could then serve 2 years as Congressman and go on to challenge Dodd... or Lieberman again in 2012! A Schlesinger-Lieberman rematch, with Lieberman on the D ticket again, would be a riot.

88% of Connecticut wants to be represented by a Democrat in the Senate.

50% of Connecticut's likely voters don't want to be represented by a Mentos ad star or a kook (but I repeat myself).

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Evidently, 100% want to be represented by a male resident of CT.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

. . . not getting a better challenger in CT. Along with should-have-been-better challenges in NE, WA, MI, VT and FL, and not getting Corker to shake up his staff sooner.

having lost your point, is not up to the high standards I expect from you.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

There are, I think, only three states that even allow losing primary candidates to seek ballot status as an independent. Add to that the apparent resistance of Schumer/Dodd/et al to pushing Lieberman out of the race post-primary, and you can't blame that on Lamont's supporters.

The guy has spent a fortune in a very blue state and has picked up only a few points of Dem Lieberman primary voters per the polls. A lot of these will come home to Joe in the voting booth.

Lamont's basic problem is his message. The Dims, and particularly the MSM, has way overplayed the anti-war sentiment. Talk about the echo chamber effect.

By example, had the buffoon, Kerry, instead of his ridiculous "Reporting for Duty" speech just said "The Iraq war is a necessary war that we have to win, but I will make better decisions to win it sooner" and never mentioned it again, he would be President.

But, we all know how innately stupid he is and that level of stupidity is evidently honored throughout the Democrat Party.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

It's about tactics. There was a window in which Lieberman's presence in the general election could have been painted as an illegitimate, "sore loser" move, such that Lamont wouldn't only be getting ~60% of the Dem vote now. That opportunity was missed.

The anti-war sentiment was not overplayed. In September, 68% of CT voters overall (and 90% of CT Dems) disapproved of the way the President was handling the situation with Iraq. 61% believed going to war was the wrong thing to do, and 51% believed a reduction or outright withdrawal of troops was warranted.

for the candidate that promises to represent their views? So where is the disconnect?

"The anti-war sentiment was not overplayed. In September, 68% of CT voters overall (and 90% of CT Dems) disapproved of the way the President was handling the situation with Iraq. 61% believed going to war was the wrong thing to do, and 51% believed a reduction or outright withdrawal of troops was warranted."

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

While 71% of CT voters said that the candidates' views on Iraq were "very important", that was less than the number given for "the ability of the candidates to get things done for Connecticut" and "the ability of the candidates to reach across party lines to get things done in Washington".

Lieberman voters value his experience more than his stance on the issues.

Every voter in the country will make that same decision, that their own particular Senator or Representative is a good guy with experience who deserves re-election even if the voter disagrees with him on some issue.

Honestly, its a mystery why anyone is obsessing about the war. It has zero impact on the average America voter. Maybe peple are just telling the pollesters what they think they want to hear.

Why hasn't Santorum broken 42% yet in a state that has elected him twice? Why is DeWine doomed?

Actually, the ultimate test of that theory is Lincoln Chafee, isn't it?

And you guys found someone to pretend he's a pro-lifer this round.

DeWine is doomed because the OHGOP is almost mind-numbingly stupid this time around.

Keep trying.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

There's not really a question. In addition, he supports federal funding only on existing embryonic stem-cell lines.

I'll eat my computer if Casy gets elected and votes for Edith Brown or Garza for SCOTUS. Or even if he declines to filibuster them.

I'll buy that when it comes time for him to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. Senatuh Schumuh (props out to my Brooklyn peeps!) already let that cat out of the bag.

Credit where it's due: You guys found a guy whose dad was on the level on this issue, but who could be counted to oppose ending the murder of the unborn when the chips are down. Kudos.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Is that why Casey came out in support of the Alito nomination prior to the Judiciary Committee vote?

I don't seem to remember him having a vote. (We call this "cost free posturing.")

I do seem to remember the esteemed camera lunatic from Brooklyn informing everyone on your side of the aisle that Casey would be safe. That's not only more recent, it's more relevant.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

He hadn't had his primary yet -- heck, it was early enough that it could have invited a serious challenger to step in.

Well, we've already established that you're the expert on Southeastern Pennsylvania, if not anywhere South of there, but from the outside looking in, looks to me like the State and National Parties went gangbusters to keep other challengers out of the race.

So, I guess theoretically someone might have made a bid to run without any Party support, and with the Party machine against them, but then again, I might theoretically win the lottery this week.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

. . . Joe Hoeffel and Barbara Hafer were already out of the running, but Gettysburg's Kate Michelman was considering it for a long time.

I read somewhere that the grassroots Dems were becoming able to defeat incumbents in primaries without any Party support, and with the Party machine against them, but I forget where I saw that.

Wonder why not on the Party ticket?

I've heard stories of self-financing multimillionaires in places with high activist Democrat populations (generally composed of wealthy baby boomers and overexcited children) being able to win primaries and then falling to pieces in general elections. I wasn't aware Pennsylvania was such a place. Thanks for the update.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

There is zero sign of some anti-war wave sweeping the nation. If there were then the GOP would be doomed. But that does not seem to be the case. We'll probably keep both House and Senate.

And you never explained why the average voter, who is not impacted even slightly by Iraq, should rush to the polls to cast a vote against it.

The average voter isn't impacted by the war on terror, either. They're more affected by the price of household goods, the price of health care, gasoline, etc. -- you want them voting on that?

supplying the links to support it. Is there another argument you wish to lose to yourself, today, or are you done for now?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

You fight on the terrain you have to, if you can't pick your place of battle. Y'all's little amateur couldn't do battle outside a madhouse, and it shows. He poured millions of his own into this race, had very good personnel from other, nominally capable Democrats, and hired his own staff.

Hate the moron, not the game.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Dole must go at the NRSC as soon as this election is over, maintained majority or not.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.