Redstate

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

the demise going on in connecticut is that of the democrat party. they are like the hostess who has one reason or another to exclude a vast portion of potential invitees, then wonders why her parties are so thinly attended.

three hundred thousand of connecticut's most liberal voters turned out for the democrat primary. it's the most liberal group in connecticut, and yet lamont beat lieberman by only 10,000 votes. that is to say, this "resounding lamont victory" everyone is talking about is about the nearly evenly divided votes of less than 5% of the state's population, who as a group are also the ones with the greatest antiwar bias. by any yardstick, that spells huge trouble for lamont this fall.

the michael moore purge increasingly makes democrats irrelevant--to lieberman and to everyone else, even in liberal connecticut, but especially to the mainstream democrats who are being summarily kicked out of the party. it's the growing ranks of independents that count, many among them dispossessed democrats, and that is why lieberman's rhetoric in support of the war has grown even more impassioned in recent days since his radically leftward shifting--and shrinking--former party disgorged him by a very narrow margin.

you are totally mistaken if you think joe lieberman is having money-raising difficulties, or if you believe he is on the verge of withdrawing. he may not have lamont's personal fortune, and never did during three earlier successful senate bids, but his campaign's cash balance has consistently run ahead of lamont's, and in the days leading up to the primary he outspent lamont as well.

on the other hand, if you were to subtract the $800,000 moveon has contributed to the lamont campaign, and also remove lamont's own fat checkbook from the picture, you would quickly realize that, were it not for his being the great grandson of a partner in the morgan bank, it is mr. lamont who has money difficulties, even though his campaign is being financed by donors as far away as hollywood.

the other democrats who view lamont as a harbinger of upcoming triumphs for antiwar candidates had better keep this in mind, along with the fact that connecticut is a liberal new england state, since none of them is as financially endowed as mr. lamont, and also because they will be running in places less inclined to welcome their antiwar views.

Basically Liberals are doing what Neo-Cons have been for the past 15 years? They no longer play in east coast states because they are viewed to extreme?

Basically the places that are less likely to welcome their antiwar views is in the South. In the West, Midwest, and East Coast people are going to listen. If you can name 1 state where the antiwar view will hurt Democrats in the 06 election please say because I live in Indiana and as a person who supports keeping the troups in Iraq for at least a little while longer these views wont hurt Democrats one bit.

In races in Penn, OH, Cal, CT, NY, NH, and other states where there are a good number of swing districts you are telling me that a person that is against the war in Iraq will somehow hurt the Democrats... Right now the latest poll shows 60% of the public AGAINST the war in Iraq.

btw- you can thank Chuck Hegal for helping the Democrats out with the anti-war bit. The Zell's of the Democratic Party are out and the Chaffee's of the Republican party are almost gone. You can not survive by looking disloyal.

how did you get that from what i said? the only candidates playing hard in connecticut are both liberals. of those two, senator lieberman happens to be prowar.

alan schlesinger is the unknown republican candidate. he is no "neo-con." he says half the troops in iraq should be brought home within a year after election day. as mayor of derby he raised taxes. he has joined with other RINOs complaining that immigration policies are too restrictive.

there are a few RINOs in new england, not many. i defy you to find me a "neo-con." the national republican organization wrote off new york and new england a long, long time ago.

as for the war, you cannot find a region with more antiwar bias in the country than exists in new york and new england. having said that, however, it remains a fact that mr. lamont defeated senator lieberman by only 10,000 votes among 300,000 cast by the most antiwar group in the state: registered democrats. other antiwar democrats who try to copy mr. lamont's formula in regions less antiwar than new york and new england will also lack the benefit of mr. lamont's large personal fortune.

zell miller is alive and well and very much the type of guy admired by senator lieberman's supporters on matters of national security.

1) There are ALWAYS Neo-Cons in liberal states. Maybe few in numbers but they exist, but my point wasn't that he was a Neo-Con but that I find I hard to believe that pro-life Republicans would jump on the Lieberman bandwagon. I find it hard that diehard Republicans would jump on the Lieberman bandwagon. In November Lamont will win by 4% and the unknown Republican will get between 12-15%.

2) If you actually know Democrats who admire Zell please tell me because you will find them very few in numbers today. Because even to me a complete moderate he is a traitor. The most important thing to me is loyality and Zell spit on that. I totally respect him for getting up and supporting Bush, but he should of done it as a Republican.

3) You still missing the fact that Lieberman was an incumbant and many people didn't believe in voting for Lamont because they thought Lieberman was a good Democrat. I know friends from CT who say they aren't going to vote for Liberman in the general election because he is running as an independent.

1) who are these pro-life republicans in connecticut you are talking about that might or might not jump on the lieberman bandwagon, and what in the world does this have to do with any comments i have made? i never mentioned the abortion issue. lieberman is an orthodox jew. orthodox jews are pro-life. but connecticut has a very small jewish population, far less than most other states, and lieberman is still popular in connecticut. yet lieberman is very much a liberal and always has been. republicans in connecticut don't have a conservative, pro-life or even a prowar, candidate. republicans and conservatives are not a big factor in connecticut. the national republican organization is not involved in new york or new england. the only republicans in new england are RINOs. chafee of rhode island is hanging by his nails. many other RINOs, including schlesinger, are calling for withdrawal of US forces in iraq. most republicans in new england support abortion rights. i never mentioned the abortion issue before you did, so you couldn't have been confused about something i said on that subject because i never commented on it. schlesinger is a non-factor, unknown entirely by a huge portion of connecticut voters, has no money, and will never get the percentages you're suggesting. the kinds of ocnservatives and republicans you're describing, to the extent that they exist in connecticut, are solidly behind joe lieberman because of the war, and they oppose schlesinger's withdrawal position.

2) i know plenty of zell miller admirers, but your comment here is off the track. you had stated miller was "out" (among democrats) in a manner that implied he had been rejected by plebiscite by the democrats of georgia. that's not true. he simply chose not to run again and is now practicing law. the man who now occupies his seat in the senate is a republican. if you want to talk about a democrat who was rejected by the voters in georgia, you should talk about max cleland. finally, you brought up zell miller; i never mentioned the man before you did, so you couldn't have been confused about something i said on that subject because i never commented on it. but it is true that lieberman is becoming a kind of "new england zell miller" with respect to the war. the antiwar democrats of connecticut find this repugnant, and they can't do a thing about it.

3) i'm missing the fact lieberman is an incumbent? i stated directly that he is a three-term incumbent, and that he won three elections without lamont's kind of money. and lieberman is very much a good democrat if that is measured by his liberalism. check out his acu and other ratings for yourself. as for the democrats you know in connecticut who won't vote for lieberman because he is running as an independent, they probably didn't vote for him in the primary either. they are probably antiwar lamont supporters. but either way, they are representative of a cranky bunch who think they are entitled to end the senator's career by kicking him out of the democrat party, and they don't like the fact that his standing as an independent is powerful and popular, that he doesn't need the democrat party's blessing, and that his career is very much alive without it. they think he should withdraw entirely because they have removed him from the democrat line. they represent precisely what is occurring as a result of the michael moore antiwar democrat purge: a party that has gone from "big tent" to "you aren't a democrat unless you're antiwar." this has made them a narrower, more marginalized and less influential political force, and lieberman's popularity as an independent, even in liberal connecticut, proves it. without lamont's gigantic riches subsidizing this self-marginalized position, the democrat party in connecticut would be even less popular and influential in this race. they think they have the power to impose their will upon lieberman to keep him from running as an independent, and they don't. naturally, they don't like that, and they are frustrated and angry about it because they are trying to control something they have no power to control. they thought they ended lieberman's career, when in fact they may have boosted it.

the fact that he pulling so much Republican support and still only leads by 6 points means he is slightly underperforming among independents from what I expected

on the third hand, I don't expect many of those Dems that have not already switched to Lamont because he was the party's choice to do so (1/3 was about the low end of what I expected for Joe's support from Dems; less sure about the potential for Rep support to slide back to Schlessinger), combined with the busted terror plot, and this number should remain relatively stable.

Before the primary I did a rough calculation: If Lieberman gets 2/3 of the Bush voters and 1/3 of the Kerry voters, he wins with almost a majority.

So when I said "Republicans" above I really meant "Bush voters."
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong

I just can't see them being very motivated to turn out to vote for a pro-war liberal. I do think the anti-war left will be very motivated to turn out to vote for a anti-war liberal however as evident by the huge turnout in the primary.

Between Schlesinger's secret gambling under a false name, his cut-and-runish Iraq policy, and the existance of an independent in the race much stronger on the war, he can easily lose that badly.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong

what i see in this poll is evidence that about half (or even more) of schlesinger's previous support has drifted over to lieberman.

Indeed. Lamont has the momentum to take a crushing moral victory as Lieberman stays put in the Senate.
--
"In this day and age, you're not going to get a fair shake in the media" -- Lance Armstrong

because a third of connecticut voters don't, including republicans. despite the fact that this is the most widely followed senate race in the nation, and the additional fact that mr. schlesinger is the republican standard bearer, his presence is mainly an absence.

in terms of name recognition, this race offers two huge extremes--lieberman, a political brand name known worldwide, and schlesinger, a guy whose gambling escapades are about the only thing he is known for among the few who even know his name--along with another candidate whose practical identity is "the rich antiwar guy."

the lieberman and lamont teams are raising and spending millions. at last report schlesinger had $25,000, half of which was borrowed. he's been in state house politics for better than a dozen years, and still no one's heard of him. take a guess what $25,000 is worth in the new york TV markets where liberman and lamont are advertising. schlesinger doesn't even have a TV ad to air.

republicans don't really exist in new england, even though a few RINOs do. as connecticut conservatives (not a big group either) who might have been schlesinger supporters discover his war position, they're coming over to lieberman.

practically nothing about this race turns on the fortunes of alan schlesinger.

You just walk in, fill in the mark next to Republican and leave. Name recognition doesn't matter.

I'd wager at least 10-15% of CT's voters will do that.

but you can't back it up with any evidence in the polling. the polling indicates that the voters here are very interested in and knowledgeable about this race, and the twice-the-normal turnout ratio for the democrat primary just held indicates the same. this does not appear to be the kind of race for which voters would turn out in the manner you described: somnolent republican robots unthinkingly voting the party line; on the contrary, it appears that the voters of connecticut with conservative views who would normally be considered "natural republicans" believe that national security is the number-one issue about this race, and the man they like is not a republican, but joe lieberman. they had no trouble in the past voting for him even though he had the democrat label, and it will be very easy for them to vote for him again as an independent, since the "hold your nose" factor has been completely removed by his having been dumped from the democrat line.

whatever is true about connecticut republicans, however, is far less important a factor than the far larger group of traditional working-class democrats of the naugatuck valley and the large cities around the state who also embrace lieberman's prowar stance, and that is why lamont's victory margin over lieberman among democrats in the primary was so narrow. those traditional democrats way outnumber the republicans, but most of both of those groups will be going lieberman's way. this isn't mere speculation; it is precisely what these voters who have elected senator lieberman three times previously with exactly the same things on their minds when they did so have already done.

nevertheless, if it's your guess that republicans will show up at the polls with nothing more on their minds than pulling the levers marked "republican," so be it. i frankly don't see much merit to or thinking behind that idea, nor any historical evidence or polling data to support it.