Predicting A Lieberman Victory
By California Yankee Posted in 2006 | Featured Stories — Comments (51) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The polls are open in Connecticut and, six years to the day after Senator Joe Lieberman was introduced as Gore's running mate, nearly 700,000 Connecticut Democrats have an opportunity to decide whether the war will be the major issue of the midterm elections in November.
The conventional wisdom is that Greenwich millionaire and anti-war candidate Ned Lamont will defeat three term Senator Joe Lieberman.
Real Clear Politics' RCP Average gives Lamont an 8.7% edge in the polls, leading the site's analysis to predict Lamont is "likely to win the primary."
Political Wire quotes Dick Morris repeating his earlier prediction that Lamont will win the primary.
Pollster John Zogby, also at Political Wire is part of the Lamont defeats Lieberman camp:
Joe Lieberman will probably go down in defeat by a substantial margin on Tuesday. While some bloggers have listed multiple reasons for the loss in confidence among Connecticut voters, it is all about Iraq. This election cycle is all about Iraq.
[. . .]
It is all about Iraq. I repeat: it is all about Iraq.
Following this campaign here in Connecticut, I think the conventional wisdom and Zogby are wrong. The rise of the left-wing netroots and Lamont have more to do with a hatred of President Bush than the war.
The war has never been popular in the Nutmeg state. It never attained the support of majority in any poll of Connecticut residents that I have seen. Connecticut residents want the war to be over. Who doesn't? Nevertheless, most do not want to hand the terrorists a victory by following a misguided cut and run reaction.
It is almost always a conversation stopper when in a discussion or debate with friends, colleagues or acquaintances my support for President Bush becomes apparent. The war can be discussed, support for the President cannot. I have never seen anything like the left-wing netroot Lamont supporters' visceral hatred of President Bush. It is accurately captured by the phrase Bush Derangement Syndrome:
The acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush. Charles Krauthammer - December 5, 2003
Connecticut Democrats didn't turn on Senator Lieberman because of the war. They turned on Lieberman because the Senator because they suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
The hopeful news is that this week, with the help of a mistake by the Lamont camp, Senator Lieberman turned things around. You could notice a change in the momentum with the blackface antics of Lamont supporter, Jane Hamsher. Lamont's poor handling of the distasteful racist blog posting. You can sense the shift in the news reports, Lieberman finally hit his stride - exuding optimism. I even see it in my friends. Many will make a careful considered decision in the voting booth today.
My prediction is that enough Connecticut Democrats will find at least a momentary relief from Bush Derangement Syndrome to propel Senator Lieberman to a primary victory.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Pass the Popcorn — Comments (10) »
Predicting A Lieberman Victory 51 Comments (0 topical, 51 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I agree with those who think Lieberman loses the primary and wins as an independent in November. The Democrats who want Lieberman gone have overplayed their hand - the lack of support from his Senate colleagues and the ferocity of opposition from other high profile Democrats (like Jesse Jackson) will simply embolden Lieberman to run again in November since he will realize that loyalty is a two-way street. Once he reenters the Senate he will become the Democrat version of John McCain and relish in his maverick status.
But Lieberman is not the principled conservative or moderate he likes to portary himself as. He has backed away from school vouchers, eliminating affirmative action, and attacking smutty music and films. His voting record in the Senate is very liberal; he is great at the typical congressional game of talking and press releasing one way and voting another. Ask Bill Bennett about working with Lieberman on Hollywood issues only to have the Senator back off as soon as liberal heat was applied.
Both Lieberman and Lamont are disgraces. The good news will be that they carve each other up all the way through early November and turn the Democrat Party inside out.
There have always been segments of any political party that at any given time are more influential (real or imagined) which sway the course of the parties. Look at the GOP, we could deny the the advent of the Christian Coalition and their influence (real or imagined) have moved our party to the Ultra-conservative leaving us average GOP voters feeling like we have lost control of our party.
Mostly because the GOP is about as 'Ultra-conservative' as VH-1. And I say that as a RiNO gay-marriage supporter squishy-soft former-Blue-Stater neocon, just so we're clear.
Try harder, guys.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
What real "Connecticut Yankee" Democrat (I think there still are some) doesn't admire the stubborn contrarian, like Lieberman, who believes what he believes and will not budge?
I will never forget how Lieberman behaved during the recount in 2000. I have zero respect for him, and he is just one of the long-time US Senators that need to be voted out of office! Lieberman is a squeaky-voiced weasel that only looks out for himself.
LINDA
Whose Common Sense did not hinder.
Her comments do RedState policies cirvumvent,
(And reading comments like hers certainly torment).
So off to the Heaptm she went,
And all her silly comments rendered to cinder.
(With apologies to all my English professors)
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
Tradesports is liking Lamont in the primary, but not overwhelmingly; Lamont is getting 75, down from 80.
Until the primary is decided, the CT Senate general on Tradesports won't be clarified, but a full 30 (up from 25) is on the field-- i.e. Lieberman as an independent, since no one else in CT that could run as an independent would have a chance.
Personally, I see Lamont winning a very narrow win in the CT Dem Senate primary-- less than 5 points, and then Lieberman takes the general as an Independent by 10 or more.
It'll keep the liberal blogs excited for a couple months, at least.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
There should be term limits in the Senate for one term. Our government was never meant to be a place for career politicians. The founding fathers envisioned a government by the people, not a government by the government. In other words, we are a totalitarian government. And the sad thing is that political pundits do not grasp that reality at all.
LINDA
...Senators were originally chosen by State legislatures and not subject to elections at all. Or that most federal legislation would originate in the branch of the legislature not elected via popular vote.
Really, LINDA, you can do better than this. Start doing so.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
The constitution was amended for the direct election of senators sometime in the last 50 years or so. The people actually elect the senators now.
Also linda is right, there should be term limits, maybe 2 terms would be good, but once a politician gets in ,the greed gets to them and they never want to leave. A lot of the 94 group promised to leave after 3 terms and they are still there.
It's not greed. It's lust for power. These people aren't particularly interested in money... thats why the Democrats have a seemingly endless list of wealthy people ready and willing to throw massive amounts of their own money away seeking the office. Many of these people are no good before they ever set foot in DC. The job doesn't exactly seem to attract the best and the brightest among us.
The Senators *should* be appointed by the states, not elected by the people. The direct election is a perversion of what the Senate was supposed to be. It was supposed to represent the states, not whatever the popular opinion of the second is. That's what the House is for. Why even have a Senate if it's just a more exclusive version of the House? If we had a Senate appointed by the states, maybe Federalism would still exist in some meaningful way.
No Way.
Besides, when he loses this primary his real motives will be out for all to see: Is he a Democrat? If so, he will throw his support behind Lamont (like 99.9% of all primary losers who care for their party) and what's left of his Warchest to PACs/Candidates in the party.
Or
He can do what everyone's counting on him to do, think only of himself and the power he doesn't want to lose and run against Democrats and Republicans.
You think Republicans want Jeffords back? No way.
That's the beauty of our Republic, if we don't like who we voted for we can vote them right back out.
That's America baby!
Koronin aptly depicts the thinking in the 2-dimensional alternative reality where KosKidz reside.
I present a third motivation for Lieberman running for the Senate: Lieberman recognizes the threat to America's foreign policy and national security that a Lamont victory and its ripples would pose. So because he is one of the few Democrats left, even as otherwise liberal as he is, who believes in America's right to do whatever it takes to make ourselves safe by pursuing a long-term security strategy of peace through strength over a short-term peace that cloaks the growing and gathering threat our enemies pose until they are strong enough to do eminent and serious harm to the United States, he sees it as his solemn duty to put the vote to the entire Connecticut electorate instead of just the liberal extremists in the Democratic Primary.
The Constitution contemplates only patriotic loyalty - not party loyalty. Say what you will about Sen. Lieberman's atrocious policy stands on social and economic issues, but the man is truly a patriot. The entirety of Connecticut's electorate should be allowed to weigh in on how their long-serving Senator has represented them in Congress - not just the liberal extremists in the Democratic primaries.
Lieberman will run as an independent BECAUSE he is a loyal democrat. He wants to save it from the crazies, and God bless him for it.
Ned Lamont will win the Democratic Primary today, and we will have a Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) come November.
The Dems will find a way to keep Joe from running as an Independent, and Joe, being a loyal gentleman, will take a fall for his party regardless of how bad they treat him. A 3 way race could cost them the seat completely as Republicans could take advantage of a left side split. Conn law says 'he with the most votes, wins'...majority not required.
...I don't think Lieberman would have even gathered signatures to run. Make no mistake, I believe that Joe Lieberman has every intention of running for and winning this seat. He knows that the Republican won't win because the Connecticut GOP isn't even supporting their own nominee. Christopher Shays (RINO-CT) has even already endorsed Lieberman.
If there was a Democrat in the White House, of course Lieberman would be bought off with a high level position in the executive branch - but at this point, Democrats have very little to offer him. Especially given that the odds are still very much in his favor that he will still win this race and an indie in the general election.
But good for America - Lieberman wins the primary with 54% thus shutting the kos idiots up for good.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
...thus shutting the kos idiots up for good.
Even if Joe wins, the "shutting up" subprocess requires the functioning of higher reason, or at the very least detattched assesment of the reasons for his victory; thus it will never happen. But I appreciate your sentiment.
. . . it will only be because BushCo/NeoCons/Dibold stole the election.
Or at least that will be what we’ll be hearing from the losers.
be hearing that whining at full blast tomorrow... :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
if Joe wins with less than 60%, the Kossacks will claim victory and continue their ginned up narrative about the country turning on the war and Bush.
a narrow to mid-size Lamont win, however will let them claim that for now, but it will scare a whole bunch of people back into their senses. Joe will then win the general, and the Republicans will retain solid majorities in both houses.
remember the wisdom of Yoda: hate leads to suffering. and so the moonbats celebrate a premature victory tonight, but their hate on full display, will lead to their suffering in November.
about the consequences of the Lamont win :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Let the Dims eat their own!!!
The LEFT shall rise again.
And this is based on no empirical data, just your gut. That doesn't make much sense. Incumbents who routinely poll in the 40s don't escape election day as anything but Lame Ducks. Just ask Cynthia McKinney (GA), Bob Smith (NH), and Earl Hilliard (AL).
...they rumble and they gurgle and you know something's going on down there; but darned if you know exactly what. Eyes are telling me one thing, brain's telling me another and gut's off in otherspace.
It's a weird primary.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
And this is based on no empirical data, just your gut. That doesn't make much sense. Incumbents who routinely poll in the 40s don't escape election day as anything but Lame Ducks. Just ask Cynthia McKinney (GA), Bob Smith (NH), and Earl Hilliard (AL).
you see the very vocal and angry anti-lieberman element that resides within the visible kos kids/netroots camp, but you don't see the equally passionate antiwar sentiment that lurks beneath the well dressed and well mannered folks walking around in suits and driving late model, well maintained automobiles, who are driving home from their well paid jobs to their handsome homes in places like woodbridge and shelton, with manicured front lawns populated by lamont signs.
i admit it's an easy element of the anti-lieberman constituency to overlook, because many republicans have convinced themselves that the anti-lieberman crowd is just a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears college kids left over from the dean campaign.
but i don't think that's the case at all. i think this is going to be a runaway victory for ned lamont.
or are there a whole bunch of kos kids in here? :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
that they don't object to posting under multiple names, even to the extent of appearing to argue with themselves. So there is a netroots/netnut multiplier at work for PR/MSM purposes, which in turn skews the polling.
netnut multiplier... I like that :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
he is liberal yes...but he is right on the GWOT and that counts for something. if he does lose and runs as an indy then i would love to see him move back to the center since he doesn't owe the democrat party anything. kinda like a jeffords (but getting more conservative, not liberal)
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
No, seriously, Lamont will win this thing. There are too many Democrats who wish to throw meat to the crocodile in the hopes that they will be eaten last.
Lieberman represents the Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson, JFK, Bobby, and Scoop Jackson. That Democratic Party, the one of Lieberman's youth, died in the elephant grass of Vietnam. Again and again, Pew poll after Pew poll gauges the importance of the GWOT among activist, registered Democrats as a vital issue. It's down there somewhere around 17th place, fighting it out with Midnight Basketball and Meals on Wheels for a place at the Issues Table among Democrats.
Now smart Democrats, the ones who know how to peddle fiction like Peter Beinart, try to tell us that only Liberals can really handle National Security. What Beinart intentionally lies about, and it is a lie, is that his Party is no more the Party of Harry Truman than I am Alice B. Toklas. Democrats need the memory of Harry Truman to con people into thinking that they are butch enough to protect the country. The Lamont race is valuable for us in that it exposes the lie that snake oil salesmen such as Hillary Clinton and Peter Beinart are trying to peddle: that Democrats can be trusted with the security of the nation in time of war.
The Great Secret that Democrats are trying to hide was the one that Michael Moore ripped away with his masterful propaganda film, Farenheit 9/11. That secret is as follows: the Democratic base vote, the ones that will take over the Party, the Kos Kids and the DUers and the Young Attorneys who will one day become congresscritters, well, they don't really believe we are at war with Islamic Fascism. To the extent that they do believe there is a conflict, their self-loathing leads them to the Narrative that Bush and the Junta are at fault, and that the Jihadists are misunderstood. The hidden foreign policy of the Democrats is rather simple: appeasement. It's the only thing that Democrats ever really believed in after the going got tough in Iraq.
I emphasized Moore's film because all good propaganda tries to do one thing: preach to the converted. F9/11 was filmmaking for liberals who already disliked Bush. As such, it was probably the most effective piece of agitprop since Triumph of the Will, even though it lacked Leni Riefenstahl's artistic touches. Moore's narrative was designed to convince liberal, activist Democrats that the GWOT (not just the Iraq war) was a lie. If there was no real war on terror, if it was all designed to make Bush, the Saudis, and the Oil Tycoons rich, why fight the jihadists? Democratic activists hated Bush already from the 2000 Recount Controversy, so it was easy for them to surrender to a narrative that drew on every piece of thinly researched rumor about Bush that had ever been posted to Usenet.
It's a short jump from the DNC of 2004 to a Democratic Party that is ready for a blood purge. You must understand that Peace activists are the most fanatical of Leninists, and the Kos Kids think of themselves as the Bolshevikii did: a Vanguard Party. Lamont's candidacy is good for us because it is the product of a blood purge.
Bad, bad news for Hillary. Even worse news for Hillary if Android Al decides to run. Al will be running from the Left, remember. You can tell how bad a candidate Al Gore will be by the fact that Andrew Sullivan is about ready to ask him out.
Excellent news for us if our troika of Condi, Rudy, and McCain get in the race, as I suspect will happen by next summer. We will look as I figured we would: a Party that continues to be a responsible, governing Republican Party, serious about statecraft, National Defense, economic growth, and defeating Islamic Fascism. As for the Democrats, a fanatical vanguard party will be a huge turnoff to most Americans. Expect the Democrats, if they win the House, to begin impeachment hearings against the President, in time of War, on the most spurious of grounds. John Conyers won't be able to help himself. He'll be answering to George Soros, not Hillary. Byron York's article in NRO is a big help in describing Conyers' enthusiasm for this effort.
Lamont's strength is an indication of what I always knew about Hillary. She got out in front to early and she let others give her the nomination in 2006. She should have remembered the old saying: "Familiarity breeds contempt". I saw the results of that New Hampshire focus group, too. The Base doesn't like her. Lamont will win, and the Bell tolls not only for Hillary, but for the pacifist, defeatist Democratic Party, a party that has betrayed its honorable past.
Best post I have read on this blog ever, by far.
"You can tell how bad a candidate Al Gore will be by the fact that Andrew Sullivan is about ready to ask him out."
That quote is classic.
"The hidden foreign policy of the Democrats is rather simple: appeasement."
Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."
i don't agree with all your points about this benefiting republicans in the way you seem to see it, but i think you have the outcome of today's primary properly pegged.
most of all i commend you for being able to analyze the situation rationally despite whatever outcome might be your personal preference.
(also, i like the embedded churchill quote.)
It is quite typical for second term President's to go through this. Clinton did, Reagan did and, Lord knows, Nixon did (our only other two term Presidents in the last 45 years!)
Every 2nd termer has the second term blues. I never did like that term limiting amendment. I can't imagine Wendell Wilkie skippering us through WWII, and I'm a Republican. However, Reagan and Ike weren't despised the way Bush II and Clinton were. The stuff that's being peddled by the Left about Bush is over the top. Period.
What's coming, should the Dems win, is impeachment. Rush has been predicting this for years. This time he's right as rain. Hillary and her forces are starting to weaken, and any forces for restraint of angry revenge against Bush will weaken as well. The last thing the Clintons would want is anything that would arouse Republicans. But the fanaticism and hate of modern leftism will carry the day.
The Lefties really believe that Bush is a criminal who must be impeached, as must Cheney, Bush's "svengali". In time of war. They intend to sieze power this way. They wish to void the results of the 2004 election. On the most spurious of grounds. No matter what harm might come to the body politic.
The voters will savage them, of course, what with troops in the field? But whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad....
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
It seems that we mostly wish that Lamont will win the primary in order to accelerate the left-wing fringe takeover of the Dem party. Then, we wish (although it's not so important), that Joe L. will win the general election, because we apparently have no hope of a Republican win in Connecticut. I think Joe L. is pretty much as honest and uspstanding as a modern Democrat can be, so I have no problem with any of that.
For me, the interesting part is that we are hoping that the Dems move even further to the left, thus alienating even more of the 'unaffiliated/uncommitted middle' of the voting public.
Yet, we also are encouraging our own party to move further to the right. That would seem to be counterproductive, wouldn't it? How can it be bad for them to move further left, but good for us to move further right?
Logically, it makes sense because it makes the difference between the core beliefs of the two parties even clearer to that uncommitted middle group, and we happen to be able to support our positions by facts and logic, not just by appeals to emotion. It makes even more sense if, as I believe, the current position of our party leaders is actually somewhat to the left of the majority of all voters regarding the positions we want to move the party to the right on, such as bringing illegal immigration under control.
Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."
I want the Center. That's where elections are won. The Clintons won elections by cloaking their liberalism and siezing the Center during periods of Republican weakness. The Center is where it's at and the Center wants two things: strength on national security and victory in war. Democrats are nowhere to be found here.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
cannot hold...
though it is amusing I see this quoted mostly by the left, without any sense of irony. "the worst are full of passionate intensity" indeed.
Yet, we also are encouraging our own party to move further to the right. That would seem to be counterproductive, wouldn't it? How can it be bad for them to move further left, but good for us to move further right?
You have to stand for something. You have to turn out your base. If you want a party that stands for absolutely nothing and just mumbles some wishy-washy centrist mumbo-jumbo, look no further than the Reform and Independence (Jesse's offshoot) parties. Just because left is wrong, doesn't mean that right is also wrong. They are not equivalent. What is right and what is left and where the center is at is constantly evolving. If you try to stake out the center, it will just shift leftwards. It happens every time.
He ran as a Conservative, not as a "Rightist". There's a difference. People don't understand that Reagan's conservatism was inclusive and was targeted towards the Center without Reagan having to budge much. The 2008 Pubbie Candidate can win going away by executing Reagan's 1980 Grand Strategy with updated tools and a 72 hour plan.
Dems? Eat their young. Flower Children in the streets, that kind of thing.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
or was I just too darned subtle, again?
Those sentences with question marks behind them were actually rhetorical questions. The sentences in the paragraph that followed were my apparently ineffective attempt to show the fallacious assumptions inherent in the questions themselves.
Let me restate myself more clearly. We, those of us who believe the Republican leadership should move the party's position further to the right, believe at least two things.
First, our positions are correct, therefore they should be articulated and defended, not apologized for. Second, our positions are actually the majority positions, and the majority of voters are in agreement with us, and to the right of our own leadership.
Thus, it is eminently reasonable that we would want the Dems to move further to the left, away from the majority and from appropriate and effective policies, and that we would want our party to move further right, toward the majority and toward more appropriate and effective policies. (The Left, of course, believes that exactly the opposite is true. Who will win in the end depends upon who is correct about where the center really is.)
The point of the whole comment was that our hopes (the left further left, us further right, all with the goal of winning elections) are neither logically contradictory nor self-defeating, although when the MSM touches on the topic they usually treat the two sides as equivalent, as if both sides want to commit political suicide. But we're not equivalent. For them it's suicide; for us it's the road to victory. Unfortunately, I believe our leadership often thinks like the MSM, that the center is far to our left, not close by on our right on many issues.
OTOH, maybe I misread you. I agree with what you wrote. You don't win by chasing the center; you win by being right on your positions and as a result bringing the center around to your way of thinking.
But about the part about the center shifting leftwards--I think it has shifted rightwards on many issues, but I also think it usually stays pretty much in place, barring the introduction of new, credible evidence. We can provide that evidence, the Left can't.
Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."
Why is that you attack me, Moe? Could it be perhaps because I remember Joe Lieberman in the Florida recount. The Democrats tried to rewrite the Constitution in 2000, and I will never forget the top two Democrats leading the attempted theft of the Presidency. I certainly hope that Joe gets beat today, and I hope that people are wise enough to send him back to the private sector.
LINDA
...may be made via the Contact link found above. Who knows? They may ritually decapitate me and give you my job.
Probably not, though.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I have plenty to do already! Waking up the young Republicans is my mission to get them to see that there is nothing Republican about the party at all. We need less government, and that means oh pass the kleenex and wipe the tears away that some people need to lose their jobs in wasteful government positions. We need meaningful audits done in the defense industry sector, and more people need to be prosecuted and sent to prison for theft of Federal funds. We need to get rid of weasels like Joe Lieberman for starters. But only the voters in Connecticut can decide that. We need more politicians like Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo. Will all of this happen? No, but wishful thinking.
LINDA
Lamont wins by a small margin, and Lieberman kicks off indy run.
I should also add this will make the liberal bloggers look influential, but that's only good in their minds, not the average voter who sees their own party losing self-control and electing ultra-liberals.