Call me a skeptic, but I'm having trouble buying into the great import being placed on Ned Lamont's close victory over Joe Liberman by some in the liberal blogosphere and the MSM. At its core, what last night's Democratic primary showed is that ardent Democratic voters are very unhappy about the Iraq war. That is not a stunning turn of events.
Take a step back from the netroots hype already seeping into the press. In 2004, 1.58 million people cast a vote for President of the United States in Connecticut. Yesterday, 280,000 voted in the Democratic primary, giving Ned Lamont a narrow 10,000 vote victory. This after he spent at least $3.1 million of his own money on the race; in contrast to the $300,000 he raised from the netroots.
In addition, the culmination of yesterday's race exposed some profound rifts in the Democratic party that do not bode well for aggregate Democrat hopes in November. Former Clinton operative Lanny Davis bemoaned the nastiness of the liberal blogosphere he experienced while campaigning for Lieberman (those that recall the political wars of the late '90's appreciate the irony in his complaints). Now Daily Kos is quickly making harsh demands to punish Lieberman. Classy.
Speaking of classy, besides the likes of Daily Kos, consider this crowd present at the Lamont victory party: Jesse Jackson, Kim Gandy, and Al Sharpton, not to mention Katrina vanden Heuvel who campaigned for Lamont in the closing days of the campaign. This is not the makings of a new governing coalition with appeal to the common man.
Credit to the netroots for spurring some of the enthusiasm that embraced Lamont's candidacy. Don't assume, however, that despite the hype, Lamont's victory signals the broad national movement some would like to make it out to be.
It shows the common person and average American voter how much the nutbags and moonbats can turn on one of the more moderate voices on their side of the aisle. It'll send a shudder up the spine of any reasonable, intelligent person going to the polls this November.
It should be crystal clear to every American that the Democratic Party is the party of No National Security, of Appeasing Terrorists, and of Cutting and Running and Whining.
And we can thank Lamont for that.
Posted by: Larry on August 9, 2006 07:37 AMLieberman is now running as an independant, and if he carries a significant percentage of his old voters with him into the election, the Republican Candidate will have an easy victory.
Kristen
Joe Lieberman was one of the most reliable voters the Democrats had voting with his Democratic brothers 90% of the time.
Try again.
Or is it just that he's one of those dirty Jews?
Posted by: swassociates on August 9, 2006 08:02 AMJoe stopped listening to his constituents. It is not his place do do what "he" thinks is right, but to do what the majority of the people of CT want.
The day he stopped listening to us was the day that he started losing votes.
Disclaimer: I am not in CT.
You say that the "Majority" of the people in CT, but the election was a primary and as such the motivated and more radical elements of the ONE party came out of the woodwork to vote. That hardly is a representation of the entire state.
I believe that "Joe" is not losing votes in CT, he lost Democratic votes in CT. A radical minority rallied against him in a primary, but on polls pitting him against Ned and the Rebublican candidate, he wins handily. That shows that the ENTIRE state of constituents favor him verses the radical element of the democratic constituents that do not favor him.
Posted by: Eyago on August 9, 2006 08:04 AMI think he lost by a lot because of the switchover. I don't think he will get those votes in the general election. But hey, the general election will have twice as many voters and will have more normal people voting.
Posted by: swatter on August 9, 2006 08:15 AMSo yesterday about 18% of the CT voters that turned out in the last election for President, voted in the Dem primary. Of those, they went roughly 52% Lamont, 48% Liberman.
In a heavily blue state, the "anti-war" candidate that spent 3.1 million of his own money, managed to beat a reliably Dem voting senator by a wopping 4%.
Big Deal.
Posted by: Shaun on August 9, 2006 08:43 AMThe subversive left is extremely vocal and active. That coupled with subversive press makes them seem like a viable force.
November will probably see either Lieberman or a Republican Senator from Connecticut when a goodly portion of the other 82 percent of the voters kick in.
Posted by: Bullmaxon on August 9, 2006 08:48 AMDisclosure: NOT a CT resident. Thanks be to God.
Posted by: Danny on August 9, 2006 08:58 AMIn response to Kristin, she might read up on the difference between a republic and a democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic, and as such it is not the responsibility of a United States Senator to do whatever the majority of his constituents want. It is the responsibility of a Senator to make decisions in the best interests of his constituents, even if those constituents are so stupid as to want to invite terrorism into their neighborhoods and communities. And even if it will cost that Senator his job.
That Lieberman would be cast off for standing his ground, while Democrats rally around empty shells like Maria Cantwell who will bend with every political breeze, says volumes about a party and its underlying motivation, where principals and protecting Americans means nothing. It's all politics and regaining power.
Well, if America falls for the Democrats' empty promises and leadership into oblivion, then perhaps evolution and survival of the fittest applies to nations too.
Americans have the right to elect any baffoon they wish. The Democrat Party has made that abundantly clear with their Boxers, Pelosis, McDermotts, Conyers, McKinneys, Reids, Kennedys, etc. Americans also have the right to allow this nation to be destroyed through its own stupidity and hatred, and if the Democrats get their way, that will be the outcome of their insanity.
"Liberalism is a mental disorder" - Michael Savage
Whenever you try to understand a liberal, remember that you can't understand what is not rational.
Posted by: MJC on August 9, 2006 09:03 AMMJC, The Republicans under Bush have monstrously damaged our security and standing in the world with their ineptitude and short-sightedness. It's amazing that you can sit there and predict such dire consequences if the Dems gain power, when in fact the nightmare scenario is outside your door right now. We're mired in a long war which Bush does not know how to fight, he will never admit he is wrong, he's a big-government conservative, and he's put the country in the hands of religious nuts more than ever before. And you think Dems would be a nightmare?
Posted by: Gabriel on August 9, 2006 09:30 AMThis opens the door for a Republican challenger, thankyou moveon.
Posted by: billb on August 9, 2006 09:33 AMThe Republican candidate for Senate is not that strong, and all the chatter about Lamont and Lieberman splitting the vote and the Republican winning is silly
A lot of people I spoke with in 2000 would have preferred Cheney and Lieberman as president and vp, because they seemed more normal than George Bush and John Kerry
Just as Seattle wears an armband of shame with James McDermott as their US Representative, a minoirity of Democratic CT voters have embarrassed their state
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on August 9, 2006 09:47 AMNice recitation of the Dems talking points, Gabriel. Lets get some specifics. What does your side intend to do about the war? And would you please name exactly who the "religious nuts" are that the President has put the country in "the hands of"?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on August 9, 2006 09:52 AMThat is certainly the most important issue, but it is one in a pattern - from Terry Schiavo to social security to Iraq and others.
Posted by: Gabriel on August 9, 2006 09:52 AMAfter answering Bill's (26) question answer what are the Dems doing about social security. What is their 'plan'? Or are the Ds saying there are no problems with the system so no change is needed?
It is so easy to critisize people that are actually doing something. The Ds don't seem to have any plans (other than we will win the war by retreating) on anything.
Posted by: Fred on August 9, 2006 10:11 AMThe struggle is in Iraq and Afghanistan today. If Gore or Kerry had been elected, the nightmare would be outside my door today.
The left finds it so easy to criticize and attack our efforts in Iraq, but I can't imagine what you'd be saying if we had the losses and deaths we saw in World War II. But then again, you'd probably have opposed our involvement in that war, even after Pearl Harbor, if a Republican had been president, huh?
"We're mired in a long war which Bush does not know how to fight, he will never admit he is wrong, he's a big-government conservative, and he's put the country in the hands of religious nuts more than ever before."
5 years without a repeat of 9/11 on US soil. Bush has admitted to mistakes, but generals and the best we have plan and implement tactics, and it is laughable that critics like you, who obviously knows absolutely nothing about fighting a war against terrorism, can sit their in judgment and attack our president in a time of war.
Posted by: MJC on August 9, 2006 10:18 AMThe Bad News:
The Demorat's showed us that they are DRIVEN by their insane haltered of Pres Bush. They showed that they are VERY prepared to put up a win at any cost effort. They are also organized...in the Washington 27th district, there are 359 voting precincts. The Demorat's have one P.C.O. and one asst. P.C.O. for every precinct, complete with walking lists, voter information, who needs a ride ECT. The Republicans have maybe six total P.C.O.' s.
The Good News:
Maybe now the "Fence Sitting, Pinko, P.C., Socially Misaligned" Demorat's will be forced to show their true colors to appease the Far Left Wacko's!!!
P.S. I heard that Hillary invited Joe out for a "COLD ONE" after the election results were in...but Joe refused, saying that he was a married man and is true to his wife.
I'm sure this won't stop others from trying to discern greater meaning in these tea leaves of Lamont's victory and Liberman's primary defeat.
Posted by: Reporterward on August 9, 2006 11:57 AMKing County population: 1,793,583
Connecticut population: 3,405,565
Meanwhile, you neglect to understand how the CT primary system works: unaffiliated voters were not eligible to vote in the Primary. About 900,000, or 44% of registered voters in CT are unaffiliated.
Only around 130,000 Democrats voted in the 2004 presidential primary in Connecticut. Yesterday that number was more than double at 283,055. With estimates that turnout was record 40+% for a primary in CT, that makes an estimate of about 700,000 registered Democratic voters. I believe the number is actually somewhere closer to 750,000.
This election earned Lamont more votes than total Democratic voters in the 2004 primaries. That's significant.
As for the rifts, it is looking less and less like there will be great rifts. Democratic leaders are voicing their support for the Democratic winner in CT - Lamont. They probably also see that something significant did happen in CT.
But unlike your closing suggestion, the people I talk to about this assume nothing about what it will mean in November. Assumptions are for losers, and our goal is to win based on staying focused every day on the battles to come.
Posted by: Daniel K on August 9, 2006 05:13 PMYou can continue to take wild stabs in the dark. I'm focused on the political races we'll be voting on in September and November. What were those WA-27 numbers Pacific Grove Phlash wrote above?
Posted by: Daniel K on August 9, 2006 05:42 PMI'm well aware that it is impossible to capture with 100% certainty how much netroots money has been raised (especially when such folks donate directly through the campaign). The point, however, was the degree to which Lamont is self-funding, a number that dwarfs his "netroots" support no matter how one is able to evaluate it.
Also, I'm equally aware of how the CT primary works. I never said turnout among registered Democrats was low, the point was, as you touched on in part, the relative number of voters in the Democratic primary v. the traditional body of general election voters in the state. Those numbers are and will be a stark contrast.
And of course "leading Democrats" are lining up behind Lamont. They're all afraid of getting on the wrong side of an angry base. But that doesn't mean there is agreement in the voting coalition Democrats have traditionally relied upon to form electoral majorities.
Lastly, you may not be jumping to conclusions, but a scan of the liberal blogosphere reveals many of your compatriots are reading more into Tuesday's results than they prudently should.
Thanks for your comments. They were thoughtful and well-constructed; I appreciate that.
Posted by: Eric Earling on August 10, 2006 08:12 AMAlso, how are those tax cuts doing for you? Doing well financially? Able to fill the super duty with gas?
Things sure are running great. I feel safe, even though our govenment was rated "F" as far as airport security after 9/11.
We don't drink tea with terrorists but Bush holds hands with them.
Cheers
Grady
Also, how are those tax cuts doing for you? Doing well financially? Able to fill the super duty with gas?
Things sure are running great. I feel safe, even though our govenment was rated "F" as far as airport security after 9/11.
We don't drink tea with terrorists but Bush holds hands with them.
Cheers
Grady
Incorrect. She lost to a more 'sane' democrat, not a more 'moderate' one.
Their positions on the issues, with the possible exception of Israel, are not really different. It's just that Hank Johnson seems to be a friendly, sociable fellow, while McKinney is an out-of-control nutjob.
Posted by: Cliff S on August 10, 2006 09:34 AM