nimh wrote:Oh dear...
Not just does Lamont appear to be toast by now....
I agree with you that it does not seem likely that Lamont will win, judging by the polls.
However, I am not willing to throw in the towel just yet. There are some things which support at least the possibility of a Lamont victory.
A) State races are notoriously volatile. I remember when Reagan ran against Carter, Michigan flipped 10 points in the space of one weekend. When Christy Todd Whitman ran against James Florio for the New Jersey Governor's race, she ran 10 points or more behind for the whole race, and the last day several polls had her 10 points back. Only one had her even. Whitman won the election. State races can go one way or the other with breathtaking speed.
B) Lieberman's victory depends on Republicans almost completely abandoning their candidate and voting for him. Republicans have voted against Lieberman three times for the Senate. Yes, national Republican leaders have strongly hinted that they don't mind if you vote for Lieberman. Yes, Connecticut Republicans are telling pollsters, in large numbers, that they in fact are going to vote for Lieberman.
But next Tuesday, Republicans will be asked to go into the privacy of the voting booth, and pull the lever for the guy they have voted against for 18 years. They will be asked to ignore the fellow from their own party who is fighting an incredible uphill battle not only against an incumbent Senator, but apparently against a party leadership determined to abandon him after he won the nomination. For a Republican, to pull the lever for Schlessinger is not only to vote your heart-it is a vote for the underdog.
Saying that you are going to give up party loyalties for strategic purposes and actually doing it on Election Day are two different things. Maybe it will happen-that Republicans will vote for Lieberman. But I'm not giving up until I see it happen.
C) The mood of the country at the time of Election Day is important, and right now it looks pretty bleak for the GOP. Iraq is getting worse day by day, and the economy is going down. I'm getting the same feeling I got in 1992 when Clinton came back. Early in the campaign, the Reagan-Bush administration had become so entrenched it seemed that nobody was going to challenge it. Toward the end, with bleak news coming in for months, it turned around for Clinton. I remember just before the election, Bush senior got rejected by the Congress on some cable TV bill. It became a symbol that the President was not getting respect on Capitol Hill. Right now, Bush junior is getting defections from his Iraq policy all over the place. it is the same kind of feeling.
I'm not expecting a Lamont victory on Election Day. But I think he's still got an honest shot. Polls for statewide races have been shockingly off before, and Lieberman's large lead is resting on uncharted electoral ground.
A) State races are notoriously volatile. I remember when Reagan ran against Carter, Michigan flipped 10 points in the space of one weekend. When Christy Todd Whitman ran against James Florio for the New Jersey Governor's race, she ran 10 points or more behind for the whole race, and the last day several polls had her 10 points back. Only one had her even. Whitman won the election. State races can go one way or the other with breathtaking speed.
Argument "A" works well in making a case for the Republican's holding onto the House.
What did the exit polls show as his main support base?
Lamont, in short, lost because of three different reasons.
If Lamont had managed to reverse any one of these three things, he would have won the elections.
- Lamont couldn't persuade the 1/3rd of Democrats who remained loyal to Lieberman.
Even if he had persuaded just half of those people, he would have gotten 6% of the vote extra, Lieberman would have gotten 6% less, and Lamont would have won the election.
And just how realistic a scenario is that, really?
You are going to come into a party on a statewide basis for the very first time, defeat an incumbent who not only had his own party behind him but virtually all the state's independents for the last two elections, and if that candidate runs a viable independent campaign, you are going to limit him to only 16% of the the Democrats?
those Unenrolled voters you are erroneously calling "Independent" (as if this was a party)
Saying the Republicans were playing "Third Party" in the Connecticut race is a bit ludicrous.
Lieberman not only got two thirds of the Republican votes (and this doesn't take into account the portion of the unenrolled voters who typically vote Republican), he also was largely funded by Repblicans.
Had the Republican candidate been supported by the national Republican party, Lieberman would have lost.
USE IT OR LOSE IT....
[..] Brian Beutler has a great piece today on "The Year in Oversight," and notes a point that doesn't get emphasized nearly enough:
There certainly have been gaffes, softballs, and missed opportunities. And the most obvious are found in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security -- the Senate's version of Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight Committee in the House. Unlike Waxman's enthusiastic probing, the Senate chair conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance. It's chairman? Connecticut's Joseph Lieberman.
A year ago, seeking re-election, Lieberman said this committee was his top priority, and he was desperate to return to the Senate so he could wield the gavel. And now that he has the authority he sought, he's decided not to conduct any real oversight of the administration at all.
He seems to have desperately sought a chairman's gavel just for the sake of having it -- Lieberman wanted power he had no intention of using.
I appreciate the fact that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in a bind before the 110th Congress began. Rumor has it, to keep Lieberman in the caucus, Reid had to give him the chairmanship -- or get stuck with a 50-50 split.
But consequences have to matter. Instead of a Senate Committee on Government Affairs that functions as it should, Lieberman just treads water, using his gavel as a flotation device. It's an embarrassing waste of what's supposed to be the Senate's watchdog committee.
Seeking re-election, Lieberman said this committee was his top priority, and he was desperate to return to the Senate so he could wield the gavel. But over a year later, the committee has conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance.
nimh wrote:Seeking re-election, Lieberman said this committee was his top priority, and he was desperate to return to the Senate so he could wield the gavel. But over a year later, the committee has conducted zero proactive investigations into Bush administration malfeasance.
Joseph Lieberman probably doesn't now believe there is any worth investigating. From what I hear out of Mr. Lieberman, he is fed up with the party that just a few short years ago selected him as the vp candidate. It would not surprise me to see him become a Republican sooner or later. I think he is had it with many Democrats.
FOX'S ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today's New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that's a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he's obviously very smart and he's a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.
As an Independent, it doesn't bother me at all to be honored at the same dinner with Rush Limbaugh. In fact, to show you how much things have changed for me, one of my greatest missions this year is to convince Rush to support the Republican candidate for President! The truth is I greatly admire Rush's love for our country and support for our troops, as shown by his remarks tonight and his generous support of MCLEF. Rush has a big voice but he has heart that is even bigger.
Sen. Joe Lieberman [..] is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September. [..] "If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will," Lieberman said in a brief interview. Lieberman said he doubts McCain will ask him to give a keynote address, but acknowledges the subject has yet to come up in the two senators' discussions. Lieberman aide said even though there are no plans for the Independent to give a speech at the convention, it is a "likely possibility" he will address the Republican audience in some form.
Lieberman hit the trifecta in his attempts to discredit himself as a Democrat once and for all this week... let's chronicle 'em:
1. Is Obama a Marxist? That's a good question!
Quote:FOX'S ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Hey Sen. Lieberman, you know Barack Obama, is he a Marxist as Bill Kristol says might be the case in today's New York Times? Is he an elitist like your colleague Hillary Clinton says he is?
LIEBERMAN: Well, you know, I must say that's a good question. I know him now for a little more than three years since he came into the Senate and he's obviously very smart and he's a good guy. I will tell ya that during this campaign, I've learned some things about him, about the kind of environment from which he came ideologically. And I wouldn't I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist, but he's got some positions that are far to the left of me and I think mainstream America.
2. Rush Limbaugh - to be admired for his big heart and love for America
Quote:As an Independent, it doesn't bother me at all to be honored at the same dinner with Rush Limbaugh. In fact, to show you how much things have changed for me, one of my greatest missions this year is to convince Rush to support the Republican candidate for President! The truth is I greatly admire Rush's love for our country and support for our troops, as shown by his remarks tonight and his generous support of MCLEF. Rush has a big voice but he has heart that is even bigger.
3. The Republican Convention - Oh, to make a keynote address there...
Quote:Sen. Joe Lieberman [..] is leaving open the possibility of giving a keynote address on behalf of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) at the Republican National Convention in September. [..] "If Sen. McCain, who I support so strongly, asked me to do it, if he thinks it will help him, I will," Lieberman said in a brief interview. Lieberman said he doubts McCain will ask him to give a keynote address, but acknowledges the subject has yet to come up in the two senators' discussions. Lieberman aide said even though there are no plans for the Independent to give a speech at the convention, it is a "likely possibility" he will address the Republican audience in some form.
Quotes from Fox News, The Hill and the National Review - too lazy to link 'em in.