The primary defeat of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) yesterday by relative upstart Ned Lamont will be debated and analyzed for weeks, but some aspects of it are notable.
It adds weight to those who argue that November’s elections will not be "business as usual" in terms of focusing on local issues. Voters are increasingly worried about Iraq, the war on terror, and immigration. And despite many pundits giving bloggers credit for Lamont’s win, the reality is that Lamont ran a classic grassroots, retail campaign that reached out to voters through countless small meetings in homes and superb local organization.
What's less clear is what the election in Connecticut will mean in November. An editorial in today's (August 9) New York Times argued that Lieberman’s loss was actually a rebellion by "irate moderates." It was not a rejection of the bipartisanship and centrism that Lieberman represented, but rather, "Connecticut Democrats were reacting to the way those concepts have been perverted by the Bush White House." These moderates are watching with concern as
...the country has seemed to be galloping in a deeply unmoderate direction. A war that began at the president’s choosing has degenerated into a desperate, bloody mess that has turned much of the world against the United States. The administration’s contempt for international agreements, Congressional prerogatives and the authority of the courts has undermined the rule of law abroad and at home.
According to David Esso, AP reporter, translating the Connecticut phenomenon into a Democratic takeover of Congress in November will not be easy. "To triumph in November, Democrats will need the same intensity, including the support of bloggers and groups such as MoveOn.org, that powered Lamont to victory in Connecticut."
The Democrats will focus on the president’s handling of the Iraqi war and the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. "'I think there is huge dissatisfaction with the way the president is handling the war,’ said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the chairman of the party's Senate campaign committee. 'People are divided over whether we should have a strong, aggressive foreign policy, but there's very little division even among those for a strong foreign policy that the president has really botched this in terms of having a plan, in terms of a direction, in terms of an endgame.'"
Of course, Republicans are already playing the anti-war activist card and saying that Democrats can’t be trusted with national security issues, which was successful for them in 2002 and 2004, the first two campaigns conducted in the shadow of the terror attacks of 9/11.
"'We'll soon find out just how significant this election is, but it's a problem for Democrats long-term,' the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said after Lamont had won.
Article comments
1 - Matt
The election is not complex at all. Lieberman will be reelected this fall, the Republicans will retain control of both houses of Congress, and Lamont will only get to see the inside of the Senate with a visitor's pass.
Lamont, the nonentitiy, was the beneficiary of low turnoout, of misrepresenting Lieberman's record, of antisemitism, and of McCain-Feingold, limiting donations to other candidates while allowing him to spend all of his money he wanted.
2 - chancelucky
can you cite the exact turnout rate on Tuesday vs. the normal turnout for a primary election in Connecticut. One national news service I saw said that the turnout was actually quite high in the primary.
Also if you have a reference for all the other stuff, please let me know. Thanks
3 - Mark Schannon
Chance: Click on the links for all the specific polling data and interviews. It should all be there. And yes, I do remember reading that turnout was higher than normal for a primary race, but I'd have to dig those numbers out.
My interest, though, is less with Leiberman, because Matt's right, he will likely win in November, but the implications nationally. That's where it becomes very complex.
4 - chancelucky
Mark,
my questions were actually directed at Matt. I'd like to see where his claim of a low turnout came from.
I have no idea who will win in a 3 way race in November. IT may depend on how the party handles it.
5 - Nancy
Hopefully, these primary losses by incumbents augur very, VERY ill for all incumbents come November, and what it means is the voters are madder than hell and aren't going to take it any more from arrogant, self-important, overpaid & overprivileged fools who think they're entitled to a permanent living at public expense while they continue to ignore the very people who sent them there.
6 - Scott
"Lamont, the nonentitiy, was the beneficiary of low turnoout, of misrepresenting Lieberman's record, of antisemitism, and of McCain-Feingold, limiting donations to other candidates while allowing him to spend all of his money he wanted."
None of this makes any sense.
7 - Nancy
Baloney. Lieberman spent plenty; as much as he wanted; congress made sure that they - the incumbents - would never be restrained or put to disadvantage in any way on that score. They always do.
8 - Jet in Columbus
In a way Mark, it gives us all the freedom to relax and finally say that we didn't like Lieberman on the Gore ticket, and a lot of us blame him and his right of center stands on Gore losing in 2000
Whew that felt good...
and liberating too!
9 - Mark Schannon
Jet, sorry, but Leiberman didn't lose it for Gore, Gore lost it for himself with a lackluster campaign, terrible advisors, and no message whatsoever. I'm not a great fan of Leiberman, but people don't vote for against a presidential candidate because of the VP.
In Decaf Veritas
10 - Jet in Columbus
Well, I guess we all have our own opinions...
Indigenous varicose
Jet
11 - Mark Schannon
Opinions? Opinions? Why, you young whippersnapper, I'll have you know that I rely on inunendo, obfuscation, and falsification to arrive at my unassailable proofs. why just ask Gonzo.
Opinions. harmuph.
Now
In Jameson Veritas
12 - Jet in Columbus
Mark do me a favor and jump on my pending latest article on congressional french fries-you'll love it!
13 - Mark Schannon
I saw it and haven't had a chance to read anything on BC except to edit. But I'll get to it tomorrow.
In Jameson Veritas
14 - Clavos
Mark #11,
What about artistic verisimilitude and prestidigitation?
15 - Clavos
Oh, and hyperbole??
16 - Mark Schannon
I didn't want to sound pretention, Clavos, so I refrained from adding those--but you are perspecatioius...those are essential ingredients of any truth teller.
In Jameson Veritas
17 - Christopher Rose
Er, Mark, "sound pretention" & "perspecatioius" - maybe that's "In Jameson spellious".
Har Har.
18 - Mark Schannon
Mr. Rose, I'll have know that's the original correct spelling...in Lithuanian...sigh.
In Decaf Veritas
19 - Christopher Rose
I hope you edit better than you type, Mark, that's two in a row!
lol
20 - Clavos
Shoot, Mark, I thought you were carrying the joke forward in #16. Maybe a little less Jameson and a little more Decaf?
Or, better yet, don't post at 0542? :>)
21 - Mark Schannon
Clavos, it wasn't my idea to be up that late. Sometimes the brain is busy dancing away and just won't go to bed, which leaves you in a somewhat bleary state the next day. But you're right. Posting is a bad idea at that time of night...or morning.
In Decaf Veritas
22 - Jet in Columbus
OH LORD NO!!! Not another case of Restless Leg Syndrome.
Incongruous Varicose
23 - Mark Schannon
Jet, yes, my brains are in my big toe...what can I tell you.
In Exhaustion Veritas
24 - Jet in Columbus
Somehow I suspected that...
Inconspicuous Vacation
25 - Liberal
"Lamont, the nonentitiy, was the beneficiary of low turnoout..."
Um, it was the highest turnout for a primary in CT history.