The latest Connecticut poll has Lieberman at 53%, Lamont at 41%, and Schlesinger at 4%. What Lieberman loses in lack of support from the democrats, he more than makes up for by getting 75% of the republican vote in the poll.
I'm not going to predict the outcome of this race - I simply don't know enough about CT politics, nor am I able to gauge the national mood at this stage. But given that the odds currently offered by tradesports.com as of writing this are 68% for Lieberman and 32% for Lamont, and given that betting markets have been shown to be not-too-inefficient in past political races, I think we can safely assume that a Lieberman win is the most likely scenario.
It seems that the liberal blog crowd (i.e. kos, atrios, etc) has made a tremendous miscalculation here. If Lieberman wins, not only will he feel much fewer obligations to democrats - who, after all, rejected him as a candiate - he will be keenly aware where his votes have come from. As an independent senator in an increasingly polarized country, Lieberman will have to make choices that put his republican base at odds with his democratic one. At this point, its completely uncertain that which side he will swing should the chips really come down (for example, should the senate be split so that one vote will make a difference). In the end, Lieberman is a politician; given that he can stick to his basic principles as either a liberal republican or a conservative democrat, he is probably going to pick the option that will make re-election easiest. So the same liberal bloggers who profess that their most important goal is to retake Congress have ended up jeopardizing this goal out for the sake of what seems like personal enmity for a defender of the Iraq war.
Still, I think that a Lieberman win would be good for the party. It would certainly demonstrate that the rank and file of the party and the "netroots" are quite out of touch with the average American voter. I'm hopeful that it would lead the sober people at the head of the party to intervene more frequently in local races to keep the influence of the bloggers and activists in check.
posted by alex @ 4:16 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Damn, was hoping Liberman would liberloose. Okay, that was lame. But its true.
could still happen...lamont was behind for most of the primary campaign as well.
i cant believe you used the word netroots. consider yourself single.
It seems that the liberal blog crowd (i.e. kos, atrios, etc) has made a tremendous miscalculation here.
you love saying that.
If Lieberman wins, not only will he feel much fewer obligations to democrats - who, after all, rejected him as a candiate - he will be keenly aware where his votes have come from.
that, and hes probably pissed off at the dems.
As an independent senator in an increasingly polarized country,
its not so much politically polarized as it is embroiled in a ridiculous culture war.
Lieberman will have to make choices that put his republican base at odds with his democratic one. At this point, its completely uncertain that which side he will swing should the chips really come down (for example, should the senate be split so that one vote will make a difference).
but its still connecticut in the end. as long as he looks out for the rich mofos he should be ok.
In the end, Lieberman is a politician; given that he can stick to his basic principles as either a liberal republican or a conservative democrat, he is probably going to pick the option that will make re-election easiest.
arent those two the same thing?
So the same liberal bloggers who profess that their most important goal is to retake Congress have ended up jeopardizing this goal out for the sake of what seems like personal enmity for a defender of the Iraq war.
ooh, burn!! im being serious, i consider this a burn. i might even link to it on my blog, if youre lucky. i hope they read this. the democrats should know better than to fuck with the lieber-man.
lieberman has to live with the fact that the democrats dealt him some wanker status, but the democrats are going to be stuck with another stupid piece of "evidence" to deflect in the non-debates about the culture "war" in which republicans discuss how the democrats have some kind of monopoly on being out of tune with voters like connecticut has anything to do with the rest of the country.
Post a Comment
<< Home