<p>Ned Lamont '76, a 4th generation Harvard legacy, defeated incumbent senator Joseph Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary election:</p>
<p>Harvard's Lamont Library is named for Ned Lamont's great-grandfather. And Ned Lamont's daughter is a current Harvard student ('09) making it 5 straight generations.</p>
<p>Ir's a darn shame.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if the net result is to hand the seat over to the Republicans.</p>
<p>there was an article on NYTimes about how our hope in that arena is that the Repub candidate is terrible. But still... I think Lieberman is a selfish shmuck for running. I like Lieberman and I like Lamont, but for the good of his party and the country, Lieberman should bow out and give us a chance to take back the Senate.<br>
On another note from the primaries, my direct boss is Claire McCaskill's communications director, and her husband ran for the House against a total bible thumping, homophobic moronic Republican and lost two years ago, and he just won a tough primary today to take the ass on again. So yay!</p>
<p>I like Lamont. Awesome.</p>
<p>Republican Party has very high regard for Senator Lieberman. In Cleveland, Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman called Lieberman's defeat a "shame." Perhaps Senator Lieberman should run as a Republican.</p>
<br>
<p>hand the seat over to the Republicans.</p>
<br>
<p>I'm not too concerned about this unless something extreme happens (death of the current Republican nominee leading to Lieberman nomination, Lamont scandal, etc.). This isn't a good year to be a relatively unknown Republican in a very blue state, even where there's an open seat. In a purplish blue state like Michigan, it might be a different story.</p>
<p>people today are saying lieberman might win by taking the 48 percent of democrats that voted for him in the primary, some more democrats who vote in the general election (who tend to be more centric) and some republican votes. it would be interesting to see what party he decided to join if reelected.</p>
<p>There is little incentive for Republicans to support Lieberman unless he hints that although "independent" he will align with the Republican caucus, even as the ostensibly "independent" former Republican senator from Vermont aligned with the Democratic caucus.</p>
<p>I wonder if he can send such a signal while holding onto his 48% of the Democratic vote.</p>
<p>Otherwise, it may be that a Lamont win will prove of strategic benefit to the Republicans nationally, graphically demonstrating how leftist/extremist the Democratic Party is becoming. It will put Hillary on the spot, if nothing else.</p>
<p>Since the main reason Lamont won was because he advocated a timed pull-out from Iraq and since the majority of Americans, including many Republicans I might add, no longer support the war, I hardly think that the Lamont victory illustrates how "leftist/extremist" the Democratic party is becoming.</p>
<p>However, somehow it does not surprise me that you hold such biased views of things, Byerly.</p>
<p>Time will tell, mom. </p>
<p>But from a partisan perspective differing from your own, it was indeed comforting to see Lamont up there on the stage with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, with the shrill voices of Maxine Watters, Nancy Pelosi, etc etc quickly weighing in on his behalf. </p>
<p>Lamont is no middle-of-the-roader, but a hard, uncompromising leftist since his college days. Just the sort of guy Republicans dream of as a symbol to run against, even as he causes the hearts of the liberal core of the Democratic party - including, presumably your own - to go pitty-pat.</p>
<p>There is a big difference between "not supporting" the war in Iraq, and voting for a candidate who supports pulling out of Iraq immediately -- now that we are already there -- despite the consquences. </p>
<p>The question Lamont provokes is who controls the Democratic Party -- and more importantly, who will be the face of the Democratic Party in 2008?</p>
<p>Will it be the Lamont type, MoveOn.Org/DailyKos brand of liberal, or a centrist?</p>
<p>Will the Democratic Party united around a southern Democratic candidate supportive of the war but angry about how it has been handled (like Bill Clinton was, someone who was a Southern Baptist, supported the death penalty etc.) or a Howard Dean, McGovern type?</p>
<p>Will the Democrats, as Michael Moore has recently advocated, kick anyone who doesn't condem Iraq out of office? </p>
<p>Electing Lamont-style candidates may be all well in good to please hardcore liberals, but the Democrats would be wiser to nominate the likes of Lieberman if they ever wish to regain control of the Executive branch. </p>
<p>As for the situation in Conn., I hope Lieberman wins as an independent to at least have some representation in the Senate not belonging to the two major parties.</p>
<p>Byerly--My political orientation might surprise you. However, Lamont, while a "liberal", is also a multi-millionaire with a venture capitalist wife who lives in Greenwich Connecticut and has, according to all the reports I have read, gotten along extremely well with the Greenwich Republican establishment--not really a surprise given his background. In addition, Lamont has been somewhat vague on the timing of the Iraq pull-out. His campaign manager has indicated that while Lamont supports a relatively quick pull-out, he would not be opposed to working with others in the Senate who take a different approach to the pull-out.</p>
<p>Optimus, I disagree with you that supporting a pull-out makes one an extreme liberal. The problem that most of the Democrats already in Congress voted to support the war in the first place, so their hands are somewhat tied. The Iraq war is a somewhat unique issue and extremely polarizing--the country is incredibly split (as obviously are we on this board). It is clear to me that you can support a pull-out, whether immediate or timed or phased in or what you will, and still be a centrist Democrat in other areas. If the Democrats are smart (which is a big if), they will nominate a centrist on economic and social issues who no longer supports the war and who supports a pull-out at some point--that would probably reflect the majority view in the country at this point.</p>
<p>I also disagree about Senator Lieberman being particularly valuable at this point. Listening to his non-concession speech last night, I thought he seemed angry, churlish and filled with a strange type of arrogance. However, I respect the fact that you have a different opinion of him.</p>
<p>The thing that people don't ever realize is that Lieberman, on issues outside of Iraq & national security, is as liberal as your everday Senate Dem. He's pro stem-cell, voted no on Alito, voted on flag burning, he's gotten 100% from NARAL most years, gets under 20% from all conservate groups, etc.</p>
<p>It shows how much being a Tony Blair can hurt you. The Labour party base is ready to execute Tony as well and replace him with the admittedly more competent but more liberal Gordon Brown.</p>
<p>The only acceptable face of the Democratic Party in 2008 is Mark Warner. </p>
<p>Another Dean will spell the end for our party and our chances are regaining the Senate and governorships.</p>
<p>bring pro stem cell hardly makes you liberal, a clear majority of americans are pro stem cell research. lieberman's no vote on alito meant nothing because he voted against kerry's filibuster, and everyone who's ever read the constitution should have voted no on the flag burning ammendment. and dean... wasn't the nominee.</p>
<p>coming from the standpoint of somone studying to become a Democratic campaign consultant, Democrats haven't lost because their candidates are "too liberal" and from the evil bastion of higher learning and gay marriage of Massachusetts, but simply because they don't run their campaigns as well as Republicans. The Republican infrastructure is incredible and beyond organized, the Democratic one is NOT, putting it lightly.
I think that if Karl Rove had been John Kerry's political aide instead of Bushs', we'd all be talking about President JFK today</p>
<p>For Shaganov, do you think the future of successful Democratic campaigns lies with the Internet grass-roots movement groups like MoveOn, or more of a traditional style, like (I assume) Rove and the Republicans employ?</p>
<p>Also, the Republican Party under Rove's watch seems to have a remarkable ability to present a unified party image where in reality it is a assorted mix of voters of different beliefs -- e.g. the neoconservatives do not have much in common with the fundementalist types. (in any political party with millions of members this is basically the case) </p>
<p>Whereas in 2004, the different factions of the Democratic Party seemed pretty clear. I can remember the stark contrast between the Dean supporting youths and the union/farmer types (who liked gephardt) in the Iowa caucus. There will certainly be more of an effort to present a unified Democratic face in 08, but what face?</p>
<p>Okay, let's look at this:</p>
<p>Americans for Democratic Action, long-respected liberal group, ratings for JL recently:
2005: 80%
2004: 75%
2003: 70%
2002: 85%
2001: 95%
2000: 70%</p>
<p>It isn't about tactics, For Shagonov, it's the message. Bush was able, in 2000, to repeat his "compassionate" message over and over again, appearing like a loving moderate in the process. </p>
<p>Frankly, JFK had many top consultants working on his campaign, Cahill, Shrum (well, a loser in Prez battles, but still...), etc. The Dems have more or less evened the money battle and it's not about organization, it's about who is more stomachable to the moderates in the exurbs and suburbs.</p>
<p>It appears that the Connecticut Republicans have abandoned their official nominee (Alan Schlesinger) and are viewing Lieberman as their best hope to prevent Lamont from winning in November. At the request of the Connecticut Republican party, Bush has declined to endorse Schlesinger (though he stopped short of formally endorsing Lieberman). Republicans are nothing if not pragmatists - they may not like Lieberman, but they prefer him to Lamont, and seem to have concluded that Schlesinger has no real chance.</p>
<p>Lieberman is leading Lamont in the latest three way poll among likely voters in November, 53% to 41%, with only 4% for Schlesinger.</p>
<p>Schlesinger's a shady character anyway -- even if Lieberman wasn't running as an independent, I doubt that Bush would have supported Schlesinger. He was banned from a bunch of casinos for counting cards, apparently. Not exactly impressive.</p>
<p>I think Lieberman's a sore loser for running as an independent. Voter turnout was quite high for the CT primary and the Democratic voters have declared their choice. Most states have laws preventing the losers of primaries from running as independents. It's distasteful.</p>
<p>wasn't the turnout 15% of registered democrats? is that alot?</p>