<p>Leiberman should win handily. You will see people like Hillary backing away from the Lamont.</p>
<p>Which would be very prudent on her part in her doomed-to-fail attempt to gain the nomination.</p>
<p>
Turnout was about 43% of registered democrats, which is high by primary standards. I think the 15% figure you're quoting is that the turnout only represented about 15% of total registered voters in Connecticut. Only about 35% of registered voters are registered as democrats - about 40% are registered without party affiliation and the rest are republicans. This is one of the challenges that Lamont faces in translating his primary victory into a general election victory.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How would Lamont winning provide a benefit to the Republicans? Are you citing the "extremist" Democratic party with a straight face? Wow. </p>
<p>As a CT resident, it is clear to me that the Dems were only interested in ousting Lieberman from the party, who has become a Republican lackey of sorts. The Dems would love to win the seat, but I think they would rather lose the seat and get rid of Lieberman rather than win and keep Lieberman.</p>
<p>Going back to the "extremist" comment-When the Republicans have had the White House for 8 years, as well as control of all three branches for some of them, it is appalling that all they could accomplish is getting the US involved in an unwinnable, idiotic Iraqi war and turning a surplus into a significant deficit....wait, didn't Bush say he was a "conservative" Republican back in '00? Last time I checked, conservatism didn't involve outlandish spending.</p>
<p>And, please, don't mention the possibility of Hilary Clinton running for the Dems-I'll pass.</p>
<p>Actually, Lamont's win helps the Republicans immensely. Look at this article from Slate, which compared Lamont to the 1972 McGovern disaster: <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2147877/?nav=tap3%5B/url%5D">http://www.slate.com/id/2147877/?nav=tap3</a></p>
<p>The Republicans immensely jumped on this Lamont thing, with shrill, arrogant left-wing bloggers ousting a principled Senator and replacing him with a puppet. This Lamont character doesn't deserve to be in the Senate and wouldn't get in without his war support. He's no better than McGovern or Eugene McCarthy.</p>
<p>If the Democrats can't offer a decent alternative to the Republicans, than they can't win. This Lamont character is not an alternative, and his victory hurts candidates like McCaskill (Mizzou) and Ford (TN).</p>
<p>The Democrats' presidential problem can be solved by the application of three words: "Nominate Mark Warner!"</p>
<p>Zephyr, that doesn't really make sense, since the Republicans have admitted they were disappointed with the result. They loved the idea of having a visible Democratic Senator that supported the farcical Iraqi war, a sort of pet Dem for Rove and co.</p>
<p>Regardless, Lieberman is showing his true colors here-he professes to be a Dem, yet his run as an independent could potentially cost the Dems a Senate seat. I mean, there's no mistake the Repubs have supported him all the way down the line, despite his mostly Democratic voting record. Why? Because he supported the war, a war even the most ardent kool-aid drinkers can't defend at this point (but, my, how they try). I don't think Lamont is anything special; his defeat of Lieberman in the primary was noteworthy if only for the fact that it exposed Lieberman for who he really is....which is for Joe. If he truly cared about the Dems and their success moving forward, he would've bowed out and accepted defeat.</p>
<p>I don't really understand that reasoning. Whatever his technical party affililation, Lieberman will presumabaly vote the same way whether he is a democrat or an independent. Since there is no viable Republican candidate, the race is between the official democratic candidate and a three-term incumbent democratic Senator. Liberman has no obligation to drop out; in fact, if he thinks he is the best man for the job, it would be irresponsible of him to do so.</p>
<p>Yes, but it helps them (the GOP) with other races. With Lieberman or Lamont, they will have someone who votes with the Dems 80% of the time holding down the junior seat in CT. </p>
<p>The Lamont thing makes the Dems look weak on certain issues, which will bleed onto other senate candidates like Ford, McCaskill, Casey, etc. </p>
<p>Frankly, Lieberman's independent candidacy is more than just about the Democratic Party. There is a certain value to be placed in not being a partisan hack like Lamont is. If the GOP is supporting him, it's their own stupidity because he's still going to vote pro-choice, pro stem-cell, etc.</p>
<p>I share ICargirl's sentiments.</p>
<p>The GOP shouldn't openly endorse Lieberman, even though they want him to win. It would provide even more fuel for the Lamont campaign to paint Lieberman as "in bed" with the Republicans. </p>
<p>The election should be interesting for this one. It would be ironic if the Democrats end up losing a other-wise locked up Senate seat by doing this..</p>
<p>"A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lieberman leading Lamont by 12 percentage points among likely voters. Much of Lieberman's advantage comes from his popularity among Republicans and unaffiliated voters, the largest voting block in Connecticut.</p>
<p>"(Lamont) does need to broaden his base," said poll Director Douglas Schwartz. "His core supporters right now are liberal Democrats. That's not enough to win a general election."</p>
<p>just to throw in a quick bit of info, i work for claire mccaskill, and her campaign, while irate at JL, sees Lamont's victory as a netroots, base catalyst to increase voter turnout. they aren't too worried. this is my first time in a real war room (knocking on doors for kerry really doesn't count) so i'm not sure if this is seasoned expertise or just them being nieve.<br>
another bit of info... i'd wager that the missourians who will decide mccaskill-talent have never heard of lamont and have only heard of JL in the context of the 2000 election</p>