Connecticut: Further Thoughts

I should start by venting a wee bit. Many of the moonbats have taken extreme umbrage at a particular line (some may come to call it Lieberman's nine words) in last night's concession speech: "I cannot and will not let that result stand." They're citing it is as further proof of delusion, of a man out for himself and not for state or nation. Lieberman squeaked by Weicker in the '88 primary even more narrowly than Lamont won last night, which is to say that at one point the Democratic Party up there thought very highly of him. But since then, I would say, and especially in the last decade or so, he's been more a man of his state than a man of his party, independent from partisan pressures because of his widespread popularity at home. Let me restate that: because of his widespread popularity at home. Not because of his popularity among fellow Dems but because of his broad base of support. In 2000, Lieberman won with 63% of the vote, meaning his support extended far beyond his party. As of last October, party registration in Connecticut was roughly as follows: 453,000 registered Republicans (~22%), 700,000 Democrats (~34%), 929,000 unaffiliated (~45%). Given those registrations and his usual broad base of appeal, of course he cannot let the results stand: last night he was run out of his party by some loons who in other states might be on the political fringe. As a three-term incumbent, and one with widespread popularity and respect in the state, the whole state deserves another referendum on him, not just the peaceniks who claimed victory last night (and while calling them peaceniks, I should note that one of Lieberman's first political acts back in the 70s was the creation of an anti-war caucus).

Looking forward, what does all of this mean? Some have suggested, and I partially believe, that Lamont's victory on an avowedly cut and run strategy will force the Democrats to line up behind a cut and run resolution on Iraq (like the one Kerry floated about 6 weeks ago). However they'll only do that if they feel the Connecticut results are nationally consistent, that is to say that there is some sort of anti-war tide not just among Democrats but voters at large (although the poll numbers indicate public dissatisfaction with the war, I think most Americans haven't lost their minds just yet and recognize the disastrous consequences of leaving before Iraq can stand on its own). They may feel threatened by netroots activism and the spectre of primary challenges, which already many Kossacks are talking about - but I think the activists are off their rockers and the establishment will be overestimating their power if they worry about that. They might be able to push Lieberman out of the party in Connecticut, but that's in one of the bluest states in the nation - I'm not sure it could happen in many other places.

I also somehow suspect that Lamont's victory will be a boon for the GOP, at least in Connecticut. In November, GOP voters will come out and vote - either for Schlesinger or Lieberman, or at least (if the GOP does its job well) against Lamont, in the process hopefully voting for their Congressmen too (three of whom are Republicans). Nationwide, or at least in select markets, invoking the idea of the Democratic Party as a bunch of hippie peaceniks, led by Lamont and his merry band of netroots loons, might serve as a catalyst for turnout. We'll see.

I'll try and post on some of the other races later.