A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
August 07, 2006It's not over yet in CTDems are teetering on the edge of the abyss, but have not yet jumped: The day before Connecticut's Democratic primary, a new Quinnipiac poll finds Senator Lieberman has cut the lead of his Greenwich millionaire and anti-war challenger from 13 percent to 6 percent ... Finally reversing his challenger's momentum, Senator Lieberman now trails 45 percent to 51 percent among likely Democratic primary voters.I think opinion polls are worth less than the paper they're printed on, which in the case of an internet publication is as close to zero as a finite number can get, but they do drive news cycles, and news cycles can change minds; a voter who thinks it's all over by a landslide has less motivation to brave inclement weather to get to the polls than a voter who thinks it's too close to call. While addmittedly, the partisan in me is almost choking with laughter at the prospect of Lamont winning, which will directly and indirectly be an incalculable plus for the GOP, the moderate in me sees this fratricidal stupidity in CT with weary familiarity - the Club for Growth's been trying to pull this stuff on moderate Republicans for some time. Worse yet, the whole paradigm of being a moderate - in seeing the good points in the other side's position, in being willing to seek compromise with the other side, relies on the premise that the other side isn't completely nuts. It presumes that the other side has good points. Take all the moderates out of the Democratic party, and you essentially damage the moderates in the GOP, and then you're left with even more polarization. Posted by Simon at August 7, 2006 11:53 AMComments
I have to wonder: how many of those polled said Lamont as a protest against the current policy in Iraq . . . but as soon as Lamont looked to actually win (and so give the seat to the Republicans), abandon protest votes in favor of making sure that their party holds the seat? And how many voters in the Democratic primary will vote with their heads, rather than their irritation? Posted by: wj at August 7, 2006 12:12 PMIf Lamont loses I am going to laugh my ass off... I personally want to see the Kos interview after that one. On another note, it looks as if that Joe Schwarz may go down in Michigan (sigh). Posted by: Mathew at August 7, 2006 12:16 PMExact number??? ZERO. If they're actually following the whole race. The GOP has exactly ZERO chance of winning the seat with its current candidate. So, assuming the state party fails tomorrow in supplanting him, it doesn't matter the outcome if Lamont wins because it will be him and Joe in the top two this Fall as well. Posted by: Cavalier829 at August 7, 2006 12:21 PMMat: If Lamont loses I am going to laugh my ass off... I personally want to see the Kos interview after that oneAt the risk of being a bit of a hack, I'll simply say again what I just posted in your previous thread, since it seems just as apt here: it seems to me that the best possible outcome in some ways would be for Lamont to win the primary and then go down to a crushing defeat by an independent Lieberman. Lamont losing the primary would only demonstrate the impotence of the nutroots, but Lamont beating Lieberman in a sparsely-attended Democratic primary and then being crushed in the General Election would show that the nutroots have some power in the Democratic party, but that their ideas are utterly antithetical to mainstream voters. The former essentially continues the status quo - defeat has never withered them yet - but the latter will encourage other voices in the Democratic party to fight harder against those who would drag their party down into irrelevance. WJ: how many voters in the Democratic primary will vote with their heads[?]Well, they are voting in the Democratic primary, so let's not expect miracles. ;) Posted by: Simon at August 7, 2006 12:25 PM Simon: You are wiser than I, and probably right... Although I still suggest that it would be funny if Lamont suffered a Dean like fate. Posted by: Mathew at August 7, 2006 02:42 PMYou are wiser than I...Well, that's very flattering, but almost certainly untrue. :) In truth, I'm really not sure what a bad result in CT would look like for the GOP. I mean, if Lieberman wins the primary and/or the general, that highlights the basic impotence of the nutroots to one extent or another. If Lamont wins the primary, he creates the opportunity for one of three things: one the one hand, either an even more crushing defeat for the nutroots, or a GOP senator. But on the other hand, even the very "worst-case" scenario for the GOP: Lamont becomes Senator Lamont. Is that really such a bad thing? It's not great, to be sure - but it's hardly a bad thing. The dems lose one of their elder statesmen, and come off looking to voters as though they're in the thrall of the nutroots - which is of incalculable value to the GOP in 2008. So I think we're sitting pretty. There are problems, of course, with the other side consigning themselves to irrelevance; but on the plus side, either the nutroots will be shown to be irrelevant, a positive good in itself, or they will be shown to have considerable sway in the Democratic party, which will cause sensible people to recoil from the dems in 2008. Without meaning to stroke her ego excessively, I think someone like Ann Althouse is an apt bellwether; if the dems are pushing away smart, independent-minded but liberal-leaning professionals - professors, even - then who can they attract? I will start to take the democratic party seriously again when they stop pushing away those who one would expect to be natural moderate democrats. Posted by: Simon at August 7, 2006 03:27 PMIncidentally, I don't disagree that it will be funny if Lamont suffers Dean's fate, and I'd even suggest it's likely - as Clay Shirkey's classic article Exiting Deanspace observed: I’ve had a hard time processing his Iowa and New Hampshire losses because I’d spent months hearing about how well he was going to do. It has taken me two weeks to decide that my mental model — how could such a successful campaign suddenly do so badly? — was the problem ... Dean’s campaign was never actually successful. It did many of the things successful campaigns do, of course — got press and raised money and excited people and even got potential voters to aver to campaign workers and pollsters that they would vote for him when the time came. When the time came, however, they didn’t. The campaign never succeeded at making Howard Dean the first choice of any group of voters he faced, and it seems unlikely to do so today.Substitute "Lamont" for "Dean" and you've got it. Posted by: Simon at August 7, 2006 03:30 PM |
Archives
July 2008
June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
July 4: Gasbag Edition
Independent Open Thread: Whatcha Doing This Weekend? Long Tail Controversy and Explanations Canadian Human Rights Commission No, Slavery Wasn't Competive With Free Labor Back online Irish Blogger Charged For Blogging Friday open thread Headline: Obama and Clinton Together in Unity There Is No EPA Document, There Is No EPA Document
|
