I don't think that's his point at all.
Certain Democrats decided to abandon the duly chosen Democratic nominee, and to back a Republican bought renegade incumbent. Whether or not that turns out to be 100% responsible for a defeat, their actions have consequences of which they were fully congizant.
When mistakes are made on a campaign, you can agonize until the end of time whether another decision would have made a difference in the outcome. However, there's a substantive difference between a mistake or strategy that ultimately contributes to a consequence, and something that's just wrong in and of itself. Going on vacation after a primary victory on not going on the attack is a mistake and bad strategy, but those are considerations in hindsight. The problem with actively supporting Joe Lieberman and abandoning Ned Lamont does not materialize merely in hindsight, they're premeditated acts of betrayal.
At the end of the day, if Ned loses, we can argue over fault. But the Democrats that betrayed our nominee will always be at fault for betraying our nominee. Win or lose, thats unacceptable.
Joe's treachery has been given complete support at every oppurtunity by the CT media.
Going on vacation after a primary victory on not going on the attack is a mistake and bad strategy, but those are considerations in hindsight.
Campaigners and candidates (in tough races) go on vacation after the election in December.
In general, yes, but I'm somewhat alluding to the notion that Ned was lying low in response to promises from prominent Dems to talk Joe down from his indie run. Was this a brain-dead move? Bear in mind that at the time there was strong talk of a BC deal to keep Joe from going independent in exchange for strong pre-primary support. In hindsight, it was, of course, a big mistake. At the time: not a crime.
Or it might just have been a bad example, take your pick.
No, it was a total fucking brain dead move. Lamont had his work cut out for him: convincing Independents he's their guy. he'd have to do that regardless of whether Liberman ran in the general. I hate Liberman's knee-jerk centrism, but if I were the Dem leadership, I'd be doing the same thing. Lamont had a chance to prove to them that he was capable of taking this thing all the way. when he went on vacation he sent all the wrong signals. I'm not privy to Dem strategic discussions, but my guess is that they really began to worry that Lamont couldn't hack it and so they had to start hedging.
Agreed Lamont didnt run a flawless campaign. But how many campaigns have you seen that could have taken down a respected long term incumbent? At some point, a challenger needs help from the establishment unless the incumbent is embroiled in a major sex or corruption scandal.
oh look, I agree, I'd like to see Lamont take this from Liberman. Liberman's so-called "bipartisanship" has supported Cheney et al. demogoguing and fear-mongering. I won't impune Liberman's motives, but I don't like his politics and he indeed needed a kick in the ass.
but again, if you're the Dem establishment, and your goal is taking back the Senate, you have to think strategically, and this is a very unique race. the wisdom of their decision to hedge some is debatable, but my main point is that its not so outrageous that it deserves the language Matt Stoller used, especially 1 week before the god damn general election.
