I'm gathering that Matt's point is if Lamont loses it's everyone's fault but Lamont's.
No, that's not true. Every conflict has two responsible parties, and Lamont is one of them. But Lamont's role is like the role of the freshman in Animal House. He fucked up - he trusted them.
Matt Stoller, why do you think Dem leaders have hedged on the CT race? I mean, let's be serious here. simply because they are "buddies" with Liberman? simply because they are "moral lepers", because they want nothing except to beat down the Democratic base? the decision has nothing to do with strategy? is that what you really, honestly, believe? the decision has nothing, nothing at all, to do with strategy?
What possible 'strategy' could conclude that keeping Lieberman was a wise idea? He's a sociopathic liar -- and if does make it past Ned's ground game, he's probably going to have to resign anyway due to his corrupt election activities ($400,000 in petty cash??? -- if you think that issue is going away after the election, you are sorely mistaken, my friend), at which point Rell will nominate a bona fide Republican anyway.
Oh, I know, it's the brilliant 'let's concede everything to the GOP, and maybe we'll get to keep our personal fiefdoms' strategy. In which case Matt Stoller is actually overestimating the moral rectitude of the Dem leadership.
"keeping Lieberman" is a meaningless phrase. Liberman decided to run in the general as an independent, and that's a sunk cost.
also, your insinuation about Dem motives is contradictory- i'm suggesting Dem leaders could be hedging precisely because they do NOT want to concede the Senate to the GOP. i'm just speculating, but it's a hell of a lot more rational than vague notions about "moral rectitude". what do Dem leaders have to gain by supporting Lieberman? do you think they are secretely Republicans and the elections are just a rouse?
i'm suggesting Dem leaders could be hedging precisely because they do NOT want to concede the Senate to the GOP.
And exactly how does electing Ned Lamont concede the senate to the GOP? Are you suggesting that Lamont would be losing to the Republican if Lieberman were not in the race?
Lieberman is running against the Democratic nominee. Why wouldn't the "leaders" of the Democratic Party do everything in their power to elect the Democratic nominee? And to defeat the other candidates?
What does the Democratic Party lose by cutting Lieberman loose? Why should Democratic voters in Connecticutt or Democrats all over America care what happens to Lieberman?
I have no way of knowing why the "leaders" are willing to trash their party's nominee in favor of Lieberman. My inference is that they want to crush the notion that anyone outside the Establishment can or ought to choose who represents the party or what those chosen stand for. Lamont's win in the primary scared them all that they might themselves be held accountable for their repeated failure to oppose the Republicans.
you don't understand. electing Ned Lamont would not concede anything. in fact, Dem leaders are not trashing Lamont, and they've expressed their support. but by "cutting loose" Liberman, and trashing Liberman, as you suggest, they run the risk of the following: Liberman winning nonetheless, and organizing with the GOP.
Why wouldn't the "leaders" of the Democratic Party do everything in their power to elect the Democratic nominee?
because Liberman has indicated he would also organize with them if he won.
My inference is that they want to crush the notion that anyone outside the Establishment can or ought to choose who represents the party or what those chosen stand for.
that is an illogical inference. their decision is based on the given that Liberman decided to stay in the race as an Independent. now, if Dem leaders actually encouraged Liberman to stay on as an Independent to begin with, that would be a different story. but i've seen no evidence of that. have you?
THe correct strategy would have been to abandon Lieberman in the final weeks of the primary once it was obvious Lamont wasa going to win. They could have stripped the seniority thing leading only republicans to support Lieberman which wouldnt have been enough in a three way race. Independents would not have wanted to vote for a guy who wont weild influence for their state as the incumbent reasoning goes out the window.
Even with Lamont getting no real support from the party bigwigs except for Dean, CLark and Kerry, he is only 10 points behind an 18 year tenured incumbent. That is a big deal of support by a green challenger against a mighty incumbent. To chip away at the other support, you need to have Lieberman marginalized removing the massive incumbency advantage.
but this doesn't account for the fact that Liberman decided to run in the general (which, as far as I'm aware, he decided on his own). if they stripped him of his seniority, there was the strong probability that he'd run anyways, get GOP backing, and win GOP voters and enough Indies to win the general, after which he would caucus with the GOP, and it could possibly have been a decisive event against Dems retaking the Senate. Liberman's decision was pretty fucked up in my humble opinion, but it became a given. given what he did, what would YOU have done? risked control of the Senate just to win some pissing match? you guys keep talking about showing backbone like the GOP does. well, look at what they've done. they backed Chafee in RI even though he's lambasted Bush. interesting, isn't it?
Chafee won his primary.
and now that race is a lot tighter than it would've been if Laffey had won.
i want to be clear on this: Chafee and Liberman are not analagous (esp. since CT is a blue state). the point is that GOP leaders backed the candidate that actually said he did not vote for Bush in 04. strategy and coalitions matter.
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.
