Lieberman's National Establishment versus Lamont's National Movement

Whether or not this is what we intended (and I know, for my part, it kind of was), the Connecticut Senate primary has now turned into an all-out war between the establishment and the progressive movement. Within the Democratic Party, the stakes could hardly be higher, as this campaign has become a symbol of what the progressive movement can (or can't) accomplish. This is why the establishment has now thrown everything it has behind the Lieberman campaign, whether it is the political establishment (almost every major Democrat both in and out of office has endorsed Lamont, plus every major progressive advocacy organization), the media establishment (the Lamont endorsement from the New York Times was a breakthrough, but the national punditry has lined up behind Lieberman, even in the pages of the New York Times) or the corporate establishment. Now, in the closing days of the campaign, Joe Lieberman's establishment backers are in a frenzy:
Every day a fax machine in a Senate office spits out lists of the latest big donors to the Democratic primary campaigns of Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont.

The Lieberman list is long, running to several handwritten pages containing a roster of familiar names: members of Congress, Fortune 500 executives and well-connected Washington big shots, all ponying up at least $1,000 to back the incumbent.

Lamont's is usually a page with a handful of names, often people who wouldn't be recognized outside their own towns.

The contrast between the two opponents in the Aug. 8 Senate primary is starkly obvious in their donor lists - as well as the amounts they're raising.

Lamont relies largely on his own funds and on small givers, people whose checks are nowhere near large enough to put them on the big-donor lists required of the candidates in the closing days of the campaign. Lieberman is relying on old friends and their friends to push him over the finish line.

In the latest full campaign finance report, covering activity through July 19, Lieberman reported $3.49 million on hand, while Lamont had $355,053.

Since then, Lieberman has rolled up about $434,000 in contributions of $1,000 or more, while Lamont has collected $29,500, though he gave his campaign $500,000 of his own money July 21.

In all, Lieberman has raised about $9.2 million, while Lamont has taken in $4.6 million, including $3 million of his own money.

And Lieberman's edge could grow even larger: Because Lamont has given himself so much money, Lieberman's office says he can take advantage of the "millionaire's amendment" designed to create parity between wealthy candidates who help fund their own campaigns and candidates who cannot or will not.

Currently, individuals are limited to donating $2,100 each, but under a complex formula, the senator can bump that to $6,300 immediately. Lieberman's office has concluded the campaign qualifies for the change, and campaign manager Sean Smith said the senator is "asking for as much as people are allowed to give."
Lieberman's campaign is now raising over $100K every day from the same people who funded Democratic campaigns from the late-1980's all the way until the netroots small donor revolution: "members of Congress, Fortune 500 executives and well-connected Washington big shots." These are the same people ineffective people who kept losing and losing to Republicans and thus from whom the progressive movement was thus started to take over the party. And now they are raising up to $6,300 from each of those people. After the primary, they can raise that much again.

This campaign has changed drastically since Liz and I visited in early May. Back then, we were the only press in town covering the race. Now, the national media has sent a wave of reporters, as the entire establishment lines up to stop Ned Lamont from becoming the next Democratic nominee for US Senate from the state of Connecticut. Think about that for a second. At least right now, they are not trying to stop Ned Lamont from becoming the next Senator from Connecticut--they want to stop him from becoming the Democratic nominee. This is nothing less than a massive, nationwide movement on the part of the political, media and corporate establishment to keep the progressive movement from taking an ownership position over the Democratic Party, and leaving the media, political and corporate establishment in charge. On a daily basis, Lieberman's campaign is starting to line up the same number of big donors that grassroots campaigns typically line up in small donors. They are busting $100K bats every day. This is a national, establishment campaign that wants to do everything it can to prevent the progressive movement from having a full seat at the national political table.

We could not be more outgunned in this race. The only thing we have on our side is the progressive movement, Ned Lamont's millions, and the Democratic voters of Connecticut. Every other resource in the Democratic, media, advocacy group, and business infrastructure of this country is faced off against us. And the funny thing this, despite this seemingly imbalance, the establishment is actually scared, and the movement is actually gaining. How long have we suffered through the establishment claiming that the progressive movement is irrelevant, ineffective, and crazy, but now with every tool in their box in use, they are still the ones scared of us, and they are the ones who have seen a 46-point lead in late April turn into a four-point deficit in mid-July. They lost fifty points to us in less than three months, despite using every weapon in their arsenal. If they can't even beat us, no wonder they lose to Republicans on a regular basis.

Now, whether Ned Lamont wins or loses this election, in the days immediately following August 8th, there will be a flood of negative press about the netroots and the progressive movement. If Lamont wins, we will be crucified for sending the Democratic Party to its doom, and defeating one of the greatest Democratic politicians in history: Joe Lieberman. If Ned Lamont loses, we will once again be called ineffective, irrelevant, and crazy by the establishment, even though we clearly scared the crap out the establishment and even though this campaign was supposed to be a blowout win for Lieberman. Before any of that happens, the important thing to remember now is just how ineffective we have shown the Democratic and media establishment to be, and how Ned Lamont's quick rise has shown that a huge percentage of the Democratic electorate is on the side of the movement and not the establishment. There is no such thing as a consolation prize or a moral victory in a campaign of this importance, but I hope that remembering those two things will continue to spur the progressive movement into action no matter what happens on August 8th. We both exist and are successful because the Democratic and progressive establishment is not successful anymore, and we will continue to thrive because a huge percentage of Democrats are on our side. At some point they will have to cope with our existence, even if right now all they are doing is throwing everything they have Joe Lieberman's way. At the lvery least, I hope the way they are acting now will teach them how exciting it is to be a part of a movement.

Visit Ned Lamont at the netroots page
Participate in the friends, family and neighbors program



Display:


Bah - movement (3.00 / 4)

Personally, I don't WANT this to be about a f**king movement.  Most voters don't LIKE movements.  They are threatened by movements.  They're not comfortable with movements.  

I firmly believe that one of the main reasons the Dean campaign imploded was because it turned into a MOVEMENT, not a campaign about electing a candidate who the electorate had to come to know and trust.  In the last crucial weeks, all the press was about the orange hats and the new style of campaigning and the "movement", not about Howard Dean and his record of accomplishment in Vermont.

"Movement" is the meta-level, and people like you and other bloggers may be comfortable operating on that level.  But I don't meet many average voters who are comfortable on that level.  The more we make this about a "movement", the less it is about Ned Lamont, and that is NOT GOOD for Ned Lamont.

We need average Connecticut Democrats to turn out and vote for Ned Lamont, the man, the small businessman who volunteers at an inner-city Bridgeport high school and has the courage to stand up to Joe Lieberman and his machine.  We need people to focus on Ned Lamont - to like him, to see his courage, and to trust that he will be more connected to the people than Joe Lieberman is.

All this punditry in the national blogosphere about Ned from people who aren't on the ground here is frankly scaring me to death.  The Lieberman campaign is NOT imploding - in fact, it's getting much stronger and it's kicking our ass here in the 4th district on the ground.  

If the only thing we have on our side is the progressive "movement", well, I'd like to know where the hell it's been.  It wasn't phone banking with me and three other volunteers today, I can tell you that.  There was only one team of volunteer canvassers out on the street.  For a movement, that's PISS POOR.

You're right about all the power stacked up against us, but if people really want to win this thing, we need a HELL of a lot more boots on the ground.  The Lieberman campaign is paying for HUGE numbers of staff canvassers.  They blanketed church parking lots here in town.  They're canvassing in every neighborhood.  People who answer the doors don't care whether they're paid or whether they're part of a "movement", they care which campaign asked them personally for their vote.

If you don't want this to be another case of a netroots "movement" going down in flames, I say keep the focus on Ned Lamont, not the movement, and PLEASE shout out for any and all volunteers who can come out and work.


(The artist formerly known as "Maura in VA"!)
by Maura in CT on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 10:13:12 PM EST

Cranky (none / 0)

Chris, I hope you'll forgive my crankiness.  I confess I'm in full panic mode right now.  The Lieberman campaign blanketed church parking lots in my city with flyers implying Ned is a racist this morning.  Their canvassers are all over town.  And phones are going unmanned in Ned Lamont's office when we SHOULD have people lined up out the door to volunteer.  I don't want to rest and congratulate ourselves on how far "we've" gotten.  I don't want another symbolic victory.  I want to win this damn thing.

I apologize for my cranky rant.


(The artist formerly known as "Maura in VA"!)
by Maura in CT on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 10:18:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cranky (3.00 / 1)

Don't apologize, Maura.  You're 100% right, both about the Dean campaign and about people needing to get off their ass and get to work.

As the financial data says, the "movement" has collectively raised about 1.5 million for Lamont.  That's about 2% of what Howard Dean raised--weak.  And we need a lot work done to win this thing.

(For the record, I live in Boston, MA.  Canvassed in CT last Sunday, am away this weekend, then back to CT for the 3 days before the election.)


Get a Vegetarian Starter Kit and a Dem. Party Mastercard
by Go Vegetarian on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 10:46:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

I wish I could go down, but being a student, I don't have the financial ability to do so, thanks for filling in for all of us that can't.


Next Generation Democrats
by Pitin on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 12:52:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cranky (none / 0)

Maura - did the fliers have Lieberman for Senate tagged on it? Or Connecticut for Lieberman? Or made by "Harvey Bellins"???

Email me...


by PhiloTBG on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 11:44:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cranky (none / 0)

I don't have the flyer in front of me (I gave it to the Lamont campaign) but I'm 98% certain that it said, "Paid for and authorized by Friends of Joe Lieberman.  Copied in-house by volunteers."

I might be off by an article or preposition, but I'm sure the content said it was officially from the campaign but not copied by a union shop.  (They're recent "hug" buttons weren't union, either.)

The photocopied flyers were accompanied by a color Lieberman lit piece from their standard lit stable.  It was the same one the Stamford DTC sent to my mom with an absentee ballot application.


(The artist formerly known as "Maura in VA"!)
by Maura in CT on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 12:52:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cranky (none / 0)

Maura,

Can you scan a copy of the flyer and e-mail it to:

http://www.wtnh.com/

http://www.nbc30.com

http://www.wfsb.com/index.html

http://fox61.trb.com/

Asking local news to cover this may very well be worth the effort.


by justinh on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 01:49:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bah - movement (3.00 / 2)

"Personally, I don't WANT this to be about a f**king movement. Most voters don't LIKE movements. They are threatened by movements. They're not comfortable with movements."

Which is why they have repeatedly elected conservative movement canddiates to office, including the Presidency (on at least two occassions).

The key is keeping the movement part of the narrative on the sidelines. Just like we don't need candidates talking about how their positions make them electable, we don't need candidtes talking about how great their movement is. In other words, the problem with the DLC conference last week, and the problem witht eh Dean campaign. Keep the meta-process out of the main narrative, I agree.

But movements are important and essential. On MyDD, helping to build an effective progressive movement as always been my number one goal. It is what allows progressives and the netroots to be effective in multiple areas at once. We have a broader vision for the party, for Washington, and for the country. It is what keeps us together and what generates our activism.

I don't think you are wrong when it comes to the narratives of specific campaigns. Right now, for Lamont is needs to be about CT and it needs to be about generating more activism. But being the sort of writer I am, there is no way I can ignore the obvious meta-side of what is taking place here. After the election, that discussion is going to take place in the larger media whether we like it or not, and I want to be prepared for that too.
by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 11:11:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bah - movement (none / 0)

After reading this post, but before I read the comments, I wanted to write a comment about this whole movement thing.

I think it is a great thing that this is a movement, and you, Matt, Kos, and all the other national bloggers have done a fantastic job at making this a fight for the heart of the Democratic party.

But I was in Texas for the final week and a half of the Ciro race (conveniently concurent with my spring break), and we lost that race because we forgot that only the voters of TX-28 had the final say on that race.  We lost because the Ciro race had no ground game to speak of.  If what Maura is saying is true (and I have to assume that it is), then this scares the hell out of me.  Races are won on the ground.  I compare it to a military battle, look what happened in Iraq, no matter how good the air war (blogs, media) is at "shocking and aweing", we never had a shot at winning without initial boots on the ground (voters, volunteers).

The country is watching us once again, let's hope this turns out well.


Next Generation Democrats
by Pitin on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 12:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bah - movement (3.00 / 1)

While I agree with you, Chris, Maura makes valid points - the most important being that getting people into the offices to phonebank, hitting the streets as much as possible - this is what we need to do. We're only hitting the streets on the weekends - I don't think there are enough volunteers to go canvassing during the day.

It's wonderful that the race is getting national attention and all from the blogs. But I feel like there's a whole lotta talk about this race, and not enough action from the blogosphere. It's one thing to follow Lamont and Lieberman around to their events - it's definitely important, as it keeps the heat up on Joe. But it's equally important, if not moreso, to put feet on the ground and people on the telephones.


by PsiFighter37 on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 06:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman's National Establishment versus Lamo (3.00 / 1)

Yes, please!!!  And if you're in CT, come out and volunteer!  If you're in driving distance from CT, come out and volunteer!

And everyone, send a postcard to your Family, Friends, and Neighbors in CT!~


(The artist formerly known as "Maura in VA"!)
by Maura in CT on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 10:14:51 PM EST

done (none / 0)

Hopefully it will be of some use.  You know, I was in New Haven yesterday and I saw the 'Kiss' float.  I explained the whole deal to my girlfriend and we both had a laugh at Lieberman's expense.  I know one or two friendly Democrats in the area - hopefully I can get them on the bandwagon.


by rfahey22 on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 10:49:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Danger (3.00 / 1)

If lieberman wins he, and his supporters( the bush regime), will claim that it is a mandate for his positions and further support of the war.

The babbleing class'e will pick up on that meme and use it to further denigrate, ignore and marginalize progressives.

There is no symbolic victory in this primary it is either a real victory or a major setback.


by Rational on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 10:30:45 PM EST

Hawaii (none / 0)

This is an interesting way to view the race and I enjoyed reading this piece. It made me wonder, how does the primary in Hawaii compare to this establishment versus progressive movement lens? Considering the lack of press coverage in Hawaii and outright disparity compared to CT, it would be interesting to see where Case and Akaka are getting their money. If Akaka gets in real trouble, will he bring in Clinton and other big guns to campaign? Are there any Hawaii experts here who have been closely monitoring the race? The joy of a Lamont victory would be soon lost if Akaka goes down.


by Matt42 on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 11:16:16 PM EST

Re: Hawaii (none / 0)

While Akaka would not be considered a movement candidate, many of the people who the movement supports are not. However, I imagine the movement will see value in making sure that Case is defeated. It will be interesting see what sort of political space opens up after next Tuesday for people to talk about that campaign.
by Chris Bowers on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 11:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

all the media? (none / 0)

Last time I checked, the NYT endorsed Lamont in language that was absolutely brutal for Lieberman. Some local Connecticut newspaper columnists are covering the campaign the same way. So we do have some allies in the MSM on this fight (now that it looks possible Lamont could win).


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Sun Jul 30, 2006 at 11:26:45 PM EST

Maura in CT has it right (3.00 / 1)

There is a growing sense of overconfidence almost to the point of haughtiness among the online Lamont supporters.

Here's the thing --- On the ground, Lieberman has a force to reckon with. A friend of mine who lives in Connecticut calls it a super ground force, and they are working their tails off in droves to GOTV for Lieberman.

Lamont is certainly outgunned on the ground by all indications, so if you know anyone in Connecticut, call them up, send them a Lamont postcard (http://www.familyfriendsandneighbors.net /) and ask them to volunteer for the Lamont campaign (http://nedlamont.com/page/s/now.) If you can make the drive to Connecticut, your volunteer time would be very much appreciated.

I'm flying over next weekend to help the campaign.


by rosebowl on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 12:26:13 AM EST

Getting carried away much? (none / 0)

My concern is, how many moves ahead in this chess game has the movement been thinking?

The cost to credibility if Lamont loses on August 8, certainly.

But, what if he wins the primary, but then loses to Joe (I)? What if Joe (I) gets a better offer from the GOP?

What if the Joe treatment gets to others? I've seen a suggestion here that Landrieu should be next on the list for the treatment: with an 08 reelection under a new closed primary regime, what if she follows Joe across the aisle?

Perhaps there are one or two more Class II-ers who don't fancy their chances with the movement either.

What if Ned wins the general? Won't the first thing on his mind be to Sister Souljah the gatecrashers: to establish his own credibility and independence as a legislator. And to fit in as a regular senator, rather than a walking insurgent freak-show.

Think of the lefty hearts broken about Obama's grey senatorial performance and multiply that by a hundred!

There is a plus to all of this: at last, the Dem establishment has a cause it's prepared to fight for. Barring Lamont from the Senate by any means necessary seems to have given them a purpose in life not previously discernable to the Great Unwashed!


by skeptic06 on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 12:32:41 AM EST

Re: Lieberman's National Establishment... (none / 0)

Man, I wish the insider Dems would fight this hard to beat Republicans.  I guess what this all really demonstrates is that the insiders feel like they've got a lot more in common with Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist and George Bush than they do with Ned Lamont or average Democratic voters.


by libdevil on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 02:08:36 AM EST

Correction? (none / 0)

Did you mean to say "(almost every major Democrat both in and out of office has endorsed Lamont, plus every major progressive advocacy organization)?"


by Califlander on Mon Jul 31, 2006 at 06:33:17 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.