MyDD :: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle

Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle

by Matt Stoller, Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:16:22 PM EST

Every insurgent campaign undergoes a moment where it must rapidly scale, and weaknesses become nearly crippling. The national focus on Lamont - both media and political - hit up against a campaign and candidate used to dealing with a Senate primary in a relatively small Northeastern state. After a bit of time, the ones that do well reconstitute themselves and scale up to meet the necessary new demands. That's what happened to the Lamont campaign.

Lamont is back in the saddle. He's running hard again on substance, which is why and how he won the primary. After a lot of stupid little process stories enabled by a pathetic press (and a New York Times whose reporters are quite stupid), Lamont is making a clear case for why he should be the next Senator. He's delivering a major national security address at Yale Law School laying out a clear vision for where the country needs to take its security policy.

He's also pointing out that Joe Lieberman is simply out for himself, not the voters of Connecticut, and it shows in his judgment about the war in Iraq. It's not just that he introduced the force resolution, it's that he keeps missing key votes.

Ned Lamont stood with veterans Tuesday on the New Haven Green and criticized Lieberman for missing 16 votes on Iraq since 2003, including eight votes last week.

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS
"We want to hold this senator accountable," Lamont said. "One way you hold him accountable: Was he there doing the people's business, casting the votes when they counted?"

One of the votes Lieberman missed last week was on a proposal by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., to force the Bush administration to address incidents of civil strife in quarterly reports about Iraq.

Lieberman was absent to accept an award at the Kennedy Center for his work helping promote wholesome entertainment. Kennedy's proposal lost, 54 to 44.

Six of the missed votes last week involved amendments to the 2007 defense spending bill. Lieberman, a Senate Armed Services Committee member who touts his security record, was one of two senators who did not vote on final passage.

The key is to point out that Lieberman is relentlessly sensitive to criticism. Lieberman has constantly harped on Lamont being extremely negative, which is of course false. Still, it's a good frame.

It can only be countered with effective substantive criticism, along with questions about why Lieberman is so afraid of criticism.

Tags: Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, CT-Sen, Connecticut (all tags)

Permalink :: 63 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

About time...only one month late.

But better late than never.

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:30:12 PM EST

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Unfortunately, Lamont is probably going to lose in the general election, which is very unfortunate.

Don't get me wrong. I like this guy a lot, I believe he is a terrific candidate. His demeanor on TV interview is so mature for a rookie. He is full of substance.

But unfortunately, he was immediately framed by the media and GOP as a wild leftist, which he apparently is NOT. The framing was done within 2 days following the very moment he won the primary.

The damage was done. That's why Lieberman has solidified astonishing support among GOP and indepedent. The old-school, so-called low-information democrats are not abandoning Lieberman either.

With only 60% support among democrats and a substantial margin deficit among independent, Lamont is stacking against the odds. There is little chance he will pull off in the general.

Iraq is one issue, but NOT the single issue that will decide the election. Unfortunately, netroots advocate this simple 'withdrawl' strategy and Lamont will become the sacrificial lamb in the general election.

What a shame! I really do like this guy a lot. His ideology is very much to the centre, which matches my own. Too bad he's been framed as a wild leftist and the label is not going away.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:30:29 PM EST

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

He's not being hurt as I can tell by that, but by the lack of fighting for the big mo' A month later smells of the same issue I had with kerry- my fear is fire in the belly, not issues check list.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:34:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

You are wrong. Look at all the polls. Lamont has a substantial deficit among independent, which is the apparent evidence that voters even in CT he is too liberal.

Netroots have pushed him too far to the left on Iraq. The entire two days following the primary, he's been branded by the media and aided by GOP and Liberman as weak on security leftist.

I don't understand why netroots are pushing for this stupid Iraq theme. It's going nowhere. I don't think voters are caring enough about this issue when those died are not their kids.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:37:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (3.00 / 1)

Firestorm,

You're being stupid.

"Too far left on Iraq?" What's that exactly? When are you and your DLC brethern going to get it through your thick heads that THE MAJORITY of people agree with us on the Iraq war and NOT Joe Lieberman.

I agree that Lamont hasn't done well, but it has nothing to do with Iraq. It has to do with the fact that he sat on his ass the last month while Lieberman was hitting away on him!

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

If you believe most voters really care about Iraq, you are kidding yourself.

This is why ultra-liberals are keeping on losing. Of course, people care about this issue, they are upset that things are not going well.

But I have a very cynical view about ordinary voters. Is this issue really that important for them to topple an incumbent? I don't think so. It's different that Vietnam when their kids had to be drafted.

As long as it's not their own kids' blood, I doubt they will be angry enough to pull the trigger at election.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:44:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

the point that peo keep making to you firestorm- is that, let's assume logically speaking for the sake of argument that you are correct- that Iraq doesn't matter. The point is that isn't the reason lamont is facing the deficit he is dealing with. Logically speaking assuming your argument as fact- the problems he face aren't this- it's that he did nothing for a month. Can you understand that we are making an apples argument to your orange? or will you persist in repeating yourself without undrestanding that? its up to you.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Your logic is absurd. Lamont had a deficit of around 5-10 points immediately following the primary depending on different polls. This deficit has not widened or narrowed since then. Lieberals are sticking with Lamont. Centrists, low-information democrats, GOPer are sticking with Lieberman. I just have difficulty in understanding how the anti-war theme can peel enough voters from Lieberman's pool to push Lamont on top.

Lieberman has not gone anywhere, neither has Lamont over the past month. The race has not progressed. The deficit is because of Lamont's perceived 'too liberal' ideology. He can not master enough centralists, he can not solidify those low-information democrats.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (3.00 / 2)

its only absurd to an idiot. Of course Lamont had a decifit- its because he hadnt begun to run his his general campain yet and Lieberman as the incumbent had the incumbency going for him. Jesus, learn politics 101 before speaking. this whole reductive one issue approach is why we lose on both the moderate side and liberal. it's not one issue it- its a whole set of reasons. most of which have very little to do with issues. In this case, the particulars are more related to an upstart trying to beat an incumbent. Of the two,the one that absolutely can not sit down for a breather is the upstart. yet, this is exactly what has happened while incumbent has run like his life depended on it.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:00:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

It's ridiculous that you are advocating 'not issue' campaign, but at the same time, Lamont has been framed as an anti-war single issue candidate.

You should double check the reality. Lamont, pushed by the netroots, has fallen in the single issue trap exactly outlined by you. That's why he's going nowhere.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:03:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

its only crazy if you cant think of more than one thing at a time- which apparently you can not. My point to you isn't whether or not Iraq matters (my assume for the sake of argument-once more I must explain how logic works- is designed to take it off the chess board to look at what else maybe factors- it's to even the discussion so you can't use your hot potato issue as the only poitn of discussion and asked broader questions), it's that I assume that regardless of whether it matters, that's not the reason Lamont is having problems. There are a plenty of other things he has to address first before one can even begin to get to your conclusion. Others here are arguing, effectively I might add, that you are wrong as to where peo stand on this issue and your conclusion. However, my thesis is that it's irrelevant because Lamont isn't doing the basics required to even get to the point of arguing his position much less being able to be critiqued as to whether the voters agree or disagree with it. If he were running the campaign he did in the primary now, then you would have a better grounds from which you speak. But, and this is a big BUT, the problem right now is that he is not. He isn't going for blood. And, if you want o win, it's my view you have to go for blood and take the gloves off. In the last month, I haven't sense this. i have sensed a desire to appear to be the 'netroots' candidate. Nice rhectoric- but he's worth a lot of money. He needs to be the guy who is bludgeoning Lieberman until Lieberman hollers for mercy. It's a different way of seeing things. You see things according to issues, but I see them according to character and strategy.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:01:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Why do you believe these polls? These polls are ridiculous, IMO; these polls say the majority of Republicans - like 75% of Republicans - are going to split their votes. Even when a major party has a lousy candidate that everyone knows will lose, most party partisans vote for him. A lot of people vote who hardly follow the news coverage at all and they're not aware of this concept of Lieberman being the de facto candidate. The last Republican candidates against Dodd and Lieberman were sacrificial lambs but they still polled over 30%, didn't they? These polls are saying Schlesinger gets less than 10%.

These are the old style voting machines where people go in and push down little levers. These machines make straight ticket voting more likely than other kinds of voting apparatus. Answering a question in a telephone poll is a very different thing than facing that voting machine where the natural inclination is to flip the levers all across the row and get out.

The mechanics of voting are a big disadvantage to independent candidates and in Lieberman's case, he's all the way down at fifth place on the ballot. This is why Democrats like Dodd, Reid, Schumer, etc. are being careful not to give Lieberman a "they hurt my feelings" excuse to become the actual Republican candidate and the S.O.B. would just love to have an excuse.

by Rowena on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:02:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (3.00 / 1)

Firestorm,

Please stop before you end up embarrassing yourself!

Who are these "ultra-Liberals?" Or is that what you do...go on some website and write up nonsense and pretend it's factual without any supporting evidence.

Here's some supporting evidence for you. Recently, CBS conducted a poll in which they asked people their feelings about the Bush Administration (you can probably find it buried in the pages here at MyDD). There were no leading questions, they allowed the respondents to make up their own minds. What do you like best? What do you hate worst? etc.

The number one answer that people gave about what they hated about the Bush Administration was????

THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!!

The war in Iraq is RIGHT NOW more unpopular than the war in Vietnam was --- by about 10%.

The vast majority of independents (by about 2 to 1) OPPOSE THE WAR in Iraq.

In Conneticut, Democrats oppose the war by 4 to 1. Independents by 3 to 1.

So before you start spewing nonsense, please learn a little bit about what your talking about.

If you can provide a SINGLE example of any "Ultra-Liberal" candidate who lost his/her race based on the war, can you please provide it?

That would make you look less stupid.

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

As I said, of course people are upset, but will this make a difference as most liberals believe? I don't think so.

As far as the kids being sent to Iraq are not their own, I doubt it will make any dent on an election. As far as the bombs are not going off here in the States, people just don't care whether they're going off in Baghdad or Beiruit.

Don't underestimate the power of GOP's 'cut and run', 'fight them not here' slogans.

Mark my word, if netroots continue to push Iraq withdrawl theme, we will have a long night.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:58:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Firestorm,

Your problem is you overestimate the power of the Republicans...

Enough so that you "cut and run" from common sense.

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:59:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Firestorm does have a small point but it doesn't apply here: there are states/districts where the tone, but not the position, about the war matters very much and a rabid Kossack approach won't cut it.

But Lamont has sounded very sober and prudent...and to many voters, how you sound is what matters. Bush would never have been elected except that too many voters bought in to how he sounded.

by InigoMontoya on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:00:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

we can't even get to know whether his point is right regarding the last month because the last month has been mostly low key with the lamont peo. why isn't he spend his money on this race is he wants to win? why wait a month?

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:06:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I do agree with you on the money thing. Lamont has not spent enough money since primary. Maybe he's waiting for some angel funds instead of his own pocket.

It's going to be a miracle for him to pull this off in the end. He's facing insurmoutable electrote deficit. This is not like primary when he had a deficit of over 30 points but his 'perceived anti-war ideology' was more in tune with the primary voters. So he had that upswing potential and momentum. This time around, his 'perceived anti-war' ideology is contrary to the voters he's trying to appeal to.

He's been unfortunately framed as an 'anti-war', weak-on-security single issue candidate.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:14:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

firestorm,

This is the issue I have with your opinion. I would agree with your general assessment regarding differences between independent voters and rank-and-file Democrats if such a disparity existed (in this case regarding the war). But on the issue, they seem to agree.

My problem with your analysis is that you seem to base it on the assumption that opposing the war in Iraq is ONLY a Democrat thing. You seem to have bought into this line that independents SUPPORT the war...they don't.

That's why I hate the DLC and believe they are terrible political strategists. They always seem to argue in favor of independents or "swing voters" but have no idea what they support or oppose.

As far as Lamont's deficit being "insurmountable" as you put it. I disagree. I agree he's not doing well...but the race isn't over. These same things were being said about Lamont in June and July. Lamont has to get his head out of his butt and start getting to work.

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 07:35:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Firestorm
Your concern is touching. Two months is a four lifetimes in politics. I'll start to worry about polls in a month. Until then, everybody just relax. Nobody ever thought this was going to be a cakewalk.

by BlueinColorado on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 07:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Being anti-war with respect to Iraq is a majority position, not a fringe "Lefty" position, and in a CBS poll with free-form response, "Iraq" was by far the dominate issue on voter's minds.

Aside from Iraq and an occasional atrocity like the bankruptcy bill, Lieberman's voting record is fairly liberal. Lamont's job is to distinguish himself from Lieberman and give them a reason to vote for him instead of a three-term incumbent they've generally liked: Iraq is the biggest difference between the two.

If I were strategos for Lamont, I'd be aiming at Democratic-leaning Independents and hitting away at getting their votes as hard as I can. Do that and a number of current Lieberman-supporting Dems will switch as well. The battle in Connecticut will be won and lost among the Independents.

I ran the numbers and if Lamont gets to 75 percent Democratic and 55 percent Independent, I think he wins. You've got to know and expect that substantial number of Dems will stick with Lieberman just because he's good ol' Joe and they're comfortable with him. Why? Don't ask me. In literature as in love [and politics], we are astonished at what is chosen by others. --Maurois

by InigoMontoya on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:56:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

If Lamont gets 75% of Democrats and 55% of independents he'll win by 10% or more.

Lieberman only gets 75% of Republicans...and there is a two-to-one Democrat to Republican advantage in Conneticut.

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:58:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I agree with you on the math. But how can Lamont get 75% democrats if those low-information, old-school democrats are still sticking with Lieberman; How can Lamont peel off 55% among independent if you guys continue to push for early withdrawl theme.

The deadline approach is a recipe for election disaster.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:00:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

"But how can Lamont get 75% democrats if those low-information, old-school democrats are still sticking with Lieberman; How can Lamont peel off 55% among independent if you guys continue to push for early withdrawl theme."

Well, his "supporters" could stop throwing around terms like "ultraliberal"....

by BlueinColorado on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 07:38:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Lamont has to worry about that one town, Waterbury I think it is, where the local Democrats have endorsed Lieberman, because the local party people will be doing their darndest to steal votes for Lieberman. Otherwise, the "low information" Democratic voters are now Lamont voters. These are the voters who always vote straight ticket.

What if this election is really more like the '92 Presidential election than a normal race where the winner gets over 50%? What if the winner is going to get 43%, like Clinton did?

by Rowena on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:11:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

this has nothing to do with iraq, and everything to do with a failure to communicate and stay int he game. like the 'far left' you refer to, you want to reduce it to your pet cause or issue. it's not about that. he could have had a perfect position on iraq (according to whatever you think that is) and he still would be here because he dropped the ball after the primary and he hasn't been spending his money to blitz and destroy lieberman until now. a month later.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:45:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

It just so funny that all you guys are pushing the theme that people were upset about Iraq and they rose up to topple Lieberman at the primary. But now, with a possible defeat, you guys suddently claim this has nothing to do with Iraq.

The accurate assessment is Iraq, Iraq and Iraq. Iraq was the reason Lamont won in a primary with the most liberal voters; Iraq will also be the reason Lamont is going to lose in the general.

Lamont has been framed as a wild anti-war leftist. I doubt he can overcome this among indepedent.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:49:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (3.00 / 2)

Firestorm,

you're an idiot.

You know how I know you are a DLCer? Because you don't have the foggiest idea about politics.

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Check my prediction yesterday.

I predicted Chafee would win by a comfortable margin which nobody here believed...

I am not in the black box either by 'netroots' or 'DLC', that's why I have a better 'crystal ball'.

by firestorm on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:06:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

predicting chafee would win is hardly a causes for breaking out a sense that you know all. this isn't a game of 'told you so.' the question is what is really shaping a race. I believe its character and strategy- and that lamont isn't doint his all given his resources. you want to turn it into a one issue discussion. that's fine. but that's not the same thing as what maybe occuring ont eh ground.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:04:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Do you think Chaffee won on his own or because he had the institutional party backing?

by Rowena on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

actually firestorm- i have been pushing the position that iraq is irrelevant one way or the other. because you can't read and aren't logical- you don't undrestand that. ie, when I say, because you are retarded- i have to explain my explaination- "assume your argument is true" that means, I am accepting y9our claims that peo dont care aobut iraq. Okay, fine. They dont. But, that has nothing to do with the core issue of what's going on with lamont one way or the other according to the analysis I am using. Instead of addressing it - you keep repeating yourself. That's what makes you an idiot. If I continued to argue with you that would make me one too. So, as for this post, bye-bye.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Iraq is not some stupid issue (3.00 / 1)

The reason why Lamont gets branded is because people like you reinforce the national narrative. Let's see. A few years ago, people like LIeberman were running on ONE issue. They demonized democrats who didnt support the war on IRaq as people who didn't get it and defined national security as ONE ISSUE where the dems dont get it. Now that they are proven wrong, they want to change strategy and accuse Lamont of running on ONE ISSUE. Lieberman wants us to agree to disagree, yet he talks out of his ass again and still tries to demonize Lamont on the war issue.

THe Iraq war issue is not why Lamont is losing. A lot of people agree with Lamont on the war in CT. The problem is they also buy into the narrative that Lamont is somehow a rabid lefty because people are lazy to do their own thinking. The solution is not to give in and try to conform. If you do so, why would even the 40% even go for Lamont? Liberman would just win in a landslide. He would actually poll less. The solution is for the democrats to band together and create and reinforce the correct narrative. Democrats take one step forward and a step back when it comes to these issues. All that national support from the Dem party? Where is the substance of that support?

The key for Lamont is to show how the war championed by Lieberman has an effect on the other issues Lieberman claims to champion for the democrats.

Iraq war is not a trivial issue. Consider this. 300 Billion is being spent on this war. Imagine what you could do with this money if spent on better intelligence or domestically on other infrastructure. Maybe the US gets more credibility without the iRaq war in trying to keep a check on Iran. For you to say Iraq war is just some dumb issue is being ignorant of the consequences of actions taken.

by Pravin on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:10:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq is not some stupid issue (none / 0)

Lamont is not "losing". He may or may not be behind in the polls. That is very different from losing. It is a rhetorical point that suggests something that has not yet happened. New survey data will be interesting. I suspect that it is much closer than any "losing" candidate should expect.
A few more pseudo-messianic speeches by Bush about the links between Iraq and a "third awakening" and the real meaning of terror will become apparent. If that isn't a loser issue heading into the elections, then all is truly lost.

by shermandem on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iraq is not some stupid issue (3.00 / 2)

MY mistake. I mean trailing in the polls.

Lamont people need to make it crystal clear for the democrats still sticking with Lieberman how Lieberman's initiatives with the Iraq war is taking funding away from all the areas where he seems to vote the "right" way, but is usesless since he does nothing to use his bipartisan powers to convince the Bushies to vote the "right" way.

by Pravin on Fri Sep 15, 2006 at 01:46:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I think it is premature to be betting your rep on predicting this. I am comfortable this is not over. Am I comfortable with the last month? No. But that doesn't require dire predictions and surrendering before the final battle begins.
What we do know is that the Lieberman campaign is a mess, without an agenda, and vulnerable based on its record and a lunatic President behind it all. For that reason alone, I hope no one gives up. Or those who do, that they get the hell out of the way.

by shermandem on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:09:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I agree with you. I don't think its impossible- he has a month and half but he does need to start doing a lot more than trying to appear to be the 'netroots' candidate. That's not what the general election needs to be about. it has to be about lieberman bad, me good. Period.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 07:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I am going to say something heretical. I am having a problem with th e way Lamont has run his campaign after the primaries. First off, he hasn't been as passionate. Second, and to me, most importantly, why isn't he using his own money? It's true- it shouldn't have to. It's true, he doesn't have to. But, to win- requires a kitchen sink approach. Why, if Bloomberg is willing to spin 80 million in a shoe in election in NYC and Corizine did the same in NJ, isn't Lamont doing some of the same. And, no, telling me that others decided not to do this isn't an answer. I think supporting positions papers and whatnot are wonderful- but theya ren't what win elections.

Oh,a nd if, I am wrong, please tell me so- and how because I would love to believe that he is willing to fight for this outside of just the netroots and a primary win.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:32:35 PM EST

Zero is too little and September is too late (none / 0)

Lamont can still win, but he needs to introduce himself to the people of CT. Lieberman is quite vulnerable to attack, but you can't beat somebody with nobody, and that's what Lamont is right now.

The money and support the GOP has hinted at for Joe is mostly a Rove head-fake. As long as there are REAL Republican seats in play, I can't see the Boy Genius fucking around with Joe Lieberman. Would you do it? Would you ship money and resources to somebody who MIGHT switch parties? This a confusion-to-my-enemies play (and not a bad one) by Dr. Evil.

When all is said and done, Holy Joe is a pretty crappy fundraiser. Remember the Joementum for President Campaign? I say Lamont needs to cash some t-bills (the big ones, not the kind you and I have) and engage Lieberman in a demoralizing arms race, petition-for-involuntary-bankruptcy style. If he'd done it sooner, he probably could have rolled that puke Lieberman right out of the race.

With an immediate (and huge) television and radio buy, Lamont can push the polls and change the whole dynamic of this race.

All it takes is money, and this motherfucker Lamont has got plenty of that. If he's not going to, could I have my twenty-five bucks back?

by stevehigh on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zero is too little and September is too late (none / 0)

that's my view too- he can't ask for money from folks and not be willing to spend his own. it's his right not to but its not a sign of giving his all to do that sort of tactic. he could claim he will be attacked by lieberman- but screw that. use everything and the kitchen sink and figure out all the reasons why not later.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 07:20:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How bad does he want it? (3.00 / 1)

This is how other rich guys with thin qualifications make it to the Senate. On paper, Holy Joe looks a lot better if you're just thinking resume, which, frankly, is the way a lot of voters do think.

But with boocoo advertising Lamont can transform himself into a high-tech superstar on a big white horse.

Iraq is not a bad issue, fersure, bad it's not enough. Lamont has to demonize Lieberman as the archetypical Washington schemer, up to his armpits in special interest money.

The beauty part of self-financing (plus small-contributer clean netroots money) is that you can truthfully say, "I didn't take a nickel from Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and how you doin' there Senator Sleaze?"

But Lamont needs to run commercials until Connecticut's eyes and ears bleed. That takes some cash.

by stevehigh on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 08:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How bad does he want it? (none / 0)

bingo- its what bloomberg did in nyc, what I think as I remeber corizine did, and this I am not sure of, but didn't warner partially self finance. it's nice to be the hero fo the netroots, but its more important to win this race.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 09:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

This race is a peculiar race. The Democrats have to tread carefully with Lieberman and allow him to leave gracefully if its obvious he's going to lose.

by Rowena on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:24:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I like how you call the NY Times reporters "quite stupid." I have little doubt that they were quite stupid. (Most reporters are. I think it is a result of our supposedly objective style of journalism. Somehow knowing nothing is conflated with being objective.) But I must admit that I didn't read their reporting on Lamont before the primary. So, can anyone tell me what they did that reflects their stupidity?

by Reece on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:49:47 PM EST

We'll see (none / 0)

The new Survey USA poll spooked me a little. Maybe I should wait for a new Q-poll or for Rasmussen and ARG to have updates on theirs, but there needs to be a definitive reclamation of momentum and authority in this race by Lamont.

by PsiFighter37 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:50:21 PM EST

I was at the YLS speech today (none / 0)

It was good; most of my friends thought it exceeded their expectations (none of them are big blogosphere) fans either and many are ambivalent about Lamont). Not a home run but a solid double or triple. Bottom line, he made progress.

Morning Is Here

by Wanderer on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:57:37 PM EST

Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

It's interesting to note that Lamont and his staff ran one of the most brilliant campaigns in political history to win the primary, but now all the armchair generals are out in force telling him how he is screwing up. Some of our self-appointed political savants didn't even think the guy should spend a week on vacation with his family after months of non-stop campaigning.

Lighten up, willya? We have a ways to go before the general election. Lamont has plenty of money and a very smart bunch of people around him. He will do just fine, and Lieberman isn't likely to be winning many new voters to his side with his bad attitude.

by global yokel on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 04:58:04 PM EST

Re: Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

resting on past laurels is great when you retire- not in the middle of a campaign. its these same archchair generals who helped this guy- so your argument is to say the least ironic.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:08:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I remember when Michael Dukakis went on vacation in Hawaii after getting the Democratic nomination in 1988. And how well all that turned out.

by InigoMontoya on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Dukakis '88 is exactly how I would compare what Lamont has done.

by JackBourassa on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 07:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

unlike dukakais lamont has a lot of money that he could spend to win this race- that he is still hitting peo up for money like he doesn't is what bothers me because i am like- why aren't you putting out as many attack ads against lieberman starting in august as possible?

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The firestorm Firestorm (none / 0)

Iraq or no Iraq, Lamont has to start doing better, and doing more.

He's down 13 points in the most recent poll I've seen: Link

And THIS is important: "57% of those who prefer Lamont say they are voting "against" another candidate. 60% of those who vote Lieberman say they are voting "for" Lieberman."

Lamont needs to convince folks to vote FOR him, not just against Lieberman or as a general protest of Iraq policy.

I realy want to see Senator Lamont, and I dearly hope he gets his campaign in gear, talking about a wide swath of issues, and showing folks he means business.

by Swan on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:21:41 PM EST

Hurrah! Someone mentioned the relevant point (1.00 / 1)

"57% of those who prefer Lamont say they are voting "against" another candidate. 60% of those who vote Lieberman say they are voting "for" Lieberman."

No kidding. And that's exactly why Lamont is doomed to fail. It's the current Democratic ignorance in a nutshell. Remember ABB? We are so idiotically envious of the Republican attack machine we think we have to emulate it, and meanwhile it leads to no foundation whatsoever. The anti-Iraq vote is already built into our numbers.

In very few races are we building up our own candidates. It's all negativity toward the other side, a vote against approach. That has automatic limitations. Again, I'll compare it to sports. The worst handicapppers I know are always betting against: "The Raiders sucked Monday night. I'm betting against them every week!" Meanwhile, that leads you to give big points with mediocre teams that are life and death to win. The sharp handicappers always bet WITH excellence, not against crap.

And I see very little difference to politics. Go back and look at the PEW polling from 2004. Bush won because voters were voting for him, not against Kerry. In fact, Bush voters reported higher enthusiasm than any candidate PEW surveyed since Reagan in '84. There was no way a vote-against negative strategy and ABB candidate like Kerry was going to prevail.

But our handicapping is incompetent so we carry the same strategy to 2006. I log onto Kos every day and virtually every main diary he posts is anti-GOP instead of boosting our candidates. Likewise, every email I get from the Democratic organizations rips Bush or the GOP in its header, instead of something positive or interesting regarding our candidates. I delete them without opening. It would be hysterical if it weren't so pathetic. The MyDD memo emphasized we need independents to turn out. Do we really think pure negativity will have optimum benefit there?

I emphasized for a year we needed to bump up our own party favorables and stress other issues, notably the economy. In the next two months you will have Bush's favorability rise. I predicted 45% on election day and I'll stand by that. So where does all the negativity get us if he is inching toward 50/50? It gets us modest wins but disappointing and no control. If we had higher favorables and a few memorable themes it would be a form of teflon and we wouldn't be so dependent on Bush's standing.

And It cracks me up around here when firestorm is assailed as not knowing what he is talking about, when he demonstrates superior handicapping ability in one sentence than the people who condemn him can muster if they posted nonstop for the rest of their lives.

by jagakid on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:01:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Holy Joe Get The Shaft (none / 0)

Connecticut has always been a "special case," because, you see, it is the place where people self- consciously view themselves as being where all the money is. Now in a collective sense, there is a reality to this. There are indeed many poor people in the state, but at last count, there are no billionaires. But it is just about the only place where the person flipping burgers will be simultaneously talking about the latest house that they bought. I have actually overheard those conversations more than once there. All this adds up to create a bizarre form of "pseudo- conservatism" that probably exists nowhere else. These people can actually be very liberal and very conservative all at once. And it sort of makes sense there. One thing they are known for is making their minds up about candidates five minutes before they vote.

Oh, and one other thing. Lieberman is a Fundie. This has little to do with his being an Orthodox Jew. In my book, Fundies are folks who want to make sin impossible, whereas Mainstreams just try to keep people from sinning. I know about this because I am now in Northampton Massachusetts, and there is a giant uproar happening over the "invasion" of a huge porn purveyor in town. Now, we had a little porn shop just over the Big River (Connecticut River), and our local Fundie Jewish State Senator found out that about two inches of the building it was in happened to lie on State Property. So, of course, our local Fundie Jewish State Senator got the entire building, with it's very diverse population of businesses (ie. the little oriental grocery where you could by stuff that you didn't really have any idea what it was) torn down. No more sin!!! Now, I really don't mind the Fundies, in fact half my family in Connecticut is Fundie (many are also rich), and they are still liberal. That goes back to my aunt having polio, and Oral Roberts, et al. Though I have no dislike for the Fundies, they do have their Karmic Debts. One of them is that every time they stamp out a small patch of sin, a huge plantation of sin always springs up to replace it. So now a giant Porn Empire is moving in to Northampton to replace the seedy little shop.

Oh, and one other thing. Fundies are tolerated (all kinds of things, actually, are tolerated) in Connecticut. But they tend not to thrive there. Joe Lieberman is a true Fundie who wants to stamp out all sin. Holy Joe!!! At some point, Connecticans will give the poor old boy the shaft.

by blues on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 05:48:47 PM EST

Re: Holy Joe Get The Shaft (none / 0)

Hey Blues,

Fellow Hamp resident - ever go to Drinking Liberally in Amherst?

by Karatist Preacher on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 06:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Holy Joe Get The Shaft (none / 0)

Nah. I only attend a few of those laid-back UMass keg parties. (Y'know, those nice friendly folks on Hobart Lane.) Anyway, thanks for the tip. I'm a bit too old to be a real party animal; but maybe when I get that Harley...

by blues on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 02:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Part of the reason people perceive that Lamont isn't doing enough is that the media have stopped focusing on this race to the extent that they did during the primary. It was Lamont vs. Liebermna 24/7, but now things have quieted down.

Same deal with Howard Dean-- the guy is working his ass off and bringing real change to the way the Democratic Party does business, but it's mostly nuts and bolts work that isn't very glamorous and doesn't attract a lot of media attention.

I have no doubts about Lamont's work ethic.

by global yokel on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 08:42:58 PM EST

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

i live in the nyc area- I know peo who live in ct- I have asked them if they have seen ads from lamont- they say to their knowledge they havent. If he has some running frequently- and I mean a lot because he needs to be papering peo with his existence- then they haven't seen them. this isn't the primary. he needs to do more. apologists for what he has done so far in the post primary run aren't doing him any favors.

by bruh21 on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:07:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I live in New Jersey and have not seen a single ad for our Senate race and its one of the closest in the nation.

by Rowena on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 10:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

Lamont huge mistake was taking a break after he won the primary election.

I still dont know who the Hell gave him the advice that he should take a month off and watch lieberman self-destruct..they were banking on that to happen, but now, they are lookingn real bad.

by Maria19Rodriguez on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 09:48:44 PM EST

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

I too live in NJ and I too have not seen a single Menendez ad, or for that matter, a single Lamont ad. Since I live just outside NYC, I typically see all the ads on the NY stations for candidates for office in NY, CT, and NJ. And since these races are so critical, important, and CLOSE, what are they waiting for? Do they expect their opponents to sit around waiting for the last two weeks before they all start putting up ads?

Lamont and Menendez need to be on the TV 24/7 now if they hope to pull this out. I'm pretty disappointed that they seem to be running pretty lame campaigns now, almost as if they expect to win just because they're nice guys. Well, you know what they say about nice guys!

by owlskinner on Wed Sep 13, 2006 at 11:10:02 PM EST

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

bingo

by bruh21 on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:07:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lamont Getting Back in the Saddle (none / 0)

by bruh21 on Thu Sep 14, 2006 at 12:07:08 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.