he's a real nowhere man

Has he filed as an independent? It will be interesting to see who backs him.

I live in the 4th District of Georgia. Our incumbent, Cynthia McKinney, just lost the primary runoff by a decisive margin (58-42). I feel a bit ambivalent. On the one hand, McKinney stands for a point of view with which I have much sympathy; on the other hand, she's a clown who has probably done more harm than good for the causes she espouses (when she was beaten in 2002 her father blamed the 'J-E-W-S', yet, not at all oddly, Jewish voters have no trouble voting for John Lewis whose civil rights credentials are impeccable and who has never resorted to the kind of crude racism that McKinney seems to think acceptable).

CNN quotes the AP as saying that he filed petitions to run as an independent this morning. So far nearly all Democratic leaders have endorsed Lamont but Lieberman has said that there is "no phone call" that could induce him to withdraw. Sen. Clinton announced that she has sent a $5K check to Lamont's campaign.

It's my contention that we should solve the Lieberman and Delay issues in one fell swoop.

The Republicans in TX 22 desperately need someone to vote for who is not a Democrat, and thanks to the great collision of Texas electoral law which prohibits parties from replacing candidates who withdraw and the constitution's intentionally loose rules for candidate eligibility they have no Republican candidate at all.

In Connecticut, Republicans desperately want Joe Lieberman to run, because he matches their values more (and challenges their President less) than other Democrats.

The solution is obvious. Joe can move to Texas by Election Day (and possibly for no more than a day) and represent Sugarland, Texas in place of Tom Delay.

As swoops go, it would be fell, indeed.

Wes Clark said about Lieberman's plans to run as an indy if he lost the primary.

"Isn't this the same individual who questioned MY loyalty to the Democratic Party in 2004?"

Clearly, Lieberman's ego is more important to him than seeing that the Democrats retain his seat.

Lieberman's concession/victory speech was utterly repulsive. As I said in comments at Avedon's jernt, before all this I was merely intrigued by the Lamont-Lieberman race. Now I'm going to send money to Lamont and want to see Lieberman's head handed to him with his ass still wrapped around it.

Would that he had fought as hard to keep his Vice-Presidential job.

I live in CT, but (to get this out of the way up front), I'm very far from being a Lamont supporter. In fact, I often vote Republican.

For those still reading after that confession, my belief is that this primary result probably means a loss of a Democratic Senate seat. (I realize, though, that Lamont's supporters didn't think it was a Democratic seat as it stood).

While it's a long time to November, I think that the general election will probably divide the Democratic vote between Lamont and Lieberman, while the Republicans will be more likely to go with whichever candidate looks most likely to defeat Lamont.

I know that this is not going to be a popular viewpoint here, but I believe that the number of general election voters for whom the Iraq war is their absolute defining issue has perhaps been overestimated.

While it's a long time to November, I think that the general election will probably divide the Democratic vote between Lamont and Lieberman, while the Republicans will be more likely to go with whichever candidate looks most likely to defeat Lamont.

With luck the republican vote will be split precisely 50:50 between lieberman and his twin republican.

I think the CT outcome shows that *among Democrats* it's a major issue. There's a broader question about whether it's as big an issue among the whole population of voters.

I think antiwar candidates are handicapped by the fact that while it's easy to see that the Iraq invasion/occupation was both a mistake and ill-planned, it's not nearly so easy to figure out what to do about it now. Do we pull out fast, try to find some variation of "as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," try to con some gullible bunch of nations to send in an international force so we can leave? The answer to that question splits a lot of people who are seriously unhappy about the war, including a lot of conservatives.

While it's a long time to November, I think that the general election will probably divide the Democratic vote between Lamont and Lieberman, while the Republicans will be more likely to go with whichever candidate looks most likely to defeat Lamont.

I believe the numbers in CT run roughly this way: 600,000 registered Democrats; 450,000 registered Republicans; 800,000 registered Independents.

There are a lot of ways that math can go. You can't really confine the discussion to what Democrats and Republicans will do. The largest registered group is made of up independents.

Republicans should be happy to see Lieberman running as indy, right? Splitting the Dem votes and all that.

Why, then, did the Republican media (Limbaugh, Hannity etc) back him until today...?

Is it because I is black?

I think Derek Lowe is overlooking the fact that the Republican senate candidate on the ballot, Alan Schlesinger, started out as a complete unknown until is was discovered that he had used a false name to gamble at casinos. There is, IMHO, absolutely no chance that he will win more than 1/3 of the vote in November.

There's the conceivable possibility that the GOP will be able to replace Schlesinger with an A-list candidate. But there are problems with this:

-- Unless Schlesinger is actually indicted or something (and I have heard no allegations that he's done anything actually illegal) I believe they would need his cooperation to replace him, and so far he's not interested. Speculation involving parts of horses showing up in his bed I leave to others.

-- The three most likely A-list contenders are each involved in close races to retain their current US House seats. I can't see any of them giving up their at least 50-50 shots at doing that for what would still have to be a longshot bid for the Senate.

I really think the worst-case scenario for the Dems is Lieberman winning as an independent and later becoming an official Republican. The second-worst is the party and blogosphere having to put effort into this race that could better be spent elsewhere, though there is some hope that such effort could help knock off one or more of those three GOP congresspersons.

Actually, as of Dec-2005, the numbers for CT are:

931,366 registered independents
700,876 registered Democrats
455,420 registered Republicans
4,584 registered minor-party voters

(from New Haven Independent)

Would that he had fought as hard to keep his Vice-Presidential job.

I was just thinking that maybe this guy wouldn't have made such a great VP.

I was just thinking that maybe this guy wouldn't have made such a great VP.

His picking was one of the (several) greatest errors that doomed campaign made. So coldly calculated that children could see through the fakeness of it all. Loserman didn't attract one single Republican vote, but certainly lost loads of semi-automatic Dem votes to Nader.

It'll be interesting to see what the state Republican party does with Schlesinger - I know almost nothing about him, and have no particular desire to vote for him over Lieberman.

What they *might* do is just leave him there to wither on the vine. The reason I think that the current situation could be unfavorable to Lamont is that nearly half of his own party has shown itself more inclined to vote for Lieberman. Meanwhile, the Republican voters, for the most part, won't care nearly as much about the choice between Lieberman and Schlesinger, and can be freely opportunistic (there's an opening for you) in trying to defeat Lamont.

But it's true that these arguments could be swamped by what the registered independents do. Lieberman might be wise to play to their non-affiliation.

The question will be: Which side of the November ballot will an independent run by Lieberman pull votes from?

The conventional wisdom is that he will pull votes away from Lamont, i.e., that the two Democrats will split their audience.

But I dunno about that. Let's see how much traction Lieberman gets if he still calls himself a Democrat in his campaign. Running a spite campaign, I don't think it will be very much.

It's also possible that the Republican-leaning electorate will see their choice as between the official Republican candidate (does he have a name?) and pseudo-Republican Lieberman, and votes will be split between those two, and not pulled away from Lamont.

Which way will it fall? Who knows? I think the one safe thing to predict is that it will be a very, very ugly campaign, with both the Republicans and Lieberman doing their best to smear Lamont, and with even more of the thuggish behavior showed by Lieberman's supporters in the primary campaign.

This all reminds me strongly of the 1986 Arizona gubernatorial contest. A local millionaire named Bill Schultz had entered the Democratic primary, but dropped out because of his daughter's health problems; this resulted in longtime politico Carolyn Warner getting the Democratic nomination. Schultz loathed Warner (not an uncommon feeling), and re-entered the race as an independent, fueling his campaign with millions of his own money. This resulted in splitting the Democratic votes on a close to even basis, and the end result was...

...that Arizona got saddled with the Republican candidate, the close-to-certifiably-loony Evan Mecham, for about two years until even members of his own party had had enough and pushed for his impeachment and removal from office.

Steven Gould... Lieberman questioned Wes Clark's loyalties? On what grounds, if there were any? Speaking of Clark, I wonder if he'll run again in 2008. I'd like to see the Swift Boat Liars For Truth try to question his military credentials.

I know that this is not going to be a popular viewpoint here, but I believe that the number of general election voters for whom the Iraq war is their absolute defining issue has perhaps been overestimated.

Fortunately, Lamont is more mainstream than Lieberman on other issues that matter to most people, such as American jobs, Social Security, and healthcare.

The idea that everything is about "single-issue politics" is a useful one for Republicans, but you'd be amazed at how many people realized a long time ago that issues tend to cluster. Lieberman has been clustering his issues on the wrong side of the aisle for quite a while.

And lots of people who were turned off by Lieberman's blue-nosed attitude are going to love it that Lamont wastes no time playing the prig for the cameras.

I think we may very well have a winner.

And we have to remember that when we are talking about CT Republicans, we are talking about that increasingly difficult to glimpse bird: the Great Northeastern Republican.

It's by no means certain that the CT Republicans, as a block, will go with a PseudoBush. In fact, I think there is a good chance they won't. If Lamont can get past the Republican attempt to frame him as a one issue candidate, I think your run-of-the-mill liberal Northeastern Republican will feel just fine flapping its wings for Lamont.

Well, we'll see how things work out in November. For my part, I find it extremely unlikely that many Republicans, of any species or plumage, would line up behind Lamont.

It's certainly not going to be a dull election season. Probably the happiest people in the state this morning were the advertising managers for the local TV and radio stations.

I know that this is not going to be a popular viewpoint here, but I believe that the number of general election voters for whom the Iraq war is their absolute defining issue has perhaps been overestimated.

I think the CT outcome shows that *among Democrats* it's a major issue. There's a broader question about whether it's as big an issue among the whole population of voters.

People keep trying to reduce this to a single-issue race. Speaking as one of the voters in question, I believe that the number of primary voters for whom the Iraq war was the absolute defining issue has likewise been overestimated. While I am not at all pleased with Lieberman's position on the war, it was not even close to the deciding factor in my vote against him, and I know I am not unique in this. Lieberman has been pissing off his neighbors on a whole range of issues for quite some time.

I think that all the out-of-staters discussing this have perhaps not adequately thought about:

1. The Dem machine towns. The machines are less effective now but far from dead. I would be astonished if any of the machines supported Lieberman as an independent. The same will probably go for the unions. That covers a lot of Lieberman's ground troops.

2. The independents, nearly 30,000 of whom registered as Dems recently in order to vote in this primary, which had a turnout percentage almost as high as a general election. A lot of people (me among them until last week) are independents on principle but that doesn't mean they're actually dead center between, say, Bush and Lamont. I'm probably going to go back to being an independent again in a few days, since being a registered Dem makes me slightly queasy.

I await the next set of polls with interest.

I know that this is not going to be a popular viewpoint here, but I believe that the number of general election voters for whom the Iraq war is their absolute defining issue has perhaps been overestimated.

I would agree, but I would disagree it was Lamont supporters who overestimated it. Glenn Greenwald has a post at Salon about the exit polls - 78% of primary voters opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, but 40% of those voters voted for Lieberman. Lamont was never a "single-issue" candiate, but that was the conventional script.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[GA and Cynthia McKinney's runoff loss]...yet, not at all oddly, Jewish voters have no trouble voting for John Lewis whose civil rights credentials are impeccable and who has never resorted to the kind of crude racism that McKinney seems to think acceptable

Yes, indeed. I'm so happy to live in his district now, since it means I at least have one politician representing me whom I can actually support.

It's almost a pity he was unopposed in 2004, since I was really looking forward to being able to vote for someone, rather than against their opponent.

McKinney, on the other hand, just comes across as...well, as the type of Democrat neocons would hope to run against, since it's really hard to take her all that seriously even when one does agree with her on certain issues.

All I have to say about Lieberman is that it's one thing to say, "I'm going to run as an independent because I still have issues I want to get out there." It's quite another to say, as he seems to be doing in what I've read so far, "I'm not going to accept the primary results, because I don't like how the people voted."

I at least have one politician representing me whom I can actually support.

Meanwhile, Jennifer, I can't say the same for the House Representative of New Mexico's Albuquerque, Heather ("I cried when I saw Janet Jackson's breast on TV") Wilson. Bleh.

Lieberman's new party: "Connecticut for Lieberman". Note that it's not "Lieberman for Connecticut" - it's not for Connecticut, it's for Joe "I cannot and will not let that result stand" himself.

Pfeh.

Jennifer: I hear you. I've lived in both the 5th or 4th districts over the past eight years, and, frankly, while my heart would like to be with Cynthia my head keeps telling me that she's a bloody idiot (as is her father, who, I gather, was called 'the black redneck' by his fellow black state reps when he was in the General Assembly).

The Republicans have, it seems, given up running candidates against John Lewis (a few elections back they ran another John Lewis).

I agree with you on Lieberman.

Lieberman should not be too sanguine about his chances as the third horse in a two horse town -- no matter what problems the Republican candidate has had in the past. I believe it was Harry Truman who said: "Given a choice between two Republicans, voters will pick the real one every time."

Truman also said: "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."

I believe that the number of general election voters for whom the Iraq war is their absolute defining issue has perhaps been overestimated.

Maybe so, maybe so. However, we have 3 more months to go, and I see no reason to assume that things in Iraq are going to look better in November than they do right now. See: clusterf*ck, likelihood of.

For my part, I find it extremely unlikely that many Republicans, of any species or plumage, would line up behind Lamont.

I think the suggestion was they would line up behind Lieberman. Which, given the self-description of Derek Lowe, doesn't seem implausible to me.

Serge and Fragano: It could be worse. I used to live in Newt Gingrich's district. Talk about your views not being represented....

I wasn't even old enough to have the miniscule pleasure of voting against him, pointless though it would've been to do so.

I sympathise. Having Newt as your spokeslizard, er, representative had to have grated.

I'm with Fragano, Jennifer. After Tom DeLay, Newt is it. By the way, I once came across Newt once and he looked rather humorless, which isn't that surprising since this was in San Francisco and he probably was expecting someone to throw something at him that was more tangible than an insult.

I'd like to see the Swift Boat Liars For Truth try to question his military credentials.

You would, if they needed to. If they can't make him into a wimp and a coward, they'll go the other way and make him "unstable" - that is, overly macho.

*rage*

'scuse me.

Lieberman got his start as the conservative Democrat pet of William F Buckley (who actually started a PAC for him) running to the left of the Republican incumbent. He's the darling of the left-bashing punderati. He decided early on that he'd do best running against Democrats and (particularly when he decided to keep his Senate seat in 2000 and let the former head of the RNC/Republican governor of CT - who has since been released from prison - choose his replacement if he won, when it would have lost us control of the Senate) I have never seen him make a single decision that would not be more than adequately explained by the plain fact that Joe Lieberman is Sammy Glick with a bad haircut.

If he had never done anything in public life which disgusted me other than beat up Clinton while he was trying to take it to al Qaeda I'd think he was a contemptible asshole.

Luckily since then he's announced that it's traitorous to talk bad about the president when there's a war on.

So I don't buy into the idea that holy Joe doing his level-/pointy-headed best to hand the country over bound and gagged to a party disproportionately influenced by millennarian dispensationalists is proudly standing up to haters of anybody except, well,

work it out.

Julia: Given that the incumbent that Lieberman toppled was Lowell Weicker, I think you mean 'running to the right' of him.

Lamont isn't ideal, but I am constantly appalled by Lieberman. I caught a bit of him this morning on C-SPAN, and god bless the interviewer who actually did her job and called him on his BS. He kept saying that Lamont is "way out of the mainstream" (we've all heard this before) and doesn't represent the majority of CT voters, to which she responded: then why did they vote for him as their representative? Truly fantastic. He also kept insisting that running as an independent was his patriotic duty or some such nonsense.

I just fear that he'll be splitting the Democratic vote. It probably won't be enough to make a difference considering the pathetic Republican competition (they don't even try in CT anymore).

Michael Weholt makes a great point, in that people tend to forget the nature of the CT Republican. The GOP in CT is far more socially liberal than people tend to give them credit for, and overwhelmingly the dividing issue is fiscal conservatism. CT Republicans are wealthier than sin; they're not religious conservatives. They care about protecting their Greenwich estate and that's about all. I find it unlikely that Lamont's multi-millionaire status will be enough to encourage Republicans to vote for him, but it's possible.

And for the record, the greater portion (and I mean much greater portion) of registered Independents in CT vote Democrat. In 2000 I did a lot of volunteering for the Gore campaign and made thousands of phone calls to independents (the people that really matter in these things).

Fragano, you're right (as it were).

Rage is not my most coherent state.

I'd like to see the Swift Boat Liars For Truth try to question his [Wes Clark's] military credentials.

Down here in Virginia, George Allen has been making a few attempts to call Jim Webb unpatriotic and anti-American for his opposition to a flag-burning ammendment. This is the same Jim Webb who earned the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam.

There is no low to which they won't stoop if they thing someone will believe it.

There is no low to which they won't stoop if they thing someone will believe it.

I'm still debating what is worst, the liars, or the idiots who believe the liars?

Down here in Virginia, George Allen has been making a few attempts to call Jim Webb unpatriotic and anti-American for his opposition to a flag-burning ammendment. This is the same Jim Webb who earned the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts in Vietnam.

Tom S., is that working for Allen?

Michael Weholt makes a great point, in that people tend to forget the nature of the CT Republican. The GOP in CT is far more socially liberal than people tend to give them credit for, and overwhelmingly the dividing issue is fiscal conservatism. CT Republicans are wealthier than sin; they're not religious conservatives. They care about protecting their Greenwich estate and that's about all.

Not entirely true. Yes, a huge number, possibly a majority, of CT Republicans are socially liberal, and party policy tends to reflect this. I pointed out on the open thread that in the case of gay marriage, the major difference between the two parties is that the Republicans only support civil unions (which a Republican governor signed into law). You can also look at Schlesinger's website and find no mention whatsoever of any hot-button social issue.

However, there are a large number of what I think of as Naugatuck Valley Republicans. They are not well-educated, not well-off, and in many cases are relatively new in this country (immigrants or children of) and have carried in some rather unappealing prejudices. I worked in that area's schools for awhile and the level of prejudice - naked racism and anti-Semitism, not to mention gay-bashing and woman-bashing - was simply astonishing. And it was fully supported by the parents; just try to suspend a kid for expressing it obscenely and listen to the parents howl about their right to their religious beliefs. Joe's busy trying to insinuate that Lamont is an anti-Semite for running against him; he's looking in the wrong place.

There are also a substantial number of conservative Catholics and other species of conservative Christian in the state who are not necessarily Republicans but who do respond somewhat on hot-button social issues. I'm not sure to what degree their votes follow their protesting. Their protesting is generally not enough to make much impact on the political process here - the bishops and the KoC periodically try to get something going and it just doesn't go too far. Even though Lieberman and Lamont differ only modestly on most of these issues, I suspect these voters feel more comfortable with Lieberman's conservative religiosity and tying of morality to religion, which I find offensive and unAmerican. In New Haven there is also a substantial conservative black Christian block which tends to follow their ministers' advice (to the point where the New Haven machine finds that the simplest way to buy the black vote is to funnel slush money to the ministers; ever so often we get a scandal about this.) They've managed to do some minor damage here because of the machine debt to them. But Lamont may do an end run around Lieberman on this because 1) they'll tend to follow the party that feeds them, and 2) Lamont has got Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton campaigning for him.

I find it unlikely that Lamont's multi-millionaire status will be enough to encourage Republicans to vote for him, but it's possible.

It may help him with the Greenwich crowd. It will hurt him with Naugatuck Valley crowd, who are not overly fond of multi-millionaires.

Schlesinger's political background is all in the Naugatuck Valley, by the way. Mayor and state legislator. He hasn't actually been in politics for the last eight years - they really had to scrape for their sacrificial lamb this year. This suggests to me that the NVRs and similar will probably follow Schlesinger over Lieberman.

Lizzie, Virginia is still predominantly Republican. Webb (I didn't vote for him in the primary) just changed from GOP to Democratic over the Iraq War. I'm uncomfortable voting for Webb so I don't know what I'm going to do. I suspect there will be a lot of Democrats holding their nose and voting for Webb.

But some interesting news about Allen: He's stronly against abortion, but owns stock in the company that makes the morning-after pill. Hee!

interesting news about Allen: He's stronly against abortion, but owns stock in the company that makes the morning-after pill.

Marilee... Do you think he holds his nose pinched all the way to the bank?

Susan: As I remember it, Buckley supported Lieberman because he wanted to get rid of Weicker and Lieberman, although a Democrat, fitted the bill.

That McDonalds Coffee link is portal spam.

Susan: As I remember it, Buckley supported Lieberman because he wanted to get rid of Weicker and Lieberman, although a Democrat, fitted the bill.

I think you meant to address Julie, but yes, that's the case. That was the first time I ended up on the losing side voting against Lieberman. Lieberman has been the right-wing candidate around here from day one. Weicker was actually making noises about coming out of retirement to run as an independent against Lieberman this year before Lamont turned up. (Weicker won election as governor as an independent under the "A Connecticut Party" banner after losing his Senate seat. The party did not survive Weicker's retirement.)

Sorry, Susan, I did mean to address Julia. I wonder what Weicker makes of the whole affair.

Tom, I guess what I meant to ask is: is there any backlash against Allen for his calling Webb unpatriotic and antiAmerican, when Webb so clearly served his country? (I understand, by the way, that you and others may wince as you push the button for Webb -- but Allen is a troglydyte.)

It appears Joe is the preferred Rep Party candidate.

Rove Bush offer support

Cheney gives interview

The latter doesn't give the source, but I have no reason to think it a spoof, all things considered.

Schlesinger was polling less than 10%, prior to Holy Joe losing to Richie Rich; at that point it was 51 Joe, 27 Richie IIRC. Assuming that for once Republican voters won't ignore brazen moral turpitude and Schlesinger won't improve his position, Lamont supporters are counting heavily on the stench of defeat clinging to Joe. It's not clear to me -- much as I hate to agree with Derek Lowe (how's that Iraq war working out for ya, Derek? Still happy with your vote?) -- that losing the primary will swing enough voters away from Joe or towards Lamont. My guess is we have another Independent senator on the way, but unlike Jeffords the Stealth Democrat this one is a Stealth Republican.

I wonder what Weicker makes of the whole affair.

Quoting from the Washington Post:

[Lieberman double-dipping, as opposed to Weicker, who did not run for governor as a Republican; he left the party then ran as an independent only]

Lieberman, Weicker says, "set himself up to take two bites of the apple. First to run as a Democrat and then, if that didn't work, to run as an independent."

[snip]

Weicker does not believe that Lieberman has the coalition necessary to win.

In the beginning of the race, Weicker says, Lieberman held a 50-point lead and there were many people -- Democrats, Republicans and independents -- who said they were supporting him. That lead evaporated, and, Weicker believes, so did much of Lieberman's multipartisan support. "When Lieberman says 'I closed fast,' that's [expletive]," Weicker says. "No doubt he's hanging onto the Republican right. I suspect his independent support has eroded."

[snip]

There is a strong independent constituency in Connecticut, Weicker says, but "I suspect the public is going to see right through" Lieberman's party switch.

It's not the purpose of the U.S. Senate to provide Lieberman with steady employment, he says.

"He wants a job."

Bill Hooker - yep, I survived the de-blogrolling, and although I'm not happy about the slow rate of progress in Iraq, no, I haven't changed my mind. I realize, though, that this qualifies me to many people here as some sort of delusional maniac who is unaccountably roaming free.

I think that Schlesinger is going to have a very odd campaign indeed, as the state Republican party exerts itself on his behalf in much the same way as Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka exerted himself to save Augustus Gloop.

I'm not happy about the slow rate of progress in Iraq

I'm very concerned that events in iraq are progressing far too fast. We need a way to slow them down long enough to get out.