Can Lieberman win in 08?

[headscratcher4]

I won't disagree with that. i think it's an accurate description of why Lieberman lost. I would only note that the way Lieberman (or any politician) is "seen" isn't always consonant with the positions that Lieberman (or any politician) holds. Just ask Kerry if he was seen accurately.

Accurately? Leiberman spent more time telling constituents who increasingly opposed the war (both going in the first place AND how it was being fought) why they were wrong, unpatriotic and didn't understand how he was the right man to represent them in Washington even though he disagreed with them. It isn't that he wasn't seen accurately, it is that he was so out of touch and sight that he neither heard or saw the tide before it hit him.

 

[marksman]

Walberg, the more conservative ex-state representative, won that race (I could be wrong, but my recollection is that he is also a fundumentalist minister).

Ah, yes. About 25 years ago, Walberg was a pastor (although he apparently wasn't a minister as he had no congregation to minister to). He's been a state legislator since 1983. Sorry. I had no idea he had any religious training, although to call him a fundamentalist minister is a bit of a stretch. (I have no doubt he's a fundamentalist, but he's not a minister.)

What's your point here? Is it really surprising that the primary race for the 7th Congressional district in Michigan didn't get as much national attemtion as the primary race for the senior Senator of Connecticut?

They opted, in short for the more "right-wing" candidtate, thus arguably "extremism" rules there in Jackson, MI.

No dispute that Walberg is a conservative Republican. I'm just not sure why this is relevant to the Lieberman topic.

 

[marksman]

Accurately?

Umm... Didn't I just agree with you that you gave an accurate description of why Lieberman lost? Was there some part of "I agree" that was unclear?

 

[Rob Lister]

Wow
double WOW

This thread is staying very focused on the actual issue...very little rhetoric thrown around.

We'll look back at it in a month and be amazed at how well we predicted strategy.

Put...put up your ideas of the strategy from this point forward.

Lieberman WILL run as an Ind
Bets to
backing (overt/covert)
Ad content
Agenda content
Debates
etc

 

[headscratcher4]

What's your point here? Is it really surprising that the primary race for the 7th Congressional district in Michigan didn't get as much national attemtion as the primary race for the senior Senator of Connecticut?

Actually, yes. Why? Because, it is a sitting GOP Congressman in a GOP dominated district endorsed by Bush and Hastert, etc. who supported the president, yet was challenged and beaten by a "extremist" candidate. Certainly, whatever Schwartz did or didn't do to serve his community played some role in his defeat (you can conclude that he must have been bad at consitituent services, staying in touch, etc. or else he wouldn't have lost). But, the race (from everything I've readm was also the focus of a lot of very right-wing GOP national interest...they put money and time into the challenge.


Given that incumbancy has pretty much been a gaurentee of re-election, an insurgent knocking off a party-endorsed incumbent in a primary (even a Congressional Primary) is a pretty interesting turn of events.

But, back on the points I really am struggling to make -- rather than really being instances where either Leiberman or Schwartz were defeated by "extremists" it seems to me that the point of these primaries is being missed. As Tip O'N said, all politics is local.

I think if Conn. Dems. felt that Leiberman listened to them, respected them, heard their concerns, acted on them or explained more regularly and directly why he disagreed, an 18 year incumbant would have won regardles of the President's "kiss." In Leiberman's case the majority of people who affiliate with his party feel he lost touch.

Similarly, Schwartz also, clearly, lost touch with his constituents -- at least those in his party -- as well.

Not to mention that their opponents, for a variety of reasons, ran much better campaigns.

I guess what I am objecting to, if anything, is the rhetorical shading. In neither case, it seems to me, did either candidate lose to an "extremist". Heck, save for his opposition to the war (as has been pointed out) Lamont and Leiberman seem to stand for pretty much the same things. Further, Lamont is a scion of the establishment not some bomb-throwing radical insurgent.

Anyway, I've probably lost track about what point I was trying to make. In the end, it seems to me that both these elections bode very poorly for the President...and suggest that his failures will hurt his friends at the polls, especially when combined with growing state and local political dicontent.

 

[headscratcher4]

Umm... Didn't I just agree with you that you gave an accurate description of why Lieberman lost? Was there some part of "I agree" that was unclear?

Beyond getting lost in my own rhetoric (and being a terrible speller) I occasionally get carried away when I think I am being profound (too often the case, rarely the fact). In short, it is known that I like to hear myself talk. Sorry.

See above for further proof.

 

[marksman]

Anyway, I've probably lost track about what point I was trying to make. In the end, it seems to me that both these elections bode very poorly for the President...and suggest that his failures will hurt his friends at the polls, especially when combined with growing state and local political dicontent.

I think you're looking at these losses out of context. First of all, I cited two other Michigan races in which the less "extreme" candidate beat his primary challenger. Finding a pattern amidst all these primaries is reading tea leaves. Looking at GOP primary races across the board does not reveal that the GOP is swinging farther to the right. More surprising is that Bush is not uniformly endorsing the more conservative candidate in all such elections.

Second, the fact that Lieberman lost the Democratic primary indicates -- to me, anyway -- that the Democratic party in Connecticut has swung left, not necessarily that the nation as a whole has.

Parties (GOP and Democrat) consistently always seem to be stuck believing in some sort of natural laws of politics. The most current metaphor for this "natural law" is the pendulum. Many democrats have expressed a belief that if they wait long enough, the pendulum will swing left again and sweep them into the White House. This is a comforting theory because it absolved the party of any need to compromise on issues or moderate its views for the general electorate. If you wait long enough, the electorate will move to you, so goes the theory.

But there is no pendulum. The GOP didn't take Congress by waiting for the anti-Clinton pendulum to swing. It's called the "Gingrich Revolution" because Newt actively provided a platform for voters to run to, while they ran from Clinton. Now you -- and I -- might detest, mock, etc. the Contract With America. That's irrelevant. What's relevant is that it worked.

Lamont's victory might indicate the kernels of the Democrats' own positive platform. Perhaps the electorate is ready for candidates who announce strict timetables for troop withdrawal regardless of the conditions in Iraq. (That seems to be the crux of the distinction between Lamont and Lieberman with respect to the War.) Perhaps, however, only the Democratic faithful would support such a platform.

At any rate, I don't think it says a whole lot about the Republican President's support that his favorite Democratic Senator has been rejected by the Democrats. I'm pretty sure there weren't a lot of Republican Senators in 1994 cherishing the title of "President Clinton's Favorite Republican Senator" either.

 

[BPSCG]

Lamont's victory might indicate the kernels of the Democrats' own positive platform. Perhaps the electorate is ready for candidates who announce strict timetables for troop withdrawal regardless of the conditions in Iraq. (That seems to be the crux of the distinction between Lamont and Lieberman with respect to the War.) Perhaps, however, only the Democratic faithful would support such a platform.

At any rate, I don't think it says a whole lot about the Republican President's support that his favorite Democratic Senator has been rejected by the Democrats. I'm pretty sure there weren't a lot of Republican Senators in 1994 cherishing the title of "President Clinton's Favorite Republican Senator" either.

Well put. We don't know - yet - if Lieberman lost because he wasn't leftist enough for a leftist state, or if it's because of a nationwide trend.

How many people saw Barry Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964 as the kernel of the conservative revolution saw the Republicans win seven of the next ten presidential elections? Lamont may be the same, though I don't see it. The Republicans had a coherent political philosophy at the time; the Democrats today do not.

 

[marksman]

Thanks, beeps!

How many people saw Barry Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964 as the kernel of the conservative revolution saw the Republicans win seven of the next ten presidential elections? Lamont may be the same, though I don't see it. The Republicans had a coherent political philosophy at the time; the Democrats today do not.

Well, I would say the Republican party in 1964 was fairly divided. There was the Goldwater wing, there was the Big Business leftovers from Hoover on their last legs. There were the Northeast Republicans. There were the red-baiters. There were the Eisenhower alumni (I miss them). Cohesive is not a word I'd use for the GOP of 1964.

The Republican regeneration had its roots in Goldwater in 1964, but it took Nixon to implement the Southern Strategy and then Reagan to wrap it up in a marketable package. From Goldwater to Reagan was a long 16 years in the desert.

Now, Lamont could be the herald of a new cohesive Democratic Party. I tend to doubt it. Last year, Barak Obama was the herald of a new cohesive Democratic Party. Before that it was Senator Edwards. Before that it was Howard Dean. Next year, it might be Hillary Clinton.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm sure this is just a typo.

"They call Connecticut the land of steady habits," a jubilant Lamont told cheering reporters. "Tonight we voted for a big change."