DSCC Would Support Indy Bid by Lieberman

They're nuts!

According to Hotline On Call, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee "fully supports" Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) in his primary bid against Ned Lamont (D), "and he refused to rule out continuing that support if Lieberman were to run as an independent."

Schumer explained that there were degrees of independence: "You can run as an independent, you can run as an independent Democrat who pledges to vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader."

Meanwhile, the AP says Lieberman "must soon decide whether to begin gathering signatures for a possible independent run." By August 9, the day after the Democratic primary, he'll "need to collect 7,500 signatures from registered voters to appear on the November ballot as an unaffiliated candidate."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/14/dscc_would_support_indy_bid_by_lieberman.html

Dean has made it clear they will support the Democrat in the race. And that they will NOT get involved in the primary.

Dean didn't stop them then.

The DSCC and the NRSC always get involved in primaries when an incumbent is up. Virginia is the first time I've heard of the DSCC publically endorsing a non-incumebtn primary challenger, but look at Ohio and Florida. As for incumbents, look at CT, look at Rhode Island. Incumbents always have an edge on challengers, and the respective Senate committees will always back the incumbent.

Are you actually agreeing that the DSCC should back Lieberman if he loses the primary to Lamont?

Ned Lamont is a Democrat. If he earns the nomination, the DSCC should swallow their pride and accept the will of the people.

Schumer -> :spank: <- DU

If Lieberman doesn't caucus with the Dems or worse, switches to the Republicans, then the Democrats need to win SEVEN seats. As it is right now, Schumer is having a hell of a time trying to find six that we can win, without losing any.

So unless you know something about Lamont that I don't, I'd ease up on the "Lamont's gonna lose no matter what" rhetoric.

Schumer -> :spank: <- DU

No one knows for absolute certainty that Lamont will lose and Lieberman will win. Then again, we don't know for sure that Katherine Harris will lose in Florida and Bill Nelson will win. But at this point, I'd be willing to bet $1,000 on both of those happening. Chuck Schumer is willing to bet the ire of Democratic activists on that possibility, and the only reason he's doing so is to regain control of the Senate.

Lieberman would only divide the Dem/left vote if he ran as an Independent, and Schumer damn well knows that. If Lieberman can't even freaking win his own primary, how the hell is he going to take the state ina 3 way race? He isn't, but the DLC Corporatist types can't stand the idea of a liberal winning, and they'd actually rather see a republican win instead.

If Lamont wins the primary and runs as a Dem, there is absolutely no excuse for ANY Dem party apparatus supporting a non-party member bid for the seat.

Lieberman would run the tables in a three-way race. Its the only reason why he's considering an Indie run.

The reason why he'd win is because an overwhelming number of moderate Democrats, Independents, and Republicans support Lieberman.

I'd also imagine that many of those very same "supporters" would be rather irritated with Lieberman if he chose to run as an Independent rather than accept the will of the voters. No guarantees in elections. Other than that E & S will screw up the counts in my county, anyway.

Its all about the numbers. The people that understand the numbers know why I think the way I do.

Could you post these poll numbers for us?

And Lamont already leads Schlesinger 37 - 20 percent, with 34 percent undecided.

Who is to say that, with both Lamont & Schlesinger buoyed by a primary victories, that Lamont won't be able to challenge a weakened Lieberman in the general election?

In addition, why would the DSCC want to encourage a DINO to run as an independent if a real Dem who won the Dem primary has a great chance of winning if the DINO does not run? Or do you think this is just intelligent posturing by the DSCC so as to stay on Lieberman's good side?

He makes that decision all by himself. If he decides not to run, then the DSCC will gladly support Lamont. But if Lieberman runs, and if he'll caucus with the Dems, then the DSCC will support him because he'll win.

and money behind whoever won the Democratic primary, as usual? Not now, of course, but after the primary ended.

How in the world could knowing this have no influence on Lieberman's decision to run as an independent?

Which he most likely would, he'd run as an Indie, regardless of DSCC support. Lieberman doesn't need the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party needs Joe Lieberman.

;-)

Its not an ideal situation, but in politics, you usually don't get to choose the situation, just how you react to it.

:shrug:

So what's the worry?

Lieberman is at risk in the primary. He's not at risk in the general.

in the CT primary. That's an enormous jump over the past few weeks. Ned has caught fire. You don't know it yet.

The primary polling reflects Democrats only. 40% of Democrats, and even potentially 60% of Democrats, may vote for Lamont. Lieberman would still win the general as an Independent. The only reason why Lieberman, Schumer, or I am considering Lieberman running as an Independent is because of Lamont's surge in the polling for the primary. If I didn't know about the most recent primary polling, then this topic wouldn't even be an issue.

I understand your rationale on this thread, but you are looking at a "snapshot in time" as the saying goes. If nothing happens to your poll numbers with regard to everyone but liberal Dems, then you are 100% correct.

However, "nothing happens" is not a sure thing either, so to say that the numbers don't lie isn't saying enough. They don't lie as of today, that is true.

We have yet to see how things play out. Those things include Ned getting a lot more exposure (or not, of course, but the way things are going he is getting more, not less), the blow back from Lieberman switching parties (and all that that will entail)and the possibility of gaffes, missteps or scandals (sh*t happens).

You are looking at a static picture from wherever. I am on the ground in CT. I have walked the precinct for Ned collecting signatures that we didn't need to get Ned on the primary ballot but that added to Ned's visibility all across the state (we were just about everywhere). Mine was particularly tough because it is Joe's neighborhood (or was before he sold his house a couple of months ago). I rang doorbells and talked to Joe's fellow congregants at his local synagogue (I didn't expect them to sign but surprisingly one did!). I also talked to Independents who couldn't sign the petition but were very supportive. I will be the first person to admit that my neighborhood is pretty damned liberal, but there were some pretty pissed off Dems who really gave me an earful.

I am NOT suggesting that my anecdotal experience proves anything. What I will suggest to you is that leadership matters, conviction and passion matter, and the truth matters. In my long life of 66 years I have seen hubris knock off more than one prominent politician. Often times they do it to themselves, but it doesn't hurt to help that along and that is exactly what us wild eyed "terrorists" are doing in this campaign. Sitting on our butts and complaining about how awful things are accomplishes, well, nothing.

You've done great service to your candidate and to your state, and it heartens me to hear such stories. I fear you guys will fight a good fight, and may even win in August, but my concern is not the primary; its the chance that Joe Lieberman will win an Independent bid.

Poll numbers are not static, I agree. There is a slim chance that Lieberman will lose as an Independent, or a whole host of other possibilities. But the most likely scenario, according to both the numbers and to the professional analysis of people who have been here before and do this for a living, is that Joe Lieberman is the most likely person to win the election, even if he runs as an Independent. To be in the position of the DSCC and to not have a contingency plan for that, in my opinion, would be criminal. To allow a sitting Senator to leave your party and not do anything about it would be moving in the wrong direction.

Thank you for your kind words and your service.

I don't remember reading here that you would actually support Joe Lieberman if you could vote in this primary and this election. If you support Joe on his policy stands, then I can understand the rationale of your posts. You want him to win and would like to dissuade Ned's supporters from continuing our efforts. However, if you don't think Joe is right, then I truly don't get why you are spending the time you have spent arguing your point.

Enlighten me, please.

I think Chuck and the DSCC is working for a Democratic majority in the Senate, and I think this move is the right move to make. I'm simply arguing the facts as I see them, and as the DSCC apparently sees them, too.

I'm not supporting Lieberman here; frankly, he doesn't need my support or anyone's support to decide to run as an Independent. But Chuck Schumer is being thrown under the bus for making the politically logical move here.

support Joe, right?

In that case, you would be a Democrat without a candidate to support that had your wholehearted endorsement? So you would simply support a process instead of a candidate to preserve a "Democrat" (or at least a Dem-turned-Indie who caucused with the Dems) in the Senate. Are you with me so far?

Let me ask you this: are there any votes that Joe made where you did NOT (as a Dem) agree with him? Is that sufficient for you as a Dem? Is it making a difference, in your opinion, in the direction that the Republicans are taking this country?

I'm grilling you because I really want to understand why you feel the way you do and why you think that your position enhances the Democratic Party in this country.

BTW, I understand that Chuck Schumer will be making a "clarifying statement" late today or tomorrow. I await the clarification from Chuck and from you!

If I lived in CT, I'd be voting for Ned Lamont, and I'd probably donate money to him. I don't live in CT, so its hard to say how I would feel about the DSCC supporting Lieberman, but as a nationally-minded Dem, I have no problem with it because its supporting our chances of winning a majority in the Senate.

Even if we don't win a majority in the Senate, we're at least setting ourselves up for a better 2008 cycle. Think of it this way: in 2004, the GOP picked up six seats and lost two, for a net gain of four. If we had won one more election in 2004, then we'd only need to flip five seats this year, instead of the unlikely six.

No matter the case, having Joe Lieberman as an Independent who doesn't caucus with the Democrats sets us back. If we get six seats, which gives us a 51-49 advantage in the Senate, and Joe turns Indie, then we'll be down to 50-49-1. We'll need every single vote, which means that we'll have to beg Joe Lieberman to support Harry Reid's agenda, after the DSCC worked to kick Joe Lieberman out of office. If there's a better way to handle it, I think we should do it.

That better way of handling it is supporting Lieberman in his Indie bid, so if he does win (which is where the smart money is at), he'll caucus with the Democrats and preserve our majority, if we win one.

The situation we have now literally sucks energy out of the political process. I understand your concern that we win a majority in the Senate better with your scenario. But what is our purpose in winning the Senate? To change what we don't like and put into effect what we care about (if we could, during the last 2 years of this admin.), right? Looking at that scenario where would Joe vote differently on the issues that we care about: the war in Iraq, keeping Social Security from privatization, privacy rights (prochoice, the Schiavo situation) to name some where Joe has been more Repub. than Dem. And do you think that Joe will be with us in promoting real change (e.g. universal health care)if we get the White House in 2008?

Do you really think Joe will change his tune if we get the majority? If we don't win the majority and Joe wins, though, we back to square one.

I guess the bottom line is what value Joe now brings to the political process. And that brings to mind the situation in the state of CT. We are, after all, his electors and what we think matters. As you know, Joe messed up bigtime by interjecting himself in the Catholic hospital/EC for rape victims state legislation this past session.

I'd love to think Joe will change his colors at some point but I am not as optimistic as you are. However, I will grudgingly pull the lever for Joe in the general if Ned does not win, but I will not expect much of anything from him.

But the reality that we have to face is the very real possibility that Joe Lieberman will still be the Senator from CT in January.

Perhaps that's your idea of some kind of victory. But I ask, for what? I notice you haven't enumerated the blessings that will pour forth upon Joe's reelection. How will he be any different from the way he is now? Or is it possible that there is really no benefit to his reelection whatsoever?

My point is despite my opposition and despite your opposition and despite Lamont's candidacy, Joe Lieberman is the odds-on favorite to be elected in November. I don't believe that Lieberman is a better Senator than Ned Lamont would be, but right now the greatest liklihood is that Lieberman will get re-elected, and so the DSCC and I are preparing for that reality.

win for Lamont and a Repuke primary win for Schlesy won't change the dynamic of the race one bit? You do realize that most of the people polled only recognize Lieberman's name out of the three at the moment. Right?

It seems to me that a primary loss for Lieberman would prove that his support and that of his challenger(s) had become relatively fluid. In a state where Bush's disapproval has been consistently higher than 66% since February, don't you think things could get dicey for Bush's favorite Democrat when he decides to show his true colors by bolting his party to run indy?

Look at the politics in CT. Independents hold a majority. Then Democrats, then Republicans. If Joe runs as an Independent, he'll get a majority of Independent voters. Especially if Lamont runs further to the left. The Republican candidate is a non-factor; Republicans in CT overwhelmingly support Lieberman.

If Lamont wins 60% of the Democrats and 50% of Independents, and Lieberman wins 40% of Democrats, 50% of Indies, and 60% of Republicans, he'll win easily.

can possibly win.

In a three-way race, Repukes vote for, fully support and generously bankroll the Repuke and you know it. You just don't want Dems to do the same.

No matter who the Republicans put up in the race, whether its ex-state Rep. Alan Schlesinger or attorney George Streitz, it doesn't matter because they're political light-weights against Joe Lieberman, and most CT Republicans are happy with the job that Joe is doing. And its nothing to do with politics; its the same way where most Republican voters in red-state West Virginia will vote for Robert Byrd or most Republican voters in red-state Nebraska will vote for Ben Nelson, or most blue-state Democrats in Virginia will vote for John Warner or most blue-state Democrats in Indiana will vote for Richard Lugar.

The fact is, Joe Lieberman has tremendous in-state support in CT; it just doesn't come from the left-wing of his party, where Ned Lamont gets most of his support from. The Republicans will put up a nominee, but Joe Lieberman will get most of the Republican vote.

garner in 1994 and 2000?

their own party's candidate, and I think you are mistaken.

I've posted a Quinnipiac poll that proves exactly what I've said. If you have something that proves otherwise, I'll look at it. But if this is just a case of you wishing away reality, I can suggest more fruitful ventures.

independents voted for Giordano, not Lieberman, in the 2000 CT race:

http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/polls.asp?office=S&state=CT

Without his strong support (87%) among Democrats, Lieberman would have been hard pressed to beat Giordano -- who was also a complete "lightweight" in comparison.

Now, do you really think the Republicans would concede a three way race after garnering 36% of the vote in a two way "concession" race in 2000?

I'm telling you the reality of the situation. You're taking wild guesses.

you folks keep prattling on about?

Do you mean those of us who believe that all people should share in the Earth's bounty?

Do you mean all of us nut-jobs who believe that all of us should have decent housing, enough to eat, fulfilling work and health care?

Do you mean all of us wack-jobs who believe that we are all in this together and should help each other out instead of assuming the elitist position (posited by repukes AND dems like leiberman) that "I got mine Jack, so fuck you!"?

Ah, that left-wing...

There are left-wing Democrats (which is mostly represented here), and there are moderate, or centrist, Democrats. Ned Lamont enjoys most of his support from the left-wing of the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman enjoys most of his support from the moderate wing, and from cross-over support among Independents and Republicans.

When I use the term "left-wing", I'm not doing it to assign labels or to use it as an inflammatory term. I'm using it to define a certain portion of the voting population for the purpose of predicting the outcome of an election. If you felt any sort of offense to this, I apoligize, as it was not my intent. However, in my endevour to analyze this race, such categorizations are neccesary.

It told me everything I needed to know. Here's the relevant data:

3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Joseph Lieberman is handling his job as United States Senator?

           Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom

Approve    56% 66% 49% 57% 57% 55%
Disapprove 32  24  38  30  35  29
DK/NA      13  10  13  13  8   16

Yep, that's right. 66% of Republicans favor Lieberman while only 49% of Democrats do. That tells me all I need to know.

I wish Mr. Lamont much success.

-Laelth

The exact same thing will happen in his run for Senate. That arrogant con-artist will drop like a rock.

His three previous Senate elections, however, are.

1988: supported by both parties against a liberal Repub incumbent.
1994: don't know who his opponent was.
2000: ran for VP and his opponent was a child molester.

What does that show exactly? that no one has really (until now) been around to give Joe a good challenge.

Just polling will show that he has a lot of support in the state.

mile wide.

to vote for him at the convention. Shocked the establishment and made big news.

You don't have anything to back that up.

you would understand the significance of Ned's delegate count. 33% is double what he needed to get on the ballot. It is 33% of Joe's insider buddies, hard core establishment dems. Do you understand? It's like getting 33% of black voters to support David Duke.

That you would dismiss that figure is very telling.

Its obvious you know nothing about this race, so stop commenting on it like you know something.

I know of the convention vote. I know that Lamont only needed 15% to get in, I know that most predictions gave him around 25%, and I know that Lieberman's camp, in an effort to lower expectations, said they thought he'd get 35%. He got 33%, and earned a spot on the ballot. I know the significance of it, but its old news.

Don't accuse of me knowing nothing about this race, boy. So far, I'm the only person who's concerned with reality. I've followed every poll and every news item on this race since last September. I was there when Lamont got in the race, when Lieberman started getting shouted down at his own campaign appearances, when he brought in heavyweights like Barack Obama to campaign for him. I'm not dismissing Lamont's convention success because its insignificant. I'm dismissing it because it doesn't change any of the fact that I've presented thus far.

I'm telling you this, regardless of how well Ned Lamont scores with the Democratic Party, Joe Lieberman still has enough votes to win as an Independent; not only that, but Joe Lieberman, right now, is the odds-on favorite to win the election. By a lot.

If you're trying to argue otherwise, then you the only person in this conversation who obviously doesn't know anything.

If you have any sufficient proof that disproves the Quinnipiac poll that was released, and the polls released before it that indicate the same outcome, I'll look at it and consider it. Trotting out a two-month old piece of news doesn't count, and the fact that you think it does shows exactly how much you don't know about how this race works.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922

Lieberman 55% Lamont 40%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/14/in_connecticut_lamont_closes_the_gap.html

Lieberman 46% Lamont 40%

I haven't seen any up to date 3-way race polls, but I'd bet that they show the same trend as these two, Joe going down.

What's the latest 3-way race poll you've seen Mr. Genius? Accuse me of using 2-month old information. Do you have anything more recent than that?

In possible general election matchups:

Lieberman defeats Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger 68 - 14 percent;
Lamont beats Schlesinger 37 - 20 percent, with 34 percent undecided;

***Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 56 percent, to 18 percent for Lamont and 8 percent for Schlesinger.***

Lieberman may very well be going down in the primary, but that doesn't affect his chances in a three-way race.

I'm still not responding to his bully tactics.

Ned Lamont's response should be to work hard and beat both their asses into the ground.

Fortunately for Chuck and the DSCC, Ned Lamont will vote for a Majority Leader whether the DSCC supports him or not. So by courting Lieberman, Schumer is assuring that whoever wins in November will contribute to the Democratic caucus.

why encourage Lieberman to do something like that? What Lieberman is doing is WRONG.

by even thinking of endorsing him, Schumer is helping to disenfranchise the Democratic base by giving every spoiled incumbent with an entitlement complex a way to thwart the will of the party.

That is wrong.

Do you have a moral compass? or is it only about winning?

Lieberman will go Indie regardless of who encourages him. I'm supporting Chuck Schumer.

After six years, at this point, its about getting a majority. That's what I've been saying all along. Let's get a majority, then we'll work with what we have. I'd rather have 49 principled Democrats and two DINOs to give us a majority than 49 principled Democrats in a minority.

they have a majority already. Problem solved.

I'm trying to tell you the political logic behind the DSCC's decision. If you don't want to understand it, just say so.

Im telling how to best get it.

If you want to let me know of something else you care about, do so.

You don't care that youd be backing a guy who betrays his own party and runs against its nominee becuase HE didn't win, I can't imagine whats worse than that.

I support Ned Lamont's bid for the Senate in CT. And I support the DSCC's decision to support Lieberman. Why? Because that's what makes the most sense, politically speaking.

Ned Lamont, if elected, will be part of the Democratic caucus. Joe Lieberman, if elected as an Independent, will be part of the Democratic caucus if the DSCC supports him. Why, then, would anybody interested in building the Democratic caucus choose against what Schumer is doing?

when the dems don't want them anymore. What will stop other incumbents from doing the same thing?

Why have primaries at all if we will accept this behavior?

It's a stupid, cowardly move by Schumer.

You won't see Harris Miller in Virginia running as an Independent. Why? Because there's a strong Republican opponent who will easily defeat a split field. But Lieberman won't split the field; he'll take the middle ground, and win most Independents, some Democrats, and most Republicans.

Look, the bottom line is this: As long as Joe Lieberman thinks he can win as an Independent, he'll run as an Independent (provided he loses the Democratic primary). Whether or not the DSCC supports him won't sway his opinion. Whether or not the DSCC supports him won't change his chances of winning.

then the DSCC should NOT support him.

Simple answer.

There are six possible outcomes for this race. Let's go through them.

Outcome #1: Joe Lieberman wins the Democratic Primary, then wins re-election in the fall as a Democrat.

Outcome #2: Ned Lamont wins the Democratic Primary, Joe Lieberman drops out of the race, and Ned Lamont is elected in November as a Democrat.

Outcome #3: Ned Lamont wins the Democratic Primary, Joe Lieberman runs as an Independent, the DSCC supports him, and Ned Lamont wins.

Outcome #4: Ned Lamont wins the Democratic Primary, Joe Lieberman runs as an Independent, the DSCC supports him, and Joe Lieberman wins.

Outcome #5: Ned Lamont wins the Democratic Primary, Joe Lieberman runs as an Independent, the DSCC doesn't support him, and Ned Lamont wins.

Outcome #6: Ned Lamont wins the Democratic Primary, Joe Lieberman runs as an Independent, the DSCC doesn't support him, and Joe Lieberman wins.


You accept that those are the six possible outcomes, correct?

In outcomes #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, the Senator from CT will be part of the Democratic Caucus. In outcome #6, the Senator from CT will not be part of the Democratic Caucus.

outcome #6 however, is not our problem.

this is where we differ.


In my view, outcome number 6 is at the discretion of Joseph Lieberman alone. If he decides to betray his own party becuase they didn't renominate him, that's his fault. It will show he wasn't really a democrat to begin with. I won't lose sleep over it. This party should not stoop so low as to condone this kind of disgusting, third-grade behavior, and I'd frankly rather lose the seat, because it will be better in the long run. in 6 years, we can try again to put a real dem in there.

A person like that does NOT belong in MY democratic party. So if Joe wants to assert his disloyalty, fine.


You see this through a lens of amorality. Nothing else matters except "the majority". To which I responded that if you wanted a majority, then be a republican. The point being something else has got to matter besides "the majority".

Do you know what kind of message it sends if the DSCC were to support Joe as an Indy? It says: the Democratic party is not worthy of respect. It says that the party base's opinion doesn't matter. You say: we are so desperate for your approval Joe that we excuse blatant disloyalty. What message does that send to other incumbents (or losing primary candidates in general)? that primaries are a joke, and feel free to run as an Indy if you feel you are "electable".

Why the hell would anyone want to join that party? How are you going to grow your base when your party leadership can ignore your choices at will?

Why should I stay a democrat in that situation? why should I bother showing up to vote for Ned Lamont on August 8th if the party can just say: we'll support Joe anyway, fuck you CT dems.

You, Virginian, are part of the problem. You have an unhealthy obsession with "the majority". It's people with your desperate, win-at-any-cost attitude that's kept us in the minority. It's produced bland centrist candidates trying to appeal to everyone, thus appealing to no one (except people who hate the other guy so bad) and losing.

In outcomes #3 and #4, when the DSCC supported Lieberman, regardless of who won, the Democrats benefitted. The purpose of the DSCC's strategy is to make the Democrats benefit regardless of the outcome this November. The only way that we cannot benefit is if Joe runs and wins as an Independent, and the DSCC doesn't support him.

As I've said before, I think it would greatly serve us better if we had 49 principled Dems and 2 DINOs that gave us the majority, than if we had 49 principled Dems in the minority.

If Ned Lamont wins the general election in November, I'll throw a parade in his honor. I hope he wins, I truly do. But by supporting Lieberman as an Independent, the DSCC can ensure that our potential for a majority isn't sabotaged.

It has nothing to do with the CT voters. CT primary voters are voting on who represents the Democrats on the ballot in November. If Ned Lamont wins, then he'll be on the ballot in November as the only Democrat. I fail to see how anything Joe Lieberman does undermines the will of primary voters.

And I wish you didn't bring personal attacks into this. I'm trying to objectively state the political logic of the DSCC. You're allowing your passion to unduly affect your responses by considering me an enemy; I'm not. In this thread, I'm simply an informant.

I thought I was more attacking your attitude rather than you.

you are also not just an informant, you are saying you agree with Schumer's logic (or what you perceive it to be).

Well, I'll give you a chance to clarify...

Do you believe it is a good idea for the DSCC to support an Indy Lieberman?

lets back all republicans in the election. Then that may convince them to jump to our side, becuase they'd be so fucking honored that we are supporting them. :eyes:

Well, that's a bit extreme, how about only the electable republicans.


I mean how is that different than backing a guy who makes a conscious choice to hurt the Democratic party by running against its nominee?

If you have no interest in understanding Chuck Schumer's logic, then what the hell are you doing posting in this thread?

because you obviously don't know how to handle them.

Joe is a bully because he is engaging in improper tactics to get what he wants (namely threatening to run as an Indy if he doesn't win the primary). If you submit to that, it rewards him for doing that.


Do you agree with what Joe is doing?

If you do, then we'd have nothing else to talk about cause you'd show that you have no sense of loyalty.

If you don't then why do you apologize for a course of action that only encourages such behavior?

He's going to do it. And he'll most likely win. So its up to the DSCC to decide whether they want Joe Lieberman as part of the Democratic caucus, or not. Let me tell you: when you're trying to get a majority, you want every vote.

For the record, I support Lamont.

but, I don't understand how you can accept this behavior.

It disturbs me, this win at ANY cost philosophy.

Sometimes if you try too hard, you lose it for yourself.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922

Lieberman 55% Lamont 40%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/06/14/in_connecticut_lamont_closes_the_gap.html

Lieberman 46% Lamont 40%

I haven't seen any up to date 3-way race polls, but I'd bet that they show the same trend as these two, Joe going down.

What's the latest 3-way race poll you've seen Mr. Genius? Accuse me of using 2-month old information. Do you have anything more recent than that?

I think it is "big time" in CT among Dems.

you don't know what you are talking about VIRGINIAN. I'm from CT and I know my state. We are not a bunch of braindead rednecks. The Repub is some unknown guy who is running on a pro-Bush, pro-war platform and he'll get about at most 20% of the vote no matter what.

I'm arguing that Lamont would lose to Lieberman as an Independent, who would then decide not to caucus with the Democrats after they actively worked to kick him out.

And while I'm not from CT, I've been paying very close attention to the Senate campaigns since last summer.

that's on Lieberman not us. It'd be because lieberman is a selfish traitor. I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

I REFUSE to be intimidated by Joementum's childish sickening tactics.

If Lieberman leaves the Democratic Party, or worse, switches to Republican, that's even further away we get from a majority in the Senate. That's why Schumer is supporting him.

I dare him to do it. If you let a person walk over you once, he'll walk all over you your entire life.

At least that's what those all important POLLS of your say as of now. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the CT race is going to decide which party controls the Senate.

Have you even seen any poll from CT? 72% of Republicans think Joe Lieberman should be re-elected. In a one-on-one match-up against a Republican, Lieberman gets 60% of the Republican vote.

But if Schumer's dream comes true and the Democrats sweep the 5 vulnerable states (PA, RI, OH, MT, MO), don't lose any of the Democratic vulernable states (NJ, MI, WA, MD, WV), and win an upset in AZ, TN, or VA, Lieberman defecting to the Republicans would still give them control of the Senate. If Schumer won five seats, Lieberman defecting would give the GOP a tie-breaker free 50-49 margin.

Schumer and the DSCC thought this through before they went out there.

Guess I won't bother with one either. The polling currently shows that it is VERY unlikely that we will take back the Senate, though we're likely to take the House. Lieberman won't be The Decider Jr, and his race very likely won't mean diddly for party control.


Is your middle name by any chance dolstein? :shrug:

Which is why Schumer is supporting Lieberman, no matter how unlikely a majority is.

Here's a link for the polling:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922

if he is a selfish prick.

whose political careeer is skating on thin ice if he doesn't make the right decision here.

You don't comply with bullies. Lieberman is doing this to bully people into supporting him and I for one am not playing that game.

And if he can't get elected Senator as a Democrat, he'll do it as an Independent.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm support Schumer in his attempts to get a Democratic majority in the Senate. Frankly, I'm surprised you're working so hard against this goal.

she's fighting for the best possible senator for CT.

I'm surprised you're fighting against that.

Also, how does it help to get a dem majority to work against the Dem nominee, were it to be Lamont?

But we all live in the U.S., and frankly, I think a Democratic majority in the Senate would help Democratic CTers more than having Lamont instead of Lieberman in a GOP controlled Senate.

by opposing the Dem nominee for the senate seat? Maybe in Virginia logic you can, but not in Connecticut logic.

if the Independent you support instead agrees to caucus with the Democrats, instead of letting the Independent who will win defect to the Republicans or not vote for Harry Reid for Majority Leader.

Its not Virginia logic, its political logic. If you wish to assign it to a state, assign it to New York, where Chuck Schumer is from.

what about the people of the Democratic party who picked the nominee?

Do their opinions not matter?

DO you think Morrison should run as an Independent in Montana? I mean he just wants to be Senator :eyes:

Right now, Tester is the Democratic nominee, and is leading in the polls, so the DSCC would be stupid to endorse anybody else.

However, its not the same case in CT, where Joe Lieberman would easily defeat Ned Lamont in a general election. Its not the DSCC's job to endorse every Democratic nominee, its the DSCC's job to utilize their support and fundraising to build a Democratic majority in the Senate.

The simple fact of the matter is this: Joe Lieberman, if he loses the primary, will run as an Independent, and barring some disaster, will win the general election as an Independent. Those are the facts, and there's nothing the DSCC can do to prevent that. So the question is, how will the DSCC react?

their job is to get a dem majority by supporting Dem nominees through fundraising and providing resources.

Who gives to the DSCC so they can work AGAINST the Dem nominee?

What matters most to the DSCC is the fact that Joe Lieberman will win as an Independent regardless, so if they support they can add him to the caucus.

People on this board need to come to terms with the fact that if Lieberman runs as an Independent, he'll win.

if he stabs his own party in the back, his support will drop like a stone for the simple fact he is acting like a juvenile.

Frankly, I believe the polls. And so does Chuck Schumer.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They're simply incompatible, for a plethora of reasons.

since Lieberman will surely win the Dem primary.

Lamont has a ceiling. He won't appeal to a lot of Indie voters, and most Republican voters. He might get as high as 60, maybe even 65% of Democrats, but even with 50% of Independents, he'll lose to Lieberman. Lieberman doesn't have a ceiling like Lamont has.

The polls you've posted simply show that Joe Lieberman HERE AND NOW has a great deal of support as a Dem Senator within the state of CT. That doesn't say diddly for what people would think of him if he were to pull this stunt and run as an indy.


And I really love proclomations from people with crystal balls. Lieberman *will* win, Lamont *will* lose. Uh huh.

It specifically polled Ned Lamont as a (D), Lieberman as an (I), and Schlesinger as a (R). Lieberman won handidly.

Dems to spend resources in a race we shouldn't need to spend many resources in by helping Republicans try to torpedo the choice of Democratic voters in their state.

I have numbers to back me up. What do you have?

And his polls dropped like a rock just like they are now.

And you can't compare a national race to a statewide race. You just can't.

and support Democratic causes 100%. Lamont won't support corporate robber baron policies that the pro-corporate Dems, like Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer support. That's the real reason why Schumer will support pro-corporate Liebeman over Lamont. By getting support from thousands of regular people, Lamont won't be Schumer's slave.

Lieberman has wavered in supporting Democrats in the past when he supported privatizing Social Security, supports school vouchers, supports Right wing Xtians attempt to block rape victims from getting Emergency Contraception, supports Supreme Court judges, like Alito, who will whittle our civil rights away for the benefit of corporate power, and supports the Bush Admin's policies of torture and immoral wars.

Chuck Schumer isn't ruling out supporting Lieberman; because if Lamont wins, Lamont will vote for a Majority Leader, and if the DSCC supports Joe and he wins, Joe will vote for a Majority Leader.

is all in the votes. Holy Joe has voted AGAINST the Democratic caucus and the leadership time and again. He's worked to actively undermine everything Harry Reid has tried to do. Holy Joe sold his soul to the neocons for the sake of the Iraq invasion and Bushco's support of Sharon. If he acts like a Republican, talks like a Republican, and votes like a Republican, he ain't no damn Democrat. Fuck him. Overboard he goes, and good riddance. We should all be working to elect a committed progressive in the great state of Connecticut--not perpetuating the myth that Holy Joe Lieberman is somehow on our side. He's not.

And I support the goal of electing progressive Senators to CT. But the fact remains that Joe Lieberman is still the heavy favorite to win, even if he's an Independent. And after the idealism of the campaign fades away, we're going to be left with a reality where Joe Lieberman is the Senator from CT and he's an Independent. So the question is, do we want him to caucus with the Democrats and help us determine Committee Chairs and the Majority Leader, or should he be working against us?

Chuck Schumer is leaving the DNC to do the dreaming. He's working the numbers that exist in the cold, hard reality that we live in.

which is what Schumer's doing. I'm enough of a pragmatist to appreciate the necessity for a certain amount of calculation in politics, and I don't doubt that you're accurately representing Schumer's public rationale. But frankly, Trampas, I think the whole thing reeks more than a little of good old fashioned cloakroom cronyism. Holy Joe isn't a Democrat NOW, and he'll be even less a Democrat if he runs indy (obviously). Since the DSCC's mission is to elect more Democrats, I don't see how they can reasonably support a Republican in Indy clothing--no matter who he promises to caucus with.

on most issues of concern to progressives, that's not a sufficient response. Simply backing the likely winner--no matter how at odds that person's beleifs are with yours--doesn't further your agenda one iota. They win, then consistently vote against your interests--what have you gained? Better to go out on a limb for the longshot whose positions you agree with--at least then you have a shot at reversing the god-awful mess Bushco have thrust upon us. Supporting Holy Joe doesn't solve anything.

He's a vote for Democrats as Committee chairs and for Harry Reid as Majority Leader. As I've been saying, let's get the majority first, then figure out how to work with it, instead of sacrificing the majority for long-shot candidates who won't win.

If Lamont wins the primary, you will no longer be allowed to support Lieberman at DU. It will be a violation of this forum's rules.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

I guess Chuck will have to find other message boards that actually want to work towards a Democratic majority in the Senate.

He makes the rules here, not me, but yes, even Chuck Schumer would not be allowed to use this message board to promote Lieberman if Lamont wins the primary.:)

Somebody who can compromise their core values to save their own hide isn't a person we should want in our party. Principles. Remember those?

He'll find a happy home with the repigs. Good riddance to bad trash.

Your willing capitulation (a DEM backing an INDEPENDENT AGAINST a DEM??) is an apt demonstration of the reason we're labeled as waffling, spineless jellyfish. And precisely the reason we're the party of also-rans.

their primary victor in favor of Lieberman?

But Lieberman wouldn't switch until after he won the election anyways, if he does go to the Republicans. Most likely, he would remain an Independent that doesn't caucus with the Democrats.

50 Dems (plus Joe) would still win unless Lieberman went turncoat in spite.
49 Dems (plus Joe) would still lose no matter what.

Right or wrong?

Its a lonely world for Senator without a party... after being spurned by the Democrats, the GOP would make a serious attempt at recruiting him.

Do you think Joe could politically survive being known as the guy who went turncoat to return control of the Senate to the Repukes?

Here are BushCo's latest numbers in CT:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=33bc7cbc-7fde-4f35-97d6-50bcb47ca175

How would Lieberman be serving his constituency if he personally jumped ship to give the Repukes control of Senate while representing a state where BushCo is currently bucking 70% disapproval rating?

And I personally don't think Joe is running for re-election in 2012.

2006 Dem primary, he will run as an independent, and if the DSCC dares to support Lamont like they support all other Dem Senate candidates, Lieberman will still win and there will be 50 caucusing Democrats, Joe and 49 Republicans, then Joe will be a sore winner and jump ship to caucus with the Republicans even though if he just stays as an independent it will allow his longtime party and the party supported by the vast majority of his constituents to retain control of the Senate.

And, in summary, the Democratic party desperately needs a friend like Joe Lieberman.

Do I finally have it right?

The Democratic Party doesn't desperately Joe, and they don't need him as a friend. They need him as a vote; as in, for Majority Leader.

Joe Lieberman is winning no matter what. Why, then, doesn't the DSCC support him so he caucuses with the Dems?

and then decides to withdraw like any real Democrat would?

No question about it. But if he runs as an Independent, which its his right to, then he'll win. Schumer and the DSCC is just setting up a contingency plan.

Then we could run a real Democrat against him, and the Democrat would win (for a change).

-Laelth

He's not an idiot, which is why we're having this debate in the first place.

"Do you want turncoat Joe representing you, casting the critical vote for a Repuke Senate majority?"

He'll have to go on record as caucusing Democratic to keep even the most conservative Democratic voters in his camp.

For not being as left-wing and beholden to the Ted Kennedy and Daily Kos wing of the party as Ned Lamont is.

Again, if you have any numbers or proof to support your assertions, I'll gladly look at them. Right now, I have all the polling and numbers on my side, and you are spinning fantasy.

CT independents (40% of voters) are against Bush 70% to 30%.

And CT Repukes make up just 25% of CT voters, and many of these will vote for the Repuke over Lieberman just as they always have.

If Lamont gets just 75% of the Dems and independents who disapprove of Bush, that would give him about 44% of the vote, more than enough to trounce Lieberman in a three way race!

Numbers:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=33bc7cbc-7fde-4f35-97d6-50bcb47ca175&x=214,1

Even if Lamont tries his best to tie Lieberman to Bush, not everyone will buy it. If you have numbers that actually pertain to this race, then I'll look at them. Survey USA's Presidential approval ratings don't count.

Here are the facts of the matter: Right now, 50% of Dems, 55% of Indies, and 60% of Republicans support Lieberman in a three-way race. You can't refute that. Wishing that "most repukes will support the repuke" doesn't make it so. 72% of Republicans think that Joe Lieberman should be re-elected. There is no factual basis to your statement.

Even if Lamont wins more Democratic and Independent votes, Lieberman will still have enough to win a three-way race.

Again, until you have numbers that say otherwise, stop trying to assert something different. I'm telling you the situation that the DSCC is in, and why they're acting the way they're acting. You're not helping matters by spinning fantasy and your own opinion of how people vote.

IF Lamont wins the Dem primary 54% to 46%, it will mean that Lamont succussfully managed to tie to Lieberman to the unpopular Bush for at least 60% of the voting Democrats who disapprove of Bush. Getting the Dem nomination should be worth at least another 15% to 20% of Democratic voters. That's 24% to 28% of the CT general vote right there, depending upon if Lamont can turn out CT Dems in greater numbers than usual or not. If Lamont also manages to sway 60% of the CT independents who disapprove of Bush as well, that's another 16% to 18% of the CT vote right there.

In total, that's 40% to 44% for Lamont, which should be more than enough to win a three way race.

Your theory is all based on IFs and Therefores, but there's no numbers to back you up. You're really just making it up as you go along.

I've shown you the numbers in a three-way race. If you can find something that says different, knock yourself out. But making things up isn't going to help our situation. As we get deeper into the election cycle, I'd rather trust the opinion of experts than of idealistic, wishful thinking message board posters.

he wins the Dem primary.

You are saying that Lieberman is a 100% slam dunk shoo-in no matter what.

Whose standard of proof needs to be higher: someone who says something COULD possibly happen or someone who says something will DEFINITELY happen?

Since Giordano got more than 35% of vote against Lieberman in 2000, I'm not certain that a Republican wouldn't win a three way race against an independent Lieberman and Lamont. And I'm certainly wouldn't count Lamont (who is rising like a bullet) out either. You are the one guaranteeing an absolute, so you are the one who needs to supply indisputable mathematical proof.

And if the DSCC isn't prepared to meet the most likely scenario, then what the hell are they doing?

Lamont has been doing a great job of framing the debate and making that association. That's why he's picking up Dem support in such a short time. Independents will follow suit. Who likes their tax money wasted on bad policies, like Iraq and supporting corporate corruption?

You're a conservative.

Your arguments are now revealed. Thanks for playing.

(And GO LAMONT!)

Do you have anything to add about Chuck Schumer, or would you rather just attack people you disagree with?

I don't necessarily have a problem with conservatives. I disagree with them, of course.

It's just that your "Ted Kennedy wing" remark is very telling, and gives a context to your fierce defense of this shameless stunt.

About Schumer: he's an idiot if he thinks the party won't lose registered Dems if this succeeds, and I think acquiescing to bullying is a bad tactical move.

And my "Ted Kennedy and Daily Kos" wing of the party was a reference to how progressives like Lamont are usually framed in the election. My point was that some CT voters will be turned off by connections between Lieberman and Bush, and some CT voters will be turned off by connections between Lamont and the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

You can call it bullying; I think Joe Lieberman would call it self-preservation. If he'll win as an Independent, then why not run as an Independent? Regardless of that, if Lieberman wins as an Independent, then the Democratic Party needs to make sure that Lieberman stays with us, and doesn't flip. The easiest way to sabotage that is to actively work to kick him out of office.

Listen: Ned Lamont is going to be part of the Democratic caucus if he wins, no matter if the DSCC supports him or not. If the DSCC supports Lieberman, then he'll continue to caucus with the Democrats as well. So Schumer's move is ensuring that whoever wins the CT general election will be part of the Democratic caucus, and not work against the majority Schumer is trying to build.

that the Democratic party should submit to blackmail?

If that's what this party has become, then there's no reason for me not to go Green.

If this happens, a LOT of Dems will probably change their affiliation.

Forget about what's good for the people of CT- does it help Joe?

Its up to Joe to decide what he SHOULD do. I'm saying, in the event that he does, Schumer and I would rather work towards a Democratic majority in the Senate. You play the hand your dealt. These are the cards, and we're playing to win. What are you playing for?

...as an indie, when he votes against party principles on very important matters like, say, illegal wars.

For all of the "you have to show the proof" rhetoric, your evidence as to his voting with the Dems and for Reid as ML is nonexistent.

Why do you think Joe will feel any desire to work with the Dems, when as a Dem his record has been increasingly against the Dems?

Lieberman votes with the majority of Democrats a lot more than Ben Nelson and Mary Landreau, and about as often as Bill Nelson, Maria Cantwell, Robert Byrd, Max Bauchus, and Kent Conrad.

If not, why not?

Let's see if your argument holds up.

The biggest reason I agree with Schumer's decision to support Lieberman is because he's the most likely to win.

What's the huge difference between Lieberman the Republican and Lieberman the DINO again?

And makes Harry Reid the Majority Leader and gives the Democrats the chairmanships of the Committees. It gives the Democrats more power to confront the Bush White House, much more power than having Ned Lamont in place of Joe Lieberman would give.

much more power than having Ned Lamont in place of Joe Lieberman would give them.

I'm trying to understand how this makes sense ...

Lieberman loses the primary, runs as an Indie, and wins the election. So now we have an Independent Joe Lieberman.

If the DSCC supports him in the general, Lieberman agrees to caucus with the Democrats, like Jim Jeffords does, which contributes to the Democrat's majority.

If the DSCC doesn't support him, Lieberman doesn't contribute to the majority, and potentially, then the DSCC needs to win an extra race to gain a majority. Its going to be hard enough to find six races to win (without losing one), let alone seven.

If the Democrats get a majority in the Senate, they control the agenda and they control the chairmanships, which controls everything from the budget to judicial appointments. Joe Lieberman as an Independent caucusing with the Democrats is more valuable than Joe Lieberman not caucusing with the Democrats.

would give the Dems as much or more power as Lieberman was my point.

Remember

50 Dems (plus indy Joe) would still win unless Lieberman went turncoat in spite.
49 Dems (plus indy Joe) would still lose no matter what.

If Joe is really such a Republican at heart that he'd rather caucus with them than the Dems just out of spite for the Dems doing just what the Repubs did (try to help their primary victor get elected), then isn't it better to call a spade a spade rather than to have him keep working to undermine the Dems from within the Dem's own ranks?

Remember that BushCo's disapproval rating is bucking 70% in CT right now. How would Holy Joe survive being the one who jumped ship to allow BushCo to retain control of the Senate? Couldn't Lamont use this possibility as a powerful campaign issue?

Lamont isn't getting into the Senate unless Lieberman decides not to run.

behind the scenes, of course?

I mean, if Joe were to win the Dem primary in a squeaker, how would he like it if the DSCC supported a Lamont independent bid against him?

so why doesn't Schumer tell Joe to stick with the Dem Party and in the Dem Primary. If Joe wins the primary, he'll get DSCC support, if he goes Indie, he won't.

Schumer is supporting the selfishness of Lieberman, who wants to cut-and-run from the Democratic Party whose members want to justifiably hold him accountable for his bad decisions and his willingness to bash Democrats he claims to support.

No one here is wishing for Lieberman to run as an Independent. That doesn't change the fact that he might, and it doesn't change the fact that, if he does, he'll win.

Lamont will easily defeat whatever Republican candidate is on the ballot. But in all liklihood, that race will never happen because Joe, on his own will, will run as an Independent.

Here you say that Lamont will lose, thus costing Dems the seat. In other parts of the thread you agree that CT isn't going republican, no matter what. You can't have it both ways. :shrug:

Lamont will lose to Lieberman. If the DSCC actively works to kick Lieberman out of office, there's a good chance that he'll turn his back on the Democrats, possibly even caucusing with the Republicans, costing us the majority.

Lamont MAY lose to Lieberman - now that's an honest appraisal of the CURRENT, rapidly-changing situation (see Lamont's rising numbers).

If your argument is based on a baseless assertion (Joe WILL win) is it any wonder people aren't buying it?

I've readily acknowledged that poll numbers change, and I've clarified my remarks to say that Lieberman is the most likely person who will win. But having done this before, I know how statewide polls work, and I trust what they're saying, and apparently so does the DSCC. So its not exactly like I'm just being silly here.

The DSCC is putting their money on Lieberman winning as an independent. That's the basis of their support for him.

See, the thing to realize is that, at heart, this is not a pro-Democratic majority argument, but in reality an anti-Lamont argument.

Hence the contradictions.

I still support Lamont in the general, even against Lieberman. But I recognize the political neccesity of the DSCC supporting Lieberman to keep him in the Democratic caucus.

nominee, so Lieberman supporters of his independent bid won't be able to express their support of Lieberman on this board against the candidate selected by Connecticut Democrats in the primary.

then it's perfectly OK to support him here. If he takes up the support of a non-Democrat against a Democrat, then you cannot promote that particular view of his on this site. Sorry.

I am not sure which primary you are talking about. Webb? The DNC is NOT involved in primaries.

The Democratic voters in a Democratic primary choose a candidate and the DSCC will not support that candidate? If that is true then I am done with the DSCC and perhaps with the Democratic Party.

The rules are very simple: fight like hell in the primary, support the nominee in the election.

I've already seen them pull crap in other races, and I've seen the DCCC screw a couple of candidates in Florida, and I've about seen enough.

...just cut the bruise out and throw it away. Don't ditch the entire apple because of that one spot.

Same goes for the party of Jefferson and JFK. We can starve the DSCC into submission if enough of us really want to.

to run a 3rd-party candidacy against Lamont if he wins?
:rofl:

What part of DEMOCRATIC does the DSCC not understand?

If Lieberman runs as an Indepedent, he'll win. If Lieberman is on the ballot under any party this November, he'll win. Pure and simple. Schumer knows this very well. And if Lieberman is on the ballot as an Independent and the DNC and DSCC and the Democratic Party turns their back on him, that's all the more likely Lieberman will decide NOT to caucus with the Democrats (as Jeffords and Sanders do), and instead remain truly independent or even switch to the Republicans.

in the general election then?

In this instance, when its almost guaranteed that Lieberman will win as an Independent in the general, its in the Democrat's best interest to keep supporting him.

Mind if I quote you?

it was almost guaranteed that Lieberman would win the primary.

Now we should abandon the candidate selected by the voters of Connecticut, if they make the wrong decision. Ok. Right.

Democracy anyone? Perhaps we should try some.

Honestly, there's no need to be melodramatic.

Though, I realize I'm on the wrong board if I'm looking for people to not be melodramatic.

We have a political party that has a process wherein people get to choose the party candidates through a democratic process. Schumer, and it seems you, are basically saying 'screw that we know better'. As always the elitist argument against democracy is that the elites are just wiser than the foolish people, that the will of the people is a ritual that can be ignored whenever the outcome is not what the elites have deemed proper, that the rules are meant for us commoners, not for the elites.

Lamont would be on the ballot as a Democrat. Lieberman would be on the ballot as an Independent. The DSCC has full right to support whomever they like.

DINO, Bill Nelson of Florida. Enjoy Katherine Harris.

Bill Nelson is leading in the polls and is virtually unchallenged in the primary. He'll be the Senator from Florida come January 2007, so there's no reason for the DSCC to support anybody else.

Consider Connecticut. Joe Lieberman faces the prospect of losing the Democratic primary. In such a case, if he decides to run as an Independent, he'll win. Why? Because Independents and Republicans love him. In a recent poll, 76% of Republicans said that Joe Lieberman deserves re-election, and 66% of Independents said the same thing (as well as 56% of Democrats).

These polls also polled Lieberman running as an Independent candidate against Ned Lamont as a Democrat and a Republican candidate (Schlesinger). In a three-way race, Lieberman wipes the floor with the competition.

Now, some people argue that Lamont can only get more support leading up to November. This is partly true. Lamont may even win the primary, and may even win up to 60% of the Democratic vote. But his support can only come from the left-wing of the Democratic primary. Moderate Democrats, Independents, and Republicans will still support him, and these three groups will still be more than enough to ensure that Lieberman will remain the Senator.

So suppose Lieberman loses the primary and runs as an Independent, which he'll win. The DSCC has two choices:

First, Schumer, Dean, and other Democrats can choose to turn thier back on Lieberman and fully support Lamont, causing Lieberman to break ties with the Democratic Party, registering as an Independent that doesn't caucus with the Democrats, or even worse, changing his registration to Republican. This will be a huge set-back to the Democrat's hopes of taking over the Senate. As it is right now, they need to win six races and not lose any. Even with 5 vulnerable GOP seats (PA, OH, MT, MO, and RI), the Dems still need to win TN, AZ, or VA (and none of those three seem likely), and not lose NJ, WA, WV, MD, or MI (and one of those might switch over). So even if we sweep those five, maintain our five, and pick up an upset in TN, VA, or AZ, Lieberman being kicked out of the Democratic Party by the DSCC and DNC would give control back to the Republicans if he switches party affiliations. If we sweep those five, maintain our five, and don't get an upset, or we get an upset and lose NJ, and Lieberman gets kicked out of the Democratic Party, we'll be down 49-50-1, and the GOP won't even need a tie-breaker vote.

OR

Second, the DSCC can continue to support the eventual winner, ensuring that even if Lieberman becomes an Independent he'll caucus with the Democrats, and we can avoid the nightmare of winning enough seats but not being careful with the Senators we have.

Here's the point in a nutshell, from you own post.

"In such a case, if he decides to run as an Independent, he'll win. Why? Because Independents and Republicans love him."

You are promoting a man Republicans love, simply because he chose to stick a "D" after his name. His politics don't matter, just that "D".

I say we can, no we MUST, do better than that. If the Democrats take control of the Senate but aren't really Democrats, just cloaked Republicans, of what use? This isn't a bloody football game, it isn't just who wins that matters. It's what they do when they get there.

This is about the numbers. The DSCC's job is to get a Democratic majority in the Senate. After that, you work with the caucus you have to build the party you want.

And Lieberman isn't the savior of the Dem Senate that you make him out to be. We can take CT without him on the ballot, indeed probably even easier without him on the ballot. Bush has extremely low numbers in CT, and suppot for his policies is just as low. Lieberman supports most Bush policies, ergo...

But Lieberman has made it clear that if he's not on the ballot as a Democrat, he'll be on the ballot as an Independent. And polling has made it clear that if Lieberman is on the ballot under any party, he'll win. The choice of the DSCC is to either support the winner or spurn the winner. Schumer is going with the option that helps him gain a majority in the Senate.

Polling in Dec 2003 said Howard Dean would be the Dem nominee. :shrug:

If you knew anything about polling, you'd know that a state-wide poll published five months before the election is far, far more credible than a nationwide poll published a full year before the election.

surge in a single month. This race is not a normal in-state senate race. And it won't be normal because Ned Lamont is not playing by the Wasington Beltway Conventional Wisdom. He's running an aggressive campaign and Lamont doesn't have skeletons in his closet. Lieberman has lots of bad decisions that Lamont is reminding the voting public about. And Lieberman never had to defend his record like this before.

Do the math. If Lamont gets 60% of the Democratic vote (a lot more than he has now) and 50% of the Independent vote (a lot more than he has now), and Lieberman gets 40% of the Democratic vote (a lot less than he has now) and 50% of the Independent vote (a lot less than he has now), along with 60% of the Republican vote (which will remain unchanged, or get higher, if Lamont wins the primary), then Lieberman would still easily win.

In order for Lamont to win, he'll need more than 60% of the Democratic vote against Lieberman, and more than 50% of the Independent vote against Lieberman. A lot more. I don't see that happening.

Ned Lamont can only win if Lieberman drops out of the race, which is why Lamont and his challengers are harping so much on this issue, and begging the DSCC to reconsider.

Lamont won over Democrats, and we're talking DTC's and delegates to the Dem convention. These are the folks who pay attention to politics. Lamont won their support by visiting over 50 DTC's from March to May. Ned will win over Independents.

Lieberman has built in support among Democrats, Indies, and GOPers. Lamont can win more Democrats, and some Indies, but he won't get any GOP support, and he won't get enough Indie support away from Lieberman. The numbers simply aren't there.

Don't kid yourself. If they think the Repuke has a chance -- which they certainly will in three way race -- the Repukes will give it a real go.

And Bush's disapproval rating is bucking 70% among CT independents:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=33bc7cbc-7fde-4f35-97d6-50bcb47ca175&x=214,3

Any of these guys could conceivably win with a lot less than 40% of the vote in a three way race.

If you're just guessing, that's great, but its doesn't really count for much. The best polling says the opposite. If Quinnipiac says that 72% of Republicans that they surveyed think Joe Lieberman deserves re-election, unless I see proof of something else, I'm going to believe Quinnipiac.

2000 and 1994?

Right now, CT Repukes are happy with Joe because:

1) they don't recognize his putative Repuke competitor, and

2) they don't think his putative Repuke competitor has a chance.

In a three way race with Lamont, neither of these conditions will apply, and any reasonable person would venture that more Republicans will cast their votes for the Repuke candidate (who will be actually be bankrolled by the national Repuke party in any three way race) than did in 1994 or 2000.

Instead of the random guessing of a message board poster. What you're saying isn't backed by anything. You're just spouting off theories off the top of your head. What I'm telling you is the reality that presents itself, and its the reality that the DSCC is paying attention to.

incumbent vs. a surging challenger mean anything absolute?

If Lamont wins the Democratic primary, that conditional in itself will disprove all of the polls you are using to "prove" your absolute guarantee that Lieberman would walk away with any putative three-way race.

And only 30% of Repukes voted for Lieberman in 2000.

Especially if the poll I'm using specifically asks about a three-way matchup in which Ned Lamont is the Democratic nominee, and Joe Lieberman is an Independent.

Ned Lamont has room to grow, but only within the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

If you don't understand how polls work, that's fine. But using your ignorance to try to prove a point isn't the best strategy in a discussion.

England. The United States was the first colony that successfuly broke from the mother country. There were TheVirginian types during our Revolutionary period. John Dickenson of PA was the most famous. They advised that since no colony had ever broken away from the mother country that revolution for independence was suicide and pointless. Thankfully John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and others rejected their argument.

The Dickenson and TheVirginian types favor the status quo because it appears safe. The Netroots and Lamonts favor challenging the status quo, especially since it is currently corrupt. The Lieberman-Lamont election is a modern day revolution, a non-violent revolution. Let it continue.

Larkspur, I know you like Ned Lamont and want him to win. I applaud your dedication.

Take a breath, close your eyes, and just imagine a scenario where Joe Lieberman runs as an Independent. Are you picturing that? Now, imagine the possibility that Joe Lieberman wins as an Independent. Can you see that? Good.

Now open your eyes, and imagine its January, 2007. The elections are over; the new Congressmen are sworn in. Everybody returns from Winter Break, including Joe Lieberman, who is now an Independent, not a Democrat.

What would be the best way to handle that situation, to the benefit of the Democratic Party?

Lieberman's built-in support is not set in stone. The purpose of campaigns is to present alternatives and challenge the status quo mirages. Lamont is doing that now and he will continue to do that.

And Lamont will be helped by Lieberman because the more Lieberman campaigns the less people like him. The opposite happens with Lamont.

If Lamont stops campaigning, then yes Lieberman will win in a cake walk, but Lamont is an aggressive and innovative campaigner and will keep digging into Lieberman's so called "built-in" support.