Would those who say all areas long for a tough-talking progressive explain the CT Senate race?

Lamont was a strong progressive on important issues such as the war, enough so to defeat the incumbent in our party's primary which is essentially unheard of in politics today. So who elected Lieberman in one of the more progressive states in the union? Who chose a weak, spineless, collaborating, unpopular war-supporting Joe? Most voters. And if it didn't work in CT, do you begin to see why many states/districts aren't currently capable of electing anything but centrists?

Faced with that ugly choice, wouldn't it be best to have centrists who share some of our views and weakly oppose the worst Republican policies rather than Republican centrists who share almost none of our views and frenziedly promote and initiate the worst Republican policies?

I get the idea that some of DU believes a strong progressive will win anywhere, even in the most conservative areas. Isn't the reality that only centrists and conservatives can win in those areas? And which would we rather have--a majority with bad members which allows our best policies to go through (such as FDR had), or an ideologically pure minority that can't stop their worst policies from going through?

(and no this isn't a "my party, right or wrong" post--it's an attempt to recognize that it's difficult to elect progressive candidates even in the best circumstances, and though we should always give it our best shot to replace bad Democrats in the primaries, in the general election the best choice for harming the least people is to vote D. It sucks, but wouldn't you agree that's the way it is? Aren't the primaries the best opportunity for change?)

Also, Lamont let him off the hook by taking a vacation after his big primary win rather than piling on.

Finally, the party bigwigs didn't take as strong action against Lieberman in the senate as they could have. If they had completely stripped Lieberman of everything he had for betraying the party and going against the party's nominee, that would have helped too.

It had nothing to do with centrists being "most electable." Sorry.

On edit: Also, the Republican candidate was a putz.

Lieberman's triumphant primary moment in 2004 was being in a three-way tie for third place. I see the rest of your points as mostly peripheral excuses, though they did presumably help Lieberman.

He went from "I'm above it all, and you'll take it and like it" to "nobody wants to end this war faster than me."

Lamont did not come across as competent and strong. His cute commercials probably back-fired and gave the impression to many that he lacked a certain "gravitas".

The state republicans essentially ran no candidate. Their supposed candidate was such a joke, Republicans wouldn't even consider him.

The GOP voted overwhelmingly for Lieberman. The Dems and I's (a large junk of the electorate here) who did vote for Lieberman voted for the devil they knew over the one they didn't.

(Which was stupid, and I most certainly was not among them, though I heard from many).

Lamont did not come across as serious enough or strong enough or experienced enough. I sure voted for the guy, but that's the truth, I'm afraid.

sort of took a break after that primary victory.

Remember also that the primary was scheduled in the middle of August, a time when many CT residents are elsewhere (ironically this was probably done to help incumbents). So those voting were the most eager to see a change.

And remember, too, that Lieberman's people were pretty damn sure they'd win the primary. Once they saw they were facing a real challenge, they kicked into gear -- with the obfuscations about Joe's position on the war and a good many other things.

As I said, at that point, the GOP pretty much decided they had to throw in with Lieberman -- knowing they didn't have another candidate, and concerned that Lamont might pull it off.

I think Lamont's "vacation" hurt. And from what many people said to me, he just didn't convince those people (most likely NOT the eager primary voters, just the others) that he had what it takes. They knew what they had to deal with in Lieberman, and enough of them persuaded themselves that he couldn't possibly be as supportive of GWB and co. as he seemed. He did his best to persuade them he wasn't a hard-core war-hawk, and really wanted to see it end. And he played -- with success -- on the fears of the unknown. There was a whole lot of "oh, we know Joe. He's such a regular guy, he's been our senator for years".

Enough people bought it. And Lamont didn't offer them enough to make them jump into the unknown. Most of the people (not all) I know who voted Lieberman did so with their noses held. They just weren't ready to jump to Lamont.

(They're sorry now).

He was an incumbant, an asshole to be sure, but still an incumbant and that holds a lot of power over the electorate. A lot of people go to the polls every election simply because they always do and they go without a clue as to what is going on. They vote the name they know because he hasn't personally pissed them off over the last 6 years.

I think a lot of the less well informed voters in CT believed lieberman when he said he was still a Democrat. Quite a few of us realized this to be a bald faced lie early on but I think that put him over the top.

Lieberman also got the entire repuke vote here in CT. The party abandoned it's own candidate as soon as they figured out that joementum was going independant.

Personally I think Lamont would have been one hell of a Senator and we are really missing him now.

Just my 2 cents.

In this case, Joe just effectively confused enough people about how progressive he was.

more about persuading people that Lieberman wasn't as conservative as he seemed. The "I'm a real Democrat, promise!" arguement.

No one was worrying about appealing to the GOP -- they had no one but Joe. It was about getting out the Dem base in high enough numbers and about persuading independents. (Which at least in CT, I don't think necessarily translates as "moderate" -- as much of the time it's more like "a pox on both your houses")

Have committee chairs, launch investigations, etc. Right now our barely-there majority only scarcely allows for all that. Here's a counter question: Which Democratic representatives would you remove, and how?

and I have no problem going after them either. I don't think Lamont would have had a hard time getting them either if the party had of slammed lieberman a lot earlier in his independant bid.

CT was able to elect some really good progressive house members including Joe Courtney who took out the repuke dirtbag Rob Simmons and Chris Murphy that removed the other repuke dirtbag Nancy Johnson.

And campaigning to remove each and every centrist Democrat seems to me a recipe for disappointment and disaster.

We need to light some asses on fire in Washington, and that's one way I can think of for making sure that the party's representatives in general election accurately reflect what the party has to offer the American people.

What I don't support necessarily is the idea that an independent progressive challenge is effective strategically. To me it seems likely to shrink our majority and turn lazy opposition into zero opposition, simply due to lack of votes.

I know that sounds like an oxymoron to younger DUers but it is true nonetheless. When I raised money for Planned Parenthood of CT some of our strongest supporters and BIG money givers were Republicans in Greenwich and New Canaan, the two richest towns in the state. At our big fundraising parties in their super palatial homes I would regularly see our host's picture taken with GW Bush encased in a silver frame on display. Bush really mined Greenwich in particular for the big money (cuz that's where it truly is).

And Bush's family themselves had been strong supporters of PP in the state. Remember that CT is where the landmark Griswold case forever changed reproductive rights in our country. The CT women who volunteered for PP (a lot of the Republican)would regularly drive station wagons of women to New York to get their contraceptives.

So before everybody jumps on CT, remember that we have been a very progressive state in the past. And hopefully will be again.

or real Conservatives not Neo-Cons.

They just voted for the name they recognized.

Look - Lieberman lost in the primary and turned around and exploited a loophole in state election law to refile and run anyway. His name recognition was worth a lot of votes. The republican candidate was (deliberately) a total joke. All the R votes went to Lieberman and enough D voters were too stupid to understand what was going on, so the fucking hideous creep won. We still kicked his ass in the primary and he will not survive another election.

I find that hard to believe.

The R candidate got almost no votes. Where did those votes go? You can sack the left all you want over this but at least take a stab at explaining where the R votes went.

Those folks obviously didn't vote by party line as you point out. Since that's the case, if DUers were right about progressive views on issues like the Iraq war being extremely popular, why didn't Lamont win?

On purpose. All the R votes went to shithead. Some of the D votes also went to shithead. Oh well...

Don't you see your above argument actually supports my point?

1/3 on the left. 1/3 on the right. 1/3 have no freaking clue.
In a real three way race Lieberman would have lost.
In a two way race with Lieberman running as a Republican he would have lost.
Lieberman only wins by having no Republican, by running as a fake democrat and by counting on enough trending democrat voters to vote his name rather than his position.

Most people, as in 50% +1 are not progressives. If that is your point, fine. Duh. Most people, as in 50% +1, are not batshit rightwing foamers. Most people, as in 50% + 1, are not confused centrists who haven't figured out that there is actually an underlying ideological conflict that really does not have a 'center'.

In CT, in other words, Lamont would have won handily vs. just an average Republican.

That is the point. Why was the Republican party so determined to run a complete loser? Could it possibly be that they wanted to guarantee Lieberman a seat?

They figured they couldn't win against Lieberman, he was too popular at that time in the state. I guess that they didn't really see Lieberman as that bad for them anyway as Joe was starting to show his true colors. But, after all, he HAD been on the Democratic ticket as Vice President in 2000.

Groton is a huge naval center in southern Connecticut. Joe lobbying the feds to save it, and his constant reminders of said event (although how much Joe had to do with it is in doubt), stuck in many voters' minds, particularly ones who worked there.

Many friends of mine from back home (I'm from CT and keep in touch) who worked for Lamont said they encountered lots of voters who expressed opinions such as "I don't like Joe's position on the war, or his closeness to Bush, but he saved my dad's/mom's/sibling's/friend's job in Groton, so he's getting my vote."

All politics is local. If the roles were switched - with Senator Lamont "saving the base" and upstart Lieberman winning the primary - Lamont would've been re-elected. Politics took a back seat to practicality, particularly given Bush's lousy economy.

outside of SE CT it wasn't that big an economic issue. I think it was an emotional one, having to do with our heritage as a state and also "proving" that sticking with Joe meant sticking with a competent, seasoned Senator who could "get things done."
I think that feeling was pretty strong, but see my other post down thread for my "theory"!

It's also why I don't wholly blame Nader for everything Bush has done. :D (though he certainly didn't -help- any)

i think Lieberman won because of his recognition in the state and his appeal to Republican voters as well as centrist Democrats. His insistence that he would caucus with the Democrats helped him too, I am sure of it. He has a decent Senate record and is generally respected in the State. Had he not run as an Independent, i do believe CT would have gone to Lamont.


edited to add: i do not consider CT to be a progressive Blue State. It is a Blue State; but to go so far as to say it is progressive is misleading.

As a real footsoldier in Lamont's campaign (not privy to any inside info), I agree with all that has already been written. I was dismayed when Ned took off to his family vacation home in Maine right after the primary. It showed a lack of sticking with it.

The fact is that the Republicans had figured a while back when they thought Joe would be the Dem candidate, they might as well run a nobody. BUT that pretty much insured that a whole bunch of Repubs would vote for Joe in the general, since they liked him a whole lot better than Ned Lamont. So Joe's appeal to the Republicans was unmasked, if you will, in this election.

I have one additional point: I believe that Ned was perceived by some people as a political dilettante, a rich guy in Greenwich who had enough money to run for office for excitement or whatever. When he took off after the primary, that solidified their thinking. They just didn't see him as serious; they were hardworking stiffs and Ned was born to and living in luxury, which is true (but unfair, as I believe firmly that Ned cared very much about the war).

Also, since I actually talked to Dems who were planning to vote only for Joe, I got a feel for their politics, right here in my town of New Haven. They were decent people and they believed in Joe, some of them belonging to his shul and knowing him and his family personally for many long years. I am pretty sure they are now shaking their heads in dismay.

Joe and Hadassah just recently gave up their apartment in New Haven and have moved to Stamford (which is much closer to New York and where JOe is originally from). He has left the roots he put down here in New Haven those many years ago after he graduated from Yale are indicative of how he feels "we" treated him. Goodbye and good riddance, Joe.

And thus more informed, so that could explain the disparity.

some Dem voters (as he did me and others who were avid Lamonters) with his reactionary frame of mind. They had other things to worry about and think about. Let's face it: what is obvious and crucially important to us here at DU just doesn't on lots of people's radar screen. Sad, but true.

And when he falsely spoke out sounding like he was changing his war stance just before the general...some Indys fell for his spin as well.

He was elected by Republicans and former Clinton administration aides.

We can't get a progressive candidate elected to replace every centrist, collaborating Democrat. That's not likely to be an issue in the Sheehan instance, but as a broad political strategy it seems extremely dangerous to me.

But do you see what I mean about using it as a broad political strategy? It splits our electorate when we have a scarce majority--that could mean instead of failing to stop too many bad policies and holding too few people accountable, we will fail to stop all bad policies and will be unable to even hold a hearing or issue a single subpoena.

I don't blame Sheehan for wanting to run so things she abhors will change. But I can't see Pelosi as our enemy. In fact, I like her a lot. She has a long way to go before I would put her in Joe's category. And I don't think she'll go his route. But I don't know her district in CA so I am unaware of her reputation by her constituency.

I think essentially Ned sensed what you have pointed out. He did not start out wanting to run himself against Joe but no Dem politician seemed to want to step up to the challenge. Joe looked unbeatable. So Ned ran himself. Joe had lost touch with the younger, more liberal Dems in the state and he didn't even know it, he was too busy appearing on "Meet the Press." Ned caught on and he had lots of money to pour into his campaign. It was a phenomenon of time and place.

that americans can't handle anything but glassy smooth water and pablum -- then of course you are right.

''centrists'' are our future.

they will indeed increase the majority -- what ever a ''centrist'' is of course.

but it's a myth that much will get done -- unless of course they decide to sail in the wake of progressives.

but the future you describe will mean more nafta-like government.

weak opposition to illegal wars.

sanctioned manipulation of reality by the government and it's spokes people -- who ever they might be.

that's what ''centrists'' do -- they don't look up from their lives -- because nothing, nothing is ever required of a ''centrist''.

why -- why do we treat the People like that?

republicans elected lieberman -- their money, their advise -- their tactics -- and modern republicans are hardly ''centrist''.