Lieberman-Lamont Showdown: The Results are coming in

[Jake]

I just hope no one paints this as a huge victory for lamont.  it was a thin margin, and the rest of connecticut isn't as psycho as those who voted in the primary. 

Very true. Lamont talking about how Connecticut had made a decision for change couldn't be more wrong. Barely more than half of Democrats in Connecticut made a vote for change. The rest of the state will vote to retain Lieberman in November.

[Alcon]

I can't fathom how Lamont could win come November after winning this so narrowly.

[Sam Spade]

Lamont's speech was about one of the worst "victory speeches" I've ever heard, so adolescent and juvenile, geez. 

That's the quality might end up losing him the general election, when I think he probably has a slight advantage now.  It really appears to me like he could show himself up to being an empty suit before the general commences.  I give it about a 50% chance.

jmo

Doesn't really matter.  Lamont represents a movement more than he is an individual.  He fits in perfectly because he has the finances, not necessarily because of who he is. 

Iraq/anti-Bush is not everything.  Not even in 2006.

[Sam Spade]

I just hope no one paints this as a huge victory for lamont.  it was a thin margin, and the rest of connecticut isn't as psycho as those who voted in the primary. 

It is a huge victory.  Incumbents never lose in their senate primaries.  Ever.

It's happened in Texas a number of times.  Especially when the state used to be one-party (as Connecticut is getting close to being).

Ralph Yarbourough comes to mind.

[Smash255]

I don't have the lunatical hate towards Lieberman than jfern has, but  I was fully behind Lamont in the Primary, and feel that Lieberman should do what is best and step aside and back the Party candidate just like 99% of Primary losers do instead of just being selfish.

[© tweed]

I can't fathom how Lamont could win come November after winning this so narrowly.

He's going to get a boost from being plastered on the newspaper covers for the next few days.

[Nym90]

I can't fathom how Lamont could win come November after winning this so narrowly.

Well, a lot of Democrats who supported Lieberman in the primary will probably switch to supporting Lamont now, out of a sense of party loyalty. Plus, quite a few staunch conservatives probably find Lieberman unacceptably liberal and will still vote for Schlesinger.

But I do agree that Lieberman has a good chance.

[AuH2O]

Lieberman would have easily won if he had committed all his resources to the primary and ruled out an independent bid. Hindsight is 20/20 but still... major, major blunder on his part.

[Sam Spade]

Lamont's speech was about one of the worst "victory speeches" I've ever heard, so adolescent and juvenile, geez. 

That's the quality might end up losing him the general election, when I think he probably has a slight advantage now.  It really appears to me like he could show himself up to being an empty suit before the general commences.  I give it about a 50% chance.

jmo

Do you have a link?

No, I don't, sorry.  I'll either look for it now or tomorrow.  I imagine that it has to be up on the Web somewhere, though I don't see it on Lamont's site.

[nini2287]

Lamont's speech was about one of the worst "victory speeches" I've ever heard, so adolescent and juvenile, geez. 

That's the quality might end up losing him the general election, when I think he probably has a slight advantage now.  It really appears to me like he could show himself up to being an empty suit before the general commences.  I give it about a 50% chance.

jmo

Do you have a link?

No, I don't, sorry.  I'll either look for it now or tomorrow.  I imagine that it has to be up on the Web somewhere, though I don't see it on Lamont's site.

Oh well, thanks anyway.  I'll keep my eyes out for it.

[Smash255]

Lamont's speech was about one of the worst "victory speeches" I've ever heard, so adolescent and juvenile, geez. 

That's the quality might end up losing him the general election, when I think he probably has a slight advantage now.  It really appears to me like he could show himself up to being an empty suit before the general commences.  I give it about a 50% chance.

jmo

Do you have a link?

No, I don't, sorry.  I'll either look for it now or tomorrow.  I imagine that it has to be up on the Web somewhere, though I don't see it on Lamont's site.

Oh well, thanks anyway.  I'll keep my eyes out for it.

C-Span carried it live they may air it again in a little bit, so if your flipping channels or nothing is on you might want to check them out

[Wiz in Wis]

Quick, everyone go update their predictions!

My Guess, Lamont will eek out a General Win based on Joementum Physics.
But, even if Joe wins, I still like that we are officially now in different political parties. WOO HOO!

[Nym90]

I think Lamont will narrowly win in November. Democrats will feel compelled by party loyalty to vote for Lamont if nothing else.

[© tweed]

I think Lamont will narrowly win in November. Democrats will feel compelled by party loyalty to vote for Lamont if nothing else.

Who are you supporting in the general, Eric?

[7,052,770]

well damn...I feel quite torn.  The point of primaries it to pick a candidate, and as idiotic as Connectians are for picking that one-issue loser over a solidly Democratic statesman whose served his state for 18 years, that is what they picked.  So I'm probably supporting Lieberman, but I'll at least give Lamont a chance to change my mind about him.

[nini2287]

Remember the partisan breakdown in Connecticut is something like:

Independent-45%
Democrat-30%
Republican-25%

I'd guess the breakdown would be something like:

INDEPENDENT
Lieberman 55%
Lamont 35%
Schesslinger 10%

DEMOCRAT
Lamont 60%
Lieberman 40%

REPUBLICAN
Schesslinger 50%
Lieberman 45%
Lamont 5%

So that would equate to:

Lieberman 48, Lamont 36, Schesslinger 16

[Boris]

Your attempt to tie the 2000 Presidential Election to the 2006 CT Democratic Senatorial Primary is rather poor (the analogy exists, but it's a huge stretch), especially when you have been pushing the idea that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election for the past five and half years.

Likewise, I find it quite ironic that you have pictures of Republicans and probably diehard Bush supporters in your signature.

[Virginian87]

Let me just say that I am very disappointed with the voters of Connecticut's Democratic primary.  They had a perfectly good senator, one of the best in the country, who only happened to disagree with them on one main issue.  The liberals on this board consider themselves to be much more "tolerant" people than the conservatives, but they've just chucked someone based on the fact that he happens to not agree with them 100% on every issue.  I don't know where people like jfern get off saying that Lieberman was a rubber-stamp for Bush's policies, when he has criticized several of them (Lieberman mentioned this himself).  It's sad, really.

More importantly, I'm worried about the implications of this primary,  I hope this doesn't send a message to moderate and independents out there that the liberals who have taken over the Democratic Party won't tolerate anyone who so much as disagrees with them on one issue.  I'm not saying Lamont is an extremist, but many of the people who were behind his campaign are.  Hopefully, Lieberman will win the general election as an independent and then switch back to the Democratic Party once he takes office again.

[ian]

Alright.  Here are all the reasons why this is really bad for Democrats.
Remember that I've been cut off from the rest of the world for a few months while I've been at camp, but here's what I have gathered.
1.  I am not the only person who thinks Lamont is ridiculously creepy.
2.  More importantly, the more we kick out independent thinkers out of the party, we are left with extremist, establishment Democrats, which alienates independent voters from voting for the party in Connecticut.
3.  Even more importantly, this has received a lot of national coverage, apparently, which gives the right more ammo to paint us in November this year as well as 2008 as extreme liberals who want to destroy America.
4.  And for what???  So that Lamont can lose to Lieberman in the general election?  We voted for Lamont to prove a point--a point that is going to be thrown in our faces come November?  Give me a break.

It actually angers me that people are so ignorant and refuse to see the bigger picture.

[Smash255]

Just updated my Senate Predictions

I think Lieberman wins this in a squeaker.  Many natinal Democrats have stated they will support the Primary winner, that along with what NYM pointed out, about many Lieberman Primary voters may switch to Lamont out of Party loyalty, I believe gives Lamont a large lead among Dems.  And I think he will also do quite well with Independents.  However, because Schlesinger is such a horrific candidate, Lieberman will do very well with Republicans, and it will be enough to put him over the edge in a very close race.  I think Lieberman will win, but by a small margin and Lamont has a very real shot at winning the General.  Of my pics, Lieberman winning the seat is my least confident.

[Nym90]

I think Lamont will narrowly win in November. Democrats will feel compelled by party loyalty to vote for Lamont if nothing else.

Who are you supporting in the general, Eric?

I'm still undecided. It depends on which way Lieberman goes in the next few months. If he is willing to become more critical of Bush I'd gladly support his reelection. If he threatens to caucus with the GOP I'll definitely go for Lamont.

I supported Lieberman for the nomination as I do like him a lot overall (I disagree with him on the war, but I'm willing to look past that, as I opposed it more for pragmatic reasons than philosophically), and I think it's good for the party to reward our more moderate members as it will help strenghten us overall and improve our chances of victory. But I'm still unsure now on the general, I wish Lieberman would accept the primary results though he does have every right to run as an Indy.

[Sam Spade]

1.  I am not the only person who thinks Lamont is ridiculously creepy.

You certainly aren't, ian.  His victory speech was, imo, one of the worst I have seen, period.

Lamont is a nebbish, plain and simple, to use terminology of the region.

[Cubby]

As someone who knows a lot of the towns, its funny to see the class split in the voting. All the working class places voted Lieberman/DiSteffano (Centrist/liberal) while the upper middle class (what the rest of the country calls "rich" but we don't) places voted Lamont/Malloy  (left-wing liberal/DLC Centrist).

I never thought I'd see the day when Greenwich and the Gold Coast went for a liberal blogosphere candidate. The times they are a changing.......

Interesting stuff at the polls today. I described most of it earlier in this thread.

[J. J.]

One problem is fundraising.  Do Democrats nationally send money on Lamont to fight off Joe the Indy?  Do they then divert money from other races?

[Nym90]

Let me just say that I am very disappointed with the voters of Connecticut's Democratic primary.  They had a perfectly good senator, one of the best in the country, who only happened to disagree with them on one main issue.  The liberals on this board consider themselves to be much more "tolerant" people than the conservatives, but they've just chucked someone based on the fact that he happens to not agree with them 100% on every issue.  I don't know where people like jfern get off saying that Lieberman was a rubber-stamp for Bush's policies, when he has criticized several of them (Lieberman mentioned this himself).  It's sad, really.

More importantly, I'm worried about the implications of this primary,  I hope this doesn't send a message to moderate and independents out there that the liberals who have taken over the Democratic Party won't tolerate anyone who so much as disagrees with them on one issue.  I'm not saying Lamont is an extremist, but many of the people who were behind his campaign are.  Hopefully, Lieberman will win the general election as an independent and then switch back to the Democratic Party once he takes office again.

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you have said. Lieberman is still an excellent Senator overall, even if I do agree with Lamont more on some issues. (Is it true that Lamont is actually more moderate economically than Lieberman? If so, that'd be more reason for me to support Lieberman.)

As long as Lieberman remains a Democrat in the Senate and not an Independent caucusing with the Dems, I'd definitely be for him. The latter would still be ok, too, though, but if he starts talking about any kind of a switch to the GOP caucus I will lose ALL respect for him immediately.