Meet Ned Walberg

[MarkWarner08]

They're both past the mainstream of their parties, they both defeated moderate, consensus building member of Congress and they both were helped by "radical" groups such as MoveOn and the Club for Growth.
While Ned Lamont is enjoying national notoriety, Tim Walberg has slipped below the radar.

The day after the primary election, most papers ran headlines highlighting the defeat of Joe Lieberman or Cynthia McKinney,  some, including my hometown paper, even omitted any mention of the Mich-7 primary.

The primary in Michigan is more indicative of the Republican party, and the country's political soul than even the Connecticut primary.
By voting out Joe Schwarz, a Congressman who had been endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce,  local farming interesting and the President, Michigan 7th district voters sent a message that they wouldn't tolerate moderation in a congressman, even one endorsed by a cadre of otherwise conservative groups.

The voters of the 7th district decision to replace Schwarz, a leading bipartisan broke on economic and environmental issues will further damage the ability of the House to passage legislation. This election showed the Republican primary voters are willing to select a man who Joe Lieberman would call a "polarizer" over a Congressman who enjoyed Lieberman's bipartisanship. Schwarz did not berate his party, like Lieberman, or cozy up to the other side of the aisle, like Lieberman, yet he suffered the same ignomious fate as the disgraced Senator from Connecticut.

This Tuesday likely foreshadows the '06 election as the "Year of the Base Voter."  There couldn't be a worse perscription for a democracy  grappling with a time of near unprecedented polarization of the political process.

[MarkWarner08]

Do you agree that Schwarz's defeat will more lasting ramifications than Lieberman's?

Or will neither, or both matter?

[angus]

Fox Newswatch is doing a segment called "Did the media do these candidates in?" and they're talking about Senator Joseph Lieberman (D CT) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D GA).  They all four say that McKinney did herself in and with Lieberman it was as 'referendum on the war' 

I hold the media responsible for both losses.  And in the case of McKinney the media did the public a great service.  I think you could also say that they did a public service in the case of Lieberman as well.  Not sure about your boy, since I don't know the district, but it's worth considering.

In any case polarization sells ad space.  Not as well as sex does, though.

[M]

Not a bigger story, but could be the same story.

The one trend between all three of these is the anti-Incumbency trend, which would be bad for the GOP in the Senate this year. McKinney aside, it proves the growing veto of the fringe over the middle; the more notable conservative example is the barely failed assault on Specter last cycle.

I think both parties are going to find independence is dangerous more and more in this new reality.

[Dave from Michigan]

this race means very little.  Basically the conservatives could get it together in 2004 when the seat opened up and ran 5 candidates, along with the more liberal Schwarz.  Who  won with 27.82%  with the 5 conservatives spliting the rest.  If there wasn't 6 candidates the conservatives would have won.