First, insurgent congressional campaigns miss the realities of congressional politics. Although one may deviate from the party on votes like Iraq, taxes, or health care, the most important vote is for majority leader. It is better for the democrats to have control of congress with the majority leaders and speaker, thus controlling the wheels of government than total ideological coherence. Having thirty nine anti-iraq war senators is not the goal; fifty one votes for Harry Reid is. From there, democrats can determine and schedule policy and debate. As long as Republicans control the machinery of congress, progressive voices will be drowned out. But if the Democrats take control, albeit with some conservative Dems, progressives, the base, will effectively control the legislative progress, much like how the far right has domineered over moderate GOP interests since 1994.
Second, these races only make democratic seats more vulnerable. For example, Ned Lamont’s race against Lieberman emboldens the Republican candidate, Schlesinger, and gives him a shot at a general election win. Connecticut trends blue nationally, therefore it makes little sense to open a crucial senate seat up to a Republican. Moreover, fratricidal campaigns make even less sense in states like Texas, where Henry Cueller had to fight off a Lamont-like candidacy.
Third, insurgent campaigns against sitting Democrats are a waste of valuable resources. Why are Kos and other investing on unseating Democrats when there are vulnerable Republicans in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and other blue states? Ned Lamont’s cash should be put to work poaching Republican seats. The democrats will always find themselves behind in fundraising against republicans if their resources are constantly divided against each other.
In order to retake congress, the Democrats need party unity. Party infight will destabilize the party and ultimately backfire against the progressives supporting these candidacies. Hopefully this post will stimulate some rethinking of these canidacies
Gambled under fake identities.
<
p>
More to your point, the anti-Lieberman sentiment exists precisely because he is so poisonous to Democratic unity — that he never misses an opportunity to try to embarass other Democrats and build up the President. This would be one thing if he were right on the merits of the Iraq War, Social Security, and arguably, judges. He is not.
<
p>
Kos and others often cite that they don’t go after Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and other red state Dems because they don’t go out of their way to denigrate the Dem brand.
<
p>
Lamont has a fine chance to win that seat. CT Dems are getting sick of Lieberman; on the issues, Lamont is probably closer to CT voters than Joe; the GOP doesn’t have a strong candidate, if they indeed have one at all; Lieberman will be seriously weakened if he loses the primary; and he’s displaying the same tin ear he’s had at least since 2000, and the local press seems to be calling him on it.
By challenging Liberman and others from the left, it only serves to push him farther to the right. If he gets elected as an independent, which is increasingly likely (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922)he will feel emboldened to further break with the Democratic party. The democratic label ties Lieberman to a platform and a base…independence releases him from those bonds.
<
p>
Furthermore, Lieberman is a solid democrat in many respects if not Iraq. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been nominated in 2000.
<
p>
Also, I’m not saying we should target red state dems but blue state GOPers
I am not for fighting the establishment for the sake of fighting the establishment but I find your comment offensive. No, not personally offensive because it isn’t directed at any one person. Rather I find it intellectually offensive. What in the hell is unity? What do you want me to unite around? Your comment seems to suggest that you want Democrat unity. That seems to make sense until you really read what you wrote. You are advocating unity around a word, not a set of principles or ideas. You want me to support someone simply becuase she labels herself a Democrat. That is nonsense and it certainly isn’t unity. If Zell Miller ran for political office I would be more likely to help the moderate Republican than I would be to elect that wind bag.
<
p>
Fifty one votes for Majority Leader means nothing to me if those votes are going to someone who is pro-life, pro-tax cut. 51 votes for the word Democrat means nothing to me. I label myself a Democrat because far more often than not it is the person who shares that label that I agree with. But if someone like Pat Jehlen changed her party affiliation to Republican without changing a single position I would vote for her in a second.
<
p>
The only time I have ever employed your strategy is when it truly didn’t matter. I voted in a Congressional election in Wisconsin where I did not at all like the Democratic candidate; in fact the Republican was better on some issues. However, I realized that voting Democratic was strategic because, yes, it meant one more vote toward the majority. I would never employ that strategy however if the “insurgent” campaign (read: someone daring to challenge an incumbent) was about real principles I cared about. Joe Lieberman barely represents Connecticut anymore, more power to Ned Lamont if he thinks he is closer to the thinking and feelings of the citizens of that state.
56 percent approval rating(see above poll)
<
p>
Also, you miss the point that dems need a coalition of varied interests to govern. Its impossible to get two people to agree on everything, nevermind 51. The Democrats need a big tent and to allow for some diversity. Also, even if there are consevatives in the party caucuses, the majority (progressives) effectively control the agenda through the majority leader. Even if the candidate espouses some distasteful ideological views, the fact that they commit to support a liberal majority leader compensates for that/
Politics is personal first, strategic second. Lamont-ites want to take out Joementum because they don’t like him; considerations of national strategy be damned. Similarly, Ned Lamont is running because he wants to be a Senator. Period.
<
p>
I agree that Democrats need strategic thinking to succeed in the long term. But strategic thinking is fundamentally a sacrifice of the immediate for the big picture goals, and people will only make that sacrifice if they are inspired by the big picture. Right now, the Democrats are lacking in inspiration; so if they need to run a few challenger campaigns that give the party back its sense of respect, so be it.
By the way, in the Cueller race, there was no Republican on the ballot. There was no danger of the seat flipping to the other party. If it is inappropriate to have a primary in that case, then when is it ever appropriate to have one?
If there’s someone out there who is not satisfied with the incumbent’s representation, then s/he is perfectly free to run against that incumbent. If the voters prefer the newcomer and the newcomer’s ideas, they’ll vote for the newcomer. If not, they’ll reject him or her. That’s Democracy.
<
p>
Incumbency is not a guaranty that someone in your own party won’t challenge you. Indeed, the notion is ludicrous. Challenges are good for the system and good for the party.
<
p>
Ned Lamont will win or lose on the merits of his message and campaign. The voters of Connecticut aren’t idiots; they can think and vote in their own interests. If they’re as fed up with Joe Lieberman as the rest of us, they’ll toss Lieberman. If not, they’ll keep him. Again, that’s Democracy.
So you mean to tell me that once you get a Democrat elected into office they stay there forever? On my, we wouldn’t even have to bother to hold a primary election. Sounds pretty scary to me.
<
p>
Guess what, I want someone to represent my views. I don’t want my Rep. to vote to go to war, or to “stay the course”. I want my healthcare issues to be a decision between me and my doctor. I don’t need or want the government to decide if I get a feeding tube when I’m brain dead. It’s nobody’s business but mine.
<
p>
I live in the 9th District. I’ll be voting for Phil Dunkelbarger to represent me.
Look, I’m all for primaries and people voting their conscience. But from an outsider’s standpoint, if I am going to invest money into a campaign it makes the most sense to bring down republicans, not democrats. I just want someone to explain to me why outsiders, such as Kos, invest in Lamont, instead of spending more cash on vulnerable GOP seats. Democrats risk partisan squables derailing any chance of them taking back the legislature. I just wish that we understood that better, and avoid that sort of behavior in the future.
Maybe Kos is spending money to get rid of Joe Lieberman because they can’t stand him anymore. I think it’s money well spent. Did you happen to see him kissing Bush? Didn’t that turn your stomach? I can’t take him anymore.
there are plenty of GOPers who stand behind the president who should be targeted before him. Again, at least he votes for Reid not Frist (or McConnell, his likely replacement)
If you haven’t seen this, you’re missing out. I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard. Go here for a good laugh!!
Well, a conservative Republican funded by the Club for Growth is running against moderateincumbent Lincoln Chaffee. Chaffee will be considerably weakened going into a general election against the Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse. In regards to Joe Lieberman the reason he was picked in 2000 was because Gore was so afraid of Clinton’s shadow. Joe Lieberman is a corporate centrist Democrat. Back in 2000 when Gore was talking populist, Lieberman was telling big business not to worry, it was just campaign rhetoric. Joe has grown out of touch with his constituents back in Connecticut. I say if Connecticut was like Nebraska it would be stupid to go after Lieberman. But when a New England Democrat constantly goes on Fox news and undermines the Democratic positions while telling Sean Hannity he “loves him” something has to give.
of what happens when parties challenge their own incumbent who is out of the orthodoxy. Provides vulnerability and makes the seat competitive.
Lincoln Chaffee is/was a highly popular GOP senator from Rhode Island. The fact that an insurgent campaign, directed from his party’s base, has hurt his campaign warns Dems not to try it their own. Democrats need to avoid alienating moderates in order to be viable in general elections.
How many column inches has the NY Times or the New Republic or whoever devoted to trashing Steve Laffey (Senator Chafee’s right-wing opponent)? How about the Democratic primary race in Hawaii where a sitting Congressman is challenging a more liberal sitting Senator? Why is a challenge from the left more horrible and more worthy of national attention?
<
p>
And if there’s something specific about the CT race that makes it worthy of national attention, then why is it that people outside of CT should stay out of it? If a local race has national implications, then you can’t object when people from outside want to back their guy.
I also think its wrong for conservative or moderate Dems to challenge liberals. I agree that the “liberal” press should spend time critiquing GOP and conservative candidates, rather than focusing on Democratic ones. That being said, the CT race has national implications mainly because Lamont’s potential nomination may cost the Dems that seat in a state that votes reliably democratic in presidential elections. Just by looking at the poll I posted earlier, Iraq is a divisive issue in CT. Nutmeg staters don’t break one way clearly, and it remains to be seen whether Lamont is electable in a general election.
the voters of that party in that state. If Lamont wins the primary, that’s the will of the Democratic voters of Connecticut; they have selected a candidate who reflects their views.
<
p>
The voters in Connecticut don’t owe you or me anything. They don’t owe the voters in any other state a Democrat in the Senate. They owe it to themselves to vote for the individual who best represents their views and will best represent their needs in Washington.
<
p>
In other words, the voters in CT have proprietary control over their representation. Who are you, or anybody else, for that matter, to tell them they aren’t entitled to the representation they believe best suits their views and needs?
is expected to be low this year, even in such a contested race. Lieberman only declared his intention to run as an independent after polls showed two things:
a: Lamont was well within the margin of error, thus a small motivated base could essentially remove Lieberman from contention
b: Lieberman is popular enough with Dems, Independents, and (gasp, the horror) some Republicans to carry the state.
<
p>
Second, I agree, its not my duty to tell the people of CT what they need. Neither, however, should Kos or any other outsider. In a way, Democratic solidarity may best be expressed by letting the people of CT choose, and not involving on either candidate’s behalf. That being said, since Kos and others have rushed to support Lamont, I feel it is imperative for thinking Democrats to question that, suck it up, and support the incumbent, Lieberman, despite his flaws.
<
p>
Kos is a blogger who happens to viscerally dislike Lieberman, but what you fail to mention is that he is not alone. Apparently, the people of CT are fed up, too. And that’s the measure that matters here, not what Kos wants. If the people of CT didn’t feel that Lamont had something to offer them, they would have rejected his candidacy–and will reject his candidacy–irrespective of Kos’s wishes. They are not electing a player to the team; they are electing their own representation.
<
p>
It is not “imperative” for “thinking Democrats” to support Lieberman. That sort of condescension accomplishes nothing. Many “thinking” voters in CT believe they are not well represented by Lieberman. Many intelligent people in CT are supporting Ned Lamont. You may not like it and you may not agree, but that doesn’t make them unintelligent or dull thinkers.
<
p>
One, polls indicate that nearly 60 percent of CT voters approve of Liebermans job. Ive posted that before, check above.
<
p>
Second, I apologize for the term “thinking democrats”. I, too, am uncomfortable by some of the votes Lieberman makes, and if the Dems had a majority, it would be sensible to pick him off. This year, alas, is not the time.
are those 60% of voter you site? Are they Democrats? I don’t think so. If they are, I want to see the poll and the internals on that one. If he is that popular among Dems, then you don’t have a problem, do you? They will prevail.
<
p>
But I think you know that it’s not 60% of Dems who approve of Lieberman. We still have a party system in this nation, and Joe Lieberman is supposed to, at least nominally, be the selected candidate of the Democratic party. If he can’t carry the Democratic primary, he’s toast–and well he should be.
The poll i posted was slightly outdated a more recent one by Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/June%202006/connecticutsenate06162006.htm) says 67 percent of CT voters approve of Lieberman and right now he has between a 38 and a 15 percentage point lead. Part of my worry is that Lamont may just be wasting his time and resources in this campaign, as further polling now indicates, to the contrary of my original thesis, that Lieberman would win a three way race handily. Put that money to work to make red seats blue.
No, it isn’t. I wouldn’t suck anything up for Joe Lieberman.
<
p>
Not even if I needed beer money.
<
p>
LeftCenter, you aren’t convincing anybody with your rhetoric. Every candidate gets out of state help one way or another… why not try cross-posting your ideas at myleftnutmeg or another CT blog? See if they want to be told to suck it up and vote for Joe.
<
p>
That’d be a good bumper sticker:
Suck it up and vote for Joe!
My “huh?” wasn’t about who Lincoln Chafee is — I’m familiar with the race there. My “huh?” was about your implicit assumption that the GOP is shooting itself in the foot by “allowing” someone to run against him.
<
p>
Hello? Don’t the voters get to choose who represents them? I find your entire line of reasoning offensive, that my choice, as a voter, should be limited by what benefits the “Party” — or at least that’s how I am reading what you are saying. If not, please inform me.
<
p>
As for the RI race, the incumbent is not in trouble because of his challenge from the right, but because he’s an f’n Repuglican! Sorry to be so blunt, but check out Rasmussen’s latest poll for confirmation.
Its notable that aside from the club for growth that prominent GOP mainstream pols havent endorsed chafee over more his more conservative opposition http://www.chafeeforsenate.com/endorsements.aspx aka Dole and McConnell. Second, yes, Chaffee is in trouble in part because he is a republican, but not nearly as much as Cranston would be. The same poll you cited showed that 56 percent of DEMOCRATS viewed Chaffee favorably but REPUBLICANS only 46. Also, the margin between Chaffee and Whitehouse is alsmost within the margin of error, whereas it is certain that Cranston would be trounced by the Democrat.
<
p>
Also, I think you’re missing the point about what party solidarity. Lets do some math here. Say the democrats win 51 seats. 40 are reliably progressive, 5 more moderate, and say 6 conservatives. All 51 pledge to support a democrat for majority leader. Because the progressives make up a majority of the majority (but not all) they can install their agenda through their majority leader. The GOP has used this to their advantage, relying on moderates such as Snow, Specter, and Chaffee to cushin their control of both the house and senate. Progressives will not be able to make policy until they control the legislative process. Therefore, think of your vote for the senate or the house like one for president of the chamber. You aren’t voting for Lieberman or Chaffee but for Reid or McConnell