The AP reports today that Joe Lieberman has announced his intention to run as an independent if he loses the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. Given Lieberman’s good standing with both unaffiliated and Republican voters, his chances in a general election are good, assuming he could collect the needed signatures in time to get on the ballot.
This is, of course, Lieberman’s right. He can run on any ticket he wishes, be it Democratic, Republican, Independent, Green, or whatever. I personally hope that he’ll dub an independent run the “Joementum” ticket.
But it also says something about his loyalty to the Democratic Party, and while state parties are different, a comparison with the Bonifaz-Galvin race is instructive. John Bonifaz has been attacked by both his opponent and the state party chair for possible past registration with the Green-Rainbow party. How can anyone vote for someone so disloyal to the party, they ask? But now that Lieberman has publicly declared that he will work to sabotage the Democratic nominee if it’s not him, the denunciations from CT party leaders are strangely absent.
The apparent lesson? Might makes right. If you hold power in the party, you can feel free to cross it. But if you’re an outsider, you’d better keep your disloyal mouth shut.
How inspiring.
If you think the national DSCC should commit to supporting the winner of the Democratic primary in CT, email them at info@dscc.org and tell them so…
Raw Story now reports that the DSCC will “likely” back the winner of the primary, quoting an anonymous “senior Democratic party official”.
… at Political Wire:
<
p>
<
p>
I don’t think that “taking it more seriously” is going to do Joe any good.
<
p>
Keep digging, Joe.
You say: “But now that Lieberman has publicly declared that he will work to sabotage the Democratic nominee if it’s not him….”
<
p>
“Sabotage” would imply that Lieberman would vie to hurt Lamont, thereby allowing a Republican to win.
<
p>
But that’s not quite the scenario. The AP story you linked to suggests that if Lieberman ran as an Independent (I prefer the “Leiber and Stoller ticket” to Joementum – better campaign songs), he would trounce Lamont and the Republican nominee. Hardly sabotage.
I hear you, but from the standpoint of a partisan Democrat, one would have to say that running as an independent is a good way to sabotage the Dems. “Defeat”, “sabotage” … yeah, Joe’s doing all that.
I made clear in my post that Lieberman’s chances were good in the general election–I didn’t mean to imply that he’d allow the Republican to win. I doubt that many readers took it that way, but if you did, here you go.
I think Lamont could win if he gets the Democratic nomination, but running against both Lieberman and a Republican would make it tougher.
<
p>
Just imagine if we did the same thing in Massachusetts? If, after the primary, Tom Reilly wasn’t the candidate but still insisted on running in the general election, this would splinter the Democratic vote. (Note: Tom Reilly would never do this. I’m not his biggest supporter, but he’s obviously a loyal Democrat.) With that kind of splintering, I’m almost certain that Kerry Healey would win the governor’s seat. This is why major political parties bother to have primaries in the first place; so that their strongest candidates don’t eat each other up in the general election and destroy their parties in the process.
<
p>
Running against your own political party’s candidate for political office is tantamount to sabotaging your own party. It’s why McCain didn’t run in 2000 after losing to Bush in the primary. It’s why Gabrieli, Patrick, and Reilly will all support the Democratic candidate regardless of who wins the Dem primary. And it’s why Lieberman is being a complete ass towards his supposed political party by laying the groundwork for an independent run.
You’re annoyed at Lieberman. We get it.
<
p>
a) McCain didn’t run as an Independent in 2000 because he would LOSE. His pollsters all told him that. Lieberman would likely WIN a 3-way general, b/c the Republican is so weak.
<
p>
Basically everyone concedes that point. At the very least, even you would concede he’d be running with the idea of winning.
<
p>
Sabotage is when you screw over your rival so a third candidate wins, as you pose in your hypothetical. This is not sabotage. Bad political sportsmanship, perhaps. Abject disloyalty to the party, sure.
<
p>
b) Mihos is sabotaging Healey, however. He was a Republican (appointed by Cellucci, ran for state senate as an R). He can’t win. He just wants Romney to lose. Mihos’s sabotaging candidacy is very likely the best chance for the D’s to emerge as victors.
a) But I don’t think it’s that obvious that he would win. Running against both a moderate Republican and a liberal Democrat would give Lieberman very little political space to maneuver unless he went to the right of everyone. And I don’t think he could win Connecticut by doing that because they’re too socially liberal. As an independent, Lieberman would find out what many moderate Dems have found out: Republicans don’t vote for a moderate Democrat when they can vote for a moderate Republican who’s a serious candidate. Lieberman’s positives aren’t high enough to guarantee victory, especially given the acceleration of his polling numbers.
<
p>
I honestly think he’ll be more of a spoiler than a candidate in this race by the time November comes around. I think Lieberman would be running to win, but he would be a de facto spoiler as an independent as he both lost support from national Democrats and Republicans smelled the blood in the water in a crucial election year. Any assumption of a Lieberman independent victory highly underestimates the strength of the Republican Party in Connecticut, especially now that Jodi Rell is in office.
<
p>
All this goes out the windown if Lieberman wins the Democratic primary, in which case he’s a slam-dunk to win this seat.
<
p>
b) I still don’t understand the Mihos candidacy other than as a sign that the Massachusetts Republican Party is completely screwed up. Mihos is a less serious candidate for governor than McCain would have been as an independent presidential candidate. And I don’t understand where his 10% of support is coming from, although I’ve been seeing Mihos billboards in Western Mass.
<
p>
I know that Deval has pledged to support whomever wins the Primary. I’m not aware the other candidates have made the same pledge. In fact, I’m pretty sure they have declined the opportunity to do so.
<
p>
Anyone have better info on that?
I can’t honestly imagine that either Reilly or Gabrieli would not support the Democratic candidate. Gabrieli’s loyalty to the Dems over the years has been beyond reproach and Reilly, despite his targeting of “moderate” voters,” both is too invested in the Democratic Party to take it on in a gubernatorial race and lacks the money to make a serious independent run. They’re both loyal Dems and it’s honestly insulting to seriously consider that either candidate would go against the Democratic party in a general election.
I was not suggesting that either Reilly or Gabrieli is about to run a write-in campaign.
<
p>
But I would like to know if they have pledged to support the winner of the Primary. There’s a big difference between true support and taking your marbles and going home.
<
p>
We all need to work together after the Primary to get a Democrat elected, and I think it would be good if we all made that pledge now.
I’m pretty sure Reilly pledged his support months ago. (Despite his misstep at the PCDL Chairs’ Breakfast back in February.)
<
p>I think Chris has done so too, when asked directly, but I haven’t seen any press releases about it.
Joementum is mounting an alternative way to get himself elected if he loses the primary. Neither Reilly, nor Gabrieli, nor Patrick for that matter, is in a position to do that – neither of the two losers in the Dem primary will be the next Governor. It’s game over. The only reason for any of them not to support the Dem nominee would be an exceptional case of sour grapes, and none of those guys seems at all likely to go that route – what’re they going to do? Back Healey or Mihos? Lieberman, on the other hand, has his own job to save.
<
p>
Seems to me we’re debating an issue where, very likely, no issue at all exists.
Umm, I’m considering a few things here-
<
p>
1. Connecticut is a blue state with two Democratic Senators.
2. Whatever support Lieberman has from CT Democrats, it will dwindle to nothing if he loses the primary.
3. Republicans and Independents are not going to be as motivated to turn out for Lieberman as Democrats will be to turn out against Lieberman if he goes renegade.
<
p>
And so I ask … people think Lieberman could win with as an Independent HOW???
I’d take issue with point one. Yes, both Senators are Democrats, but one of them is (ipso facto) Lieberman, who is practically a DINO.
<
p>
CT has a Republican Governor.
<
p>
The majority of CT’s Representatives (3 out of 5) are Republicans.
<
p>
I would not, by any stretch, assume CT is blue.
As a former CT resident, I agree. It ain’t so blue. I strongly suspect that Lieberman, with the benefits of incumbency and strong approval from Republicans and independents, would win.
I wouldn’t assume number 2. Lamont has been doing all he can to make sure that Democrats support the Democratic nominee. But as “unpopular” as Joe seems to be, he still has plenty of friends in high places. What Lieberman is doing right now is cushioning himself should he lose. If he wins, all this talk of party loyalty is a moot point. If he loses, however, he can say, well, yes, there was a concerted effort from the left to make me lose, but now I’m the bipartisan candidate.
<
p>
In 2000, he ran for VP and Senator at the same time. That way, if he lost VP, he would remain Senator. There, again, he had a Plan B to remain in power.
<
p>
It seems to me, though, that whenever you prepare yourself to lose, you most likely will.
“If he loses, however, he can say, well, yes, there was a concerted effort from the left to make me lose, but now I’m the bipartisan candidate.”
<
p>
I’ve never heard of a bipartisan candidate, but I don’t suspect it’s a basis for winning a general election. Think about the Republicans, do you really think they’d say, oh, we’re not running someone, we’re supporting Joe? If anything, they’d see it as a golden opportunity for Joe and Ned to split the Dem vote while they cleaned up.
<
p>
Also, if CT Democrats are anything like MA Democrats, you can say what you want about their mother, but don’t desert the party. If Lieberman can’t beat Lamont in the primary, I think his goose is cooked.
Not bipartisan — moderate. Somebody who can get along with both sides of the aisles.
<
p>
Look, Lieberman made a rational choice. The current poll numbers are that Lamont is within striking distance for the Democratic nomination. But those same polls show Lieberman taking the election far and away should he run as unaffiliated. He’ll steal a good amount of Republican votes as every Republican under the sun seems to have been commending him on his courage on Iraq, and he still has a modicum of support from Democrats.
<
p>
The problem is that poll won’t stay the same way as the months progress. Just a few months ago, he was something like 40 points ahead of Lamont, but managed to shoot himself in the foot enough to lose practically all support. Plus, Lamont has run a very smart, very disciplined campaign and he has some serious heavy-hitters — Democracy for America, MoveOn, and the AFT — all behind him.
<
p>
Ultimately, Lieberman could have sealed the Democratic nomination by just saying that he’s a strong Democrat, that he and Lamont disagree on some things, but they both are Democrats. He should have said he’ll respect the outcome on August 8th, because that would have ensured that he’d win on Aug. 8th. Now, Democrats have no reason to vote for him if he’s going to survive August whether or not they vote for him.
It looks like the liberals will not tolerate Joe’s support of the war. He was also the first Senator to denounce Clinton’s use of the oval office as a sex palace. It is probably quiet payback time from the Clinton party loyalists and some of the local Kool Aid contingent.
<
p>
Joe does have an even chance to win. He would definitely pick up a respectable share of the Dem’s, independents , and some of the republicans.
<
p>
Name recognition and record are not a problem. As a national VP candidate and a proven track record of accomplishments he has already been sanitized by the press and they will obviously devote a lot of attention to a national democratic party defector.
<
p>
As a political junkie the story is exciting. Go for it Joe!
<
p>
on those registration percentages — they add to 110%. I suspect the Republican figure should be 24%.
<
p>
It’s hard to predict what will happen in a three-way race. It depends on how people in the middle perceive Lieberman (man of integrity or whiny loser) and how they perceive Lamont (tool of left-wing freaks or sensible moderate). I think at this point I would bet a dollar or two on Lamont, because Lieberman is beginning to act somewhat strangely and could be losing his mojo.
<
p>
Apparently the unopposed Republican is a total unknown, which makes it harder to believe he can get to 34% by November, even if the RSCC comes in with a couple million in spending.
you’re on: $1 that lieberman remains senator.
I still think this race is polling against Joe as purely a democratic protest fuelrd by money to punish him for his support of the war and opposition to Clinton.
The independents will look at him as a pragmatic candidate without the dem baggage. He may talk whiny but he also has a record of showing his brass in the face of opposition. Incidentally , after the last governor went to jail, I think the voters will tend to go with the devil you know , not the devil you don’t.
Starting in the 60s, primaries became popular and replaced the smoke-filled-room method, so called, of picking nominees at conventions and by party bosses.
<
p>
The idea was to bypass those guys and go directly to the people.
<
p>
Now Lieberman proposes to bypass those wacky primary voters (people like me, I should add, thouch I live in Mass.) and go directly to the people. In effect turning the general election into a kind of redo of the primary in which party affiliation doesn’t matter. Useful if most of your support does not belong to the party, though bad for the party.
<
p>
Scenario will be, I expect, for Leiberman to float several poll showing how much support he has versus Lamont. This will create a rational for his candidacy (much as a similar move did for Gabrielli.)
<
p>
Then will come pressure on Lamont to withdraw and an opening for national Democrats to back Joe to save the seat, primary vote and party discipline (what is that anyway?) nothwithstanding.
<
p>
If Joe gets away with it–and I hope he does not–he will not be the last.
democrats at the national presidential level because historically only the extreme wings of the respective parties vote on primary day. Hence, they nominate a liberal presidential candidate and have to back peddle on their positions between the primary and the general election to attract the moderate voters.
<
p>
The smoke filled back room deals with party bosses have only helped the democrats over the years.
Yeah, those smoke-filled rooms and party bosses were great for the Dems. Just as the Missisippi Freedom Democratic party–the bosses sure stood up for them. And anybody who lived under, say, Mayor Daley of Chicago, party boss extraordinaire, can tell you what wonderful things he did for the city.
have a liberal democrat promoted by progressives and at the worst a moderate republican. p.s. Abe Lincoln came out of a Republican covention backroom deal even though Steward was the popular candidate. There is no way Lincoln would of been nominated if the the current system was in place.
In theory, you guys might have a legitimate point. However, I really believe that the reality of the Lieberman position is much different.
<
p>
I just think it’s silly to pretend any August 8th primary is intended to do anything but cater to the most activist members of any party. If the GOP held it on August 8th it would be intended to get out the hard right. Nobody is naive enough to think that this early date was chosen for any other reason. It’s about that wing of the party maintaining control of the party.
<
p>
In the CT primary there is a major part of the party that will not vote. This would be bad enough if it were just an accident, but when that is the whole point of scheduling a primary in early August it’s a little too cute for my tastes.
<
p>
Not quite as small ‘d’ democratic, as you guys imply…
<
p>
Finally, don’t forget that Joe Moakley beat Louise Day Hicks in the same way. While she was an incumbent, (and the anti-bussing superhero) he ran against her as an independent and immediately went back to being a dem once he got to Congress. Now he’s Saint Joe and was a dem stalwart for decades…we should all just take a deep breath when judging his loyalty.
between running as an independent from day one of the election cycle (even if you are “really” a Democrat), and running after you lose the primary.
<
p>
(Which was it that Moakley did?)
<
p>
I’m not saying that Connecticut voters will feel that way, though.
The deadlines should be such that any candidate needs to decide, IF they want to be on a printed ballot, either to run in a primary OR run unenrolled (independent).
<
p>
Of course anyone should be able to run on write-ins.
<
p>
I don’t think this could happen in Massachusetts, but I could be wrong. Maybe it is left in as a safety valve or a loophole.
<
p>
But my point is: “unstagger” the deadlines so that it is run in the primary or run independent, but not both.
…before going to jail for violating a restraining order his wife filed agaisnt him, managed to win the Democrat, Republican AND Independent primaries.
<
p>
He handily defeated himself.
<
p>
When the other GOP candidate came to me about the dual primary, my gut reaction was Nah – COULDN’T be. Turns out it IS and anybody can do it. All you need is as many stickers as you would have needed signatures.
<
p>
A HUGE factor in the Lieberman thing is that I DON’T think unenrolled/independents can vote in primaries in CT like thay can in Mass. (Does anybody know?) Without the ability to attract independents, only the most diehard voters will be in the primary, creating the extremist candidacies as described.
<
p>
Man, you guys play for ALL the marbles – from Veep nominee to primary loser in just 5 years. And all because he is worried about Isreal. IT’s a real lesson to moderates everywhere, but it’s not a happy one.
And all because he is worried about Isreal.
<
p>
That’s a bold assertion! And I have to say, a false one. Lieberman’s support for Israel hasn’t changed in his 18 years in office. That hasn’t changed. Nor has Lieberman’s general conservatism and moralizing, which chafed at some but which was an asset for Gore in 2000 to show that he would be an upstanding and moral fellow. I don’t think that he was really all that popular in 2000–sure, he was well-liked, but also a strategic choice.
<
p>
Now, he’s backed an unpopular war and chided fellow Democrats for it, (I’ve heard that he even spoke on the war in the Republicans’ weekly radio slot–anyone know if this is true?). That’s lost him a lot of friends. But Israel? Not the issue. I’m curious to know if Lamont’s stands on Israel are actually much different from Lieberman’s.
His position on Isreal hasn’t changed in 18 years. Call him moralizing, call him unpopular – the one word I’ve never heard is insincere. He sincerely believes that the war on terror and the war in Iraw are necesary to safeguard Isreal. And he has been privvy, as a US Senator, to far more intelligence briefings than you or I have.
<
p>
Nope, it’s just the war. All of his other positions are just as liberal as they ever were.
<
p>
It seems that the GOP isn’t the only party with litmus test voters, ready to toss an adept public servant over a single issue (I’m pro-choie, myself, not the top of the national GOP hit parade).
<
p>
I’d send him money, but I’m working on keeping another moderate, Olympia Snowe, in the Senate.
So you agree that it’s the Iraq War, not Israel, that’s making the difference? if so, I’m glad. He may link the Iraq war to the war on terror and the protecting Israel, but in the yees of many, myself included, they’re separate issues. Not irrelevant to one another, but separate.
<
p>
But note–you write that all his positions are as liberal as they ever were. I wouldn’t call many of his past positions liberal (some, but not all). And as I mentioned above, many in CT were displeased. I wouldn’t call this a litmus test (particularly as it isn’t being applied to many others). I’d call it the straw that put the camel in a back brace.