Partisan Parsing of Election Results

Every vote turns out 50-50, more or less. It's just a matter of how much more and how much less.

BTW, I caught a glimpse of Snow on TV yesterday, and the blaze orange tie he was wearing was something.

First of all, the claim that the incumbent had less money is a bunch of crap. He's just been saving it up for his independent run instead of spending it on the primary.

And to imply that polls were "rigged," seems a bit irresponsible. I'm sure all those major news outlets covering the alleged hacking of Lieberman's website didn't have anything to do with voting, not to mention the speech Lieberman gave on Sunday backpedaling (somewhat) on the war.

And yeah, what you said too. I think the real victim of buyer's remorse here was Lieberman.

While I didn't really have a dog in this fight, I think it's pretty amusing the the schreechy side of the dem blogosphere has managed to rack up failure after failure after failure, and now their one big success is ousting a Democrat. These are the same people who call Democratic politicians "cowards" because they won't keep ads on blogger websites that feature photoshopped sambo caricatures of African American Republicans. Excelsior! Somehow, I don't see these clowns as the last best hope for defeating the Republicans.

plunge-

I agree, the liberal blogosphere is being equally absurd about this. I just read something at Alternet where a guy says that Lieberman's decision to run as an independent is an "insult to democracy" - as though a primary election for one party is a stand in for "democracy". Absurd. If Lieberman actually wins as an independent - and he very well could - wouldn't that be a victory for democracy? That doesn't mean it would be good, but it certainly would be "democracy".

Here's how a partisan hack not directly employed by the government spins election results. Take it away John Gibson: "Hang on, Dems. Here come the Pol Pots of your party. And if you were for national security, you are now emphatically not. Or else. Remember the mountain of skulls in Cambodia? It's the Democrats new reality now that the anti-war rabble has tasted blood by taking Lieberman down."

Lieberman outspent Lamont by at least 3:1. While it's true that Lamont had more money of his own to put into his campaign, Lieberman had access to far far more total financial resources as an incumbent and part of the DC machine.

Those who say that the closeness of this election helps Lieberman would do well to note that a few months ago Lamont was a virtual nobody. Lieberman is an 18-year incumbent. Even if Lamont had lost the primary within ten points it would have been a powerful statement. Now it's a resounding call to action, and it's scaring the bejesus out of Republican incumbents.

I just read something at Alternet where a guy says that Lieberman's decision to run as an independent is an "insult to democracy" - as though a primary election for one party is a stand in for "democracy".

I can one-up you. I actually saw a couple people on Lamont's own blog (commenters, mind, not campaign workers) saying that it should be illegal for a candidate who loses a primary to then run as an independent. I'd never heard of such an idea, but they were calling them "Sore Loser Laws" or something. Thankfully some other commenters pointed out the extreme undemocratic nature of such an idea.

That said, while running as an independent is not an "insult to democracy," it is an insult to those constituents who believed the "I am a True Democrat" rhetoric. And it was, frankly, an insult to my intelligence to hear during his concession speech that "for the sake of...[his] party, [he] will not let [the primary result] stand."

And thanks, Ginger Yellow, for that quote.

What's going to be really amusing will be watching Rove & Co. try to turn a man from an old-money family that makes the Bushes look nouveau riche, who's spent his life in business and finance, into the reincarnation of Lenin.

Unless, of course, they succeed.

I agree: I really didn't care who won this race. But if Lieberman runs as a Dem, loses, and then runs as an independent for the general, he's done with me. I don't think it's illegal, but I certainly find it disreputable and you can't expect your party to ever work for you ever again if you aren't going to abide by their rules and be satisfied with the result you get. If you want to run as an independent, that's great! I may be a Dem campaign person, but I think indepedents are often doing good things. Just... don't run in a party primary that cycle.

The problem for Democrats/Liberals will be, if Lieberman runs as an independent, against Lamont, he will LIKELY split the Democratic vote and give the Republicans a solid shot at winning the Senate seat.

It's a simplification, but it is roughly similar to the Taft/TR Republican/Progressive split in 1912 that gave Wilson the win, or the Thurmond/Truman Dixiecrat/Democrat split that nearly gave Dewey the election in '48.

Not a foregone conclusion, but odds are good that the GOP candidate will win in '06. It may be a long shot, Lieberman defeated his opponent 63/34 in the last election, but the chance is still there that this could be a seat lost to the Republicans due to a split within the party.

Dogmeat:

This is Connecticut. The latest polls have the R challenger in the single digits.

Lamont or Liberman will win the general, the R isn't even in the race.

nicole | August 10, 2006 05:43 PM

I actually saw a couple people on Lamont's own blog (commenters, mind, not campaign workers) saying that it should be illegal for a candidate who loses a primary to then run as an independent.

It's not such a strange idea, but with a bit of a modification. As far as I'm concerned, it is strange for a state to allow someone who had gone through a primary for a particular political party, and lost, to allow his name to be put on the ballot as an independent. If he wanted to run as an independent, he should not have gone through the primary of the particular political party. Otherwise, what is the purpose of a primary?

Of course, that would not preclude him from running a write-in or sticker campaign for the seat. But that's a completely different issue.

From what I have read elsewhere, Ohio, for example, has several "sore loser" statutes that would probably preclude something like Lieberman is doing.

The problem with the argument that he shouldn't be allowed to run as an independent is that it misunderstands what primaries are. Primaries are purely a matter of a party - a private entity - choosing its candidate. The fact that those primaries have now gotten wrapped up in official government recognition only testifies to the absurd degree to which the two major parties have managed to entrench themselves in the system (no other party gets to hold such events on government property, with government planning and administration). But their function is still to choose the candidate for a particular party, and as a matter of law, the candidates of those parties have no more right to be on the ballot than 3rd party candidates do. State law allows access to the general election ballot from 3rd party candidates if they meet certain requirements, usually a given number of signatures on a petition. If Lieberman meets those requirements, the fact that he earlier ran as a Democrat is irrelevant and meaningless.

Ed is right: it's perfectly kosher. It just also happens to be really dick, and I won't support someone that pulls it, especially not after claiming to want to abide by the party's choice.