A Pyrrhic Victory in Connecticut?
Most politically interested Americans have been following the Connecticut Democratic primary for months. Last night, Ned Lamont, the darling of many left-wing bloggers like Kos, defeated incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman. Time magazine hails this victory as cementing the rise of the Netroots, i.e. the bloggers, as a power base in the party. The People's Email Network hails Lamont's win as "the greatest thing that could have happened" in an email exhorting recipients to pressure Democratic office holders to support Lamont. But there seems a real danger that Lamont's win could prove a pyrrhic victory for the Democratic party and its netroots propellants.
Many are already wondering if the staunch anti-war sentiment Lamont played on will resonate with voters or if it will reinforce the image of the Democrats as weak on security. But what's more interesting to me is what happens if Lieberman wins his seat while running as an independent. Polls certainly give Lieberman more than a fighting chance to win in the general election. Polls strictly of Democrats find little support for an independent run, but broader polls put Lieberman ahead thanks to independent and Republican voters. So, if the Democrats reject Lieberman who then runs an independent campaign in which the voters of Connecticut reject the Democratic party by electing Lieberman, how does that bode for the party's future in 2008? How relevant is the party if the state's voters reject the party's judgment? How out of touch would the party and its new netroots constituency be?
Many will write that there is a lot at stake for Lieberman in running as an independent. True, but I suggest there's even more at stake for the Democratic party. They have a lot to lose if Lieberman wins in November. They could well rue the day Lamont won.
posted by Doc at 9:32 AM
2 Comments:
Many are already wondering if the staunch anti-war sentiment Lamont played on will resonate with voters or if it will reinforce the image of the Democrats as weak on security.
Polls show support for the war below 40% nationally and, in the most recent polling, that people believe Dems will do a better job fighting terrorism in general and the war itself.
It's fine that the war is now unpopular, and given that it's hardly surprising that the polls would show support for Democrats fighting terrorism. But the danger for the party is in the details, in the why they oppose the war.
I've been against the Iraq war from the beginning. But, as I've written before, I've also been totally uncomfortable with the anti-war left. I certainly wouldn't trust national security to a lot of them. If someone can't understand that pre-war Iraq was a totalitarian dictatorship and could never conceive that some Iraqis might actually appreciate having that dictator taken out, I would have a hard time trusting that they would a sufficient grip on reality to be able to address the dangers to our country.
The danger to the party is that the netroots element that rose up in support of Lamont will be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being part of that element of the left. If so, even though the mainstream now opposes the war, they would still reject that element and that could bleed over to the party as a whole.
Post a Comment
<< Home