A harbinger...

Can Republicans crossover in Connecticut or do you have to be a registered Dem to vote that way?

 

Zeke, I agree with you that it is meaningful, but I think we differ on the reason.

 

Jo Jo's problem wasn't the war, it was a perception that he wasn't doing what was best for the people who put him there.
And I still have a  grudge against Jo Jo since 2000, when he ran Gore's campaign into the ground and also didn't give up his Senate seat then. It would have went to the democratic Conn. AG at the time, but Jo Jo is more concerned about himself than what is best for the Democratic Party and his constituents.
Just like saying he would run as an Indy., as if somehow the Senate wouldn't be the same without him. That he is better than the popular will of his political party.
He can go F himself.

 

97 percent reporting, percentages haven't changed. It's over.

Lyman -- you know what would keep me up nights if I were a Republican up for reelection in 06 or 08?

A young, anti-war, pro-fiscal discipline primary challenger.

Oh, lord, would that scare the shit out of me.

 

I'm not shocked by the result, but I am still trying to figure out what it means for the general election in CT and across the country. I think Lamont has an uphill battle to win the general election. With the primary this close, Lieberman is going to run as an independent and get heavy GOP support. Lamont is going to have to change course and move toward the middle to pick up swing voters while keeping his base energized. I don't know how the math works out for Lamont. The primary proves that the Dems are split 50-50....GOP voters will probably break down something like 70 for Joe, 20 for the schmuck they have on the ballot and 10 for Lamont. And the GOpers will have reason to vote because Jodi Rell, the current GOP guv, is going to cruise to an easy re-election win. That means Lamont has to win a clear majority of the independents. As far as nationally, I think this indicates an anti-incumbent, throw the bums out, streak out there. Because most of the incumbents are Republican, that definitely doesn't help them. In the end, I think the Dems will probably take back the House by a small margin (5-10 seats). The Senate will be veddy, veddy interesting.

Here is my Senate math:

33 seats up for grabs, GOP holds a 40-27 on the remaining 67 seats. For purposes of the math, I'm counting Vermont's Jim Jeffords and Bernie Sanders as well as Lieberman as Dems.

GOP is all but guaranteed to win 6 races (ME, IN, WY, TX, UT, MS) and Dems have 8 races sewn up (MA, CA, DE, ND, WI, NY, NM, FL), leaving us at 46-35.

Regardless of the general election, the Dems will "win" in CT and something similiar will happen in HI, where the incumbent is also being challenged in the primary. Add in Vermont and the GOP leads 46-38.

I see VA, AZ and NV as races where if the Dems create a 1994-esque tidal wave, they could pull off upsets, but in each case, the incumbent will probably win 55-45. The same goes for Bobby Byrd in WV, where it would take a minor miracle to knock him off. If the GOP is going to pull off an unexpected upset in 2006, my bet is in Michigan. But I play the safe side and give it to the Dems. GOP 49-40.

I think that unless something drastic happens in OH, DeWine is probably out of the woods. Polling shows him building a comfortable lead over Brown and I doubt it is going to change. GOP 50-40

As far as the three open seats (TN, MN and MD), I think the Dems probably take 2 out of 3, likely winning in MN and MD and losing in TN. GOP 51-42.

I think Casey beats Santorum in PA, Tester beats Burns in MT, the Chaffee/Laffey winner is too damaged to win in RI, Nelson beats Ricketts in NE and Menendez squeaks by Kean in NJ. GOP 51-47.

That leaves two seats. I believe that McGavick v. Cantwell in WA will be a dead-heat race as will McCaskill v. Talent in MO. Call it a split and you get 52-48.

 

hahaha, Cynthia McKinney loses in GA.

 

A primary challenger? An anti-war primary challenger would get as far in the GOP primary as a pro-war one would in the Democrat primary.

 

DAMN... Wonder who's fault it will be?

 

But still a safe Dem seat, isn't it?

 

This is going to be really interesting. The closeness of the race should keep Lieberman in the race for awhile. There will be intense pressure by Dems for Lieberman to drop from the race, but he won't unless a few polls come out showing him still losing. But if the first few polls show Lieberman close or winning, then it'll be interesting to see how Dems react, and what Lieberman says: Will he publicly say if he wins he is still officially a Democrat, or an independent who will caucus with the Dems, or just an independent?

As for what this primary election shows ... I think Lyman and Zeke are both right and wrong. It shows a lot of anti-war anger in the Democratic party, beyond the fringes of the left. But whether that means the Dems are splintering or this means a larger anti-war fervor among moderates and independents, well we won't know that until November. If the Dems end up taking one or both houses of Congress, I suspect we'll look back and say the Lieberman primary was a harbinger. But if the GOP holds on, it will simply have been a blue state repudiation of a moderate Dem.

 

Check back with me in 2008 on that, Pope.

 

Still don't see it happening. If I was a GOP incumbent in 2006, I would be worried most about an energized Dem base getting every out to vote while the GOP voters stay home.