David Sirota: What really happened in Connecticut

[WildEyedLiberal]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, I haven't been on DU yet today and didn't see it yet.

David Sirota, who worked on the Lamont campaign in CT, offers the first - but probably not the last - of insider perspectives on the Connecticut Senate race. I'm not always a fan of David Sirota - I think he's hit or miss, wise one day and shrill the next. But this piece is worth reading because of its insider perspective and because the conclusions he draws have ramifications beyond this race in 2006.

Article here: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article_two/2917/

It's all worth reading, but here are some notable paragraphs:

What Really Happened

Ned Lamont lost by 10 points. Such a margin indicates that something structural was happening that could not have been addressed by any of the tactical or rhetorical tweaks either side says made the difference. Some of those structural problems were unique to this particular race, some were more generic, but together, they steepened the climb for Lamont in ways that made victory almost impossible. The challenges included:


* Abandonment of the Democratic nominee by the Democratic Party: The story of the national Democratic Party’s abandonment of Lamont will likely be written more fully in the coming weeks, with explanations of both how this happened and even more importantly, why. But the broad strokes are obvious: Almost every major figure in national Democratic politics save John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Wes Clark and John Edwards refused to seriously help the Lamont campaign. We saw this coming when, right after Lieberman lost the primary, he was welcomed with a standing ovation back to the Senate club by his Democratic colleagues. Subsequently, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid indicated that Lieberman’s seniority would be preserved if he won reelection, despite the fact that he officially abandoned the party. To understand how much this abandonment affected the race, consider that Lieberman bragged in October to the Associated Press that he was actively using Reid’s promise of seniority to promote his key “experience and seniority” argument—and that such an argument was helping him win over voters. On Election Day, Lieberman appeared on Fox News to thank the national Democratic Party for refusing to help Lamont, the Democratic nominee.

* Refusal by outside groups or lawmakers to serve as surrogates for Lamont: Lieberman had, among others, right-wing radio, the national Republican Party, and the President and Vice President of the United States repeatedly attacking Lamont on his behalf. He also had various Republican and Democratic senators at his side, lending credibility to all of his negative attacks on Lamont, and more generally to the legitimacy of his general election candidacy that was, at heart, an affront to the democratic primary process.

Lamont, by contrast, had none of that. It wasn’t just that people like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Lamont even though they had both whispered official endorsements of him. It was that most of those who did nominally help the campaign only agreed to voice positive statements about Lamont, but refused to forcefully take on Lieberman for attacking the Democratic Party or violating campaign finance disclosure laws. Take, for instance, the behavior of the major government watchdog groups. Except for Public Campaign Action Fund, not one of them made a peep after the New Haven Register exposed Lieberman for abusing campaign finance law to create an illegal $380,000 slush fund. Similarly, other than Wes Clark who filmed an ad going after Lieberman by name or Kerry who issued a press release nailing Lieberman for his Iraq position, not one national surrogate really went after the incumbent senator.

There has been a rather disturbing pattern of party centrists in positions of power sticking the shiv into the backs of their liberal colleagues who bring up issues, such as Iraq, that they would just as soon not have to go on the record confronting. If the new Democratic Congress hopes to convince the American public that it will be more effective at governing than Republicans, it must not succumb to the pressure from "party leaders" to muzzle the issues on which Democrats are strongest in order to appease the weak and dying neoconservative movement.

[Ninga]

1. Ouch ......nail right on the head

[rinsd]

2. What the hell did Sirota expect?

That the national party was gonna turn on a long time figure?

I will point out that Lamont was in a better position before Sirota joined the staff as part of the rapid response team. And this stinks like serious CYA.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Didn't Hillary Clinton also send Howard Wolfson to "help" Lamont's campaign?

[WildEyedLiberal]

8. Well, Lamont was the nominee.

If the national party leadership actually valued the idea of a party primary, there would have been no question whom to support. But, obviously they don't.

I agree there is an element of CYA to this article, and Sirota comes across as shrill in parts, especially the second page. But whether or not you personally like Sirota doesn't take away from the broader points he makes, which are valid - that, ultimately, the party leadership made a serious miscalculation by attempting to stifle discussion of Iraq, even though it was ALREADY a losing issue for the Republicans, and that they even went so far as to subtly sabotage those Democrats who defied them and spoke out as strong liberal voices against the war.

[rinsd]

11. I agree on this part

"that, ultimately, the party leadership made a serious miscalculation by attempting to stifle discussion of Iraq, even though it was ALREADY a losing issue for the Republicans, and that they even went so far as to subtly sabotage those Democrats who defied them and spoke out as strong liberal voices against the war."

It was a miscalculation in light of what has been "big tent" wins by Democrats of all stripes.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Thanks for the post. Establishment Dems put the shiv in Lamont's back. Holy Joe, tool of BIG MONEY!

How much was fear on the Dems' part of losing the support of AIPAC? No discussion of this possibility anywhere.

I suppose it is too much to hope that Holy Joe has learned a lesson about actively working to undermine his own party to support someone like George W. Bush.

I doubt it!

[shireen]

4. if Liberman gets a high position in a committee

WE RAISE HELL, UNRELENTING HELL, UNTIL HE'S DEMOTED!!!
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[The Count]

5. Already was on first page , but worth repearing!

[WildEyedLiberal]

9. Oops, my bad

[lcordero2]

6. 40%

That's 40% of the people of Connecticut that is going to be really angry.
If it's Democrats alone, then there goes 60% of the party base in Connecticut.

[txaslftist]

10. The Republicans elected Lieberman

By combining with the traditionalist Democrats who liked him. He got 1/3 of the Dem vote and almost all of the GOP vote; so he had a working majority. He had more GOP votes than he did Dem votes, and so he's the Republican candidate.

He's a Republican. He's acted like one for six years. I hope the Senate Democrats have the sense to cut him out of the loop now that we have a majority that doesn't need him, but I doubt it.

[Demeter]

12. Good Ole Boy Network Strikes Again n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

14. Lieberman also carried independents

Lamnot was only able to get Democrats to vote for him.
Connecticut is very moderate- it isn't surprising that Lieberman won, and I wouldn't try to draw a big picture from the result.

[bobbie]

15. He's an insider. There are two parties in the US: Insider and Outsider

They can control insiders. So they sabatoge outsiders.

[bobbie]

16. How does this affect MoveOn.org? Lamont was their candidate.

Do you think that fact hurt Lamont with the Insider party?

[churchofreality]

20. You are absolutely correct

Once he went independent, it was in the bag, the republicans pounced on him. Thats why it was so selfish for him to stay in the race. Its not about popularity. He lost the nomination because of his war stance. Rumsfeld and Bush are finally admitting things are bad in Iraq. (We were never "stay the course") But Joe still is. Look at all the republicans who got the boot, Bolton, Rumsfeld, and all the congressmen and senators. Yet Joe still has his job because he is a selfish a-hole.

[newyawker99]

27. Hi churchofreality!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ananda]

13. The people spoke..

.. but no one listened.

It was as though the Dems were saying to the people of CT, we
don't care what you think, it's big money and corporatism that
counts. Ugghhh

[geek tragedy]

22. The people spoke, and they chose

Joe Lieberman.

Unless I'm mistaken and only 52% of Democratic primary voters are considered 'the people.'

[w4rma]

17. The biggest problem turned out to be the lack of Republican support for their OWN candidate.

They supported Lieberman and dumped their own candidate. This enabled Lieberman to grab up the vast majority of Republican voters along with the Lieberman loyalists in CT.

I really didn't expect Republicans to dump their own candidate so easily, but I guess Lieberman has carried their water very well. Anyway, I think everyone did their best with what we had available, except for the DLCers who ARE those Lieberman loyalists.

The best option might be to try again in six years and give Republicans a heads up so that they will field a serious candidate.

I think Lieberman burnt some bridges with his little escapade into Republican territory and will probably be either retiring in six years or will outright lose the Democratic primary.

[geek tragedy]

23. Lieberman was their big win of the night.

When your biggest win is getting a Democratic incumbent re-elected, that's pretty damn sad.

[Old and In the Way]

18. What happened to 200,000 votes?

Interesting thread here about how Ned and the Republican challenger in 2000 appear to have gotten exactly the same number votes - 488,077. But while that's probably an oddity, I find it strange that 200,000 less people voted in this election than 2006, given the national/local implications of this race. Did the voter base shrink by 20% in CT?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2954300&mesg_id=2954300

[Straight Shooter]

21. Now, that's just simply too much of a co-inky-dink for me.

I think if the voter base shrank by 20%, it would have been a pre-election subject of much discussion.

Looks like the Democratic Party is stuck with "Albatross Joe" for another six years. Maybe being a member of the majority party (he says to "call him a Democrat" now) will put some sense into his head where there apparently is now a vacuum.

[onenote]

24. 2000 was a presidential election

Turnout is always higher in a presidential election year than in an off-year. Always.

[Old and In the Way]

29. good point.

nt

[gully]

19. I've heard some in the media speculate that he let up on the war too soon.

He "started acting like a politician" before he was a politician.

That's my thought. He's a new candidate, and he did an amazing Job. Lieberman is experienced and moderate R's elected him.

This is really more about Republicans abandoning their candidate, than Dems abandoning Lamont. I think they backed him, we just knew we had to tread carefully.

[montieg]

25. WOO HOOO!!! Nail, meet hammer!

[AtomicKitten]

26. The people of Connecticut selected their representative.

Nobody is happy with Lieberman defying the will of voters in the Democratic primary, but running third party is legal and his prerogative. Lamont was afforded the backing of the Democratic Party; one's view of whether that was enough has more to do with and is commensurate with one's disdain for the party structure.

The current disgruntled demeanor of some disregards the real truism here and that is Lieberman gives Democrats the majority in the Senate, and it is that not particularly fine point that should resonate. Others may choose the route of sniveling and blaming, but I choose to celebrate a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress which is effin brilliant in my opinion.

[PATRICK]

28. There is a chicken and egg circle

being missed AFTER the election. We tried to get some inkling BEFORE election day as to what was going on. Save for our actual ground volunteers it might as well have been North Korea. Why? For the same reason some are accusing the centrist leaders, not to rock the boat to victory nationwide, maybe. And that was one of the prime justifications for the Dems undercutting the divisive strategy of Bush in this particularly undemocratic and hateful way.

Lieberman was viewed as a sure thing among the voters statewide. That alone crafted centrist reasons for shushing the Democrats in the state who proved partly otherwise. YOu had top Democrats going for Lamont and Lieberman according to trying to do the right thing. Such stellar help one might think was almost cynically rationed out for top Dems not risking anything this year. That is so natural it needs no actual motivation, much less a conspiracy.

My take after all the political realism or ideological sniping is that both national parties, from the leadership down to their local obedient minions pissed on the state and its parties and its voters and the ideals Americans of any conviction have about anything. Pissed on for national strategy so that we have a Republican elected hypocrite by the will of people who had absolutely no interests of the state in mind. I am sure that intentionality- on our side- was not as evil as the results bluntly are. It is another gray blotch against democracy itself in the smudgy area where tyrant Bush meets weak Dems- and Connecticut, like NOLA and Baghdad is awesome collateral damage. At least there no one died, one of the better things that could be said, besides the ugly, pragmatic destruction of Bush/Cheney strategy.

And I fear, just because the greatest threat may be over, there may very well be no condescending return to democratic processes, honored ideals or bravery or wisdom just because there is no Cheney setting the rules. In war one becomes like one's enemy. That is never a good result.

By the way, no single scandal as remote as money donations or something in DC or in abstract policies, is a likely excuse for a winning or losing campaign. Scandals have to have time, local relevance and a bigger, lasting outrage factor. Sirota tosses that in like a proof Lamont may have won when it is mainly an small example that the Democrats abandoned a difficult and controversial candidate chosen by their own people and their own determined process.