CT Election Watch

That was presumed to be the case in the Connecticut Senate election until the recent debate where Schlesinger apparently performed well above expectations. Whether or not this will help him gain any support from Connecticut conservatives remains to be seen.

(Source: New Haven Independant)

Over the past few days, I’ve been doing much reading about the current race in Connecticut, and reached the following conclusion: regardless of what happens, the Democrats win. Now, two of my partners have pointed this out in their posts, but it is rather alarming if you think about it; the voters in Connecticut have the choice between x=Democrat+Iraq or y=Democrat-Iraq. And even then, Lamont’s position on Iraq is what millions of Americans from both parties support; a time-table for withdrawal. He does not support an immediate withdrawal. So x and y get even closer to converging. (Excuse the mathematical terminology, but it is what I know best.) Voters in Connecticut are choosing someone who will represent their state for the next six years, and they are choosing this candidate solely on one issue: the war in Iraq. While it is a very important issue, is it worth determining an entire Senatorial election?

Look at what Lamont professes, and what Lieberman professes, the only real difference is Iraq. Lamont, while being skewed as an anti-war candidate, acknowledges the need for pressure on Iran, and has made allusions to the fact that force may be the necessary amount of pressure. Lieberman has been cast as a virtual Republican, but a quick look at his voting record suggests otherwise. Since the beginning of 2006, Lieberman has only crossed party lines on 13 votes in the Senate. That is hardly the voting record of a Democrat in Republican’s clothing.

Let’s take a look at where each candidate stands on some of the most prevalant issues of the day:

Both support affirmative action.
Both support abortion rights.
Both oppose a gay marriage ban amendment.
Both support free trade.
Both support universal health care.
Both support earned citizenship for illegal immigrants.
Both oppose privatizing Social Security.
Both support the estate tax.
Both support repealing the Bush tax cuts.
Both support funding for alternative fuel research.

Now, it is hard for any politican to give a serious position on any issue, these are overall stances based upon voting records and public statements. (Source: On the Issues.org) As Lamont and Lieberman continue to get closer in the polls, I ask, what (viable) choice does Connecticut really have?

This election will ultimately be determined by the media’s representation of each candidate. If Lieberman is perceived as the President’s best buddy, Lamont will seem like a viable alternative to the current course of the country. If Lamont is perceived as a crazy-Leftist anti-war candidate, he may be deemed too weak to serve in this present War on Terror. Both perceptions are easily debunked with five minutes and access to Google. Unfortunately, most of the voting population is too lazy to even do that.

When Connectiut voters hit the booth this November, Iraq will be the determining factor, there is no doubt about it. As an outsider, one can only hope that the populus takes into account other factors, such as: agenda, experience, and character, but when is the last time any American electorate took those issues into account when electing their leaders?

In an interview with Conservative Blog Network Pajamas Media Lieberman was asked “if he could forgive once close friends Chris Dodd, Al Gore and Teddy Kennedy, for endorsing his opponent Ned Lamont, the former Democratic Party vice-presidential candidate responded: “I can forgive … but I probably won’t forget.”

Democrats shouldn’t forget why they endorsed Lamont.

There is no doubt that right now Connecticut has an interesting and somewhat rare situation, one of the most nationally recognizable Senators, a former Vice Presidential candidate, potentially losing his Senate seat, and also likely losing his seniority within the Democratic party.

When Lieberman was facing a primary challenger that was doing much better than expected, but long before the prospect of Lamont taking out a 3-term US Senator who had been his parties Vice Presidential candidate only six years prior seemed at all likely, Lieberman was asked if he would accept the results of the primary even if they were not in his favor. Lieberman initially dodged the question, saying that he would win the primary.

At the time it was a reasonable statement, however the fact that the primary was basically a referendum on if Lieberman was still considered a Democrat by voters made the question fairly important. More and more media outlets began to run with the question, especially when Lamont made it clear that he would not run as an Independent after an August loss. Lieberman was eventually forced to respond that he would consider a primary run. I strongly believe that it was at this point that Lieberman lost his primary battle, whether it proves to be a wise move on his part remains to be seen. In a primary election, voters are concerned with two things, who best represents the party, and who can win. Given the extremely weak Republican field, the main question for Connecticut Democratic voters on primary day in August was which candidate better represented the party, they knew that by voting for Lamont they weren’t endangering the seat.

Lieberman is a career politician, one could cynically argue that that is why he has some trouble with the truth, although whatever the reason, the evidence shows that it is the case. Once the race became competitive, he began to seek endorsements from his colleagues. Dodd, Gore, Kennedy, as well as other Democratic Senators like Chuck Schumer who is currently the chair of the DSCC and Harry Reid, current Senate Minority Leader, gave endorsements too, but publicly stated that they would support the winner of the Democratic primary, and that their endorsement andfundraising came under the assumption that Lieberman would do the same.

The fact that Lieberman made the decision before the primary to file his petitions for ballot access from the newly formed Connecticut for Lieberman party shows that Lieberman had no intention to accept the result. The endorsements and fundraising he accepted before the primary could have gone to Lamont had Lieberman not been willing to lie to his “friends” that he now claims to have been betrayed by. Lieberman has made it more than clear that he cannot be trusted, and voters would be wise to pay attention.

Any Democratic voters that are still wavering on Lieberman versus Lamont should consider the fact that Lieberman was more than willing to take fundraising and an endorsment from Harry Reid then set up a party in his own image. In my opinion Lieberman’s loss shouldn’t be looked at as only an anti-war reaction, but should be considered an outcry against a self-important Senator who is willing to say what it takes to win. Non-Democrats voting for Lieberman may want to take this warning too, before electing a man that will only serve himself in the Senate, as the name of his newly founded party indicates, the number one issue in this campaign in Lieberman’s mind isn’t Iraq, it’s Lieberman.

electoral-vote.com, one of the most popular websites during election 2004 has relaunched with a page that has daily updates, showing where the Senate seats on the line in 2006 currently fall

The “Votemaster” uses an average of the most recent polls, and has great graphs showing the progression of polls from all of the major non-partisan pollsters in a state.

As you can see CT-Sen is currently extremely close by all accounts, and it is clear that the only clear loser is Schlesinger, who has dropped from a high of nearly 10% to somewhere around 3% in more recent polls. Suprisingly, both Lamont and Lieberman have received increased support as Schlesinger’s numbers have dwindled.

It is also interesting to note that the main reason for Lieberman forming his own (Connecticut for Lieberman) party was to avoid getting last slot on the November ballot. According to a news post (http://ctnewsjunkie.com/index.php/2006/08/23/lieberman_gets_ballot_bottom_green_party) the order has been decided, and Schlesinger is on top, with Lieberman falling to the dreaded last position. Schlesinger’s prominent placement will possibly hurt Lieberman as Republicans who don’t realize that there is even a Republican running may see the (R) next to his name and check him off.

It’ll be interesting to see if Schlesinger gets a signifigantly higher percentage of the vote than polls currently predict, and what impact that has on Lieberman. If this race is still as close as it is come November 7th, those extra Schlesinger votes could cost Lieberman his seat.

My Left Nutmeg, a blog following the Democrats running in CT has an interesting take on a recent story, and something that might get media attention in coming days.

In an ongoing battle about Lieberman’s actions during the Lewinsky scandal, where Lieberman has been criticized for coming out against President Clinton, Lieberman’s campaign released an email that was written by Ned Lamont to Lieberman which they claim praises Lieberman’s actions. The actual contents of the email do not seem to praise Lieberman’s actions, but it seems as if the Lieberman campaign has left out certain portions to make it seem like Lamont has changed his views. This debate is fairly murky, and as both campaigns have tried pointing out, is 8 years old, the Lewinsky scandal is no longer relevant.

What is interesting as My Left Nutmeg points out, is the way that Lieberman released an email written by a constituent to the media in a campaign.

When Lamont wrote this email he was writing to his Senator, the way any citizen is supposed to feel free to do, and there is a certain confidence placed in that, which is outlined in Senate Ethics rules. Lieberman may have just significantly hurt himself if the media picks up on the fact that by using Lamont’s email, Lieberman violated a certain trust that constituents place in their Senators.