WIth 98% of precincts reporting, the difference between Lamont and Lieberman is 10,000 votes - out of 278,000 cast. That isn't much - the Democrats are divided.
The anti-war left has claimed its first scalp and the problem for the Democrats is that the scalp in question is that of a liberal warhorse who stands a good chance of winning as an independent and thus denying to the Democrats what was to be one of their easy wins. The Democrats now have to pick up a net of 7 seats to gain an outright Senate majority (a 50/50 split leaves the GOP in charge via Cheney's tie-breaking vote). What was a very long shot at a Democratic Senate majority just got quite a bit longer. Not only do the Democrats have to gain 7 seats, they have to spend money and effort in Connecticut - something that no electoral calculations envisioned. Any bit of money or effort spent in Connecticut is that much less money and effort which can be spent elsewhere trying to unseat GOPers.
So much for 2006 - for the future, it looks even bleaker for the Democrats. Their Party is now divided - certainly 85% or more of Democrats don't like President Bush, but President Bush won't be on the ballot in the future. In order to win, Democrats will have to come up with a unified message - the vote in Connecticut today indicates that this is an impossible task. The Democrats disagree on the future of their Party, and with the left of the Party taking ever more extreme positions, no agreement on such a future is possible.
UPDATE: John McIntyre over at Real Clear Politics agrees that this is a disaster for the Democrats.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/majority.cgi/4004
If Lieberman wins, he's said he will caucus with the Dems, so in effect he would count to their (possible) majority?
In any event, it won't hurt too much, because he would (hopefully) vote for Democratic control of the Senate, as he promised he would, running as a fictional 'independent Democrat' and all. Then again, we shouldn't hope for too much from Joe Lieberman's party loyalty. What people fail to realize is that his disloyalty (not about ideology but about party unity, and there is a difference) is what got him in a lot of hot water to begin with.
Posted by: NovaNardis at August 9, 2006 03:51 AM




