You can learn a lot ego-searching: Democrat Mark Kleiman's against the teachers' unions! ("[K]owtowing to them costs us votes"). ... 12:11 A.M.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
So if Lieberman wins as an independent, and the Democrats pick up six seats in November, doesn't that mean Lieberman gets to decide which party controls the Senate? And if so, do the Democrats really want to take Kos' advice and piss him off? Just asking! ... Backfill: Taranto had this epiphany yesterday, but we'll pretend he didn't. ... 12:48 P.M. link
Even Hillary's moves to the right are moves in favor of bigger government, argues David Boaz. Can you think of an exception? I can't. ... That's why the deadliest long-run criticism of her (if she gets out of her Iraq pickle) is likely to be, not "Hillary's a Liberal," but "Hillary Knows Best." ... [via RCP BLog] 3:47 A.M.
Mo' Joe: Jason Zengerle makes the basic why-Lieberman-can--win case here. ... Certainly that CBS exit poll --showing that about a quarter of Lieberman voters don't want him to run as an independent--is nothing for him to get spooked about. ... Connecticut-based emailer C.S. notes, however, that
a lot of loyalist Dems who voted for Joe will vote for Ned in November as their nominee (count me as one of many such of whom I am already aware -- a lot of people in the Distefano for Gov HQs last night -- and not just Ned partisans -- were booing, hissing and cat-calling Joe's, again, self-serving speech bemoaning nasty, excessive partisanship, hello?). I would not at all be surprised to see Ned draw 70%+ of Democrats who turn out to vote this fall, maybe even 75+. [Emphasis added]
Neophyte Lamont's other advantage, according to C.S.: He's a better candidate! (He has "a better fastball now than his principal adversary, who is still rusty and ill-at-ease on the stump.") Yet Ryan Lizza argues Lamont already blew one big opportunity. ... Peggy Noonan wasn't too impressed either. ... P.S.: C.S. defends Lieberman's seemingly foolish decision to scale back his Get-Out-the-Vote effort:
Joe made a financial decision to put his available money not in field, but rather into a TV blitz, including his two minute "closing argument" spot using his Sunday night "checkers" speech, as some here have called it. Given that he lost by a mere 3.6%, whereas the final Quinnipiac poll showed him -6 on Monday (albeit a 7 day average, which of course is a bit strange), and -13 a week back, I think it is at least arguable that Joe made the right political call: he needed to persuade as many voters as possible via TV over the last week and change, counting on the intensity of voters' feelings in this race to turn them out.
The trouble with this defense is that Lieberman finished the campaign with $2 million in the bank, according to this AP story. Isn't there something--GOTV, or more ads--he could have spent some of it on to get the 2 percentage points he needed? ... Update: Chuck Todd's had the same thought. ... More: But he's now noted an exculpatory possibility. ... 3:02 A.M. link
Omigod, not the Web site! Will Saletan argues the fuss over Lieberman's downed Web site shows the Internet has "arrived" as a force in politics:
... [I]n the election's final hours, the Lieberman campaign treated the crash of its Web site as fatal sabotage, and the media and law enforcement took the charge seriously. Losing your Web site on Election Day is now regarded as the equivalent of having your phones jammed or your TV ads rejected by stations. Even for campaigns that don't use it well, the Web has become not just an asset, but a necessity.