Hmmm. Here's an alternative theory: Lieberman "treated the crash of its Web site as fatal sabotage" because that was a great anti-Lamont story for him to have in the headlines during the last 24 hours of the campaign! I doubt the Web site was particularly vital to the incumbent senator's old-fashioned campaign. Its main value for Lieberman was that it could crash the day before the election and generate sympathetic headlines. In fact, I expect the election-eve Web site crash to now become a staple of politics, like the traditional election-eve discovery of some hateful leaflet attempting to suppress the black vote, which is then used by Democrats to turn out the black vote. ... P.S.: Saletan's piece may one day be famous, however, for introducing the word "carpetblogger." ... 1:43 A.M.
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
My main fear about Oliver Stone's World Trade Center wasn't that he'd put forward a wacky conspiracy theory but that he'd downplay and otherwise botch the heroic, moving, and patriotic stories of the civilian, unprofessional rescuers--including David Karnes, Chuck Sereika and the mysterious "second Marine," Jason Thomas--while telling the more conventional tale of the two uniformed, professional cops whose cooperation the studio had secured. Early reviews of the film (which I haven't seen yet) suggested my fears weren't realized. But Rebecca Liss, who told Karnes' story in Slate, says they were, at least partially. ... 4:54 P.M.
The CBS/NYT exit poll in Connecticut would seem to undercut those who claim there was a big class divide between Lamont's allegedly upscale voters and Lieberman's allegedly working class voters--at least a big income class divide. Lamont got 48% of those making less than $50K, 52% of those making more than $100K, and 53% of those in between. Big deal.** There was a split along educational lines, though, with Lieberman winning the "high school or less" category 59% to 39%. More evidence, I guess, that "class" in this country means education level, not how much money you make. ...
**--Many of the "less than $50K" Lamont supporters might have been young people who will be making much more money in a few years. Lamont carried the under-30 group 63-36. But that age factor wouldn't explain why there's basically no difference between the $50-$100K group and the Over $100K group. ...
Update--Education vs. Income: Prof. Franklin has already done a post-exit-poll analysis, which speculates that even low-income voters voted Lamont "if they lived with lots of others with high incomes," suggesting income does have an "ecological" effect. But of course those are also going to be areas 'with lots of others with high educations.' I don't know how you'd separate out the two factors (income and education) except maybe by looking at high education/low income areas. I bet they're Lamont areas! That would suggest income has little independent explanatory power, at least in this race. ... (Neighborhoods with high incomes but low education probably don't exist--but if they did, they'd be Lieberman all the way, no?) ... 4:06 P.M.
"The political universe will be dominated by reaction to Sen. Lieberman's primary defeat and his decision to pursue an independent candidacy between now and November."
You think? I don't. Update: Neither does Lizza. ...3:36 P.M.
Grover's Corner: Is the GOP's infamous and seemingly perverse "K Street Project" actually working? 1:13 P.M.
Young Fogies, Old Turks: What if some kids started a hip, indie, Brookyn-based web site--and turned out to be bigger twits than the editors of the LA Times? ... 1:06 P.M.