What is "liberal's best-case scenario" in Lieberman v. Lamont?

[BurtWorm]

Jonathan Chait, replying to Digby's critique of Chait's column on Liberman/Lamont, says this:

My column on Joe Lieberman, has, unsurprisingly, generated a lot of feedback. Op-ed columns have tight limits on space, so you have to be highly selective about which points you can flesh out. Let me try to respond to some of the comments I've seen with some fleshing-out here.

Digby offers up a fairly cogent and persuasive, albeit profanity-laced, case against Lieberman. I basically agree with all of it. I'm not a Lieberman fan, and I agree that his habit of triangulating against mainstream Democratic positions is damaging.

Part of what I'm arguing, though, is that the tactic of embracing the Lamont primary is more likely to make the problem worse than to make it better. Consider the scenarios. If Lamont wins the primary and the general election, which is akin to drawing an inside straight, then the direct effect is positive. But, as I argued in my previous Lieberman/Lamont column, if you defeat Lieberman, "he'll play the same role as before, only this time with the power of martyrdom behind him: the virtuous anti-Democrat, too good and honest for his party."

And that's the liberals' best-case scenario! If Lieberman wins the primary, or if he wins as an independent, then he retains his perch, and is likely to be even more alienated from liberals than ever before. If Lieberman runs as an independent and allows the Republicans to pick up the seat, then it's a huge net loss.

But isn't the best-cased scenario that Lieberman gets trounced in the primary and decides to do what's best for the party (and CT), and steps aside? That's what I think we're all wishing for. I don't think anyone is wishing for him to keep running if he loses--anyone except the wingers. He has created this dynamic in which the more he makes clear he doesn't respect the will of CT Dems, the less CT Dems trust him with their votes. He's practically willing himself to lose the primary.

[Swamp Rat]

1. Down with LIEberman!

[BurtWorm]

2. He really is a sore Loserman!

:crazy:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Lieberman goes mentally insane, winds up in hospital...

Lamont wins seat. Other DINOs realize they're in deep shit, start acting accordingly.

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. Top Shelf!

:rofl:

[neoblues]

4. It would be best if he steps down...

but his inflated ego won't allow it. Still, if we have any integrity, we'll honestly pursue our political ideology without playing his game.

http://static.firedoglake.com.nyud.net:8090/2006/07/22b0c87a-1922-444f-ab7d-7910f2548cfa.jpg

[bloomy]

7. Great picture!

Why switch to Independent - might as well go Republican!

[LincolnMcGrath]

9. Funny Picture

:hi:

[BlueManDude]

5. The GOP winning the seat is not a worst case scenario

In fact I bet if you asked Rove he'd say that he'd rather have Liebs in the seat as a Dem than a down the line GOPer. Liebs is very useful to the GOP.

I just want Lieberman gone - if the GOP wins the seat - so be it. He does much more damage running cover for Bush as a "Democrat" than some typical GOP pinhead Senator will do.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

8. Democrats Keep Seat

I'm not a huge fan of Lieberman but I hope that, regardless of who wins the primary, that the Democrat wins rather than the Republican. We need one or both houses of Congress back in November and even if Lieberman wins it will be another seat in OUR column NOT the Republican's. Also, if he does win the primary and the general election, perhaps he will be a little less likely to vote with Bush and Republicans. If Lamont wins in the primary, I sincerely hope that Lieberman chooses to step aside instead of risking the Republican candidate winning via a three-way race. If Lieberman runs as an independent and wins I doubt that his voting patterns would change much and would probably skew more Democratic than Republican but I honestly don't know a lot about his voting record.

[AndyTiedye]

10. Not Clear What Chait Is Advocating

He seems to be saying that Lieberman will go on hurting the Democratic
Party even if we vote him out of office, so we shouldn't bother to try.

Boll weevil Democrats have always been darlings of the Mighty Slime Machine,
but that is no reason we can't do better in the Senate.

[dsc]

11. The critique is very well done

I am glad you linked it.

I am totally baffled by the likes of Chait on this issue. Over and over and over again people like me and Chait have said, and justifyably, that if you don't like a candidate challenge him or her in the primary, don't vote for third party losers. This is exactly what liberal did here. They didn't like Lieberman so they ran against him in the primary. So what is the response of Lieberman and his defenders, if you don't let me run as a Democrat I'll pull a Nader. And Chait basically says, that is our fault. What should have happened here, and what would have happened in a party that had some discipline, is Lieberman would have been told in no uncertain terms he wouldn't be running as an independent.

[BurtWorm]

13. Harold Meyerson has a much better handle on this than Chait:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/11/AR2006071101204.html

My colleagues also finger those crazy lefty bloggers as the culprits behind the drive to purge Lieberman from Democratic ranks. (The New Republic's Jonathan Chait recently wrote that in the Los Angeles Times.) They see a self-destructive urge for party purification sweeping over Democratic liberals, to the detriment of Democratic prospects.

Lieberman himself certainly does. My Post colleague Ruth Marcus recently spent some time on the campaign trail with Lieberman and reported on a talk he gave in Danbury. "Are the extremes going to dominate?" Lieberman asked. "Do you have to be 100 percent in agreement with an elected official or it's not good enough?"

Well. I don't blog; I columnize. But count me with the bloggers on this one. No great mystery enshrouds the challenge to Lieberman, nor is the campaign of his challenger, Ned Lamont, a jihad of crazed nit-pickers. Lieberman has simply and rightly been caught up in the fundamental dynamics of Politics 2006, in which Democrats are doing their damnedest to unseat all the president's enablers in this year's elections. As well, Lieberman's broader politics are at odds with those of his fellow Northeastern Democrats. He is not being opposed because he doesn't reflect the views of his Democratic constituents 100 percent of the time. He is being opposed because he leads causes many of them find repugnant <...>

The issue here isn't that Lieberman is not 100 percent. It's that his positions -- not just on foreign policy but on trade, Social Security and other key issues -- are often out of sync with those of Democrats in his part of the country. To expect his region's voters to dump the area's moderate Republicans but back Lieberman is to expect that they will adopt a double standard in this year's elections.

Lieberman's ultimate problem isn't fanatical bloggers, any more than Lyndon Johnson's was crazy, antiwar Democrats. His problem is that Bush, and the war that both he and Bush have championed, is speeding the ongoing realignment of the Northeast. His problem, dear colleagues, is Connecticut.

[longship]

12. That is what I think, too.

By petitioning to get on the ballot in the event he loses the primary, he is basically telling CT voters, "I don't care what you think. I'm entitled to my Senate seat and I'm not going to give it up." What great love they will now heap on him in the primary for that action.

The funny thing is, from the public opinion polls I've seen, Lieberman had the primary basically sewn up in his favor. But now, by announcing his intentions to ignore the will of the voters, he may have personally engineered his own primary defeat.

With the pressure from the Democrats, I think Joe might think twice and step aside if he loses the primary.

[saltpoint]

14. If Ned Lamont wins convincingly in the August primary, I don't think

Lieberman has a strong case if he is not Democrats' first choice, and I think many Democratic voters will stick with the Democratic winner of that primary.

At that point, Lieberman will have lost "home field advantage" as a Democratic incumbent, as a majority of Democrats in Connecticut will have chosen Lamont to be the candidate in November.

Joe's legally permitted to run in the general as an independent, but his position will be weakened considerably.

If Lamont wins the primary, Lamont wins the general.