Search
Senate about to go Democratic?
The New York Times has an excellent tool for political addicts, their race tracker. As of today, it shows 48 seats safe or leaning Dem, 49 seats safe or leaning to the other side, and three toss-ups: New Jersey, Tennessee and Missouri.
Thing is, we're ahead in all three by several points in the latest polls. If the election were held today, we'd pick up the Senate.
22 days to go.
http://dailygotham.com/blog/bouldin/senate_about_to_go_democratic
Mouse over the text to select it, then press Ctrl-C to copy it.
Not to mention...
We are neck and neck in Virginia. Public racism has reduced Senator Allen's lead until Webb is ready to overtake him.
We can take Virginia as well!
Where's the support for Ned Lamont?
So where's the support from Ned Lamont? Over the summer, Bouldin, you and everyone else here were pushing hard for Lamont, his race vs. Lieberman was seen as of paramount importance. Now its seems like many progressive democrats are abandoning Ned Lamont, like they were just using him to make a point on the Iraq war, and don't want to carry him to the finish line? I thought the point was to get Lieberman out of the Senate, but it seems like people don't see it that way. Was the primary in Connecticut just a protest and now lets leave Lamont to twist in the wind and send Joe back to D.C.?
This post might be the first one in weeks on this board to even mention the name "Ned Lamont", strange considering the guy was everybody's hero back this summer...
For the record
For the record, I wasn't "pushing hard" for Lamont. I am all for him over "Kissy Face" Lieberman, but in my mind that was a race where it was win/win bigger for Dems. Either Lieberman would win and we'd be no worse off, or Lamont would win and we'd be better off. As it is it is looking like Lieberman is the likely winner last I heard, so my money is going (litterally) to VA, NJ, MO, etc. I did donate to the CT House races because we have some pick up opportunities there and I figure turning out the vote for those House race probably will help Lamont somewhat over Lieberman.
Now, having said that I will a.) ask you what the Lamont/Lieberman race has to do with what Bouldin is talking about in this diary, and b.) I do agree with you that there does seem to be a loss of momentum in the Lamont camp, at least from what I have seen from the outside. Act Now and I think DFNYC has been focusing on CT, including Lamont. So there is some activity. And I have been pushing the Act Now phonebanks day after day, so in that sense I certainly have been pushing to help Lamont, but only as part of a grander strategy.
relevance of Lamont/Lieberman
What it has to do with what Bouldin was posting is that he was posting about November's Senate races. This summer every third item posted was about Ned Lamont, and now crucial it was for him to beat Lieberman. Not just here but on a number of web sites. Bouldin was among the more outspoken, and absolutely gloated over Lieberman losing. But now there's silence, we have the same race taking place again and yet no sense of urgency, no "lets take a stand, lets boot Joe out!" I think republicans who routinely cricitize the progressive web left-leaners might have every reason to look at the way Lamont is now twisting in the wind and accuse many of us of lacking true conviction. Of being fair weather folks, willing to ride Lamont's ship when it was clear sailing and there was attention to be gotten, but when the seas get rough are people jumping ship?
I still want to help Lamont and I hope to go to Connecticut for a day or two, but I couldn't blame Ned if he saw the way he has DISAPPEARED from the radar of all these progressive websites, and wonders whats going on...
Not sure I agree
Well, again I find there has been some decline in focus on Lamont...but with so many races in play, that should be expected. Lamont is now one star among many.
But, I don't see that Bouldin focusing on capturing the Senate from the Republicans has relavence with the Lieberman/Lamont race. In fact, by making the general election a Lieberman/Lamont race, we negate any Republican influence. Now Lieberman, who I am not fond of these days, but used to be and still consider him within the range of tolerable, has become the Republican candidate. In essence, from that point of view, we have already won that seat. I would GREATLY prefer Lamont, but not to the degree I would prefer, for example, Webb over Racist Allen, or, in a long shot, Carter over the Republican in Nevada.
Finally, you still claim that the progressives have abandoned Lamont. Again, DFNYC and Act Now still focus on him, though in a wider context. So it isn't really true that Progressives have abandoned him. He simply is less important in the context of a 50-state, general election strategy than he was in the primaries.
If you are trying to catch Bouldin out in an inconsitency, well, good luck. I am always amused to see Bouldin squirm...though I think you are up to doing it.
huge relavance
Liebermann/Lamont has huge relavance. Lieberschmuck will not say whom he's supporting in congressional races, or in the Governor's race in CT - he's already headging his bets. He's a whore, and will go to the highest bidder. Even if the dems do pick up 49 seats (plus Libermann and Sanders), my bet would be on Liebermann to swing the balance back to the Rethugs sometime in the next couple of years.
Liebermann is out for no one but Joe Liebermann, and cannot be counted upon to stay a democrat. If he does win, but manages to stay a dem, it'll be a sign that the DLC is still in control of the party.
all hugely significant.
Good to hear
But then why, pray tell, are the Greens running a candidate in that race?
Full of shit as always - and off topic
I actually posted several diaries on Lamont recently, Wallner, so I don't quite understand what it is that you're complaining about.
Nor why it's even relevant in a post on the subject of the possible partisan flip of the Senate. Because Connecticut is staying Dem regardless.
Nor why I should even bother to explain myself to possibly the most stupid person in politics.
I really would suggest you get over your Bouldin hardon, Wallner. You're becoming a stalker, which is weirding me the fuck out.
You love the attention!
Come on. He's your biggest fan! : -)
And why its relevant
And why Lieberman/Lamont is relevant, if I need to spell it out for you, is that even if the Democrats win back the Senate, it will be by a razor thin margin. Lieberman will caucus with the Democrats, but on issues like Iraq he will vote with the republicans. He will give them the majority on certain issues. He is a republican on foreign policy issues. This is why it is important the effort is made to get Lamont in. If Bouldin was half as astute politically as he THINKS he is, he'd have figured that out on his own.
Lamont still has a real chance too. The latest poll from the Hartford Courant has:
Lieberman 48
Lamont 40
Schlesinger 4
Undecided 8
Undecides always go at least 2 to 1 for the challenger, as it is not the incumbent (who they know) that they are undecided about. Therefore Lamont figures to get at least six percent of that undecided, meaning his real number is more like 46. Factor in that many republicans in CT are going to stay home, as all of their guys are going to lose anyway, and that it is the democrats who figure to come out and be much more motivated to vote this year. Lieberman's numbers are padded with gop'ers saying they'll vote for him, who might well stay home. Some other republicans who poll for Lieberman will end doing gop straight ticket just because thats what they always do. Finally as an Independent, Lieberman will appear way down at the bottom of the ballot, and most voters eyes will only see the two main party lines. Ballot positioning can be very important.
All of that, and the fact that Lieberman still isn't polling fifty percent, tells me Lamont still has a good chance to win. Now Bouldin will read this and call me an idiot and a stalker, because only his opinions matter right? I think if I had a blog, I'd *like* it if people participuated, and wouldn't be calling people names, trying to drive them off.
Much of that is obvious...
But in the context of flipping Republican seats to Dem, it is not relavent.
Of COURSE we all prefer Lamont. But I would far prefer Webb to beat Allen or McCaskill to beat Talent, etc. than Lamont to beat Lieberman.
As is being discussed in my diary posting a MoveOn push, all of these many efforts are finding it hard to fill their slots with volunteers. If there is a shortage of manpower, Lamont's bid has to take a back seat to other races.
And, again, as I have said, Act Now certainly is targeting that race as well as the CT House races. So you might want to contact them if you want to help out.
Another site tracking the Senate is....
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
It's a tad more optimistic about the Dem's chances. During the 2004 election, the site was must viewing, and it looks good now, too.
And, Bouldin, I want the Dems to win, too. As bad as you do. But would you please stop saying "we" when referring to the party's chances. You sound like a Wisconsin cheesehead. This is politics, not sports.
We...
I actually mostly follow a Republican biased site. Keeps me from being overly optimistic. Yet even there they think Dems will pick up 4 or so Senate seats and, as of THIS WEEK, they predict Dems will pick up TWENTY House seats. Last week they were predicting 13. I think that 7 seat shift was the Foley scandal making its way through the polls.
As to "we," I think it is appropriate. For me, the Democratic Party is "we." I think I am as much a part of the party as anyone. Thinking in terms of "we" emphasizes that those who see themselves as the "insiders" have no more right to claiming the party than you or I do. Not speaking for Bouldin here, only myself.
Maybe I'd think in terms of "we," too,
if the party didn't fold up its tent in November, or actually functioned as a membership operation and not an election line, or wasn't so easily manipulated by consultants, or stood for something you wouldn't be embarrassed to bring home to mom. As it is, I feel as much kinship with this thing called The Democrats as I do with The People of New York State. We're all New Yorkers, and then the commonalities get tenuous. But, yes, I can see your point: why concede the party to the honchos, even rhetorically. Fair point, too.
Hate to sound ominous but....
I hate to sound ominous but Roger Ailes and the GOP dark lords know exactly how the republicans can retain the house and the senate if the numbers don't look good. Its called a "terrorist attack", or even a "terrorist scare". A bombing, a threatened bombing, Al Queda on the rampage somewhere, an angry video from Bin Laden .etc Some way of reminding voters of the "war on terror" and convincing them that we need the most hawkish lawmakers possible elected. I fear its likely this card, or cards, are going to be played by the gop in the coming weeks. Leaking the right information at the right time to SCARE the electorate into keeping the status quo.
or...
an invasion of Iran...
or a Nuke test in N. Korea that they could barely detect...
or...
people are starting to see these things not as reasons to vote for Republicans but as failures on the part of REpubublicans. They long ago promised to deal with these things and they have failed.
Not to say you are wrong...it may yet happen and may yet work. But I think it becomes less and less effective the more often they use it. Reminds me of a kids' story with a wolf in it...