August 26, 2006


The Big Kahuna links to this story from the New Haven Independent on Lieberman giving the cold shoulder to Democrat challengers to Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons. Any plan the Donks have of getting Speaker Pelosi depend on picking up at least two of those three CT seats.

Right here, Hamsher, you obdurate wench. Who's on the gurney now?

So let me get this straight: put all the money and venom on unseating a centrist Democrat for not being pure enough (who, if you defeat, gets you no closer to gaining control of the Senate) and in doing so seriously jeapordize your chances of winning the House? Riiiiiiiiiiight. Damn that Karl Rove for dipping Ned Lamont in a Krispy Kreme glaze with a sprinkling of Baco-Bits to make him irresistable to the nutroots starved for victory. Meanwhile, the punters are putting their money on Lieberman winning the whole thing:


Here are the seats it's looking likely the Democrats are going to pick up in the fall:
Rhode Island




They need Missouri, but that's starting to look not likely:

By unlikely in that the other races are really pulling away, meaning that the Republicans will concentrate their resources on the ones they can really hold. Santorum, Chafee (assuming he wins the primary), Burns, and Dewine are all in trouble for one reason or another of their own doing.

But say they get Missouri, where do they get the one they need to hold the Senate (assuming Joe even caucuses with them if he does in fact win)? The only one that is close is Tennessee, and that contract is trading at $70 for a Republican victory (and Virginia, even after Macaca-gate, is still trading at $80 for a George Allen victory).

But that assumes the Democrats hold all their seats (setting Joe aside for a moment):
New Jersey:

$60 is the very soft bottom of the comfort zone---if anything, it might be a good opportunity for Republicans to pour a lot of resources into a state that the Donks can't afford to lose but the Republicans don't need to win. Since they are going into this with a $100 million advantage over the Donks (way to go Howard Dean!) such strategic options are available.

That's it, everything else is trading above $80, although we'll keep our eye on both Virginia as well as Maria Cantwell's race in Washington state as both are on the $80 line. My hunch is that everything above $80 on Labor Day will be essentially over, leaving these few races as the core.

But it will certainly be rich indeed if it turns out that August 8th was the Donk high water mark, and what ultimately costs them the House and the Senate.

Posted by Steve-O at August 26, 2006 10:24 AM | TrackBack

When do we hear about how the reactionary right is purging Chafee for his centrist ways?

Posted by: LB buddy at August 26, 2006 06:52 PM

Ummm, probably because they're not. Notice the absence of the "Rape Gurney Linc" vitriolic blog-swarm against him, and the average-Joe Mayor of Cranston running against him. Will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth if the Chafee dynasty ends? No. But they're not exactly subjecting him to an auto de fe the way the left is to Joltin' Joe.

The last time the Republicans purged anyone it was Pat Buchanan, because of what the bastard did in 92. Purges (as well as deep baths in conspiracy and paranoia) are indulgences of minority parties, not to mention incredibly counterproductive.

The Donks need to be prudent about this: they lost two Senate seats in the 1990s this way (Shelby and Nighthorse-Campbell).

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at August 26, 2006 08:21 PM

You mean like this?

Posted by: LB buddy at August 26, 2006 09:03 PM

I know I'm dang sure voting for Joe, and so will most of my other CT Republican friends. A Democratic pundit in the local fishwrapper is claiming that Lamont's victory is a wake-up call. Sure is, but not for Joe. All the centrist Democrats and Republicans fed up with the shennanigans of either party now have someone to vote for. Wouldn't it be ironic if years from now we viewed this election as the one that started a third party that destroyed the Dems as a political force? On the other hand all it might do is wake up the centrists in either party and finally get them off of their duffs to vote in the primaries, instead of leaving that venue to the rabid partisans.

Going to be an interesting November.

Posted by: John at August 26, 2006 09:05 PM

Oh hell yeah, tell me what 66.50 wrote.

Right, because the activities of one lobbying group is equivalent to the en masse anti-lieberman purge ramrodded by the nutroots. Meanwhile, LB Buddy obfuscates and fails to refute the hypocrisy of a Democratic Party that A) Makes Joe walk the plank then B) Expects him to walk the party line.

Posted by: Memento Moron at August 27, 2006 12:30 AM

Huh? The quoted text was supposed to be "You mean like this?"

Posted by: Memento Moron at August 27, 2006 12:32 AM

The Club for Growth is hardly reactionary, it's like the Chamber of Commerce after a three day little pfizer brand blue pill bender at a Star Trek convention in Vegas.

So, then, where are the tee-vee ads for Chafee's opponent featuring a giggling Glenn Reynolds? Where's the active presence of any top 100 conservative bloggers on the campaign trail with Steve Laffey? Where's the vitriolic reactionary website MyRightWingMr.PotatoHead as the antidote to MyLeftWingNutmeg? Where's the racially tinged pshops taking down Chaffee, let alone accusing him of being a baby-murderer (again, on any top 100 conservative blogs)? The answer is there aren't, because what's going on in RI is normal primary politics that takes place in both parties (ie among the Republicans last time Specter ran, for example). What happened in CT was an altogether different thing.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at August 27, 2006 11:00 AM


The Club for Growth is much more reactionary than Lamont is lefty, and if you gave Lamont the choice of picking between blog support, or millions of dollars for his campaign, I would bet he would take the money (for the sake of argument let's say there was no expectations tied to the money). Sure, a couple high-profile liberal bloggers went and worked for Lamont. You can't seriously be arguing that that is anything near the advantages that come from being a three term incumbent, getting support from all the major democratic politicians and all the money from the PAC's?!?!? Joe had all the advantages, and still lost. The only explanation was that he was completely out of touch with the Democrats in his state. You have expressed to me and I can't agree more, the overwheming advantages that come from being the incumbent are a huge threat to real democracy. Joe had all of that, still 2nd place.
My comments to Steve also apply to your first comment. The other comment about expecting Joe to behave after losing the primary:
Yes they should expect him to behave. Almost every major Democratic player came out in support for Liberman BEFORE he lost. That was showing him respect (whether he deserved it or not), it is only right that he should show the same respect after he lost and do the right thing and step down. He has every right to run as an independent (or a CFL or whatever) and even has a good chance to win, but he could bring out a GOP vote that might otherwise not have shown up, threatening other tight races, and there is no way that he can spin this as being good for the Democratic party. It is good for Joe and Joe alone. I agree with those saying that he should be stripped of any Dem seniority immediately for this behavior (and I'm not even a Democrat).

Posted by: LB Buddy at August 27, 2006 03:03 PM

Hmmmm, the nephew (?) of Corliss Lamont? I'm not so sure of that.

My point remains that there is no equivalent vitriolic blogswarm from the right against any of their own this primary season, and that the vitriolic attack on "Rape Gurney Joe" is beginning to look like it's going to bite the Donks in the ass this fall in their asperations to win back the House and the Senate. Was it in their purview to do it? Absolutely. Is it difficult to unseat an incumbent? Absolutely. But just because it can be done, doesn't necessarily mean it should be. If the rank and file have determined Joe is so far outside the boundaries that he has to be driven from the party (or the boundary marked such that he's not a part of it) that's their absolute right, of course. But it also points, I think, to their unwillingness to be a majority party when it counts, much like the 'Phants went through in the early 1990s with Buchanan.

Posted by: Steve the LLamabutcher at August 27, 2006 08:10 PM