Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Ideological Purge Watch

At least through the end of August, Lieberman appeared to be doing pretty well for himself. As for whether there's some sort of conspiracy to force hawks out of the party - by, like, voting them out of office - the evidence is thin:
[Chuck Schumer] and others cited several reasons why Lamont's victory didn't herald a national movement to topple entrenched Democrats in the 13 primaries being contested this month. Most notably, the party has turned its attention to recapturing control of Congress in November, and that means emphasizing not just opposition to the Iraq war but a variety of other issues.


...

Anyone wanting to piggyback on Lamont's success has faced another hurdle: The Lamont-Lieberman race involved "a unique set of circumstances," as Washington political analyst Jennifer Duffy put it.

It would be difficult to replicate the combination of a wealthy challenger who eventually pumped about $4 million into his campaign; an incumbent senator whose war views and praise of White House policy were highly unpopular at home; the notion that Lieberman had announced his intention to run as an independent if he lost; and the fact that the race was run in a small state where individual voters are easier to reach.
Of course, Lamont's victory showed that Lieberman's position on the war mattered, but it was only one of many factors contributing to his loss.

6 comments:

Tommaso Sciortino said...

Check out what I saw:
GOP secretly channeled millions to Lieberman


If this is true (though to be clear I don't know how trust worthy this source is) it would certainly disprove the "we shouldn't oppose Lieberman because it wastes Dem resources" argument.

Paul said...

Wikipedia is saying that Insight was started as a weekly newsmagazine by the Washington Times, but paper production has sinced ceased in favor of a biweekly web-based format. It looks like the affiliation with the Times still holds.

Tommaso Sciortino said...

Hmm, That's an interesting case. Washington Times isn't known for their top-notch reporting but they are biased rightward so you'd think that lends them creadence on this subject. Well, there you go.

Aaron said...

What that argues for is greater exposure of campaign finance sources. Regardless, the general argument that we should spend our resources fighting against candidates that will caucus with Republicans stands independently of these revelations.

Tommaso Sciortino said...

True. The general principal that people should vote for the primary candidate that they think is best also holds.

Aaron said...

Well, of course, but Ezra Klein does have a point. Btw, he's my favorite TAP writer.