Of course it isn't the blogs. Lamont is polling over 40%. There aren't enough bloggers or blog readers in Connecticut to produce such numbers. Lieberman's problems are far deeper than being opposed by Dailykos.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Oh come on now, Mark. Let's not dispel the myth that blogofascist Markos is calling all the shots.

It makes for such good copy.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Of course it's not just the netroots. You couldn't find any of the prominent bloggers who would say so. As Markos has repeatedly said, all the netroots can do is generate some buzz. You still have to have a solid candidate, good organization, and issues to run on.

It's actually the other way around. This race is making the netroots the face of wide-spread dissatisfaction with the DC Democrats. The media needs an actor to represent that dissatisfaction and the most obvious is the liberal blogosphere. We (yes, we--I regard myself as part of the liberal blogosphere) were out in front on this race early, despite the extreme long shot that it was, early. (Who could have known that Lieberman couldn't run a campaign?)

But, believe me, there is no illusion that the netroots alone elect candidates. It's effective at energizing already committed people, and it eliminates the sense of being all alone in your unhappiness with the established players. In that sense it empowers people. The netroots have also done things like demolish inaccurate ads, like the Lieberman's fake bumper sticker. But the idiocy of running that ad is way more important than it's falsity, or the arrogant decision to name the independent party "Connecticut for Lieberman."

At the heart of it, these campaigns are won in the traditional ways. The netroots may get more people engaged, but that engagement will still be volunteering, giving money, and showing up on election day. Markos knows that. Jane knows that--that's why she's there.

The significance of Swan's and CCAG staffers backing is huge. Consider the Dean campaign, which went into the Iowa caucuses with busloads of eager folk, often who gathered at meet ups and other blog and web-inspired get togethers, but who, according to many reports, didn't quite know how to work caucuses and get out the Dean vote.

So Dean did wonders raising money and issues using the WWW, and that's helping Lamont to an extent. But the advantage of having a committed --local-- progressive infrastructure to ring doorbells, make phone calls, find their supporters and get them to the poles on primary day, that's what will put this over the top.

It's come down to Lieberman's union support and party support versus Swan's and colleague's ability to organize and get out their vote.

From people I know in Connecticut, Lieberman's union support is official from the leadership, but may be soft among the rank and file, and the party support is obviously fractured.

Lieberman's running uphill on ball bearings that are rolling down. Look for him to slip.

But Mr Schmitt, without the "netroots" storyline and the "principled war stand of tailgunner Joe", wouldn't reporters and commentators have to discuss issues? How quaint.

"And correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Howard Dean's 50 state strategy all about connecting with voters through robust grass-roots organization"

You're sorta wrong.

Dean's strategy is about connecting with Democratic activists, not about connecting with the larger group of voters necessary to win general elections.

Energizing the activists isn't a bad long-term strategy for the party, as long as it doesn't drive the party in counterproductive directions, of course. But one shouldn't confuse activists with the larger group of voters.

"If the netroots were so strong, so effective, and so hostile to the DC establishment, how come Lieberman is the only Dem incumbent on the ropes?"

Because the netroots were founded by opposition to the war, and they continue to be primarily driven by opposition to the war. And because Holy Joe is the only Dem incumbent fundamentally on the same page as Bush on the war.

Hence, this August we get to witness the Perfect Storm Part Deux.

Good job of demolishing the strawman you set up in your first paragraph.

Outside of some clueless reporters desperately searching for a hook, is there anyone who seriously thinks Lamont is fully the creation of the netroots?

Your last paragraph is good, but states the obvious: A lot of factors all have to align perfectly for a successful challenge to a three-term incumbent.

Who woulda thunk it?

I could be wrong, of course, but irony on the net usually comes in quotes, as your comment itself shows.

"And finally, by taking out the “insurance policy” of running under a party named after himself, he highlighted every one of his own negatives and virtually ensured his defeat in the primary"

If you really think he's virtually ensured to go down to defeat, you ought to go make some easy money on your handicapping ability. Lieberman is currently a 70-30 favorite at TradeSports, which means you could make some decent scratch betting on Lamont if you're correct.

Personally, I'd peg Lieberman's odds in the primary at a bit better than 50-50.

"with a very good chance that the independent candidacy will fizzle as well."

Now I'm getting worried about you, Mark. You're normally the smartest lefty in the room.

While multi-candidate races can obviously turn odd - a stronger Republican candidate could hurt Lieberman - I'd still bet the farm and my neighbor's farm that he gets the most votes in November. Lamont's just not a strong enough candidate to take him down in the general.

deleted

Petey

"Because the netroots were founded by opposition to the war"

and to think I subscribe to Main stream media when I can get all their malarkey served cold right here.

"It can't be more obvious that Lieberman wasn't expecting a primary challenge based on what I've seen from his campaign thus far."

I think he's been expecting a primary challenge since late 2003, although I'd bet he's surprised at the strength of it.

He's apparently been warning his fundraising sources about it for quite a while, and I knew a primary was coming in late 2003 simply from reading Daily Kos.

Dean's strategy is about connecting with Democratic activists, not about connecting with the larger group of voters necessary to win general elections.

Because the netroots were founded by opposition to the war, and they continue to be primarily driven by opposition to the war.

Energizing the activists isn't a bad long-term strategy for the party, as long as it doesn't drive the party in counterproductive directions, of course.

Neither the netroots nor Dean nor Bush's atrocious presidency are a panacea for the illnesses of the instutition of the Democratic Party. But the emergence of progressive activists who, for the first time in decades want to organize, make common cause with other activists, and build a party that can attract more voters is a big deal. That's why the Lamont campaign titillates bloggers, not opposition to Bush or the war.

I also live next to CT and I can't find anything to agree with in Mary's post. She seems to think that a 55% poll for a three-term incumbent is a sign of strength. Those are terrible figures in a world where most incumbents have no primary opposition at all, and where many incumbents face no challenge in the national elections in November.

If Lamont had done as poorly in the debate as Mary claims, this hasn't shown in the polls. One would have expected Lamont to plummet and Lieberman to soar. Didn't happen, won't happen.

No single job is a life and death situation. Having a job is. Thinking like this is one of the reasons why we have an out-of-control military budget. The alliance between the arms industry, the military, and the Department of Defense has been called dangerous to democracy since Dwight David Eisenhower's Farewell Address defined the Military Industrial Complex, cf http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm.  Nobody would call Eisenhower a chickenhawk.

If an industrial facility no longer serves a useful purpose the sane thing to do is to close it and assist the affected community through the transition. Newport, Rhode Island didn't fade away when the fleet left:

Early in 1973, a Shore Establishment Realignment study directed the closing of the Quonset Point Naval Air Station, a drawdown of facilities at Davisville, the movement of the active fleet from Newport, and a cutback of personnel and activities. Five previously independent commands were disestablished and their personnel absorbed by a new activity - the Naval Education and Training Center (NETC). A series of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commissions changed the Navy in Newport to the approximately 30 different naval and Department of Defense commands and activites resident today. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/newport.htm

Today's facilities house roughly 10% of the numbers they housed at the navy's peak, and most of those remaining are involved with education and research. Newport survived the change. Should Electric Boat close, Groton and New London will survive as well, and thrive, if appropriate assistance is provided during the transition.

Comparing those who support Lamont and oppose Lieberman chickenhawks and armchair warriors is simply unproductive. It doesn't raise Lieberman's stature and it doesn't diminish Lamont's stature. So why do it? Mike

"And I'm surprised that you could read a thoughtful post from Mark Schmitt emphasizing the importance of decades of progressive organizing and come away faulting Dean for trying to do nationwide progressive organizing."

I'm not faulting Dean for trying to organize activists. I said, with a caveat, that I thought it was a positive for the party.

And FWIW, I was responding to a comment, not to Mark's post.

"This statement is negated by your very presence on this forum. Are you fundamentally here posting about this subject because you are anti-war and Joe Lieberman is on the same page as Bush? The progressive netroots consists of people genuinely excited about talking politics..."

Well, this is an interesting point.

There are two different, but interconnected things that almost no one has been much concerned with separating.

First is the progressive blogosphere, which is what I think you are talking about above. I'm a proud member of the lefty blogosphere, and by all of our presences here, we are all activists. Josh Marshall really was one of the pioneers in this space.

Second is The Netroots™, a nexus of folks centered around Markos, Jerome, Bowers, Stoller, and a constellation of related folks. This is much more akin to a traditional Democratic interest group than what you described above, with money sloshing around and message discipline being more important than dialogue.

While there is plenty of overlap between the two groups, they really are different in fundamental ways.

No one has the terminology to discuss this stuff accurately yet, and so it remains mostly unexplored. Partly, that is because both groups have some motivation to keep the distinction unsaid. The Netroots™ wants the legitimacy of being the voice of the larger progressive blogosphere. And the progressive blogosphere is somewhat entranced by the "juice" of The Netroots™.

But eventually we'll find the right terminology to talk about this stuff.

"Neither the netroots nor Dean nor Bush's atrocious presidency are a panacea for the illnesses of the instutition of the Democratic Party. But the emergence of progressive activists who, for the first time in decades want to organize, make common cause with other activists, and build a party that can attract more voters is a big deal. "

Well, considering that Democrats' have had the minority electoral coalition for going on 40 years now, it's not a huge surprise that panaceas are hard to come by.

But I'd say a couple of things here:

Progressive activism existed before the netroots. The internet, along with the war, has grown their number somewhat, increased their visibility, and made it easier for them to organize. But they were here before, in numbers. Bill Bradley had about a third of the party with him in '00, and that campaign was spearheaded by the activist contingent of the party.

And I'd note that the last great flowering of activists in the party coincided with the Democrats' transformation from electoral majority party to electoral minority party. I'm cautiously optimistic about the surge in enthusiasm, but I'll note that it is a very sharp double-edged sword, and that it is not absolutely destined to strengthen the party.

Who's Responsible for the Lieberman Meltdown?

Joe Lieberman? Is that a good answer?

I think there's a false distinction being made here. Netroots and Activists may not always be the same persons, but there is considerable synergy between them.

My interest and involvement in politics was reawakened by the Internet. I attended Dean for America, now segued into Democracy for America, Meetups because I learned about them through the Internet, and when I get an e-mail from Howard Dean over at the Democratic National Committee I occasionally respond with a contribution to help with the 50 State Strategy. I believe in that strategy, simply because it strikes me that one can't win a game in which one isn't playing, and given the choice between slim and none I go with slim every time.

I go to Buy Blue http://www.buyblue.org/  to find out how to channel my purchases to support progressive enterprises and stay away from those which fund the right. I drop a buck or two in the campaign coffers of those who interest me and those bucks go to pay for activists. Synergy Synergy Synergy.

When both sides of the coin recognize how much they need each other perhaps they can take steps to interact even more effectively.

And when all is said and done, I get chance to have conversations about activism and communications with stimulating people like you all, courtesy of the Internet. I'm sure glad Al Gore invented it.

Should Electric Boat close, Groton and New London will survive as well, and thrive, if appropriate assistance is provided during the transition.

Well put, however, Lieberman and most timid national Dems are opposed to "appropriate assistance" as part of their ingrained impulse to show business interests that they too are worthy of donations. It's why Joe's claims ring so hollow and, more emblematically, why so many of my Connecticut relatives who used to work manufacturing jobs in the defense sector now work as blackjack dealers and pitbosses at Foxwoods.

the case againt Joe is long.

http://www.timetogojoe.com/

econd is The Netroots™, a nexus of folks centered around Markos, Jerome, Bowers, Stoller, and a constellation of related folks. This is much more akin to a traditional Democratic interest group than what you described above, with money sloshing around and message discipline being more important than dialogue.

You left out "and lead liberal inquisitions" from your characterization.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

No disagreement on this point. When an action creates a dislocation the pols responsible for the action should provide the remedy: as mom taught, clean up your own mess. That goes for Democrats as well as Republicans. There would be a lot less disillusionment about government if this was the standard of accountability.

Mike

"According to one of the Connecticut blogs I mentioned above, much of the CCAG staff has also quit or taken a leave to help Lamont."

I think it would be appropriate to provide links to the Connecticut blogs. While it was interesting to see the Missouri blogs linked, I missed anything other than a "mention" of the Connecticut blogs.

I'm no fan of Lieberman either, and while I agree with you that the tide has risen against the war, in CT, those who have skin in the game are alot fewer than in other states.. so you aren't going to see an alliance between the blue collar dems/leaning towards dem, and the neo-progs on that issue. For the most part, even liberal blue collar folks in CT have a rabid dislike of the neo-progs there.. I wasn't exagerating about the sense of disconnect..it's incredibly vast.

As to Deao-o-phobes, my dislike of the man has nothing of the phobia to it.. it's based on researching his record as governor of VT, and the experiences of my relatives on my mother's side of the family who live in Burlington, Charlotte and Rutland.. Dean was not, is not and will never be the great progressive hope Trippi marketed him as being. He was and always will be a fence sitter and political opportunist. From what I've read in Chait's article, it seems to me that his concern is that the neo-progs not help facilitate a republican getting elected to the senate seat, and quite honestly Chait has every reason to be concerned about this.. the only thing the neo-progs have been successful at is electing republicans.

I haven't seen any significant poll conducted since the debate, but from what I've been hearing Lamont hasn't lit any fire in the hearts and minds of voters other than the already steadfast supporters.

Mike presents a classic example of the disconnect I've mentioned.. anyone who would attempt to contrast Newport, RI with Groton, CT should be laughed at for being an outright dunce. There is no parallel whatsoever. We're talking about middle class and lower middle class people here who live in Groton and the surrounding area.. the closures in Newport were in no way the same, they involved primarily naval personnel who were transfered or retired. Newport itself was never dependent on any of the bases or facilities of the navy, it's bread and butter is the tourism trade and the tax dollars of the affluent that are the lions share of it's constituency.

Face it Mike, you're about as expert on the economy as Shrub Bush is..

I know what it was like for RI'ers who worked at Groton and Quonset years back lost their jobs.. there aren't jobs to replace those that were eliminated. Do you know what it's like to lose your home, watch your family slide down that slippery slope? I somehow doubt it. What's more, what does assistance actually amount to during the Bush administration? Training in what industry? Tell us what industries are safe from outsourcing/offshoring of jobs these days? What's the plan for the millions of un and under employed Americans who fell off the unemployment rolls and are no longer counted in this so called booming economy? Don't go on about your fit of pique with Lieberman, because Lieberman in the senate is better than a republican.

If you still wish to continue in that vein, please make sure to trash NOW, NARAL and Planned Parenthood with the same venom, because they are still endorsing republicans who make a pretense at being pro-choice while still siding with Bush on all important issues.. because otherwise you're full of sh*t.

Dean isn't investing anything, it's more of a vicious circle, the 'net roots still loyal to Dean are investing in Dean and he's circulating that cash back for the lip service.. any comments I've read regarding Dean's outreach plan always express frustration with the Deaniac minons who are fatally flawed when it comes to outreach to those not already in rigid lockstep with them.

Similarly, people I know across the country have felt disappointed by the lack of real outreach by Dean's plan.. some are still waiting for promises that probably won't be kept.

Moveon which seemed appealing originally has become little other than a hallelujiah chorus for the single issues crowd. Not much else.

I know an upstate CT voter who saw the bear ad on television, FYI

no mechanism to fire a bad employee.

We have a perfectly good mechanism. It's call an election. If the people of Connecticut decide they want somebody else to represent them, they can vote for somebody else.

If an incumbent keeps his seat, it's because the voters feel that he deserves to, or at least that he's better than the alternative.

I cannot believe it. Today is July 14 and I actually agree with neo-Mary on something (seriously). To be clear I should admit being a neo-prog, neo-left, neo-pinko (soon to enter Mary's neo-vocab), but I am in complete agreement with her on the destructive role being played by single-issue groups like Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Naral, Planned Parenthood, Campaign for Human Rights and others who support Republicans despite the fact that every issue of concern is battered by the Republicans letting a few members of their party give symbolic opposition to a particular issue (to gain electoral victory with a constituency aroused by that issue) but making sure the Party as a whole supports the whole repugnant program. It might have made sense once for a single issue group to be "non-partisan" it maks no sense now. I would urge everyone NOT to support these groups; their endorsements of Republicans imperil the actual issue they say concerns them. Times have changed; there is no room for liberal or progressive nonpartisanship or bipartisanship. If you want to defeat right wing issues, you must defeat the right wing party.

The netroots are like a bunch of ushers at a theatre. Confusing the ushers with the audience of patrons is just as bad as confusing the ushers with the theatre managers, or the players on stage.

The deep story of the 2006 election will be the emergence of a New Democratic Right. Extinguishing Lieberman, as the exemplar of the old Democratic Right, is a part of that story, but from November forward, old Joe will (hopefully) be a fading memory, and the new reality will be some aggressive, albeit moderate or conservative voices, in the House or Senate, who have no interest in being Blue Dogs for the Republicans. A New Democratic Right, actively hostile to the corruption and incompetence of the Republicans, could be the foundation of a new Democratic majority.

The ad ran on TV for a short time and was as effective as taking an aspirin to cure cancer.

Numerous other ads followed to yawns and indifference.

I could not disagree more strongly!

We have two right wing parties. Show me the party that opposes the war, is commited to single payer universal health insurance, real conservation (not a phony commitment to lower gas prices) and yes, to civil rights, human rights, and reproductive rights.

I think they call it the Green Party and if I can find one of its candidates on my ballot, I'm going to give it a try in November.

I started out supporting a Minnesota Senator named Eugene McCarthy and I now have a Senate candidate who doesn't have the guts to take a stand on war or anything else.

If there is any new Eugene McCarthy out there I'm looking for him....

Thank you for affirming my theory that Americans have a "choice" between two right wing parties.

A good part of this is due to the seniority system, I guess. Entrenched power gets the perks, new power doesn't. Tip O'Neill brought the Big Dig to Boston, after all. (If he were still around the ceiling might not be falling off). This argument can be seen either as an argument for re-electing Lieberman or for changing the seniority system. Or maybe both. Funny how the Republicans don't make as much noise for term limits as they once did, isn't?

Mike

I do not entirely disagree with you even though you disagree with me. My partisanship consists of anti-Bush, anti-right-wing fervor. I am VERY unhappy with the Sierra Club for its backing of Chafee, NARAL and Planned Parenthood for their support of Lieberman etc. For me that ends my support of single-issue groups that participate in the political process to the extent that they support candidates from both parties. My point is that it is not necessary for a group to support a Democrat for me to support it, but it IS necessary for them never to support Republicans. Moderate Republicanism does not exist since the Republicans have taken their hard right turn; Snowe, Chaffee, Specter, Shays, enable the Republicans to continue their attacks on the poor and middle-class. Here I agree with neo-Mary.
Concerning the Green Party, I think they will be on the ballot. I have mixed feelings about going that route, but I sure wish we had a parliamentary system. The failures now in the current period of crisis of the two party system and American democracy more generally is a serious topic I have found nowhere treated seriously. Our system which has worked relatively well in the past is strikingly unresponsive to the changes currently in the public mood. Not only do we have a 50 percent non-voting total but the two-party system fosters the bizarre phenomenon where 2 out of 3 voters in a congressional district favor Democrats and the polling shows that district favoring a particular Republican over his rival. How can this be? With the two-party system, personality, looks, TV aura, money go a long way towards trumping political issues and policies as the motivation for people to vote a certain way; the 2-party system, with the big influx of corporate financing, means politics is de-emphasized, the system has hardening of its arteries; it is inflexible; it favors stories "framing" about the candidates rather than clear exposition of where the candidates stand. As we lurch from crisis to crisis with an incompetent, moronic, greedy,and nasty Republican leadership the Democrats are reluctant to enunciate any clear political positions. It may feel good to vote Green (I've done it before myself and certainly may do it again) but we both know it does not affect anything; but if the Democrats do not offer anything why not. There has never been a time where I have been more convinced about the failure of the system. You recall the British newspaper headline after the last election: "How can 50 (?)million Americans beso stupid?" I think the very system, the celebrated "American democracy", promotes such stupidity by promoting personality and image instead of policy and program. Look at some of the contortions thoughtful people in these posts at TPM take to calculate which road is the best politically.
Lastly, Klobuchar. I am also disappointed with her campaign and her views. For me she has indicated just enough opposition to the current direction in Iraq that I am leaning toward voting for her. We'll see.

My thought is that Democraticc seniority matters very little until the Democrats control something.

Right now they can't get heard except in perfunctory fashion.

That's nearly absolutely true in the House of Representatives, but less so in the Senate, especially in cases where the state representation is split between the two parties as it is here in Rhode Island. Because each can cancel the other out in such matters of senatorial courtesy as putting holds on judicial appointments, the members of the "most exclusive club in the country" generally work together on such matters... ditto "pork barrel" projects. The whole state is the "district" of the Senator, so cooperation helps get projects approved.

Mike

"Is this the same petey who's been posting to dailykos etc since at least 2004, possibly 2003?"

Yup. And my origins as a dKos poster date back to early 2003.

"If so, I'm surprised and embarrassed that someone who's been participating so long could have such an incredibly vapid opinion."

Sorry to surprise and embarrass you, but I think what I'm saying is pretty inarguably true.

I found dKos at the time of the beginnings of the Iraqi misadventure due to the lack of opposing voices elsewhere. Almost everyone else there at the time was motivated by similar reasons. And the growth of the site to its position as the highest traffic lefty blogsite was overwhelmingly driven by new recruits sharing that motivation.

"But Lamont made a TV spot with out-of-state blogger Markos Moulitsas. He has a conscious decision -- for some reason that eludes me -- to spread the idea that he's the "netroots" candidate."

This is an insightful point.