Unless the Republicans get a lot stronger candidate, yes

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Perhaps Lieberman will be getting sworn in as Defense Sec instead.

~Seattlebird

I feel pretty certain that Lamont wins the primary, perhaps even by a margin that surprises some people. Once he wins, the other 40% of the state that has no idea who he is will get to know his name.

I also think once that once the primary results burst the perception of Lieberman's invincibility, the bottom is the limit, so to speak. People will start to see him as an angry sore loser who doesn't know when to quit.

I'd say Lieberman's chances of being sworn in are no better than 40%.

I doubt it for two reasons:

* Lieberman isn't responding to voter's concerns about the war. He's just not on the same wavelength at all. Eventually, even his supporters grow concerned about this.

* The heavyweights who have backed him will lean on him heavily after a primary loss, particularly if it's more than 10%. Turnout exceeding expecations would be another nail in the coffin.

--Dan

No for Joe. I wouldn't underestimate how damaging a primary loss is going to be. A double digit loss, which seems entirely possible, will be immediately crippling to any independent run. But even a more modest loss will now look even worse given Clinton's visit. If you can't win against an untested challenger while riding 18 years of incumbency and a campaign visit from Clinton, what does that say?! Second, the Lieberman campaign is in obvious disarray. Prediction: Lieberman loses the primary and Clinton helps persuade Joe not even to run as an independent - a run which -for Joe - would have the further downside of permanently ending his political career. On the other hand, if he sits it out, he can look forward to a very nice position in a future democratic administration.

I'm really sure the party-of-one bid will fizzle quickly. There's no case for it, except incumbency, and no Dem and few Republicans will support him.

I think the odds are much better that he wins the primary than that he runs and wins on the party-of-one ticket. But the only way he has a chance in the primary is to blow things up. The first step would be a high-profile announcement that he's dropping the independent bid. And then he has to admit some other mistakes. It's probably too late for it to work, but it's the only chance for him to be sworn in again to the Senate. (And if that's your only goal in life, why not do it?)

I think Lamont wins the primary, and Lieberman drops out after some "soul searching." My thinking here is not just that the Rasmussen poll showed Lieberman tied with Lamont in a three way general, but that Lieberman does not really seem to be enjoying campaigning. Everything I've read suggests that the campaign is really wearing on him, and it doesn't help that he feels betrayed and abandoned by long time friends. I think he decides that there's less stress and more money in other endeavors.

50/50.

If the Rasmussen poll numbers are anywhere near correct, and given the likely-liberal tilt of the primary voting demographic. I'd say Lieberman loses the primary bady and his general election numbers collapse as he looks like someone just trying to game the system.

Rasmussen:
Primary
Lamont: 51
Lieberman: 41

General Election:
Lamont: 40
Lieberman: 40
Schlesinger: 13

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/25/131530/638

Yes, but of what value are our opinions?

It's like asking who is going to win the World Series. Does my opinion affect the outcome?

How about we focus and saving the republic before the rest of our civil liberties are taken away (see today's ATT ruling and Arlen Spector's idea to bypass the constitution, for examples).

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

This is the man who was willing to stay in the Presidential primary stating he was in a three-way tie for third position in NH. He may run and lose or run and win in the general, but I dont see him dropping out.

Webb. Herseth. Ben Chandler.

I think the Democratic primary will be very very close no matter who wins. However, if Lieberman wins, look for the lefty blogs like dailykos to spout off all sorts of conspiracy theories about it.

I think Joe wins in a three-way race. However, I would not be shocked if he decides against it if Lamont beats him by a substantial margin -- more than 5 points.

Lieberman made the classic Dukakis mistake of assuming that when your opponent and his allies are lying about you and your record, response is unnecessary because intelligent people couldn't possibly believe those allegations.

There are some good observations here. I would like to add that a big part of answering the question of whether Lieberman is sworn in in January is affirming or denying the assumption of Lamont forever trending upwards. So far, the Lamont campaign has not suffered on account of mudslinging. But I think once Lamont wins the primary (which I believe he will) he will be exposed, as one reader noted, to the other 40% of Connecticut voters. I agree that it will be tough for Lieberman to ditch the "loser" tag, especially given that news coverage of political campaigns invariably fixate on labels for the candidates they are covering (i.e., Kerry is a flip-flopper). But I wonder how long Lamont's teflon will last through a general election and whether it will assist the Lieberman one-man/party campaign (he won't drop out, he WILL run as an independent).

My prediction: Lamont narrowly wins general election.

The question is one for the voters of Connecticut. Frankly, Joe has dug his own hole. He might get lucky, who knows he might give folks a compelling reason to vote for him against Lamont. If he runs as an independent, I don't think he will hold many of the folks who voted for him in the primary.

Ron Byers

The Daily Show just played that clip not too long ago. Too funny...

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

No.

I say he loses to Lamont in the primary by a wider-than-expected margin. He then seems to have the advantage in the general, but the "loser' stigma slowly kills him and in a tight three way race, Lamont squeaks by in the general.

Lieberman then runs for Greenwich City Council, where he votes like a Republican.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Hard to tell.

I think Lieberman loses the primary. I can't imagine how he gets the party nomination after spitting in their faces with the promised independent run.

But in the fall many of Lamont's supporters go back to college. Will the Democratic machine get behind Lamont?

Lieberman will run as an independent if he loses the primary. His quixotic 04 presidential run proves that.

Yes.

Lieberman will come out late to announce that he will not run as a third party, that he respects the will of the voters, etc. The blogs will come out harshly against him anyway and generate sympathy for him. Also, the GOP will get a serious candidate and scare people away from Lamont.

I wouldn't underestimate the power of Lieberman's prominent supporters on his campaign(Clinton, Boxer, Biden, most others, whereas Waters probably isn't a net plus for Lamont). Of course, Lieberman could continue to be hard-headed, in which case he's toast.

Either way, this whole thing will take out resources from campaigns for folks like Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse.

joenetia is done, LIEberman is finished stick a big ole servin' fork in 'im and send his resume' to faux news. Even the great and power clenis cannot save 'im. And our party as disfunctional as it is will be better off for it.

7 point win by Lamont with average turnout, Leiberman takes two weeks of falling poll numbers to decide he wants a future in the next Democratic Presidential Administration (Defence or Homeland Security) and decides to support Lamont. Lamont in a landslide in fall with low turnout in the general (lots of discouraged Republicans out there right now).

Tom O

The following letter, sent to the Town Times in Middlefield, CT should really get wider play. It's a perfect illustration of why Lieberman SHOULD lose.
_________________________________

Town Times
Middlefield, CT

Letters to the Editor

Lieberman supports war, not troops.

I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August.

As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politically active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapons.

However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman's office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who represented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion's send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiasms expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the "benefits" of the M16 were highlighted and the advantages of the M4 were downplayed.

Lieberman's office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us.

Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people.

When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont's name, not Lieberman's, will bear the check when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy?

Sincerely,

Colin D. Halloran

The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of the 1-102 Infantry Battalion, CTARNG, the Department of the Army or the members thereof (disclaimer in the paper).

Question of the Day: Is Joe Lieberman going to be sworn for a fourth term in the senate next January?

If he runs as a Republican or perhaps as an Independent he might make it, but I don't think he will make it as
a Democrat.
The center has shifted. It is hard for the Democratic "leadership" to believe this, but people can easily
believe some very strange things these days

Hubert Humphrey called protestors communists, supported LBJ's war in Vietnam, wouldn't agree to suspend the bombing and was wishy-washy about condemning the treatment of protestors at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. With a few weeks to go in the 1968 campaign, he finally got the courage to stand up to Johnson and say he would stop the bombing of North Vietnam. Then he almost won the election. Nixon with his Cold War view of things continued the war in Vietnam. HHH didn't make it clear enough that he would have the courage to end that unwinnable war. That's why he lost to Nixon. it was his fault, not the fault of the anti-war protestors.

Tom

No. If Joe loses the election, he will receive a cabinet appointment. If Joe wins the election, he will receive a cabinet appointment, and CT's Republican governor will appoint a republican to replace him.

Not if Joe Lieberman  knows Walter Kaye. If you never read Walter Kaye's testimony before the Starr Inquisition (and you probably haven't), read it NOW.

I posted a link to Walter Kaye's testimony in a post on my blog here.

His testimony was omitted from the Starr Report and I don't wonder why.

Lieberman hurt himself BADLY with Democratic voters in Connecticut by coming out so early and saying he would run as an independent.

There is a line of thinking that the Bambino and Boxer showed up with the understanding that if he loses the primary, he's going to back out of the race. I don't subscribe to that, but if he were to run as an independent, how does Bill Clinton help him with Republican voters who would've jumped ship to support him?

I think if Lieberman loses the Democratic primary by more than 10 percentage points (the last current poll had Lamont leading 51-41), Lieberman will bow out of the whole process, especially if Schlesinger is replaced on the Republican ticket.

But this IS Joe Lieberman's ego we're talking about, so in the end, all bets are off.

Primary Prediction: Lamont 54%, Lieberman 46%.

With his poll numbers slipping and the momentum swinging against Lieberman, no, he loses the primary and then evaporates in the general.

Everyone who votes for Lamont in the primary will vote for him in the general, and then some. A lot of Democrat Lieberman supporters won't cross lines in the general. They'll either stay home or vote for Lamont. So where does Lieberman get his new votes? From Republicans who he'll have to campaign, which will further alienate Democrats. Total Lamont vote increases and total Lieberman vote stay the same.

Also, I think there is another set of debates in the future where Lamont wears a Democrat button, Schlesinger wears a Republican button, and Lieberman wears a ??? button. He won't feel comfortable. Sure, Bubba will campaign for him this week. But who will campaign for Lieberman in the fall?

Bottom line: Lieberman loses the primary and then loses the general. He then gets named to a Cabinet post by Bush.

Lieberman will lose the primary but win the general. I want Lamont to win both elections but I don't think it will happen.

Not so simple. Remember, there aren't that many more Dems than Repubs in CT, and there are more Indies than either. Lamont could (quite easily) win 80 or even 90% of Dems and still lose. Depends on how viable the Repub is. If it's Schlesinger (or no one, which is also possible), than Lieberman in the end gets virtually all the Repubs and a few Dems. That leaves the election up to the Indies, and that's not very fertile ground for Lamont.

Well, that's nearly impossible, unless the political world is turned completely upside down. I don't see how to interpret the polls -- and common sense -- any other way than to say that high turnout favors Lieberman. That's why he's leading in general election, but not in primary.

=== No matter who wins (Lamont or Lieberman) the democratic party in CT and nationally has been damaged. ===

Help me understand how, exactly? Because Mr. Lieberman was forced to discuss his votes and statements on various topics including, but not limited to, the Iraq war? Because the discussion got uncomfortable for him (and perhaps some of his supporters)? Because a sitting senator (who is just a Citzen after all; no different than you and me) faced an opponent in an open primary? How exactly does this damage the Democratic Party? Hint: I think it does the reverse.

The question I have never heard Lieberman supporters answer is: is a senate seat a sinecure? If so, which Lordship assigns the living?

sPh

A double digit loss, which seems entirely possible, will be immediately crippling to any independent run.

How exactly? I'm not sure I understand why this is true, even though everyone seems to spout it like the bible. In reality, only a very small percentage of Democrats vote in August, and the news story of Joe's loss will last a couple days. I really don't see how a primary loss will affect the votes of Repubs and Indies, who easily have the numbers to win November for Lieberman.

I look at it this way sPh...

In every state there are democrats that have ideologies that don't jive with whoever the sitting senator is.  What would happen to the party if each incumbent was challenged by people in their own party who disagreed with a specific position he/she took?  The wingers would be loving life as we savaged our own.  Hey I bet there are democrats in Wisconsin who really disagree with Feingold's position on the war.  Would it be good for the party if a candidate like that tried to run there?  To me it is all about fighting wingers and not each other.  And when we do the winger's work for them serious damage is being done.  Instead of CT dems going after Shays, Johnson and Simmons unified they are preoccupied with Lamont-Lieberman intra-party battle.  We have heard nary a peep up here about the democratic challengers to our 3 GOP US Representatives...when the dems have a great chance to retake the US House.

Like I have said repeatedly in the past it isn't possible for me to disagree with Senator Lieberman more on the Iraq War.  I will factor that issue into my decision of who to vote for come November but it isn't the only issue that I will be considering.  

Unless the Joe IS the Republican candidate, no. And if he runs as an indie I think almost ANY Republican can win.

Good question! Would I rather have 51 Democratic Senators weakly explain why we need to stay the course in Iraq, or 48 with a strong voice and clear conscious about the immorality of this war!

Iraq is a Republican problem, they made it, they own it! On this issue, the Democrats should let them have it!

=== What would happen to the party if each incumbent was challenged by people in their own party who disagreed with a specific position he/she took? ===

Again, is a Senate seat a sinecure? If so, who appoints? Marshall Wittman? The DLC? The Washington Post? Karl Rove?

sPh

If there were primary fights across the map -- and there wouldn't be that many, how would that "damage" the party? By having people care passionately about what their Senator does and doesn't support? What damages the party is if a candidate won't abide by the decision of the party. What would you say if Lamont promised to run as a Green if he didn't beat Lieberman?

Someone quoted party enrollment figures in CT to highlight the power of independents here. But I think it's hard to really figure the unaffiliated vote in all this come November. Keep in mind, any independents who feel strongly either way about Ned or Joe can easily switch their affiliation, up until noon the day before the primary!

And in CT, many people do this routinely. That may be one reason why the independent number is so high here. People bother to register to vote, but don't care to pick a party -- at least not until each race actually shapes up.

So I would look carefully at the trend of people switching to D to vote in the primary. By comparing this trend to the outcome on August 8th, there should be plenty of tealeaves to read for the general...

Sheila in CT

"Instead of CT dems going after Shays, Johnson and Simmons unified"

Ct Dems cannot go after Shays, Johnson and Simmons unified because Holy Joe is giving them cover. Ct Dems cannot call these people Bush poodles because they will reply back saying they have the same position as Joe Lieberman.

=== If there were primary fights across the map -- and there wouldn't be that many, how would that "damage" the party? ===

It would damage the Washington Post cocktail party circuit quite badly, which I think is at least 45% of the issue here.

sPh

Voting scorecards are often based on procedural votes, and they don't count the cloture votes that have become increasingly important in the era of Rove. On votes that matter, especially in the last five years, the Republicans have known they can count on Lieberman. NARAL may choose to pretend he didn't support Alito, I don't (Colin McEnroe, who has known Lieberman professionally and personally for over twenty years, says had Lieberman been following his heart instead of the polls, he would have straight out voted for Alito). He didn't just vote for Abu Gonzalez, he went out his way to defend and excuse his unconstitutional, unamerican views. He's like our own Salazar on steroids. Who was the first Senator on the Republicans agenda when the withdrawal proposals were discussed? Joe Lieberman. I don't care how he voted ten years ago, much less where he marched thirty years ago. When it counts, Lieberman is a Republican.

That depends on how pro-war, pro-Bush those independents are. I really don't see people who aren't true believers in the neo-con/theocrat agenda getting all excited to vote for Lieberman.

No surprise that, on TPMcafe, nobody will answer this.

Josh is so totally wedded to the idea of American democracy that he can't begin to imagine a day (like today) when it it has been pretty much utterly lost.

Please wake up, Josh.