Matt Stoller Still Can’t Catch A Clue
In the Lieberman-Lamont fight, there has been a fair amount of handwringing over why Lamont isn’t blowing Joe out of the water. Why, if Joe lost to Lamont, isn’t he losing in the general? Why did Lamont let Joe get away? Well there are a number of reasons, but among the most prominent is the total abandonment of Lamont by the party establishment. And let’s be very clear – this is not Lamont that they are abandoning, it’s the party primary voters that they are abandoning.
Whether it was a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss, or Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way, or Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King, or Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority, or Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved and practically being forced to not back Lieberman after the primary, or insiders telling Lamont’s campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn’t go on the attack, it’s very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core. With the exception of John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont.
Yes, yes, it must be the Democratic Party establishment, because everyone knows the Nutroots® are so pleasant, and they always pick the winner. It surely can’t be Lamont’s fault that he’s such a lousy candidate.
What Stoller would realize, if he took a moment to be honest with himself, is that Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary because the activist wing was motivated to vote in a very low turnout affair; however, when the normal (i.e., non-’progressive’) Democrats and Independents of Connecticut started to pay attention and had a chance to be heard, Lamont never had a chance.
This election was over on the night of the primary, when Lieberman wisely decided to declare as an Independent…
Ned Lamont won the Democratic primary because the activist wing was motivated to vote in a very low turnout affair.
Even though this was a rare August primary, which should have depressed turnout, this was the highest turnout primary in state history. What exactly did you mean by “a low turnout affair”?
I mean low turnout compared to the general election…you are correct that for a primary, the turnout was high. I’ll plead guilty to poor wording…