Originally posted March 14, 2006
In a pretty well-written column (an odd thing in the YDN), Ben Simon '07 argued that Ned Lamont needs to beat Lieberman. (Simon's the co-chair of Yale Students for Lamont). I thought he missed a few things, though:
1) Lamont's campaign is bad for the other Democrats in the state, not just Lieberman, because they're going to have to choose sides. This can only hurt people like Diane Farrell, who is running against Shays again in Fairfield County.
2) The best thing running in Lamont's favor is the issue of the war. But are people on the left upset enough about the war to run out an incumbent democrat who supports it? Labour's experience in the last British general election (as a left-ish party that's pro-war) suggests that while the war is an important issue, the protest vote is not enough to overturn established party loyalties, especially not against incumbents. Lamont has to broaden his appeal -- the war will snatch up the lefties, who might vote against Lieberman just because he's an incumbent. Ned shouldn't worry about hitting Lieberman on gay marriage and other controversial leftie issues - he already has those votes. It's about broadening the base so he looks like he could win a general election, too. Electability is going to play a big part in this race.
3) So, if Lamont wants to win, he can't just move to the left of Lieberman for the primary and move back to the right for the general election - this is a blue state, but it's a rich one, too: a fierce primary fight will make a Republican replacement for Lieberman all the more likely, especially in the long shot that Lamont actually does get the nomination.
4) In the end, I think my vote right now is with Lamont. I just agree with him much more. So does my dad, who said "I'm going to vote for him, but I don't think he has a chance. If I did, I might not vote for him." That's the anatomy of a protest vote right there. Still, he'll probably lose. The people I vote for always do (damn you, Kerry). More on all this later.
