Ned Lamont's pyrrhic victory

Interesting article linked here (subscription required).  It's pretty fair analysis, I'd say, except I think STRATFOR overlooked one significant possibility: Lieberman didn't lose the primary by much, and if he picks up Republican votes while running as an Independent (which is possible, since there really is no serious GOP challenger for that Senate seat in Conneticut), he could actually win.  I say this because were I a citizen of Conneticut, I would happily vote for Leiberman.  In fact, I would have seriously considered voting for Lieberman over George W. Bush if he'd won the presidential bid for the Democrats in '04, and I'm far from the only moderate Republican who would have done so.

There is a huge difference between people who are opposed to the way the Iraq war has been handled, and people who are opposed to the entire concept of the war in Iraq -- just as there is a huge difference between people who think Bush has bungled his job in general and people who viscerally hate the man and everything he stands for.  The Howard Dean wing of the Democrats don't seem to be aware of either distinction.  They see the 30% approval ratings and assume the nation supports their entire point of view.

If Lieberman wins the election as an Independent, this would be a total disaster for the Howard Dean/Michael Moore wing of the Democrat Party (which looks as if they are in ascendance at the moment), and would be even more damaging to the Democrats than the Clinton impeachment was damaging to the GOP.  It could serve to severely marginalize just about everyone who supported Lamont (which is just about everyone of significance on the left).

However, from what I'm hearing on the right, many in the GOP are happy to see this development.  They see the John Kerry/Hilary Clinton wing of the Democrat Party as actually more dangerous than the far left Howard Dean/Michael Moore wing (I realize Michael Moore is not a politician, but this is why I included him), precisely because the moderates are able to draw votes away from the GOP.  But if the Democrat Party truly becomes the party of Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy, then the right-wingers will view that as a very hopeful sign of them retaining power in the upcoming elections. 

From my point of view, however, I think this is a depressing development: the last thing this nation needs at the moment is more polarization, and the Democrats moving even further to the left will guarantee that the rhetoric will continue unabated.

Of course, it's possible that the GOP is the one making the miscalculation, but I think they are probably right on this one.

The polls might seem to indicate widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, but when the pollsters asked in the most recent survey if we should pull all the troops out of Iraq immediately, only 26% said "yes," and that means that 74% of America disagrees with Ned Lamont, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, et al on their core issue ... not a good sign, if you ask me.