Many people are clearly ready for a change [kimyo/flickr]
In the wake of Ned Lamont’s defeat of Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Primary, we got in touch with listeners in the Nutmeg State. Their responses are far from a statistical sample, but they do offer insight into the large part of the electorate that opted for an anti-war businessman rather than a moderate, 18-year-veteran of the Senate.
Bryan McKay of Branford, who blogs at Les Faits de la Fiction, could have registered to vote in Massachusetts, where he is a student.
I registered as a Democrat with the sole purpose of being able to vote in this primary. My own politics typically fall to the left of the increasingly centrist Democratic party, but after growing up with Lieberman, I knew that he had to go. … Needless to say, I voted for Lamont.
I actually found it very surprising how much national attention this election got. Lieberman’s voice only counts for one percent of the Senate, but it was clearly a bigger issue than that. I think this might signal a real sea change in the Democratic party. I’d like to see it signal a sea change in politics in general. We can’t have incumbents sitting in Congress for eighteen years when they no longer represent their constituents. That was my biggest problem with Lieberman. He talked about how he was doing what he thought was right and he made a big deal about personal integrity, but ultimately the goal of a politician should be to serve his constituency. This primary showed us that he clearly wasn’t doing his job anymore. The six-year term limit seems too long as it is. He’s been Senator for almost as long as I’ve been alive, and he’s only had to campaign three times to get there. A lot can change in six years, and a lot clearly has.
Bryan McKay, Les Faits de la Fiction, in an email to Open Source, 8/9/06
David M. Smith lives in Westport.
I think the reason we have three branches of government is that there should be checks and balances. I think we’re getting far away from that. The Bush administration and its arrogance is getting out of control. I’m dumbfounded that people are taken in by half of the stuff they do.
I was particularly ticked off by that one quote of [Lieberman's], when he said that there should be no dissenting voice against the president during a time of war…whatever he said. Especially in this current situation, we could be lied into a war…there is no dissention, there is a huge rubber stamp in congress. I would be very happy to see something else there, a little more of a voice of the people. If Lieberman had been paying attention to the voice of the state, he’d still be in office. He has been a good senator, a good statesman in a way, but he’s sort of lost his loyalty to the voters of this state by not being aware of what is going on in people’s minds.
David M. Smith, in a phone call with Open Source, 8/9/06
David Kluskiewicz lives in West Hartford. He works in marketing and thinks highly of Lamont’s background in business.
It’s good, the way he comes off when he speaks, he doesn’t know all the answers. Those are things that I see in him that may be intangible…that show some promise. It is less talking head, more asking tough questions.
I see it resonating across the country, that this is a shot across the bow that it isn’t ok to be a career politician. You have to bring new ideas to the table. [The potential of fracture] makes me really discouraged with the Democratic party. … What I would hope is that [Lieberman] would say, “What I was doing may not have been right. I need to help my party.” It seems terribly wasteful. I am optimistic, I’ve looked at blogs and stuff, and I see what is happening in other places. it is great to have this community conversation.
David Kluskiewicz, in a phone call with Open Source, 8/9/06
You have to say that it is a big thing to want to take a senior senator out, because the accumulated seniority really matters. Just look at Senator Byrd and what he has done for West Virginia. I heard a comment this morning saying that around here, a big thing is keeping the sub base in New London open, having the wherewithal to demand that the Navy stay in place. That is something an 18-year veteran in the Senate would have more juice to do. You have to make that decision, you don’t make that decision lightly, to get rid of a guy. I have a 19-year-old son. We have no draft, but the idea of putting our children in this civil war [in Iraq] and letting it continue is outragous to me.
David M. Smith, in a phone call with Open Source, 8/9/06
As for the November election, well, it would be a lie to say I’m not worried. The same polls that showed Lamont winning the primary showed Lieberman taking a substantial victory in the event of a three-way race. Hopefully someone talks some sense into him before that happens though. I know the big Democrats who supported Lieberman are going to start backing Lamont. I wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton hasn’t already been on the phone with him, trying to talk some sense. This is just going to splinter the party at a time when we need to be cohesive on these issues. We don’t all need to agree on everything, we don’t all need to toe the party line, but we need to work to win back Congress. In last night’s concession speech, Lieberman said that he’d be running as an “independent Democrat.” But that doesn’t even make sense. The Democrats made it clear last night that they want to field a fresh candidate. The Democrats chose Lieberman, and now Lieberman is choosing to break ties. Trying to hold onto that with a phrase like “independent Democrat” is disingenuous, and it denies the fact that his Democratic constituents have made a different choice.
Bryan McKay, in an email to Open Source, 8/9/06
Of course Chris will support Lamont.
I hope he loses. I would vote for Lieberman if I could.
fiddlesticks, I called each registered listener that provided a telephone number and emailed the rest in contacting Connecticut residents. As it happened, the three people with whom I connected were Lamont supporters.
I’m sure you’d love to vote for Lieberman, fiddlesticks, but unfortunately the voters of Connecticut are the ones that get to decide who represents them in the Senate. Sorry!
Thanks for the quotes, Henry! I’m honored!
Henry: “I called each registered listener that provided a telephone number and emailed the rest in contacting Connecticut residents. As it happened, the three people with whom I connected were Lamont supporters.”
You need to try harder! Fairness requires it. You are putting laziness in the service of your political bias.
bryan, wait till the general election.
I would have liked to hear the opinion of a lieberman voter. Judgeing from this sight Lamont had 100% of the vote. He must be a hell of a politician.
Fiddlesticks, rc21 -
Were we a newspaper in Connecticut on the eve of the primary election, we would have an obligation to ensure that both candidates were represented fairly on our site. As it is, we’re a national show, seeking to understand after the fact a primary result that doesn’t come around all that often: a three-time sitting Senator fails to get his party’s nomination. It’s a pretty fair question to get in touch with those who voted to deny Lieberman the nomination and ask them why.
We are not a polling organization. The best we can do is talk to as many humans as we can find, using the techniques we’ve developed for this site. Seeing as how we made it clear from the first paragraph that Henry’s interviews aren’t a statistical sample of the Democratic electorate in Connecticut, we’re pretty happy with what he was able to pull together in a half-day.
And fiddlesticks, please don’t call Henry or anyone else who works here “lazy.” We get it, you think we have a liberal bias. If you’re going to spend time in these threads, try working a little harder yourself; find someone in Connecticut who voted for Lieberman and have him send me an email, brendan radioopensource org.
Another threat from civil rights advocate Brendan.
The Lieberman race just got more interesting:
“Bloomberg’s Endorsement of Lieberman Hints at Plans of His Own”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/nyregion/10bloomberg.html
“Leaving open the door to joining a third party himself someday, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg offered a robust endorsement to Senator Joseph I. Lieberman yesterday, lending the senator’s struggling re-election bid the influence of a popular mayor with demonstrated appeal to both Democrats and Republicans.
“What I like about Joe Lieberman is he’s trying to run because he thinks he can make a difference for the people of this country and the people of Connecticut,â€? the mayor said at a news conference on the Far West Side of Manhattan. “This country needs nonpartisan elected officials who think that doing the right thing for the public is more important than supporting some party.â€?”
This is the real story!
Check out also an op ed piece in the NY Times on Lieberman by David Brooks.
I wanted to hear from a liberman voter to see why he thought Lieberman lost.
There may be a difference in what lieberman dems think and what lamont dems think.
I would think as journalists you would want to get opinions from both sides of the dem party. If im not mistaken Joe did garner a fair % of the vote. Conn is a state with over a million people. Surely you could have found one Lieberman dem.
Fist let me say how gratifying it is to have Connecticut politics in the news without anyone going to jail, the web hacking not withstanding.
I enthusiastically voted for Lamont. Â My vote was about more than the war in Iraq. Â In fact, I accept the fact that we are at war and we need to own what we have done. Â My Issue with Lieberman has more to do with his chastising those who seek to voice dissent or investigate various attributes to the war. And this is the most glaring example of why I feel as though Liebermann is positioning himself as a national politician and not a senator from CT. Â On many issues, right to life and gay marriage he is out of step with his constituency and I had the distinct feeling that he took for granted his elected position and was looking to places outside of Connecticut for approval.
Additionally, I am a 31 year old man who has only known Liebermann as the democratic Senate Candidate and this troubles me some.
His petitioning to run as an independent I feel is sour grapes. Â The secretary of state here (a Dem.) is looking to propose legislation to close the loophole allowing a candidate to lose an election and still run for office.
Lieberman, who blasted Lamont for his petty partisanship, is now being quoted as saying that voting for Lamont is tantamount to supporting terrorism. Â I trust that Connecticut is smarter than that.
As an aside, the majority of registered voters in CT are registered independent and much like Massachusetts, we are considered a bastion of liberalism, but haven’t had a democratic governor since who knows when.