According to internal Lieberman polling, Joe leads Ned, 51% to 35%. Nice! (Hat tip: KXMA, via Google News.)

Joe Lieberman’s revamped website is finally online.

Lieberman’s lead over Lamont has shrunk to a statistically insigificant 2 percentage points, 44% to 42%, according to a new poll. The battle is on. (Perhaps Joe should get his damn website back up!)

What I find most interesting, though, is this paragraph:

Republican Alan Schlesinger, a former state legislator, had 3 percent. The poll had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points.

This raises the intriguing possibility that Schlesinger’s actual support could be in the negative numbers. :)

Joe Lieberman has collected the required 7,500 petition signatures to earn his way onto the ballot as an independent candidate. “The people have spoken!” Somehow, though, I doubt the Lamontistas will be spinning it that way…

Actually, Lieberman submitted 18,500 signatures, but the Secretary of the State’s office — my dad’s former employer — stopped counting after 8,215 of the signatures had been officially validated, because there was no need to continue.

Being sadly familiar with the Hijacking of the once-honorable banner of American “liberalism” by the antidemocratic Repressionistas, I’ve been Expecting this since approximately 12:01 a.m. August 9:

Critics asked a New Haven election official to remove Sen. Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party on Monday, a request which could potentially lead to a hearing in which the longtime Democrat would have to argue that he still adheres to the principles of the party.

The group, whose members described themselves as peace activists, said Lieberman cannot belong to the Democrat Party while running for office under the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party banner.

“The law is pretty clear he is no longer a member of the Democratic Party in good standing,” said group leader Henry Lowendorf of the New Haven Peace Council. “There was an open vote and he was voted out. He joined a different party.”

In fact : (a) the relevant law (Secs. 9-60 thru 9-63) is by No means Clear as to Any such thing ~ its prior provisions for Automatic party disaffiliation in case of Candidacy under a Different party name having been Repealed nine years ago due to serious Constitutional problems; (b) Lieberman was not Voted Out of the Democratic Party; {c} he has Not joined a different party [No One can legally Join the “Connecticut for Lieberman” party yet, not until after it wins at least 1% of the Vote ~ which it will, Plus at least 50 :> ~ on Nov. 7, after which voters may Enroll in CfL but only IF they pro-actively Apply for such enrollment ]; and (d) even the leftover “discretionary” party-disaffilation Procedure still remaining on the statute books is essentially a Dead Letter, pursuant to Court decisions holding that the Targeted person’s very Act of opposing & appealing such action is prima facia evidence of his/her bona fide intent to remain in good-faith Affiliation with the party that seeks to Bounce him.

Sharon Ferrucci, the Democratic registrar of voters, said she would research the request, which she said was the first such in her two decades on the job. Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Ferrucci could choose to deny the request.

Indeed she can; and she Should. If she doesn’t, the end result will be the same: Senator Lieberman’s voluntary personal affiliation with his longtime favored Party will ultimately be upheld upon court appeal, just as have others’ before him.

But Better yet, Connecticut :} ~

…Lieberman leads Lamont by 12 points in a recent statewide poll, with Republican Alan Schlesinger trailing far behind.

Yeah ~ like far behind with 4%. / THEREFORE:

…Also on Monday, a university professor filed complaints with state officials to try to keep Lieberman’s name off the November ballot.

John Orman, a Fairfield University political science professor and a former Democratic candidate in the Senate race, filed complaints with the Secretary of the State’s Office and the State Elections Enforcement Commission accusing Lieberman of creating “a fake political party” to resuscitate his re-election bid.

Yes and old Joe the Fakir seems to be doing a pretty fair job at the campaign CPR, too. / Which Is, of course, precisely the Problem, here. :>

“He’s doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot,” Orman said.

Yeah, like timely submitting some 18,000 petition signatures requesting same ~ 7,500 verified voters’ ones being Required.

In contrast to the gossamerFlimsy-but-still-barely-Discernible legal case for Dem-disaffilliating Lieberman, there is No constitutional, statutory, or equitable basis Whatsoever for Bouncing him off the November Ballot (assuming, as is extraordinarily Likely, that his 18,000 “raw” petition signatures do Boil down to the John-Hancocks of at least 7,500 verified Voters).

But Still ~ all such pesky Technicalities aside ~ just Philosophically, let’s Recap.

Problems of Democracy, Part I: (a) your candidate has validly & legitimately Won the Party primary with 51.8% of the vote, which represents approximately 20% of the overall eligible Electorate in the upcoming general election. (b) The guy yer man Beat ~ who got a Mere 48.2% of the intraParty vote ~ is running in the General via a new-party-name petition and is presently pulling an Absolute Majority in the Polls, double-digits ahead of your Champion who Languishes in the Low 40’s percentile. (c) The #3 “contender” ~ a “major party” [sic :] nominee ~ is Polling at 04%. (d) For the Sake of Safeguarding the Peoples’ Democracy, what Will you Do? What WILL you DO? [choose One :] ~

(1) Just keep on Campaigning for your Candidate and do the best you can and hope ~ not at all Implausibly ~ to Win the contest in the end.

(2) But if, G*d forbid, it should happen that you should Lose: accept Defeat. It’s a Democracy. Come back and Beat ‘em next time around.

(3) Sh*t.

(4) Go Bl*nd.

(5) Get the Bastard off the Ballot. It’s a Democracy. This means that We Always Win.

(Read whatever I left out above.)

You give the netroots an inch, they take the whole party. In response to John Kerry blasting Joe Lieberman on This Week with George Stephanopoulos (in a transparent — and successful — attempt to appeal to the netroots), a Kos contributor writes in a post on the homepage: “Let’s hope all 2008 hopefuls jump on the bandwagon and begin to realize that cutting Joe off is one non-negotiable requirement to nomination.”

Mark my words, the temper tantrums and “non-negotiable requirements” of the Kos wing of the Democratic Party will, if they are adhered to, send the 2008 nominee down to a crushing defeat faster than you can say “Walter Mondale.” I realize that a majority of the country is against the war in Iraq, but it isn’t just about Iraq, it’s about a whole radical mindset that infects the far left which is now flexing its muscles and trying to assert total dominance over the party. The biggest mistake the Kos Kidz can make — and are now making — is to believe that because 60% or whatever of the public is now antiwar, that means 60% of the public is on the left-wing bandwagon. Nothing could be further from the truth. The more the true colors of the lefties are exposed — particularly their cynical, conspiratorial view of the war on terror, the American government, and politics and society in general — the more moderates will decide that the Republicans are the less scary of the two evils.

Mystery Pollster has an interesting post about exit polling in the Lieberman-Lamont election, and what it tells us about exit polls generally. (Hat tip: Volokh.)

Well, so much for 46% being Joe Lieberman’s “ceiling.” According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, Lieberman leads Lamont, 53% to 41% among likely voters. Alan Schlesinger gets a meager 4%.

Thursday’s poll showed Lieberman with 75 percent of the Republican vote, compared to 13 percent for Lamont and 10 percent for Schlesinger. Among unaffiliated voters, Lieberman garners 58 percent, compared to 36 percent for Lamont and 3 percent for Schlesinger. Among Democrats, Lamont leads Lieberman with 63 percent. Lieberman gets 35 percent of Democratic voters.

“Ned Lamont’s Democratic primary win was based on a very small percentage of voters statewide,” Schwartz said. “He must expand beyond this base if he is going to beat Lieberman.”

Much attention will be focused on the Republican numbers, but in Connecticut, where unaffiliated is the largest “party” in terms of registered voters, Joe’s 58% to 36% lead among unaffiliateds is the key to this race.

The poll was conducted from Thursday through Monday. Schlesinger says that’s important: “This was taken immediately after the Democratic primary and therefore there was a tidal wave of publicity for Lamont and Lieberman. When people get to see me in debate and see the message I have for moderate and conservative voters, these numbers will change dramatically.”

I just got a phone call from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, asking for a donation. When I tried to calmly and politely explain that I’m no longer associating myself with the Democrats because they “don’t consider Joe Lieberman a Democrat anymore,” the caller interrupted me and said, “Well, that’s true. He’s not a Democrat. He’s been acting like a Republican.” I responded that “that’s a distortion of his record” and briefly elaborated on why Lieberman is by no means a Republican. The caller again disagreed with me, saying, “Well, if you look at the way he’s been acting for the last few months…” I replied, “See, that just isn’t true, and this is precisely the problem. If the Democrats can’t find room in their party for someone who agrees with them 90 percent of the time, but disagrees on an issue of conscience, then there’s no room for me in the party,” or words to that effect. I proceeded to explain that I feel the Democrats are no longer the “big-tent party” that they once were, but instead are “intolerant of dissenting views” like Lieberman’s. “I might still vote for the Democrat in my district if I think he’s the better candidate,” I said, “but I’m not interested in donating any money to the party.” And then, just as I was in the process of suggesting that he take my name off the DCCC’s list, so as to avoid wasting either of our time in the future, the caller — without saying a word — simply hung up on me.

Mind you, I don’t blame him for wanting to get off the phone with me; if his goal is to raise money, talking to me was clearly a waste of his time. (The call lasted nearly three minutes.) However, the appropriate way to end the conversation would have been to politely thank me for my time — early in the call, as soon as it became clear that I was not a likely donor — rather than arguing with me about my position and then abruptly hanging up on me while I was responding. That’s just ridiculously rude. (Incidentally, I wasn’t been abusive or rude; I was emphatic, but polite, in making my points.) It’s another great example of how so many Democrats have no interest in hearing alternative viewpoints and no respect for those with whom they disagree. Joe Lieberman supports the war? Call him names and smear him out of office. Some former donor supports Lieberman? Hang up on him. Not a winning strategy, folks.

Joe Lieberman’s website is finally back up, though there’s very little content there; it says they’ll be “re-launching” soon. Did they not have any backups of their data?!?

P.S. Here’s Joe’s video message, linked on his homepage:

I have to admit, I cringe every time I hear his spin about “Round 1″ and “Round 2.” All this “halftime” talk is transparently silly — he lost an election, not a “first half.” (If he’d won, would he be calling it “Round 1″?) Now, I don’t believe there’s any shame in running in the general election as an independent after losing the primary election. The process allows it, there’s a substantive case to be made for doing it, it’s not like he deceived the voters about his intention of doing it, and there’s no serious risk of the seat going Republican because of it, so I don’t see what the problem is. But that said, I wish Lieberman could find a better spin, a better way of explaining his decision than this “Round 1″ crap.

I like the rest of the video, though.

Michael Barone ponders a McCain-Lieberman ticket, which he thinks would win the 2008 election going away. Though he’s envisioning it as a Republican ticket, not a third-party ticket. Hat tip: InstaPundit, who says of the hypothetical pairing, “I’m not sure how I feel about that — they’re both nanny-staters with whom I’m deeply uncomfortable, but at least they’re sensible on defense.”

[UPDATE: InstaPundit is running a poll: McCain-Lieberman or Giuliani-Romney? The latter is winning in a landslide so far, but only 239 votes have been cast.]

In other Lieberman-related news, Joe is leading Ned 46% to 41% in the first post-primary poll of general-election voters. A poster at Daily Kos implausibly asserts that “we have to consider” 41% to be Lamont’s “floor” and 46% to be Lieberman’s “ceiling.” Umm, wishful thinking much? Yes, it’s possible that Lieberman’s numbers will go down because Schlesinger’s will go up from 6%, and yes, it’s possible that Lamont’s numbers will go up as voters become more familiar with him. It’s also possible that Lamont’s numbers will go down as voters become more familiar with him, and Lieberman’s numbers will go up as Lamont increasingly reveals himself to be, in Dean Barnett’s words, an “empty suit.” To claim that the result of this race is somehow pre-ordained is just silly.

Mickey Kaus ponders something that I too have pondered:

So if Lieberman wins as an independent, and the Democrats pick up six seats in November, doesn’t that mean Lieberman gets to decide which party controls the Senate? And if so, do the Democrats really want to take Kos’ advice and piss him off? Just asking!

Lieberman says he’s running as an “independent Democrat” and has pledged to organize with the Dems. I don’t believe he will change his tune on that — and he certainly wouldn’t do so for petty personal reasons, or in response to psuedo-bribes from the Republicans; Joe is better than that — but I would absolutely love to see Lieberman as the 51st member of a Democratic majority, because although he wouldn’t actually jump ship, just the threat that he might do so would make him a very powerful man in Washington. Not only that, but on individual votes, he certainly wouldn’t have any reason to be beholden to the Democratic leadership, and could frequently be a “decider,” as Dubya would say. And of course, last but not least, the whole thing would make Kos look dumb, which is always a positive in my book.

In other Joe-related news… as Dane mentioned earlier, the New York Times’s David Brooks published a provocative — and, alas, subscription-only — column today in which he argued that there is a subsurface “McCain-Lieberman Party” lurking beneath the bipolar, red-blue veneer of American politics, just waiting for its opportunity to cast off the surly bonds of partisanship and touch the face of Joementum… or something like that.

Apparently Brooks has been reading my blog, considering I’ve been talking about “McCain-Lieberman” incessantly since Tuesday. (E.g., here, here, here, here and here.) Or, uh, maybe he and I, and about a gazillion other people, all had the same freakin’ obvious idea at the same time. (Again I quote Casey: “Man, at this point the Lieberman-McCain ticket is like those two friends from school who have been eyeing each other all year and just seriously need to knock boots. Do it for America, John and Joe. Make some fruity purple babies and fix the freaking country already.” Heh.)

But unlike Casey and me, Brooks isn’t talking about McCain-Lieberman ticket, per se. Rather, he’s holding up John and Joe more as symbolic representatives of an idea whose time has come. And, contra Andrew, he think it’s an idea that just might work. But just what is the idea? Here’s an excerpt:

The McCain-Lieberman Party begins with a rejection of the Sunni-Shiite style of politics itself. It rejects those whose emotional attachment to their party is so all-consuming it becomes a form of tribalism, and who believe the only way to get American voters to respond is through aggression and stridency.

The flamers in the established parties tell themselves that their enemies are so vicious they have to be vicious too. They rationalize their behavior by insisting that circumstances have forced them to shelve their integrity for the good of the country. They imagine that once they have achieved victory through pulverizing rhetoric they will return to the moderate and nuanced sensibilities they think they still possess.

But the experience of DeLay and the net-root DeLays in the Democratic Party amply demonstrates that means determine ends. Hyper-partisans may have started with subtle beliefs, but their beliefs led them to partisanship and their partisanship led to malice and malice made them extremist, and pretty soon they were no longer the same people.

The McCain-Lieberman Party counters with constant reminders that country comes before party, that in politics a little passion energizes but unmarshaled passion corrupts, and that more people want to vote for civility than for venom.

On policy grounds, too, the McCain-Lieberman Party is distinct. On foreign policy, it agrees with Tony Blair (who could not win a Democratic primary in the U.S. today): The civilized world faces an arc of Islamic extremism that was not caused by American overreaction, and that will only get stronger if America withdraws.

On fiscal policy, the McCain-Lieberman Party sees a Republican Party that will not raise taxes and a Democratic Party that will not cut benefits, and understands that to avoid bankruptcy the country must do both.

On globalization, the McCain-Lieberman Party believes that free trade reduces poverty but that government must invest in human capital so people can compete. It believes in comprehensive immigration reform.

The McCain-Lieberman Party sees Democrats in the grip of teachers’ unions and Republicans who let corporations write environmental rules. It sees two parties that depend on the culture war for internal cohesion and that make abortion a litmus test.

Hey, I could join that party! Read the whole thing, if you can. (Hint, for those of you with free Lexis-Nexis accounts… it’s on there.)

Which, when it happens on November 7 (as it Will ~ mark my words), will be a victory for Connecticut, for Lieberman, and most importantly, for America.

A.P. ~

Stripped of the Democratic party’s support, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman began his independent campaign for re-election Wednesday after his 18-year Washington career was derailed by a primary loss to an anti-war candidate.

…On Wednesday, he filed petitions to run in November as an independent and dismissed his campaign staff, saying he hadn’t been aggressive enough in countering Lamont during the primary.

“The bottom line is that I’m definitely in,” Lieberman told The Associated Press on Wednesday. “While I consider myself a devoted Democrat, I am even more devoted to my state and my country.”

…Lieberman’s loss sets up a three-way race this fall among Lamont, Lieberman and Republican Alan Schlesinger, who has trailed far behind both Democrats in recent polls.

The final returns from Tuesday’s primary showed Lamont defeating Lieberman 52 percent to 48 percent.

Kenneth Dautrich, a public policy professor at the University of Connecticut, said Wednesday that Lieberman’s name recognition and moderate stances will draw strong support from independent and Republican voters in November.

Lamont’s views that appeal to liberal Democrats will likely turn away many unaffiliated and Republican voters, Dautrich said.

“For a variety of reasons, I think Lieberman is now in the driver’s seat,” Dautrich said. “We probably would expect to see Lieberman with a fairly handy lead as the election campaign begins.”

The biggest challenge, Dautrich said, will likely be fundraising. Lamont, a multimillionaire who put $4 million of his own money into the primary, will also get donations from traditional Democratic sources.

“The one handicap is he doesn’t have the deep pockets that Lamont has,” Dautrich said. “Lamont can put his hand in his pocket and come out with a few million bucks, and Lieberman can’t do that.”

No he can’t, personally. But, in the end, this will Not be a problem.

Western Connecticut State University political science professor Christopher Kukk predicted that some religious or moderately conservative groups will contribute to Lieberman’s campaign.

“I think money will somehow find its way toward Lieberman’s campaign,” Kukk said. “I think you’ll find more independent organizations step up, or those a little more on the conservative side.”

A Quinnipiac University poll released in July showed that 51 percent of likely voters would support Lieberman in a three-way race. That’s compared with 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger, an attorney who was formerly a lawmaker and mayor.

Though having both Lieberman and Lamont on the ballot could split the Democratic vote, Schlesinger is not considered a major threat. His campaign stumbled in July after revelations that he used a fake name to gamble at a Connecticut casino and had been sued over gambling debts at two New Jersey casinos.

Republican Gov. M Jodi Rell urged him to drop out of the Senate race, but Schlesinger called the gambling a “non-issue” and vowed to remain in the race.

But Dautrich and Kukk both said Rell’s clear lack of support and enthusiasm for Schlesinger could be seen by many Republicans as a free pass to support Lieberman without feeling they are betraying their party.

“With a weak Republican in the race, it’ll be Lieberman who fills that void,” Dautrich said.

…He said Wednesday that he does not blame his now-dismissed campaign staff members for Tuesday’s loss, but that he wants “some different people” - including a new media consultant and new polling firm - as he launches his independent run.

“It’s a new chapter of the campaign and therefore I’m going to put together a new team to help me run the campaign, to support me in the campaign,” he said.

All signatures on Lieberman’s petitions turned in Wednesday must be validated by the town clerks in the towns where they were submitted…

Read the rest. / The only Big question now is, will Joe win the 3-way on Nov. 7 with an upper-40s-percentile Plurality ~ similar to the 48-plus-percent he achieved in the 2-way Dem primary ~ or, will he Romp with an Absolute Majority over Alan & Neddy combined?

Either way, Connecticutians for Lieberman, and for America, will gladly Take it.

“Lieberman’s no quitter. Sources in his campaign tell me that if he loses in November, he’ll start his own Senate.” –Samantha Bee, The Daily Show

Also: “Joe Lieberman has made up his mind. If not nominated, he will run. If not elected, he will serve.”

Did I just call myself a rat? Yes, yes I did. (Does that phrase actually have a negative connotation vis a vis the rats, or only vis a vis the ship? Inquiring minds want to know!) [UPDATE: It seems to me, the connotation shouldn’t be negative. I mean, the rats are smart! If they didn’t abandon the ship, they’d die! Of course, they might die anyway, unless they can swim… but I am now officially thinking too hard about this…]

Anyway, it’s not just me and my mom and this guy. Lots of centrist Democrats are feeling unwelcome in the Democratic Party today. Weekend Pundit writes:

I polled a number of friends of mine in Connecticut — Democrats all — and with one exception, they all feel the Democratic Party has abandoned them or has been taken from them by fringe elements within the party. (Of course I take this with a grain of salt as most of those friends are moderate Democrats.)

I’m not sure that caveat is really salt-worthy, considering a party can’t win elections without its moderates. Here’s another disgruntled Dem:

I’m tempted, like Brendan Loy and his mother, to just file for divorce from the Democratic party, but I stubbornly (and perhaps futilely) cling to the hope that with my one vote I can save the party from itself. …

Like many conservative and centrist pundits, I tend to think that the Democrats are headed for a meltdown. They’ve thus far heroically resisted the efforts of the, er, saner portion of the party and chosen to swing further and further left into the land of hysteria—which is a great way to get elected and stay elected.

Indeed. (BTW, as noted earlier, you can add this and this blogger to the category of disgruntled-but-not-quite-deserting Democrats.)

Now we just need the Republicans to do something equivalently stupid (with wider implications than just a Michigan House race). Suppose, for example, George Allen outmuscles John McCain or Rudy Giuliani to win the 2008 presidential nomination, using some dirty tricks and insinuations that they’re not conservative/doctrinaire enough. The loser bolts, along with a lot of moderate Republicans. Then we could really get this centrist party — this “new politics of unity and purpose” — started. Bring it on!

[UPDATE: Andrew offers a compelling argument that my third-party dream is a vain hope, and that the real solution is to join the dark side GOP:

[T]he anti-Bush Leftist mindset comprises a solid 40% of the electorate, making it the single strongest ideology in America today. Conservatives and libertarians and their various stripes run about 30%, while the rest are somewhere in between. …

[T]he Dems are not going to die out anytime soon per your fantasies. The Left will be around for a loooong time; their propaganda, ideologies, and proponents are too well-ensconced in seats of power, whether in media and bureaucracies, academia, or the cultural elite. It also doesn’t help that secular progressivism is still the driving political force in Europe. …

You’re going to hate this answer like all hell, but the true answer is for people like you to join the Republican Party and help us weaken the Pat Robertsons, Tom DeLays, and George W. Bush’s of the party so that we can have a broad-minded coalition of people who largely agree on free-market economic principles, conservative fiscal policy, muscular, neoconservative-like foreign policy, and libertarian social policy. You’d have to sacrifice a few sacred shibboleths… but then again, so would we. For example, the Religious Right would have to decide the protection of Western culture and economy and the defense of classical liberalism is more important than minimizing the participation of homosexuals in American culture and society or achieving legislative prohibitions against abortion. In return, you’d have to abandon the precepts of Big, Helpful Government in the grand tradition of FDR and LBJ in favor of more market-oriented tax-and-spend principles. Neither sacrifice will be easy or painless, but they are both more probable, more possible, and more beneficial for America than your alternative dream of a dead Left and a “Third Way� centrist party to battle against right-leaning Republicans for control of America–a dream that is both seriously contra-ideological reality and probably less beneficial, because if moderates like yourself become the new dominant foe for the GOP, the Right will only go further to the right in contradistinction, to your chagrin.

Read the whole thing. No, really. It’s good — and he bashes Bush in it! Sorta. (For the uninitiated: Andrew was my “Republican friend” in college, when I was a more liberal Democrat, and more recently he was my Best Man. He’s also a long-time regular conservative commenter on this blog.)

That said, before I get Andrew’s hopes up too high… no, I’m not running out this instant and buying my Vast Right Wing Conspiracy membership card. I just said it was “compelling”; I didn’t say I agreed. Andrew’s arguments are often compelling, even when wrong. :) But certainly, this one is food for thought.]

(more…)