Man, you should've.  It was a safe bet that the big-money boys wouldn't want Lamont winning that seat.

The DSCC should come out now and run a bunch of ads in Conn. Repeating that quote and stating that Joe Lieberman is a flat out liar who is lying to the Conn. voters about this and if he is willing to lie about this so blatantly what else is he lying about.

If liarman wins and the D's give him seniority and/or the chair of any committee the D's will have kissed off the progressives for the 2008 election.

Trash the Liarman now.

Where do you want the DSCC money to come from, which other Senate seat do you want them to spend less on? , if you can't answer the question, don't ask for the money.

One way to let Lieberman keep his seniority, but still keep him from chairing the governmental affairs committee, is to give Lautenberg his 18 years seniority back as well.  Then Lautenberg would be the chair.

Thanks for the post, Chris. I have a related question: if Lieberman wins, what larger effect will this have on the netroots? It seems to me that after all that time and money and intensity, this would be a major loss for the progressive blogosphere. By the way, I don't think it's premature to raise this question -- the numbers are locking in solid, and unless we find out that Lieberman was Mark Foley's chauffeur, we'll probably lose the seat.

Man, you bet they would be a majorriot if lieberman comes back and gets seniority, then refuses to launch investigation into the iraq war and other stuff..I could just imagine lieberman blocking all investigation into the bush's administration.

I will say one other thing, and its about harry reid.I believe harry reid did promised him seniority and this is why he hasnt come out and dispute lieberman's claim...Harry reid is to weak to be a leader because, not only he allowed lieberman to black mailed him, but his nevada senate seat is not really a lock when he's up for re election.

If im kerry, and lieberman comes back, then have harry telling me to vote for lieberman to retain seniority, i would be very pissed...i think we cant trust harry anymore and id rather see someone like kennedy up there.

wrt Lieberman, chris is spot on.  There has been no doubt in my mind since joe declared that he would run as an independent that it was only a matter of time till he left the party.  In the end, he'll go to whomever can 1. offer him a better deal now and 2. get him elected again.  When he holds the BoP in the Senate, the GOP will be able (and more importantly willing) to offer him a much sweeter deal.  (If the dems were  in WH they could offer him a cabinet post to get out of the race or something... ;-) )

That said, unfortunately the dems are going to make the same mistake they always make (like with the torture amendment) - they're going to play "hope chess."    (In chess, you should choose ur move based on ur opponent making the best possible response.  If you instead choose ur move "hoping" ur opponent will do a specific thing rather than the smartest thing, ur playing "hope chess" - a well known formula for loosing.)  

Back to the dems: when faced with a situation where they can take some proactive, but uncomfortable steps to avoid a negative outcome, or alternatively hope that the outcome doesn't occur, they seem to always choose the latter.  Like hoping that McCain, Warner, and Graham wouldn't cave into the WH like they'd done 50 million times before.  And then once it's too late for proactive action and their hoped-for outcome doesn't occur, they're screwed.

Back to Lieberman:  The DSCC is hoping that by not pushing for Lamont, they're hedging their bets so that Lieberman will caucaus with the Dems.  They figure, whatever they spend in CT, Lieberman will still have some chance to win and they might as well cover all their bets.  Of course they "hope" Lamont will win and make the question moot.  However, Lieberman will bolt the part if he can tip the balance to the repubs (heck, he might bolt it anyways though that depends on what gets him a better deal, etc.) And regardless he will continue to be a gadfly to the dems in terms of media coverage, party message, etc.
For their own wellfare, the DSCC needs to wake up and understand that the Rubicon has been crossed with Lieberman, he will never tip the balance to the Dems on any level. So they should be pushing Lamont hard.

I'd be happy if Lamont wins, but Chris is
exagerating what is at stake.  Many committees
can potentially be involved in investigations of
the Bush Administration.  Lieberman votes with
the Democratic caucus more consistently than
some of the other Democrats in the Senate, and
though he will make an occasional annoying vote,
it will happen rarely (if ever) that his annoying
vote is decisive.

Personally, I'd prefer the money to go to Tennessee
and Virginia.

Some of the comments I've seen on Chris's post
are unrealistic.  Lamont, if he wins, will be no
better and no worse than many Democrats currently in the Senate -- he will be no special threat
to the ``big money boys'' and indeed is one of them himself.

Chris Bowers overestimates the likelihood that Senate committees under the control of Democrats would do any meaningful investigations of the Bush Regime anyway. From that aspect, whether Lieberbum chairs a committee or not is almost irrelevant.

The real damage will occur if Lieberman is rewarded with a committee chair or ranking member status by Senate Democrats should he win.

First, it would have a devastating effect on the morale of the grassroots going into the 2008 campaign. What incentive would ordinary Democrats have to support a political establishment which openly rewarded Lieberbum's betrayal of them?

Second, it would be the death blow to the primary system. What incentive will any incumbent have to accept defeat in his or her primary if an independent candidacy is rewarded in the end? For that matter, what incentive would anyone who's been defeated have to accept it and bow out when Republicans are willing to finance them and split the Democratic vote?

And what incentive would Democratic voters have to participate in a primary system that is a waste of their time?

If Lieberman wins, it will be an unmitigated disaster for ordinary Democrats who are on the verge of implementing real change through primary challenges of bad Democrats, but a blessing for incumbents who will no longer feel bound by primary results and can expect to be rewarded for disregarding the wishes of those who vote in them.

ditto on Sitkah's points as well

Now, let me talk about ned lamont.

I think ned ran a terrific primary and i was very pumped when he won the primary, but i must admit that he has ran a mediocre post-primary elecion so far.

The biggest mistake he made was getting too cocky after the primary victory..They expected a huge bump and ignored th fact that they would be dealing with a complete different electorate that would probably not be as big on the war in iraq.
I was shocked when i saw the post-primary first poll that showed lieberman ahead by more then double digit, and for the first time, i realized that lieberman would be favored to win the seat.

I still held hope, but i was dealt a crushing blow when one of the most respected poll institue, still has lieberman by double digit.

im still rooting for ned, but its getting late very quick and i still dont know why ned didnt call for debate earlier?..by the time the first debate would take place, this election would probably be over.

The key on who wins this race is: Alan Schlesinger.

Correct me if I am wrong, but with 30 some days left, he could still gain some positive momentum. He has a better ballot position, and could siphon gop votes for Joe.  Help Alan Schlesinger!

These strategies work, look at the gop in the Casey v Santorum race. If Alan can pull some votes back from his own party, Lamont wins.

I totally disagree with you about the DSCC spending any money in CT.

Lamont can self finance. If he really wants to be Senator, and to win, he should undesrtand that he's the one who's going to have to pay for this race.

We should not take money away from Jim Webb, or Harold Ford, or John Tester, or Claire McCaskill to help Lamont, when Lamont has his own money.

Now, what SHOULD happen is that the national democrats start campaigning for Lamont. WQhere's Bill Clinton? Where's Hillary Clinton? Where's Barack Obama?

That's the problem. Not money.

Let's not forget that Lieberman's entire career is built largely on moral posturing.  Attacking Clinton in '98 was only the most blatant example of this.  So where is he on Foley and denouncing those involved in the Foley coverup, such as Hastert, Boehner and Shimkus?  Where is he on denouncing them?

It seems like pressing him on this point just has to create some friction, and put him in a real dilemma.  It pits his money donors vs. his morality schtick.  He really needs to be pushed on this, and pushed hard.

I don't see any way that he can keep both the rabid rightwingers and the independents both behind him in the numbers he needs to win, if sufficient pressure is put on him.

And he can't dodge out by saying it's House matter.  It's a morality matter.  Right, Joe?

Demrock6: The key on who wins this race is: Alan Schlesinger.

Hesiod Theogeny: Lamont can self finance.

There is wisdom in both of these remarks. Perhaps Democrats should dump a ton of money onto Schlesinger in order to counteract the ton of money the GOP is dumping onto Lieberscum?

Here

WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, released the following statement today on reports of a potential cover up by House leadership of Congressman Foley's indefensible behavior:

"I am outraged by the revelations about Congressman Foley's behavior.   We in Congress are personally responsible for the well-being of the minors in the page program, and for a Member to prey on them is absolutely reprehensible, one of the worst violations of the public trust imaginable.

I am also deeply disturbed by the reports out today suggesting that the House leadership ignored or possibly covered up Congressman Foley's indefensible behavior.  These reports demand a full, independent investigation to determine exactly how the House leadership responded to the concerns that were raised about Congressman Foley's contacts with young pages.

If it is found that anyone in the House, whether a leader or a Member, contributed to this disgraceful and immoral exploitation of a minor in the page program, then they should be held fully accountable.

Either way, this awful incident points out a major flaw in our ethics system -- there is in fact no independent body in Congress to investigate allegations of ethical misconduct by Members and to eliminate the inherent conflict of interest in cases like this.

That is why I have proposed setting up an Office of Public Integrity that would have the power to launch its own investigations and would have a full-time executive director with subpoena powers and an investigative staff.

Earlier this year, I worked with Senators Susan Collins, John McCain and Barack Obama to push the independent Office of Public Integrity as a bipartisan amendment to larger ethics reform bill that was considered by the Senate.

Our amendment was defeated largely by Senators who said that this was the House's problem.  The reports out today should leave no doubt that this shame is all of our problem -- and it is imperative we act soon to fix it.   That is why I will do everything I can to bring up the Office of Public Integrity bill for a vote when we return for the lame duck session in November."

Just to be fair

For the moment let's take the house as a given.  The only question being the size of our majority there.

So the upshot is we will have meaningful investigation and reform.  Speaker Pelosi is not the type to sit idly on this, and people like Waxman and Conyers have been itching for their chairmanships.

As to the senate, the importance is not oversight (though I think Senate oversight hearings get more press, and senator condeming the administration would be valued higher) - it is blocking supreme court nominees.

But it seems we really need 51 votes to do it.  Lieberman did vote against alito (though for cloture).  But on his last term, would he block a paleo-con justice-nominee?  I really hope so, but I know lamont would, with Liberman we can't rest assured of that.

Man...wouldn't a 52 seat win be sweet.  If a wave overturned one of the "safe" republicans.  Then even if Lieberman wins we can tell him to stuff it.  Accept lowly seats in the majority or go join the minority.

I really have no honest idea how a Post-Democratic Party Joe Lieberman will look like. He was always a much less progressive Senator than what could be gotten in a state like Connecticut, But he voted with the majority of Dems more often than some Senators in good standing with the party; most especially Ben Nelson & The Senators from Arkansas & The Dakotas. But he might be so angry & vindictive after the Primary that he votes against the Dems out of pure spite.

It would be ironic (in a bad way) if after all this is over, Connecticut ends up with even less Progressive Senatorial representation.  

Can the Republicans maintain him in the committee positions, with the same seniority, if they want to?  Because if he gets that kind of deal from them, it seems obvious that he will bolt.

"I know it is easy for beltway insiders to think of us bloggers living in the provinces as rubes who don't understand how targeting works, but I assure you that is not the case."

No offense Chris, but how many of us are "Beltway Insiders"? were just blog readers & posters sharing our thoughts. You & your fellow activist bloggers have far more insidery connections & knowledge than we do.  

Unless Lamont somehow makes up for his failure to capitalize on his primary win during the last 5 weeks, the Democrats will NOT control the Senate.

They might not anyway of course, since it's tough to win everything. Some close races (Missouri is a prime example) may break Republican at the last minute and keep Republican losses to 4.

Then there's Lieberman. There's no way Rove is supporting him just out of friendship or even just to have a convenient talking point.

Lieberman is Rove's ace in the hole.

I don't know why Lamont is hammering this point home night and day. If you want to change the way politics is handled in D.C. vote Lamont, because Lieberman just means more of the same.

With Lamont down by 6 points, he has to make up ground fast if he is to have any chance at all.

If the Republicans can win control by caucusing with Lieberman, then they will offer him the moon and stars. And he'll gleefully accept it, because he has no future in the Democratic party anyway.

What possible job can he be elected to as a Democrat? His Presidential ambitions are toast, he can't even win the primary in his own state. What's left other than to accept a cabinet position under Bush, probably defense if Rumsfeld is forced out since Joe was already on the short-list WH COS Andrew Card submitted to Bush.

That gives Gov. Rell a chance to fill Joe's seat with a Republican. That would be ideal from Joe's perspective and from Rove's. (Now if only Bush could be convinced to part with Rumsfeld). . . .

Let's face it, Waxman and Conyers will be doing the heavy lifting no matter what happens.

The Senate, even if we win it, will be closely divided and is more institutionally moderate by nature.

It's a shame Lautenberg lost his seniority while Lieberman keeps his, and I wish we could do something about that.  However, I'd be willing to live with Lieberman as a committee chair if we could just get rid of that ineffectual John Rockefeller.  God, he's so bad.

Especially when you consider how much she has on hand and the massive lead she and Spitzer have in the polls.

From opensecrets.org

Hillary Clinton D-NY:

Raised:   $47,158,899  
Spent:   $25,278,550  
Cash on hand:   $22,162,694  
Last Report:  8/23/2006  

She has been hosting fundraisers all over the country for canidates, but is also sitting on a fortune. A transfer of $5M to the DSCC would be lovely.

Here's the contact information if you want to make a call:

Washington, DC
Phone: (202) 224-4451

New York City
Phone: (212) 688-6262

Albany/Hudson Valley
Phone: (518) 431-0120

Buffalo/Western New York
Phone: (716) 854-9725

North Country
Phone: (315) 376-6118

Rochester Region
Phone: (585) 263-6250

Rockland and Putnam Counties
Phone: (845) 613-0076

Syracuse/Central New York
Phone: (315) 448-0470

Westchester County
Phone: (914) 725-9294

This went up on the NYTimes (buried in a Metro Section blog) a few hours ago:

"This is all going to be decided by the Democratic caucus," after the election, Mr. Lieberman said today. "I am confident that I will retain my seniority but I am focused on getting re-elected by all the voters."

So let's play a little game of what if -- as in, what if the Democrats and the Republicans split the Senate? Would Mr. Lieberman still align himself with the Democratic senators who have lined up behind his opponent?

"I've given my world that's what I intend to do. I am going to caucus with the Democrats."

http://empirezone.blogs.nytimes.com/

Let's ignore the fact that, if you read the whole thing, the blog paints Lieberman as a victim and Lautenberg as the villian. It looks like Joe will caucus with us regardless of what happens with his seniority, and he's just trying to give us all a little scare so nobody thinks about taking it away. The man is a freaking jerk, but he's not Satan, nor is he a secret operative in a Rovian conspiracy.

Would he make a crappy Senator? No doubt. Would he torpedo the party and jump to the Repugs? I don't think so. If he really does come down to a tie, he will swallow his pride, so will we, and it will still be better than a Republican majority.

Chris, I didn't say this on the last post, because I wasn't yet sure why your proposals didn't quite sit well with me. I agree with you for the most part, and there's nothing wrong with your reasoning, but I think there is another side to the argument.

We've been doing this 50-state strategy to challenge Republicans everywhere, spread their resources, and excercise our own. With that same idea in mind, taking red districts now gives Republicans a bunch of uphill battles to fight, while our chances of winning blue districts will still be better in '08 than they have been in the past.

I know it feels like now-or-never sometimes, but as progressive infrastructure continues to grow, those D+3 districts will be a lot easier to win in '08 than in '04, even if the short-term holy-shit-factor from '06 has mostly or entirely subsided.

Long story short: if we target blue districts now and win them, and the country is mostly represented by PVI and partisan performance factors, we go back to the old battleground seats/war-of-attrition model. But if we take as many red districts as we can while we have this extra surge, next year's playing field consists of all the red districts we hold, and all the blue districts we have yet to take (plus the seats that would be in play regardless of our targetting strategy this year).

Let's use this year to unseat incumbents we couldn't unseat any other year. True, our guys in red districts will be vulnerable next cycle, but not as much as the Republicans holding blue districts, by comparrison. I want the color-by-party map to look as bizarre and unstable as possible, because when you're on your way up, you want the game to be as volatile as possible.

I'm frankly more worried about Allen scraping by than by Lieberman scraping by.  He still seems to be either tied or in the lead.  He's a lot more loathsome than Joe by a longshot.  

If we dump Lieberman, what Chris says about him will still apply to Baucus, Ben Nelson et al.  We'll still have Dems who lean right on some or most issues.  The notion that we can achieve heterogeneity here is just wrongheaded.  At most we'd eliminate the relative incongruity of blue CT being represented by a right-centrist.  Terminating Allen is far more critical.