MORE CHICKEN COUNTING. Following up on Matt's post, I do think the emerging line holding that Ned Lamont's victory demonstrates that the Dems can ride an anti-war platform to victory in '06 and '08 is totally premature. For one thing, Lamont (obviously) won a primary, not a general election. The fact that the anti-war platform commands a small majority in the Democratic primary doesn't mean it will in the general election. Lamont could still lose the general election -- indeed, he's behind in the polls. He also could win it with less than an outright majority (with more Connecticut voters opting for one of the pro-war candidates.)
Moreover, I've never heard the phrase "As Connecticut goes, so goes the nation," for a reason. Perhaps "as Connecticut goes, so goes Massachusettes" would be more apt. Even if Lamont gets well ahead in the polls in a month or two that doesn't necessarily prove that what plays in Connecticut will play in all the states and districts that the Dems need to retake Congress. Bob Casey seems to be doing fine in Pennsylvania without a stridently anti-war message, and if, say, Harold Ford doesn't win in Tennessee, I'll be very skeptical of those who claim that Lamont's narrow primary victory proves that stronger opposition to the military presence in Iraq was the missing ingredient.
You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)