Lieberman 51, Lamont... 35

According to a Lieberman internal poll, which, no doubt, is juiced a bit with extra Joementum.

Still.

Are Republican prospects really that dire?

When faced with the choice of an anti-war Democrat versus two pro-war candidates, the pro-war candidates share 55% of the vote (Schlesinger gets a paltry 4%).

And this is in Connecticut, The Land of Steady Habits, as the New York Times told us a month ago.

True, polls don't look good for Republicans -- at the moment. But the Lieberman-Lamont race is a display of what happens when the policy differences between pro-war and anti-war -- wait, "anti-" is so negative; let me make that a positive-sounding descriptor -- between pro-war and pro-appeasement candidates are sharpened, and voters are forced to actually decide between two men, neither perfect.

That support for a "generic Democratic" candidate? Nonsense. An unspecified candidate usually wins against a named one, because the named candidate is known, warts and all, and the public is free to project its dream policies into the specter called "Generic Democrat."

And in name versus name elections -- the policy differences haven't been sharpened yet. It's time to tie Sheehan, Bowman, Conyers, Rangell, Dingell, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha and company around every Democrat's neck.

True, the Feingold-McCain incumbent protection act forbids negative ads about a named candidate.

But not against Democrats generally.

The public is weary of this war, and would like to be rid of it. But-- here's the thing. They want to be rid of it by winning it. They hold out hope that the Democrats will explain to them some magic solution, other than the tough slog of Bush, that will allow them to win this war quickly and wtihout further pain.

They'd like to be convinced that an over-the-horizon redeployment to Okinawa is the best way to combat Al Qaeda in Iraq, but there's a good reason why they won't be so convinced: Because it's fucking idiotic.

So... as bad things look right now, I'm actually a bit more optimistic that, while the public may want some dream Democrat that will offer them a way to win the War in Iraq overnight, what will actually be on the political menu are Pelosi and her fellow travellers, and the public will wind up voting, somewhat reluctantly, for the party that actually thinks wars should be won and terrorists killed.

Or even belly-slapped.

posted by Ace at 03:50 PM

| Access Comments