A harbinger...

You will in 40 percent of the country. Might not be enough for you to win though.

 

Well, I thought that was sort of implied...

 

Again, is that 60 percent against the war entirely made up of people who never supported the war in the first place and want to get out now? Or could a healthy percentage of that 60 percent be people who support the war in principle but object to how it is being conducted?

You're putting far too much stock in a number. If I believed all that, I would have believed the exit polls that had Kerry winning the 2004 election.

Any way you slice this result, it is not good news for the Democratic Party.

 

That depends, Lyman.

If they have the balls to run anti-war candidates who make their races about the war and the way it has been conducted, well, I think the Democrats can use this to their advantage.

And what else are the Republicans going to run on, nationally? Flag-burning? Gay marriage? They've sort of painted themselves into this corner.

If the Democratic party ignores this result and continues to run without a coherent national platform, then you're absolutely right. And I know you like those odds...

 

Bad analogy.

For starters, this was an off-year senatorial primary in one small state, not a nationwide presidential election.

Secondly, Wallace in '68 peeled the Dixiecrats vote off of Humphrey in the South, thus opening the door for Nixon.

Thirdly, other than his anti-war stance, McGovern carried a big bag of nothing, while Nixon was in the afterglow of his China foreign policy triumph. Besides, by November '72 the war was ramping down significantly.

 

What Joe Conason wrote:

"The fundamental argument of the propagandists is that opposition to the war in Iraq represents an obsession of the far-left fringe, and that the Democrats will be destroyed by any attempt to extricate our troops from the quicksand. That claim is easily refuted by every reputable survey of public opinion over the past year. Support for the Bush administration's conduct of the war, and for the President himself, has been declining steadily, in fact, since the end of 2004. And every anchorperson, pundit and squawking head seeking to suggest otherwise is either inexcusably ignorant or purposely lying."

That said . . .

If I were a Republican, I would too.

 

If the Democrats come up with a plan to fight more effectively and actually win the war, they might have a shot.

If their plan is to simply pull out of Iraq, they won't win. A lot of people might be dissatisfied with the way the war is going, but that doesn't mean they want to lose it.

I haven't heard a Democrat articulate the former option, but I've heard a lot of them articulate the latter one, including Lamont.

 

Joe Conason's not exactly a non-partisan source, D-BH.

Editorial from the Dallas Morning News today:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-liebermanloses_09edi.ART.State.Edition1.2bce041.html

 

Lyman, doesn't matter what his political stripes are. I believe the premise of the cited paragraph to be correct, as I pretty much made the same argument while we were talking last night.

And after thinking about it some more, I really don't think the distinction between: 1) being against the war from the start and 2) being against how it is being managed makes any difference. Either way, that's dissatisfaction with how Bush is running things, and more fuel to lessen his party's grip on power.

"Oh, I supported the concept of the Iraq invasion, but I believe the administration has botched it badly. But you know, I'll just keep voting Republican to, you know, as they say, stay the course." Doesn't make sense.

That's like saying if I were I Cub fan, I should be against firing Dusty Baker because I like baseball.

 

Lyman:  You're right - I was wrong.  The Republicans have nothing to worry about.

 

No, you're right -- I was wrong. The Democrats have nothing to worry about.

I guess we'll see in November, won't we?

 

D-BH, I think you're missing my point.

If the Democrat alternative to what Bush is doing is "pull everybody out," it's not going to win. "Pull everybody out" is tantamount to "we lost." Most Americans -- not most Connecticut Democrats, but most Americans -- will not accept that.

Lamont says we should "negotiate" with our enemies. Does he really think most Americans -- again, not most Connecticut Democrats -- agree with that?

And if this is going to be a "defining" issue, wouldn't ALL senators who voted for the war be in serious trouble? Last time I checked, most of them weren't.