A Democratic "mandate"

According to the conventional wisdom, the Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken, and "they" have delivered a "strong message" to Senator Lieberman. The Philadelphia Inquirer's Dick Polman declares Lieberman a "casualty of war," and sees his defeat as evidence of an antiwar "sea change taking place within his party," claiming Democrats "want leaders who will oppose the Iraq war" and that the antiwar position is "the majority position in America, among independents as well as Democrats."

I think it is true that some people have in fact spoken. But who? How much can really be read into this 10,000 vote differential? How representative were the voters of their party, even in Connecticut?

A look at the numbers:

Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 146,061, to 48 percent for Lieberman, with 136,042, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Turnout was projected at twice the norm for a primary.
Yes, this was a high turnout -- nearly 40%.

What that means is that in our democracy, 20% get to lead the rest of us, whether we like it or not. In California, a similar number would have stopped Arnold Schwarzenegger had there been a primary.

Here's the Connecticut presidential vote in 2004:

Democratic Kerry 857,488 54%

Republican Bush 693,826 44%

Petitioning Candidate Nader 12,969 1%

Green Cobb 9,564 1%

Libertarian Badnarik 3,367

Concerned Citizens Peroutka 1,543

I hate to say this, but from my math, it appears that around 1.5 million Connecticut voters end up being led by fewer than 150,000.

That's a ten to one ratio. And in a "high turnout" election.

Is it also worth pointing out that in 2000, Senator Lieberman won 813,265 votes -- more than Al Gore's 795,861?

That depends on whether you're talking to an activist, I guess.

Activists love to talk about the will of the minority as the will of the majority. It's their favorite fiction, their stock in trade. (Just ask them. Why, they're "the base!")

Primaries enable activists.

Which is why primaries -- like activists -- are a problem that won't go away.


All I can say is... sigh.

(If you don't like activists, you're undemocratic!)

UPDATE: Clayton Cramer has little sympathy for Lieberman (but less for Lamont), and sees the Lieberman defeat as possibly good news for Republicans:

...if Lieberman runs as an independent, creating a three way race with the Republican--is it possible for the Republican to win the general election?

I saw a Connecticut Republican interviewed last night, and she was saying that while Republican registration is only about 20% of the Connecticut electorate, Republicans have a base of about 37% of the votes. (I suspect that a lot of independents consistently vote Republican, and Republicans are better at turning out their voters.) Bush received 44% of the Connecticut vote in the 2004 election , so I don't find the 37% base implausible. If Lieberman and Lamong split the remaining 63% of the vote the way that they did in the primary, it could be a Republican victory. I can think of nothing more appropriate to do to the spoiled rich kid faction of the Democratic Party than for them to have defeated a liberal Democratic incumbent--and end up causing a Republican to get elected instead.

posted by Eric on 08.09.06 at 08:03 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3923






Comments

Activist is just another term for 'unemployed'.

Eric Blair   ·  August 9, 2006 12:54 PM

Liberman is running as an Independent. Methinks Micheal Moore just may eat his words in November.

JonBuck   ·  August 9, 2006 01:04 PM

What that means is that in our democracy, 20% get to lead the rest of us, whether we like it or not.

Well, technically, I think it means that people who give enough of a damn to vote in the primary get pick the leader of a party...

And I'm not sure it's bad, stated as such. I don't particularly like this outcome, but, well... Lieberman can run as an Independent, and I like low turnout due to apathy better than apathetic people voting ala Australia - low turnout indicates something, and we lose that data if we make everyone vote.

Sigivald   ·  August 9, 2006 04:53 PM

They did vote. They voted for no one.

Grand Stand   ·  August 9, 2006 05:19 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits