Joe Lieberman and the Primary Process

I don't see any way that Joe Lieberman can win his primary race in Connecticut now. He's admitted that he won't be bound by its results. He's decided to characterize the most active, loyal, and model Democrats in the nation, the ones that vote in primaries, as insignificant losers:

...in his announcement, Senator Lieberman described the primary as an incomplete reflection of voter will, hinting that he feared a strong turnout from the impassioned supporters of Mr. Lamont.

"If 30 percent of the Democrats come out and vote, that's about 210,000 people," Mr. Lieberman said. "That means 105,000 plus one will win the primary. There's 2 million voters, registered voters, in the state of Connecticut. That would mean that 5 percent of the registered voters would have the opportunity to decide whether I continue to be Connecticut's senator or not."

The Democrats have so much to do to take back Congress this year that they really don't need this kind of an intra-party battle. But nobody should allow an out-of-touch incumbent to disrespect the primary process. As Stirling Newberry notes, the very existence of primaries was hard-fought, achieved by incremental gains of the people over party bosses. Supreme Court cases and convention-floor fights sealed the deal. Slowly but surely over the last several cycles, Establishment Democrats have come to hate primaries, to see them as an opportunity for the rabble to upset their grand design over how to win back the Congress (and what a good job they've done of that!). The DSCC and DCCC have meddled in numerous primaries in this cycle alone, from Paul Hackett to Christine Cegelis and others. Reportedly Chuck Schumer even begged Ned Lamont to get out of the race.

The era before primaries consisted of smoke-filled rooms and back-door deals, where the rank-and-file had no say in who the party nominee was. That's exactly the model for what the Establishment Dems want. It's completely antithetical to democracy, and Sen. Lieberman's move is the logical outcome of that: basically, that there's "too much democracy" going on in these primaries, and therefore he shouldn't be bound by them.

If that's the case, then I find it crucial that we beat back this attempt to subvert the democratic election process, and prove once and for all that you cannot disrespect the will of the voters and get away with it. I'm happy to see that Hillary Clinton has pledged to support the winner of the primary:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a longtime supporter of Sen. Joseph Lieberman, said Tuesday she will not back the Connecticut Democrat's bid for re-election if he loses their party's primary.

"I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee," the former first lady said in a statement issued by aides.

"But I want to be clear that I will support the nominee chosen by Connecticut Democrats in their primary," the New York Democrat added. "I believe in the Democratic Party, and I believe we must honor the decisions made by Democratic primary voters."

Other Democrats are headed to Connecticut to stump for Joementum, including my own Senator Boxer. They have every right to support the incumbent in the primary. Once that's settled, and should Lamont win (and honestly, who in their right mind would vote for Lieberman in the primary if he's going to be on the general election ballot anyway?), they must fall in line with Ms. Clinton and respect the process.

There's a debate tomorrow, which will be carried live by C-SPAN, and if I were Lamont, I'd only say one thing the entire debate: Why, Senator Lieberman, do you have contempt for the voters of this state? If you think too few will turn out in August, redouble your efforts to get your supporters to turn out! It's called a ground game. Surely you've heard of it. If you don't believe in primaries anymore, why do you think voters should elect you in one?