The insurgent strategy suffers from two major flaws. First, in potentially putting a safe Democratic seat in play for Republicans, it is extraordinarily short-sighted. Second, it rests on a faulty premise about Lieberman’s record in adhering to core Democratic principles in his voting and his advocacy.
The strategy contrasts sharply with how Pennsylvania Democrats are treating a similar situation. There, Democrats rallied around state Treasurer Bob Casey in his quest to unseat Republican Rick Santorum, the incumbent U.S. Senator — even though Casey’s pro-life position on abortion puts him on the wrong side of a core Democratic issue. (Haas)
The Pennsylvania situation is very different, however, in that Pennsylvania Democrats have chosen the best candidate to defeat an entrenched incumbent. In this case, there is no strong Republican alternative. Alan Schlesinger has yet to catch fire, although he may be waiting for the outcome of the Lieberman-Lamont fight. Most observers don't think that there is much of a chance of the seat swictching from one party to the next, especially if Republican voters stay home.
Then again, it may be worth asking what the consequences of a Lamont victory would actually be. Would the party unify behind him? Or break apart?
Haas, Lawrence J. "Challenge to Lieberman could hurt all Democrats." New Haven Register 18 June, 2006.