If Republicans who would have given money to Talent, Allen, etc. gave to Lieberman instead, then you’re correct that it hurt us. But had the GOP gone all-in for that loser card-counter with no chance of winning (it would have been miraculous for someone like Schlesinger to get 34% in CT in 2006, and if he somehow got 34% it almost certainly would have been because Lieberman was getting less than 25%, in which case Lamont would have coasted to victory), it would have meant people giving money to Schlesinger *instead of to Talent, Allen, etc.*
When Schlesinger refused to drop out, the GOP’s decision to bail was the correct one. And had I lived in CT at the time,I probably would have voted for Lieberman in order to keep Lamont from winning (just as if I lived in a district in which the GOP has no chance I would try to get the least bad Democrat elected); keeping Lamont out was especially important because of his age, since if Lieberman won again we’d likely have another bite at the apple soon (and we did in 2012, when RINO Linda McMahon managed to blow a second straight winnable race). But I wouldn’t have given Lieberman a dime: I’m pretty sure that the only pro-abortion candidate to whose campaign I’ve ever made a monetary contribution has been Scott Brown in the special election (when I had been informed that he was pro-choice with restrictions, and when the alternative was 20+ years of Coakley), and I’m certain that the only Democrat to whom I’ve ever contributed was socially conservative, economically moderate Democrat Henry Cuellar of TX when he faced a rematch against moonbat Ciro Rodriguez in the Democrat primary in a district that the GOP wasn’t even contesting.
I REMEMBER thinking at the time that Schlesinger was in an unworkable position. The moderate-conservative vote was motivated by Fear of Lamont in making their choice in August polling.
If they became placated that Lamont could not win ... some would return to Schlesinger. At that point Lieberman would drop back close to Lamont and the fear again would force them back to Lieberman.
Schlesinger would have had to move into 2nd place by switching Lamont people over (and Alan played a war Hawk in the race). And if Lamont imploded to get rid of the fears of the conservatives ...
Alan or some theoretical candidate had to turn it into a 2-way race to beat Looserman. that was not possible as Lamont seemed to have a floor due to anti-war sentiment.
Most were convinced that the rumors about Casinos were leaks coming from the Bush administration that put the cabosh on him.
I maintain that a 52-48 GOP controlled Senate with Lamont as the new junior Senator from CT (and Talent, Allen, and Burns winning re-election) would have been a much better scenario than a 49-49 RAT controlled Senate, with "Independent" LIEberman putting the RATs in charge (which is what we got when the NRSC and national GOP focusing all their efforts on "stopping Lamont" and figured guys like George Allen were "safe" anyway)
Even a 50-50 GOP controlled Senate (with Lamont as the junior Senator from CT, Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote, and the GOP winning only ONE of the three "down to the wire" Senate races with Republican incumbents) would have been better than what we got. The RATs have managed to do an enormous amount of damage by controlling the Senate since 2006.
As an isolated Senate race, sure, having a younger, more liberal Lamont would be "worse" than LIEberman (though not nearly as "worse" as Lieberman's fan club made it out to be.... it was a choice between 100% socialist Lamont vs. 95% socialist LIEberman, and Lieberman voted reliably with the RATs on every issue besides the war on terror, no matter how much he feigned being "independent" and an "undecided" swing vote) But in the long run, I can only think of maybe 2 or 3 times where Lamont would have voted differently.
CT GOP was derelict (what else is new) in not getting a top tier candidate (all of them were RINOS but still) into that 2006 race.