Schlesinger steals the show at Lieberman-Lamont debate? (Leftwing Blogosphere "Hailing" Republican)

That’s the word on the street, although the reality-based community has been known to confuse electoral reality with wishful thinking. Tinti’s not worried and says Connecticut Republicans realize that a vote for Schlesinger is a vote for Lamont. Just like, er, Democrats “knew” that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush in 2000.

HuffPo’s already working on the empty suit’s concession speech. Rational response to the polls? Reflex reaction of a party prone to defeatism and used to losing? Or just getting a jump on the treacly, unbearably overwrought valedictions we’ll be treated to on election night if this loser does, in fact, go belly up? Imagine every Olbermann fan in America — all eleven of them — trying to one-up each other in a contest of who can write the Lamont eulogy with the purplest prose.

GOP retention of the Senate stands at 61.2, although it’s down eight points today. Rasmussen has already taken the last tally out of the “Lean GOP” column by declaring Virginia now too close to call, thereby leaving things at 48-48 with four toss-ups. Dan Riehl follows the money and feels optimistic, noting the huge advantage many Republican candidates have over their opponents — but one of the ones he lists, Mike DeWine, has already allegedly been abandoned by the leadership as a sure loser.

Finally, two meta-polls for you. First, via Pew, the Bush effect? Or the Kos effect?

And also from Pew, this fascinating graph suggesting that your lifelong party affiliation is determined by what the political landscape looks like when you turn 20. Click for full size.

The good news: those Truman Democrats won’t be around to trouble us much longer! The bad news: Bush has created more Democrats than FDR did.

Addendum (Ian): Isn’t it kind of funny that most of the popular liberal bloggers write Schlesinger won the debate. It’s like someone is telling them what to write or something.

Daily Kos: Republican Alan Schlesinger, who was surprisingly impressive in the debate, made a clear distinction between himself and his two opponents on the immigration issue:

Jane Hamsher: Finally. A Republican with the stones to tell Joe Lieberman to get off his damn lawn. Lieberman thought he was going to look “bipartisan” standing in between Ned Lamont and Alan Schlessinger during the debate today but he just looked like a man without a country, crying because everyone was trying to steal his candy. While Joe was praising every Republican in sight (Jodi Rell, John McCain, Susan Collins — funny, no Democrats)

This is too funny. Now that it appears that the leftwing's favorite candidate, Ned Lamont, looks like a sure loser, the leftwing blogosphere is trying to pull down Lieberman's numbers by talking up Schlesinger in a pathetic attempt to draw votes from Lieberman. This is actually funny because it is so OBVIOUS what they are doing. Just as OBVIOUS as their campaign tricks to keep church going going folks from voting via Foleygate and David Kuo urging Christians to take a fast from politics at this convenient (for them) time.

And look at all the Freepers who fell for the left's "You've gotta vote for Schlesinger" nonsense. They'll be great enablers and useful idiots for the left and for Ned Lamont as they chase after this ludicrious fantasy that a Republican can win a senate seat in a state as Democratic as CT. in a year that the political winds aren't exactly blowing the GOP's way anywhere, much less in the Democratic Northeast. Amazing the delusion people on the far left and the far right can engage in.

Most of these who don't understand our pragmatism on Lieberman or other more liberal candidates are people who live in red states, probably in the South, and so they don't understand the need to be pragmatic like those of us stuck behind the blue state curtain.

For instance, they could never comprehend voting for a governor like Schwarzenegger who has been a bit too liberal even for me lately, but whom I realize in the long run will be far better than Angelides or any Democrat running the state, esp. since Arnold has and will get in the way of the worst excesses coming out of the Democratic legislature. That's because they can vote and get conservative governors every time. So they think the rest of us here behind the blue curtain can get conservative Republicans elected too if we'd just try...even with a 2-1 Democratic party registration advantage.

No, I've found these absolutists come from states where they've been use to getting their way in elections and governance because they get overwhelmingly conservative candidates elected and conservative agendas are easily put through in their state's government. So they don't get that those of us out here in blue country have to adopt a more pragmatic, long-term view of things, that in order to make in-roads in Democratic held territory you must be willing to make compromises which includes on occassion having to support more liberal Republicans, or in the case of CT, a liberal independent in order to put up a blocking maneuvar against the far more extreme elements and personalities in the Democratic party.

In blue country, we aren't able to think so much in terms of playing offense as we do defense against the worst Democratic excesses or people, like Ned Lamont. Sometimes just preventing the worst Democrats have to offer in candidates and their far left agenda is victory enough for us in blue states. Maybe later we can go on offense incrementally, but when you don't live in Idaho or Alabama you've got to be realistic and take it one step at a time.

"And look at all the Freepers who fell for the left's "You've gotta vote for Schlesinger" nonsense. They'll be great enablers and useful idiots for the left and for Ned Lamont as they chase after this ludicrious fantasy that a Republican can win a senate seat in a state as Democratic as CT. in a year that the political winds aren't exactly blowing the GOP's way anywhere, much less in the Democratic Northeast. Amazing the delusion people on the far left and the far right can engage in."

But, but, the argument put forth by many (Here) is we should always vote for a Republican, it's the principal!

Bite off your nose to spite your face, many are prepared to do just that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.