Tom Edsall thinks that Lamont’s victory in Connecticut, in which he won big among upscale voters while losing the lunchbucket crowd, means that the Brie-and-Chardonnay Democrats are prepared to keep losing. It’s a reasonable analysis, but I don’t think it’s true, or, at least, I don’t think the evidence Tom offers really supports it.
First, Lieberman was the “regular” candidate. It’s not suprising that downscale voters in a primary will tend to support the “regular” against the “insurgent,” since those working-class voters who go to the polls in primaries tend to be mobilized by the party machinery and the unions.
Second, the extent of Lieberman’s disloyalty has been really quite impressive, and he seems to have run a stupid and nasty campaign against Lamont. I wouldn’t have favored putting up an anti-Lieberman candidate in the primary, just because we have bigger fish to fry this year. But, as someone very concerned with winning and very alert to the need to appeal to Red-state cultural prejudices (my Presidential candidates for ’08 would be Clark, Edwards, and Warner, in no particular order), I would have voted for Lamont on Tuesday.
Footnote: Mickey Kaus challenges the claim that voting split along class lines by citing income numbers. But they’re not the same thing. Years of education (or, better, parents’ years of education) is a much better proxy for social class than is income, and the geography seems to bear out Edsall’s analysis.