A Better Way to Win

In my last post Lieberman: The Democrat's Arlen Spector I was discussing the meaning of the Joe Lieberman win in Conneticut. I came up with this little nugget:

The Senate election in Conneticut was an excellent referendum on the Iraq war. In a liberal state you have two liberals as the main candidates. On one side "cut and run", on the other "find a better way to win". Joe's election proves America still loves winners.

which I would like to expand upon. Policy in Iraq will have to change. At this point the Democrats can not afford a blood bath there. It would be on their hands. The blogs and electronic media, which are gaining in power, would not keep silent. Iraq is full of cell phones and internet connections. That is esentially the Republican safety net there. Critical infrastructure indeed.

So what would I expect to see? More funding of Iraqi infrastructure through Democrat contractors. Plus a time table to get out with an escape clause.

I do not believe the Democrats can keep party unity on a "cut and run" strategy. Joe and other Dems who recognize we are at war whether we like it or not, will see to that. "Cut and run" will be given a fig leaf of a time table with an escape clause.

For the same reason (sensible Democrats) I do not expect much change in economic policy. Taxes will not be raised because it is a largely unpopular move. If we are near the end of the recent boom (unemployment below 4.4%) the Democrats will not want to be blamed for causing a bust. Their best bet politically is to do nothing.

Of course all this depends on rational actors acting in what I percieve to be their best interests. The actors are surely not totally rational and my perception of their self interest could be wrong.

Still if I was into betting I think the odds would be in my favor.