Ned Lamont's primary defeat in Connecticut is certainly a setback for him. He defeated Traitor Joe in the 2006 Senate primary, only to lose now to a lesser known candidate while running for governor. It might be tempting to think it was the result of a failure by his campaign, but any tactical failings by Lamont were minor compared to his main difficulty:

Liberal and progressive voters weren't motivated to show up at the polls.

If Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc had been going on a two year campaign to deliberately outrage and demoralize the left of the Democratic Party, they couldn't have done a better job of it. They have governed like Bush/Cheney/Palin/Limbaugh/Gingrich/Beck Republicans, and then they act all shocked when liberal and progressive voters are thoroughly disgusted with them. The recent tantrum by Robert Gibbs is symbolic of the broader arrogance and cluelessness among Party leaders.

Midterm elections are about mobilizing a party's base, yet the Democrats have slimed organized labor, healthcare activists, queers, women, people of color, environmentalists, and peace activists. The DC Democrats have consistently put Wall St. ahead of Main St., just like the Goppers.

The only tactic the Democrats seem to have left is negative campaigning against the Republicans. The GOP's candidates certainly leave plenty of room for negative campaigning, but negative campaigning doesn't motivate voter turnout. In fact, it tends to reduce voter turnout, which historically has helped Republicans.

Will the Democrats heed the wakeup call that Lamont's defeat represents? I seriously doubt it. They are just too bigoted and too bought and paid for by corporate interests.