Liberal Democrats are angry at CT Gov. Lamont and no longer hiding it. ‘There will be a challenger'

Yahoo

6 hours ago

It took a spark to ignite quickly.
Liberal Democrats have been grumbling about Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont for more than a year regarding his opposition to tax hikes on Connecticut's richest residents and blocking more wide-scale loosening of the state's fiscal guardrails to allow more spending for progressive priorities.
But the anger against Lamont suddenly overflowed last week with his high-profile veto of an affordable housing bill written by Democrats and his endorsement of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayor's race.
The exasperation turned into talk about a potential primary from the left against Lamont as more Democrats became unafraid to publicly criticize the two-term incumbent.
Rep. Josh Elliott, a deputy House Speaker, said that Lamont will definitely face a primary challenger from the left. If no other candidate comes forward, Elliott implied that he would run in the same way that he challenged then-sitting House Speaker Brendan Sharkey in a 2016 primary before Sharkey abruptly retired.
'If the governor decides to run again, he will absolutely not run uncontested,' Elliott told The Courant in an interview. 'There will be a challenger. Who that person is, we will see, potentially over the next couple of weeks.'
A longtime leader who helped create the Progressive Caucus in the state House of Representatives, Elliott has already spoken to his colleagues to rally support for a primary.
'Of the hundreds of conversations that I've had over the last couple of weeks, I cannot tell you a single person who is excited about [another] Ned term,' Elliott said. 'Not one person. He doesn't realize how much people are struggling because he's just living in an alternate reality. So he's trying to convince people that things are better than they are because he might actually believe it. He is totally divorced from reality.'
The items sought on the progressive agenda, Elliott said, include a capital gains tax surcharge on the state's richest residents, a child tax credit for the first time in state history, regulation of artificial intelligence, free school meals for children, increased Medicaid rates, more funding for higher education and additional money for cities and towns.
When asked by The Courant about a potential primary challenge by Elliott or others from the left, Lamont responded, 'It's the political season. A lot of folks have the right to run. I took on a guy named Joe Lieberman some years ago. You've got to have a strong, compelling reason. Back then, it was the war in Iraq, which I thought was a terrible tragedy for this country, and that's why I acted on it.'
He added, 'When I took on the war in Iraq, everybody said, 'Lamont's got to be a left-wing guy to go up against this war.' Today, everybody knows that war was a terrible mistake. I'm glad I stood up when I did stand up. I think when you do a primary, you've got to have strong, compelling reasons to challenge your own party. I thought I did back then.'
Lamont defended his record over the past seven legislative sessions, saying that he helped restore fiscal stability to a state that faced large budget deficits and tax increases in the past.
'I like where we are as a state,' Lamont said. 'I think we've had a very strong, progressive agenda, and we've been able to do it within a balanced budget and paying down a lot of debt. I think we've got a good balance.'
Concerning his progressive accomplishments in light of the recent New York City primary, Lamont said, 'I saw what the progressive agenda was there. They said, number one, they wanted to have universal early childhood and pre-K. We're already making a down payment on that. Look what we've done on the minimum wage. Look what we've done on paid family and medical leave. Other people can promise, but look what we've delivered.'
Besides Elliott, other Democrats have been speaking out, including Sen. Saud Anwar of South Windsor, who wrote, as CT Capitol Report put it, a 'shock op-ed' calling for Lamont to give up his seat. He pointed to Lamont's unwillingness to raise taxes on Connecticut's high earners 'protecting working and middle-class families,' 'inadequate funding' for education and 'the human cost of wrong action,' as he tallies overdose deaths after Lamont had support for overdose prevention centers removed from a bill.
'Governor Lamont is not only an outlier among Democratic leaders of other states, but he is increasingly so among Democrats in Connecticut. … In the past two years alone, Governor Lamont has vetoed or threatened to veto legislation that would make a meaningful difference in the lives of Connecticut's working families.'
'But the challenges before us demand a different vision for what Connecticut can be. One that is willing to ask more of those who can afford it, rather than asking those who are already struggling to carry more weight,' he wrote. 'I am heartened by the many strong Democratic leaders across our state who are rumored to be considering a run for governor. Should Governor Lamont choose not to seek re-election, I hope those individuals will move forward with their campaigns. In fact, I would urge them to do so regardless of what the governor decides.'
State Rep. Jillian Gilchrest, an outspoken member of the party's liberal wing, said on Facebook and in an interview that the housing veto represented a major problem for Democrats.
'When the only people applauding you are the state's Republican leaders … maybe you don't represent the people who elected you,' Gilchrest said of Lamont's veto on the housing bill.
On the same day of the veto, Lamont initially dodged any discussion of Cuomo, who resigned in disgrace as New York governor amidst a scandal with public accusations by numerous women of sexual harassment. But after being pressed by reporters, Lamont eventually said that he would have supported Cuomo in the contentious primary that was won by a democratic socialist in left-leaning New York City.
The criticism of Lamont increased after a previously unknown liberal named Zohran Mamdani won an upset victory over Cuomo, giving liberals their biggest win of the year at a time when the Democratic Party has been reeling nationwide by the presidency of Donald J. Trump.
The New York mayor results 'sent a strong message to corporate democrats like Governor Lamont — it's time for bold leadership that centers the needs of the working class,' said Constanza Segovia, the organizing director for Connecticut For All, a coalition that supports tax hikes on the rich. 'Lamont's endorsement for an accused sexual harasser and disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo is indicative of all of his choices lately — wrong and out of touch.'
When asked by The Courant about Republicans being happy with the housing veto and Democrats being upset, Lamont responded, 'It's sort of funny that the Republicans are champions of more local regulation that slows down growth. Usually, they're the party of growth and deregulation. But that said, we're going to get this bill right. I'm going to do it with Democrats and Republicans — if they want to be constructive and join me at the table.'
In addition, Lamont caused concern among union members by vetoing a controversial bill that would have awarded unemployment benefits to striking workers.
'I think paying striking workers is a bridge too far,' Lamont told reporters. 'Some people say, 'Gov, you're too pro-labor or you're too pro-business.' I think I'm pro-jobs, and I want to watch out for any bill that I think discourages jobs in this state. For the first time in decades, we're actually growing jobs in this state and growing our manufacturing base in particular, which are very good jobs. And I don't want to do anything to jeopardize that.'
Despite concerns among liberals, Lamont is a popular, two-term governor who self-funds his own campaigns as a Greenwich multimillionaire. Lamont is widely expected to seek re-election in 2026 and no Democrat has stepped forward to challenge him in a primary. He has a massive funding advantage in a state where any opponent would need large amounts of time and organization to qualify for public financing. Despite internal squabbling for decades at the state and national levels, Democrats traditionally come together and close ranks for the general election instead of voting for the Republican alternative.
One of Lamont's potential opponents, Westport First Selectwoman Jen Tooker, hailed his veto.
'My campaign for governor is centered on addressing the affordability crisis in our state, including the need to create more affordable and diverse housing,' Tooker said. 'While I agree with the stated goal of HB 5002, I disagree with its one-size-fits-all approach and the heavy-handed tactics used to push it through the legislature. Governor Lamont's veto is a victory, for sure, but much work remains to be done.'
A fiscally moderate Democrat, Lamont has butted heads with liberals in the past. The difference, though, is that the liberals do not have enough votes to override Lamont's vetoes. In the House with 102 members, the number necessary for a veto override is 101 votes. With the housing bill, for example, 18 House Democrats voted against the legislation, blocking any chances for a veto override.
House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford noted that House majority leader Jason Rojas of East Hartford had spent large amounts of time on the 92-page housing bill that got rejected by Lamont.
'Clearly, a lot of the members of our caucus are disappointed that he vetoed the bill,' Ritter told The Courant in an interview. 'Every member should say whatever they want to say. And that's fine. At the end of the day, my job as the Speaker is to take the temperature down at some point, get people to understand that we're still working on something and present them a new bill in September that can hopefully garner the support.'
He added, 'But it's hard when bills go down and there's sort of an intra-party fight. I acknowledge that. But it's like you lose a game at the buzzer, and you've got to come back the next day and you've got to play. And that's what we're going to do.'
Lamont had never intended to publicly endorse Cuomo, and the issue only came up on the day before the New York City primary because reporters asked him in his Capitol office.
Lamont expressed surprise when Channel 8 television reporter Mike Cerulli asked him whether he was supporting Cuomo in the primary. Lamont did not give a direct answer, which led to some back-and-forth among the press corps as Lamont's communications director opined that the issue was 'not a story.'
After more questioning, Lamont said, 'If you ask me who I'd vote for, I'd vote for Andrew Cuomo.'
When asked if he would rank Cuomo first in the ranked-choice voting in New York City, Lamont replied, 'Yeah.'
The exchange with reporters spread quickly to insiders in the political world.
'I am both disappointed and disgusted that the governor of the state of Connecticut would endorse Andrew Cuomo for an elected position,' Gilchrest said at the state Capitol. 'The Department of Justice has found that he has sexually harassed at least 13 women. Actions speak louder than words, and the governor should not be endorsing Andrew Cuomo.'
But after Cuomo's defeat and his concession, Lamont was asked what advice he would give to Cuomo about remaining on the ballot in the general election against multiple candidates in November.
'I think he got hit pretty hard in that last election,' Lamont said of Cuomo. 'He ought to think hard about if he wants to go forward or not. That's what I'd tell him.'
Lamont's vetoes of the housing bill and striking workers, combined with the upset New York primary win, brought to the surface frustrations of the party's more progressive members.
'It has changed the landscape, but it hasn't changed my perspective,' Elliott said. 'The way that I feel about the way our government is being run has been pretty consistent. Certainly the vetoes are additional evidence that I think now the public can see what we in the legislature have been facing over the last seven years. … More people are paying attention to the idea that focusing on the middle class can be politically popular due to that massive [New York] primary win. I think more people are looking for change.'
Christopher Keating can be reached at [e-mail]