"If you had to choose between losing Lieberman and keeping McKinney...?"

[wyldwolf]

I was asked this question last night at dinner:

"If you had to choose between losing Lieberman and keeping McKinney, which would you chose?"

The question stunned me for a moment, not because the answer wasn't easy, but because I'd not really considered such scenario. I imagined a tense moment on a bridge somewhere with two opposing groups negotiating a trade off. "You dump Joe, and we'll dump Cynthia!"

But yes, the answer was easy. The CT race has never held my interest, and has never concerned me that much from a purely pragmatic political stance. The way I see it, if Lieberman loses, we still get a Democrat in his place who by all indications will be a loyal one when it comes to votes of national importance. When it comes to state business in CT, I really have no interest at all.

But the McKinney/Johnson race is another matter and one I am watching much more closely because I live in Georgia. Not only do I believe McKinney is an albatross around the neck of the Democratic party, it has become too easy for the GOP to paint her as the face of the party.

I would rather Lieberman lose than McKinney win.

[WhiteTara]

1. Although I like Cynthia, me too.

But couldn't we have both?

edited for need.

[wyldwolf]

2. I don't want McKinney

I'd sacrifice two Liebermans (provided the seats were filled with other Democrats) just to rid Georgia and DC of her.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

9. McKinney will win by landslide... Lieberman will be close and lose...

if Bill will shut up and Diebold doesn't step in... what an odd OP... Go talk to black people in GA (PLENTY live in her district.) See how they feel about McKinney and white cops that hassle blacks for no reason. I promise you this, redneck whites in GA never voted for her before and never will.

I'm white and in the deep south and I laughed when I heard what McKinney did, then got concerned about her being convicted and not being allowed to run in Nov. The only thing that concerns me about Lieberman is his voting record. In fact, only a neocon could support Lieberman, with his past record.

It's all about how they vote, not how media portrays them.

[wyldwolf]

10. LOL!

What an odd reply.

Lieberman will be close and lose if Bill will shut up and Diebold doesn't step in

1. Bill has every right to speak his mind
2. No Diebold in CT.

Go talk to black people in GA (PLENTY live in her district.) See how they feel about McKinney and white cops that hassle blacks for no reason. I promise you this, redneck whites in GA never voted for her before and never will.


The AJC analysis looked at voter turnout in DeKalb, where most 4th District voters live. The AJC also compared Tuesday's election returns in 120 DeKalb precincts with the results of McKinney's 2002 race, which she lost to Denise Majette. (The Georgia Legislature drew new congressional lines in 2005, so only 120 precincts were the same in 2006 as in 2002.)

•This year, 49 percent fewer voters cast ballots for McKinney than in 2002. That indicates those voters either did not cast ballots Tuesday, or voted for another candidate.

•Overall turnout was significantly lower this year than in 2002. Then, 47 percent of 4th District voters who live in DeKalb went to the polls; this year only 26 percent cast ballots.

•Support for McKinney dropped by an average of 4.5 percentage points across the 120 precincts. She experienced the biggest decline in south DeKalb precincts. In the precincts where McKinney was strongest in 2002, she still won majorities this year but by a lower percentage.

http://www.ajc.com/wireless/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0724metfourth.html

The only thing that concerns me about Lieberman is his voting record. In fact, only a neocon could support Lieberman, with his past record.

The Democratic party welcomes the newest neocons: Senator Barbara Boxer, Rep. John Lewis, Mark Warner, and former President Bill Clinton.

[Ken Burch]

24. Even though her replacement would be bland, silent and useless

and would never do anything that mattered.

[Lerkfish]

3. weird. aren't you one of the people that lambast lamont supporters?

maybe I have you confused with someone else...its possible. If so, I apologize.

at any rate, I do not see why its ok to oppose McKinney in a primary because she's an "albatross' (although what you really mean is she's embarrassing to republicans) But up until now its not been ok to oppose Lieberman for his stand on the Iraq war, among other issues.

You at least, here in a backhanded way, acknowledge there are reasons to oppose incumbents in the primary. I don't agree with your reasons on McKinney, but support your right to run an opposing candidate.

I'm just struck by the way certain absolutes hold sway in the Lieberman/DLC debates, UNTIL it suits people to want to challenge another incumbent.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

4. yes, but I don't lambast Lamont

Thats why I said from a purely pragmatic political position, the race doesn't matter that much to me.

But, what I mean by Albatross is she's embarassing to Democrats. At least many in the district she serves in.

[Lerkfish]

13. yes, but aren't you of those avocating we vote for ANY dem to secure

the seat? (again, I could be misremembering, it might have been someone else, my apologies if I am misidentifying you with other DLC DUers)

That was the argument used by many DLCers against people who objected to DINOs, and who wanted to support a progressive candidate in the primary. The argument further went that challenging an incumbent to further a candidate who better suited our issues would be effectively voting for a republican. The argument was that we should just hold our nose and vote for a DINO.

But now, its an incumbent that is deemed too far "left" for a DLCer, but instead of holding their nose and voting for her anyway, NOW we see the argument that supporting a challenger to the incumbent in the primary is useful because the incumbent does not match DLC values.


I find that...well....odd.

[wyldwolf]

16. hmm... not sure...

aren't you of those avocating we vote for ANY dem to secure the seat? (again, I could be misremembering, it might have been someone else, my apologies if I am misidentifying you with other DLC DUers)

I certainly believe that any Democrat is better than a Republican. So, yes, I advocate voting for any Dem to secure the seat.

The argument further went that challenging an incumbent to further a candidate who better suited our issues would be effectively voting for a republican. The argument was that we should just hold our nose and vote for a DINO.

I've never seen that train wreck of an argument made. My argument has always been (in regards to red states) that an elected Democrat got elected with Republican and Independent votes and that candidate represents a red or red leaning area. Challenging that Democrat based on some perceived notion of ideological heresy by a more liberal candidate is a recipe for disaster. The more liberal candidate, if he/she won the primary, will not get the required votes that put the centrist Democrat over the top.

I also take issue with the phrase "who better suited our issues." It is a bit arrogant for someone to believe they hold some monopoly over what the correct or "better" position on our issues are.

But now, its an incumbent that is deemed too far "left" for a DLCer, but instead of holding their nose and voting for her anyway, NOW we see the argument that supporting a challenger to the incumbent in the primary is useful because the incumbent does not match DLC values.

In Cynthia McKinney's case, all measured analysis indicates her constituency has been trending away from her for last election cycle or two. It is the area she represents who has decided she no longer represents their views.

[ulysses]

17. ?

It is the area she represents who has decided she no longer represents their views.

And if Lieberman loses his primary, this statement won't equally apply to him?

[wyldwolf]

18. : )

Yes

[ulysses]

19. yes it will apply or yes it won't?

[wyldwolf]

20. yes it will

Mine has two teeth coming in!

[ulysses]

21. thanks.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

14. FOR SOMEONE CLAIMING IT "DOESN'T MEAN MUCH TO ME"...

you sure did ALOT of writing and researching on the topic... Why do so many expert sounding and highly literate writers underestimate the intelligence of the average reader? Come on now, no one is dumb enough to believe these words, wyldwolf: "the race doesn't matter that much to me." Do you think you can sell that bill of goods in light of your earlier posts toward me on this thread?

Do you think polls fool the average leftist these days?

If you'd been registering minority voters in the deep south for two years, you wouldn't need a poll.

Changing your post in edit will not work this time. Too much time has elapsed.

[wyldwolf]

15. again, LOL!

I did research on the McKinney race.

I said the LIEBERMAN race doesn't mean much to me.

The fact that CT doesn't use Diebold machines has been repeated often on DU.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. It's a completely false choice

One is a Senator, the other a Representative and they are from different states. But if someone's going to force it, I'd rather see Lieberman go. The GOP can paint the Democrats with McKinney all they want. When it comes down to it, her votes are more in line with the Democrats than Lieberman's Gang of 14 caucus membership.

And frankly, I'd rather have the GOP painting a person who votes with the Dems, than praising a Democrat as "their guy". When Cons are toasting a member of the Democrat Party in a positive light, you know something's screwy.

[wyldwolf]

6. I'll just let everyone hash this one out.

[endarkenment]

7. The question is ridiculous.

What exactly is the connection between a georgia house race and a connecticut senate race?

[wyldwolf]

8. only that they've both gained national attention..

...and one involves a Democrat some see as too conservative and one some see as too left.

[mopinko]

11. what makes you think

that without mckinney, they will not find another truth telling, brave dem (probably a woman, likely black) to target for this exact kind of treatment? if you (and others at du) can't see through this kind of transparent character assassination, i worry for this party. what a load of horse shit all this is.

[OutNow]

12. Keep McKinney - She supports the peace movement

On September 24, 2005 an estimated 300,000 people marched in Wash. D.C. to protest the Iraq War. Every survey taken in the last 18 months show the majority of Americans think Bush lied us into the war and the majority want us to get out as soon as possible.

One member of Congress - one - just one - agreed to speak at the rally. Cynthia McKinney. Now is the time to us to return the support. The day after the primary results indicated that there will be a run-off, I wrote a check to the McKinney campaign as a small way to thank her for her support.

Bring the troops home now!

[lonehalf]

22. I'm being told that Republicans...

...are going to crossover and vote for McKinney.

They want her back so that they can tell people that she's representative of all Democrats.

Anyway, I think she will win.

[wyldwolf]

23. they can't unless they didn't vote in the primary

if a Republican voted in the Republican primary, he/she can't vote in the Democratic runoff.

But, sure, some will cross over.

[calico1]

25. The question doesn't really make sense to me.

One is a Rep, one a Senator. Neither one affects the other. If it were the same state and your question was "Would you rather lose Lieberman and keep DeLauro" then that would be something to think about. CT voters don't have any effect on GA and vice versa.