Lieberman, McKinney lose
By Sean Aqui | Related entries in Breaking News, Elections, General PoliticsThe story on Cynthia McKinney.
The story on Joe Lieberman.
The Lieberman race has gotten a lot of attention as some sort of referendum on the “soul” of the Democratic party. But the McKinney race was another primary involving a high-profile Democrat, and it tells a different story.
In the first race, an antiwar upstart overthrows a moderate (conservative) pro-war Democrat. In the other, a radical Democrat is beaten by a more moderate one.
So is Ned Lamont the “face” of the Democratic Party? Or is Hank Johnson?
Or is pointing to one Congressional race out of hundreds as the definitive battle for anything just a touch hyperbolic?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 8th, 2006 and is filed under Breaking News, Elections, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 8th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
This really seems to me to be a southern vs. northeastern democrat situation. Southern democrats are increasingly upset as conservative and moderate dems are evicted from the party.
you may see that the lamont win could hurt strong southern democratic candidates like jim webb, harold ford, and others.
-http://americanmoderateparty.blogspot.com
August 8th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
I guess I don’t understand why southern voters would or should care what Connecticut voters do, and vice versa.
The fact that some might let that influence their vote points up one of the problems with party politics.
The voters in Lieberman’s district should vote for whomever they think is the best person for the job, regardless of party label. So should the voters in the South.
August 8th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Personally, I couldn’t agree more. However, that said, it is a sense of direction of the national democratic party issue. (the same is true for the GOP and the religious right). the old maxim that all politics is local is no longer true because the internet allows people from everywhere to easily enter the homes of any voter in any location.
August 9th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Now I am from Indiana so I don’t where the pundits would put me on the liberal vs conservative Democrat scale, but I am happy with the results in both primaries.
To me both Lieberman and Mckinney paid the price for political and personal arrogance. Joe Lieberman’s arrogance was his continued support of the President’s misguided and dangerous foreign policy and his refusal to see or take responsibility for his enabling this President’s continued undermining of America’s security and it’s values.
Cynthia McKinney on the other hand paid the price for her arrogance that revealed itself when she not only struck the Capitol police officer for doing his duty, but then continued to maintain for several days it was the police officer’s fault rather than her own.
This is an admittedly simple view of why both these incumbents lost, but I do think their defeats have more to do with their own failures to admit they may have been wrong more than their overall position on the political spectrum.
Democrats rightly do not like absolutists.
August 9th, 2006 at 2:59 am
Well, the talking heads have strongly suggested that a large part of Lieberman’s loss was the fact that after the 2000 election sthat he became a national Senator rather than a Conn. Senator. Whether he or his choice of staff made that error is unclear at this point.
August 9th, 2006 at 8:16 am
[...] Wednesday, August 9, 2006 Losers Dan on 2006-08-09 @ 8:16 am Cynthia McKinney and Joe Lieberman both lost their primary elections. Hooray for the republic! Those two were crazy. Filed under Elections, Our state govt at work, The Feds permalink :: email author :: no comments [...]
August 9th, 2006 at 8:23 am
I don’t think anyone is truly surprised at the loss of Lieberman, McKinney — the writing was on the wall. Lieberman did not truly represent his party (though he may represent a larger majority of Conneticut residents then Lamont), and McKinney….well, McKinny is everything that is wrong with the Democrtic Party.
I’m surprised at how little attention the other incumbent loss is getting. Moderate Republican Joe Schwartz, a congressman from Michigan who enjoyed broad support among independent thinkers and endorsements from media on both left and right was beaten by an arch conservative who rode issues like abortion, a ban on gay marriage, harsh immigration laws, falg burning amendments…well, you get the picture.
Taken together, from the middle’s perspective, it was a bad day.
Two wins for polarization (Lamont far left and Walberg far right) and only one (Johnson) for the middle.
Personally, I am feeling depressed.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:18 am
GerryF: Fair point on Schwarz, although I think there’s less there than meets the eye. It’s a conservative district, and he only won the primary the last time around — with 28 percent of the vote — because four conservatives split the conservative vote.
My thoughts on that are here.
August 9th, 2006 at 9:45 am
My congratulations to the good people of Georgia’s 4th district. Hank Johnson will serve you well. He’s a great candidate in his own right, not just as the opponent to beat McKinney.
August 9th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Sean,
Less here than meets the eye from an expected outcome, perhaps, but still a defeat for the middle.
This is why the primary process is flawed and the nation has become so deadfully polarized. A small, energized group can swing a primary even more easily than a general election. By focusing its efforts in the primaries, the radical left and radical right have hijacked representative democracy and deprived the vast majority of the populace of candidates that reflects its values, leaving behind only stark contrasting candidates.
Further poisoning the water is the fact since the you must vote Democrat or Republican in the primary, local races can sway the middle to one side or the other for a particularly hot issue. I am not sure what the people in that 7th district were looking at besides the congressional race, but I know in my district I had to choose between a Republican primary for one state seat in one case versus a county race that involved two Democrats. Choosing one over the other meant my choice was not heard in both cases.
So, even though I am neither Republican or Democrat, I am going to be forced to choose one parties candidate I was not allowed to have a voice in.
And before some poor muddled person leaps in with “You shouldn’t be voting in a primary if you are not a party member since the primary is intended to choose a party candidate for the general election,” I AM PAYING FOR THE PRIMARY as a taxpayer. If the two parties wish to prevent me from voting, then PAY FOR THE DAMN PRIMARY yourself.
Why the middle stands for primaries that do not represent its best interests, boggles my mind.
August 10th, 2006 at 1:21 am
Donklephant: Lieberman, McKinney lose
In the first race, an antiwar upstart overthrows a moderate (conservative) pro-war Democrat. In the other, a radical Democrat is beaten by a more moderate one.
So is Ned Lamont the “face” of the Democratic Party? Or is Hank Johnson?
Or is point…
August 10th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
This wouldn’t seem like a contradiction if we could admit to ourselves, and if the media could actually acknowledge, that 60% of America is against the Iraq war–so being anti-war is not “Fringe” or “far left,” as Rove would have you believe. It is mainstream. Lieberman represents the far RIGHT of the Democrats, who were unwilling to advocate ANY alternative to the mindless “stay the course” policy of the Republicans. THAT is why he’s out.
Similarly, moderates in Georgia threw out the far-left McKinney–not because of her questioning the administration, but rather because she’s (for lack of a better phrase) “bat-shit crazy.” Couch the legitimate unanswered questions within some poise and sanity, and it’s amazing how much less fringe they’d seem…
August 10th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Hi Sean,
re: Lieberman’s ideological preference, although I haven’t looked at his sponsorship record, you may have hit the nail on the head. I just ran his issues pages through the test, and he came up conservative. Lieberman loses the primary and runs as an independent. Assumptions regarding a ‘two-party’ system dictate that third parties and independents typically lose, and that the one who would have lost in a two-way race will typically win if the third party/indie has a strong basis of support, usually as a result of a party loyalty effect in both the losing party and the putative winner. I do not know the situation on the ground in Connecticut; is there a strong loyal Republican base there? If so, then Republicans will surely take the seat, If not, some will likely support Lieberman.
Here in Texas there is a positively weird gubernatorial race afoot with two fairly solid independents and a weak Democrat. In this scenario it seems that the weak Dem is currently in 2nd because the indies are split.
August 11th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Jonathon: Everything I’ve read says the GOP nominee in Connecticut is a nonfactor. He polls less than 15% even in a three-way race. The winner will be either Lieberman or Lamont. I wouldn’t bet money on which.
I’d expect Lieberman to pull in some heavy Republican votes, which might be enough to put him over. But it depends on the depth of support for Lamont.
On the other hand, Lieberman and the GOP patsy could split the conservative vote and hand the seat to Lamont in a cakewalk.
If I’m betting money, the only thing I would bank on is that the seat will be de facto Democratic after the election.