NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a couple of these runoffs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_el_se/primary_elections_14)that are getting national attention. Of course, Georgia's own Cindy "Cop-Beater" McKinney is pulling out all the stops to win her runoff, but there is another election that deserves a little more attention.

Joe Lieberman has had a very consistent stand in favor of the liberation of Iraq. He's refused to toe the liberal line that the rest of the party favors. So, now, he's paying the price. He's trailing in the polls to an unknown that is favored by the Washington DC Democrats.

If we assume that mainly activists vote in primaries, mainly because no one else seems to, what is ahead for the Democrats? Does this kind of nomination make it more or less likely that the party will pick up seats in Congress? How about the President's job? Or does it mean that a fringe-leaning candidate is going to win a given nomination, but lose the general election because he is so far away from a centrist position?

Go ahead, NSG pundits, make my day!

There's a couple of these runoffs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_el_se/primary_elections_14)that are getting national attention. Of course, Georgia's own Cindy "Cop-Beater" McKinney is pulling out all the stops to win her runoff, but there is another election that deserves a little more attention.

Joe Lieberman has had a very consistent stand in favor of the liberation of Iraq. He's refused to toe the liberal line that the rest of the party favors. So, now, he's paying the price. He's trailing in the polls to an unknown that is favored by the Washington DC Democrats.

If we assume that mainly activists vote in primaries, mainly because no one else seems to, what is ahead for the Democrats? Does this kind of nomination make it more or less likely that the party will pick up seats in Congress? How about the President's job? Or does it mean that a fringe-leaning candidate is going to win a given nomination, but lose the general election because he is so far away from a centrist position?

Go ahead, NSG pundits, make my day!


Any Dem candidate wil have to appeal to the "middle of the roaders" to win the next election.
This means that no fringer, or any candidate to far to one side will win.

To far to the right, will be seen as" too Neo-Con", who will be villianized by the Dems in the 2008 campaign.
Too far to the left, and you lose the middle as well.

The key is in the swing-votes.

The winner will be a Moderate, to Slightly Conservative-Leaning Democrat in 2008.

I also believe the Dems will have a very good chance of winning Majority control of the House and Senate, too.

Looks like McKinney's going down.. can't say I mind that. Lieberman's trialing, but you can't really count him out.

There's a couple of these runoffs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060808/ap_on_el_se/primary_elections_14)that are getting national attention. Of course, Georgia's own Cindy "Cop-Beater" McKinney is pulling out all the stops to win her runoff, but there is another election that deserves a little more attention.

Joe Lieberman has had a very consistent stand in favor of the liberation of Iraq. He's refused to toe the liberal line that the rest of the party favors. So, now, he's paying the price. He's trailing in the polls to an unknown that is favored by the Washington DC Democrats.

If we assume that mainly activists vote in primaries, mainly because no one else seems to, what is ahead for the Democrats? Does this kind of nomination make it more or less likely that the party will pick up seats in Congress? How about the President's job? Or does it mean that a fringe-leaning candidate is going to win a given nomination, but lose the general election because he is so far away from a centrist position?

Go ahead, NSG pundits, make my day!
That bolded part is so wrong it's hysterical. If Lieberman has anyone in his pocket, it's establishment Dems in DC. Rahm Emanuel, who I often disagree with, had this to say about the race, and I think he nailed it: “What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening."

It's not that Joe is always leaving the reservation--it's that he does so on important votes--cloture for Alito, the war in Iraq--and that he's constantly on tv undermining the party stance on issues, just so he can look like a maverick.

That bolded part is so wrong it's hysterical. If Lieberman has anyone in his pocket, it's establishment Dems in DC. Rahm Emanuel, who I often disagree with, had this to say about the race, and I think he nailed it: “What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening."

It's not that Joe is always leaving the reservation--it's that he does so on important votes--cloture for Alito, the war in Iraq--and that he's constantly on tv undermining the party stance on issues, just so he can look like a maverick.
But my question isn't about Joe as much as it is about the voters. Is it mainly activists that select candidates in primary elections. And even more so in run-offs. You know how poor turnout is for a big, national election, it's embarassingly small for anything else. And if it is the activists that determine the party's candidate, isn't that candidate more likely to reflect their views? And aren't those views more likely to be hard-line within the respective party?

The follow on about the Democratic party assumes 'yes' answers. Maybe that's wrong, but probably not way wrong. I think the activists paint the Democrats into a corner a little more than do the Republican activists because the Republican party is a little more homogeneous. How about you?

Maybe that's wrong, but probably not way wrong.

no, it's way wrong

the Republican party is a little more homogeneous

only in terms of being united solely by feeling like a embattled underdog, surrounded on all sides by forces much more powerful than them, and a willingness to change their views on a dime. beyond that, the various factions of the republican party have (or claim to have, what with the "always been at war with east-asia" thing) essentially nothing in common.

no, it's way wrong

Democrats are in the same conflict they fought in 1968 at the Convention.

They have two distinct parts of their party - one part which will never support any war, and one part which will go along with wars with some justification (even if it's proven wrong later).

It's called eating your dead, and they are doing it wholesale now. It was extremely damaging to the Democratic Party then, and it's even more damaging now.

Democrats are in the same conflict they fought in 1968 at the Convention.

between an entrenched democratic establishment that had gotten us into an unpopular war and effectively kicked the southerners out of the party, and those opposed to the establishment on the war and glad that the racist fucktards were on the way out? with a recent assassination of a well liked kennedy thrown in for good measure, just to fuck things up a bit more?

you historical analogy seems a bit stupid

between an entrenched democratic establishment that had gotten us into an unpopular war and effectively kicked the southerners out of the party, and those opposed to the establishment on the war and glad that the racist fucktards were on the way out? with a recent assassination of a well liked kennedy thrown in for good measure, just to fuck things up a bit more?

you historical analogy seems a bit stupid

Not stupid at all. The 1968 Conventions were not about Southerners or assassinations.

They were about divisiveness over the Vietnam War.

That bolded part is so wrong it's hysterical. If Lieberman has anyone in his pocket, it's establishment Dems in DC. Rahm Emanuel, who I often disagree with, had this to say about the race, and I think he nailed it: “What’s playing out here is that being a rubber stamp for George Bush is politically dangerous to life-threatening."

It's not that Joe is always leaving the reservation--it's that he does so on important votes--cloture for Alito, the war in Iraq--and that he's constantly on tv undermining the party stance on issues, just so he can look like a maverick.

So he should be ousted because he stands on morals and has voted with his party over 90% of the time? I should repost what I told CanuckHeaven last night in what this race could mean.

As to the Original Poster, McKinny is going to lose. I do believe she will and the district will be better off without her. As to Lieberman, it actually does not matter if he wins or loses this primary as he has stated that he will run as an independent if he loses. In a three way race, he will actually win that election. I hope he wins the primary though.

I can't say truthful things about McKinney, because it would violate the Terms of Service in regards to flaming and flamebait.

Not stupid at all. The 1968 Conventions were not about Southerners or assassinations.

They were about divisiveness over the Vietnam War.

no, the war was one level below the actual fight. it was about the entrenched establisment being out of touch with their base and fighting desperately (and dirty) to maintain their power. humphrey was identified strongly with lbj and supported by the party bosses, who still held essentially all the power. lbj had nearly dubya level approval ratings. a candidate favored in the primaries had just recently been fucking shot, as had mlk.

and, of course, the racist fucktards were doing their typical thing whenever the non-fucktard dems said that oppressing black people wasn't cool. that is a vital backdrop to what was going on, as they were still a significant block of the democratic party then.

this is not 1968.

I can't say truthful things about McKinney, because it would violate the Terms of Service in regards to flaming and flamebait.
That's okay, you can probably find an Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial that says them for you.

That's okay, you can probably find an Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial that says them for you.
Yeah, and if I did that, the mods would say, "post your own ideas" or "make some comment along with your links".

Democrats are in the same conflict they fought in 1968 at the Convention.

They have two distinct parts of their party - one part which will never support any war, and one part which will go along with wars with some justification (even if it's proven wrong later).

It's called eating your dead, and they are doing it wholesale now. It was extremely damaging to the Democratic Party then, and it's even more damaging now.
Dream on, bub. If you actually believe that tripe, then it makes me happy, because it means you not only have no idea about what's going on inside the party right now, but that you're underestimating the potential of the Democratic party in the November elections.

Go ahead and believe the Dems are eating their own if you want to, but then ask yourself, why is it that Republicans are now spending RNC money to defend seats in places like Nebraska and Idaho? If they're spending money there, they're scared shitless, and with good reason.

I would say that it's only a good or bad idea for the Democrats to have the views fit the farther left portions of the party as opposed to the moderate portions of the party if the amount of votes lost by abandoning the radicals can be gained from centrists. I wouldn't take it for granted that this would be the case, for it's been pointed out that the radicals are typically more activist (and presumably more forthcoming with campaign donations), and repetition of the message seems to be what gets votes.