McKinney is O-U-T!
Posted by Moonage on 09 Aug 2006 | Tagged as: 2006 US Senate Races
Yeah, I know this isn’t a Senate race, but I need to change that category along with everything else I’ve changed here. Oh, but hey, Cynthia McKinney is OUT! Thank you Atlanta! I had really begun to believe that something was amiss in one of my favorite cities of the world. Now that’s she’s lost the only two competitve races she’s had in the 21st century, maybe she’ll just show her true colors and join the New Black Panthers so she can take up assaulting cops, insulting Jews, and supporting terrorists full time.
Others’ takes:
- Expose the Left
- GOPandtheCity
- Sister Toldjah live blogged the entire results. I knew better and took a pain pill and redrew my blog. Off-year elections are always slow.
- As usual, MSNBC gets it all wrong, reporting an anti-incumbancy trend. It wasn’t an anti-incumbancy thing, it was a lurch to the left in Connecticut and a reaction to lurching to the left in Atlanta. Fall is not going to be about "incumbancy", it’s going to be about how far left the Democrats think they have to go to woo a moderate electorate. I think they’ll go too far if they keep listening to the ultra-left media. Bottom line why Lieberman lost, he ran an awful campaign and cut the legs out from under his own race a month ago.
But, the bottom line here is McKinney is O-U-T. She’s already blaming her loss on everthing other than the fact she’s looney as all get-out ( namely the voting machines that elected her in 2004 ).
The message IMO is very clear to the DNC and Howard Dean. However, I know they won’t get it.
And in case I forgot to mention, she didn’t lose, she got CREAMED! 59-41 loss for an incumbant is about as bad as it gets.
9 Comments »
on 09 Aug 2006 at 10:45 am 1.the man said …
Cynthia blamed the media, voting machines, whites, and Republicans for losing. Classy to the very end.
on 09 Aug 2006 at 4:25 pm 2.Moonage
said …
Exactly my thoughts. The woman’s mind is poisoned. If an average white male had pulled half the stunts she has, he would have been absolutely crucified by the media. What exactly was Trent Lott’s sin again? Compare that to the statements and actions of McKinney and to hear her complaining about the media makes me wanna puke.
on 09 Aug 2006 at 9:12 pm 3.mw
said …
Ok, so incumbent senator Lieberman’s loss is about the lurch to the left, and incumbent representative McKinney’s loss was due to her being, well … Cynthia McKinnney. You still neglected to mention the reason for incumbent representative Joe Schultz’s loss. Was that a “lurch to the left” also? Or was that “a lurch to the right”? Just curious. While we are on the subject we have incumbents Tom Delay and Bob Ney who decided last week that facing the voters would be a seriously losing proposition. Given the crushing advantages that incumbents have getting re-elected, this cascade of incumbents falling by the wayside strikes me as more than a coincidence. I have to say that I think msnbc has got this one right. Oh, I also said so on my blog:
BTW - I like the “redraw”, a clean professional look. Nice.
on 09 Aug 2006 at 10:04 pm 4.Moonage
said …
Tom Delay announced he wasn’t running before the primary, so toss that one out. I really can’t believe you even consider that one an “anti-incumbency”. Citing someone who resigned well before a race as evidene of voter sentiment is really grasping. I have stated why I think he did what he did a while back here, it had nothing to do with facing voters ( search the site for “Paybacks are a beoch” ). I actually wanted to see him stay ON the ballot just so the people of his district can have a fair race when they actually allow him to “retire”.
I didn’t follow Shultz’s race, but I’m sure there were LOCAL issues he had.
Bob Ney, again, had issues he was dealing with. I can’t see how you can look at Delay’s retirement and Ney’s indictment and still come to the conclusion it was an “incumbent” thing. I would guess if Ney hadn’t been indicted he might well have won again. If they polled the average voter as to why they weren’t going to vote for Ney, I would bet you hardly any would cite “He was the incumbent”. Wanna take that one?
McKinney has never won a majority of the vote in the 21st century. The only reason she got in last time was it was a six person race. She has never topped 47% of the vote. For those that don’t understand math that well, 47% will only get you elected if there are more than two candidates. Although all five candidates may have beat her one on one in 2004, splitting it six ways allowed her in. For her to get a little less than she got before is hardly the tidal wave of anti-incumbency sentiment that MSNBC implies. It just means that even if she had gotten every single vote she got in 2004, she still would have lost because the vote wasn’t split.
Joe Liberman is the only one that truly ran as an entrenched incumbent that wasn’t dogged in scandal. That’s it. He’s the only person out of all the races that MSNBC can cite as losing his race purely on issues. I don’t really recall seeing any campaign propoganda that said “Vote Joe out because he’s an incumbent”. May have missed it, but I didn’t. What I saw was Lamont criticizing the hell out of Joe for supporting the war in Iraq. Now, people who oppose the war in Iraq are generally perceived as being to the left are they not? Draw you own conclusions if you wish. Mine? Joe wasn’t left enough.
Cynthia McKinney has been tied from everything to Islamic radicals to the New Black Panthers to assaulting cops. Her campaign was “elect me because I hate everything conservative, and I mean EVERYTHING”. That I would guess is a little TOO left for most people. Not some, but most. Apparently about 41% of that district thought it was a good thing, but that won’t win elections unless about six people run. Johnson ran a moderate-left race, he won. Ergo, a shift away from the uber-left.
I stand by my opinion. MSNBC summarily came to the conclusion that this was an assault on incumbents and only two races can actually fall into that category. Two anti-incumbancy results out of the entire country are about typical are they not? Wanna do some research and prove me wrong?
Go ahead, make my day.
The country is not as left nor as anti-incumbent as MSNBC is painting it. That IS the message the DNC, controlled by Howard Dean, is sending and running on. However, how many people out there ran on that premise and lost? Clue here, it’s a LOT more than 2.
on 09 Aug 2006 at 11:49 pm 5.mw
said …
Moon,
My research shows that is was only last week that Delay finally and absolutely confirmed he would not run for the House seat that has his name on the ballot:
DeLay says he won’t run for House seat By Erwin Seba Tuesday, August 8, 2006; 6:29 PM
BTW for your amusement, you might want to google news on Tom Delay. Looks like someone is gaming Google on this. Petty funny headlines.But I digress …
You are a theoretician. I am an empiricist. You are a creative guy and you come up with a lot of creative plausible theories why any individual incumbent is withdrawing rather than face the voters, or having the voters slap them down. While you are busy explaining in detail why each of these individual trees seems to be bursting into flames, I am noticing that there just seems to be unusually large number of trees that seem to be on fire at the same time. Maybe, just maybe, its a friggin forest fire. I guess we’ll find out for sure in November when we are looking across a burned forest with all those blackened stumps.
on 10 Aug 2006 at 8:40 am 6.Moonage
said …
OK, I’ll do the research for you:
Tom Delay, paybacks are a beoch
Even if Tom Delay had retained his seat, he would have no power at all. This would have been a situation Delay was not accustomed to and I felt he had no interest in. I wrote that 2 months ago, well before the primary. You can speculate he didn’t want to face the voters, where he’s still hugely popular, I’ll stick with my speculation that he’d rather make more money in the private sector than just be one of the masses in Congress. You can assume he had no ego, I’m assuming his ego is too big to allow him to go from the top to the bottom. As far as the personal labels go, I’ve met Tom Delay, have you? I know for a fact he’s an arrogant a-hole for a fact. Do you know for a fact that he’s “afraid” to face the voters? I’m not a theoritician at all. If anything, I prefer to take the “theories” out of the mix and look at things in black and white as much as possible. Implying that someone who did not run a race and lost is evidence of a sweeping anti-incumbency trend is theory. Stating that Tom Delay has an attitude problem is a fact that I’m sure others would be more than willing to attest to if they read this blog and know him.
I will totally agree that Unconfirmed Sources is a fun site.
on 10 Aug 2006 at 4:16 pm 7.Bruno Mitchell said …
Forgot to mention that her posse also blamed the “joos”
on 10 Aug 2006 at 8:01 pm 8.Moonage
said …
I didn’t see that one this particular time, but I have mentioned it repeatedly in the past. It’s the reference to her 2002 defeat that is the reason a lot of bloggers are saying she is O-U-T.
on 17 Aug 2006 at 11:29 am 9.Moonage Political Webdream
said …
That anti-incumbency thing
A lot has been made of the anti-incumbency trend gripping the US right now. IMO, this is just wishful thinking by hard-core Democrats that would justify the fact that their party really has no agenda other than whining about Bush.