New McKinney-Clemente campaign manager, SKCM Curry

Posted by Ronald Hardy at Green Party Watch

SKCM Curry was named as Campaign Manager for the McKinney-Clemente Power to the People campaign. Curry had been actively seeking the Vice Presidential nomination, but seems quite content working in this role with the campaign.

There is a great post about Curry on the Wilderside that goes into great depth into her background and strength as an organizer. They got a video up as well, but just to be, well, “different”, I’ll embed here a year old video by the Wilders when Curry spoke to the GPUS at the Annual National Convention in Reading PA:

45 thoughts on “New McKinney-Clemente campaign manager, SKCM Curry

  1. donald raymond lake

    Yet to come, the embarrassment of Mid November!

    Cobb/ LaMarshe

    Cobb/ LaMarshe

    Cobb/ LaMarshe

  2. Sivarticus

    Are non-blacks even allowed in the McKinney campaign? If so, coulda fooled me. President? VP? Campaign manager? Black. Black. Black. So much for diversity.

  3. Nexus

    McKinney will do marginally better than the Milnes write-in campaign. That is about all I can say for her.

  4. Steven R Linnabary

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: McKinney will do better than Baldwin.


  5. paulie cannoli Post author

    I think that’s probably true as well, but I would not place any bets on that right now.

    Certainly not before it becomes clear whether Mr. Baldwin and/or Mr. Nader will be on the ballot in California.

  6. Trent Hill

    No way. McKinney’s campaign is reaching almost exlusively to blacks,who are disinterested,because of Obama. Baldwin, especially if he is on Pennsylvania and California, will beat her by miles.

  7. paulie cannoli Post author

    McKinney is a former member of multi-term Congress. That gives her some appeal. She is already on the ballot in California, regardless of whether Baldwin or Nader will be or not. The Greens have, last time I checked, over 200,000 registered voters in California, and I don’t think any of those thought they were registering non-partisan.

    Most Green Party supporters have not been black. Although McKinney may or may not succeed in adding black votes to the Green Party’s total, I don’t see her losing many of the people who were already Green Party supporters in 2004.

    The Greens are on more state ballots than CP as of the last Ballot Access News available.

    Rosa Clemente is Latina as well as black, so if we accept the argument that their ethnicity will determine where most of their votes come from, that is another huge group of people.

    She is also a hip hop artist and activist. Hip hop fans include a large number of people, mostly young, of all ethnicities.

    The Green Party’s 2000 high point was much higher than the CP has ever received. If I am not mistaken, the Greens also have a lot more elected officials actually in office than the CP.

    The Greens are also an international movement, with significant parties in many countries, so immigrants, people who travel abroad and those who keep up with international news are much more likely to be I think a lot more likely to be aware of the Greens than the CP.

    Overall, I think the name recognition of both the Green Party and Cynthia McKinney are both significantly higher than the CP and Chuck Baldwin.

  8. Trent Hill


    2000 was Nader. It’d be more fair to compare candidates of similar name-stature, like David Cobb.

  9. G.E.

    Silvarticus – Is anyone but white people allowed to vote for the LP’s candidate? White, white, white.

    Actually, I probably should not have asked.

  10. paulie cannoli Post author

    How many times has David Cobb been elected to Congress? How did his name recognition at this point in the 2004 race compare with McKinney’s now?

    And, yes, the name recognition of the party as well as the candidate is a factor.

  11. paulie cannoli Post author

    David Cobb is of “similar stature” to Cynthia McKinney?

    I think he’s actually a bit taller. But I wasn’t paying too much attention to their height. I didn’t even notice, or at least commit to memory, what kind of shoes Cynthia was wearing. That can make a difference, you know.

  12. G.E.

    David Cobb was/is a nobody who begged people to NOT vote for him.

    The only way McKinney’s vote total could possibly be lower is if his disaster of a campaign ruined the Greens’ ballot access more thoroughly than I’m aware.

  13. G.E.

    Also, it’s too bad I think Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo is a neocon, or he could be added to the “all-black” (so offensive to Silvarticus!) squad and have a LONGER name than QRSTUVWXYZ Curry.

  14. Sivarticus

    G.E., it isn’t their race itself that bothers me. It’s that McKinney and (seemingly) the rest of her crew are black nationalists. McKinney has publicly supported reparations for slavery dozens of times. Slavery reparations are criminal, stupid, and racist. It is a black nationalist position.

  15. ronaldkanehardy

    I’m not sure if this focus on race is the real issue. This ticket consists of two women, and both Cynthia and Rosa have strong positions on equal pay for equal work, reproductive rights, etc. There are many women who won’t vote for Obama and don’t want to vote for McCain. McKinney and Clemente give them an appealing option.

    By the way, there are a number of white males on the McKinney Clemente campaign team, and some white females as well. Even paid staff.

  16. paulie cannoli Post author

    Thanks for pointing that out, Ronald.

    As regular readers here know, there are some concerns about white nationalist racist Dixiecrat tendencies growing among the overwhelmingly white male hierarchy of the LP.

    Sonny Landham did not emerge from a vacuum.

  17. G.E.

    Paulie – I don’t think the whiteness of the LP is related to an embrace of “Dixiecratism” but instead, to its perpetual portrayal of itself as the REAL conservative party… The party that stands for what the GOP “used to” stand for.

    The closest a major party ever came to libertarianism is the post-Civil War Democratic Party that, while imperfect, embraced “individual liberty,” free trade, and commodity money.

    These libertines who complain about “states’ rights” are really just low-tax liberals in the Ed Clark mold. States’ rights is a very unfortunate turn of phrase, but if its understood more properly as a demonopolization of federal power, then only non-libertarians can be against it.

  18. Trent Hill

    “David Cobb is of “similar stature” to Cynthia McKinney? Not even close.”

    David Cobb is of similar stature to CHUCK BALDWIN.–thus better for comparing vote totals.

  19. Fred Church Ortiz

    “David Cobb is of similar stature to CHUCK BALDWIN.–thus better for comparing vote totals.”

    Why would brag about that?

  20. Trent Hill

    Im not bragging about it. Jesus you people are frustrating me,lol.

    Comparing Ralph Nader to Chuck Baldwin (or Michael Peroutka’s) vote totals is unfair because the candidates are of dissimilar stature. Comparing Cobb and Baldwin/Peroutka would be far more fair, because they are no-names.

  21. Fred Church Ortiz

    But Trent, it’d be harder to pick on you if you didn’t set yourself up so well 😛

    Would you say we should expect numbers higher than Cobb but lower than McKinney then? With consideration to ballot access, of course.

  22. Trent Hill

    I think Baldwin will outpoll but McKinney,but only because McKinney is doing it to herself. No media, no events really, and an all-black, all female ticket in a year when Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee? Pretty weak. And remember,she’s going after Ralph Nader’s old voters in a year when HE IS RUNNING.

    But we dont have either Baldwin or McKinney’s numbers yet. And even if we did,they’d have lopsided advantages and drawbacks. The variables are too broad and not-fully understood. David Cobb vs. Michael Peroutka or Howard Phillips (in 1996 or 2000) makes more sense.

    In fact, I’d say the best comparison is David Cobb (2004, with Nader also running) vs. Howard Phillips (2000, with Buchanan also running). In this case, Cobb wins 118k to 98k for Phillips. My arguement, using these facts, would be that the Green Party has shrunk since then,while the CP has grown. But that is pure conjecture I suppose.

  23. G.E.

    Trent –

    A) Don’t take the lord’s name in vain or you’re likely to be smote.

    B) Chuck Baldwin, though hardly a celebrity, is probably 10,000 times more famous than David Cobb.

    Baldwin is a solid candidate and will outpoll previous CP candidates, given ballot access issues… And David Cobb, too, for that matter.

  24. Mike Gillis

    Oh please.

    Saying that someone is a better presidential candidate than David Cobb is like saying that they’re a better gymnast than Stephen Hawking.

    Talk about setting the bar so low that you’re liable to trip over it.

  25. darolew

    Well, the left has a lot of options this year. Most will vote for Obama. Nader is the second-best known and probably will be the next choice. McKinney is third on the pecking order, I’d judge. A three way split does not seem favorable to McKinney, being less known than either of the other two. Really, being a former congressman doesn’t mean much.

    On the “right” side, there is large amounts of dissatisfaction with McCain, so the third party candidates who appeal to the right will have a bigger pie to split. Barr will probably take the biggest slice, but Baldwin might do well, he’s decently well known among Paul supporters.

    Especially if he is on the ballot in CA, Baldwin should do better than McKinney.

  26. G.E.

    darolew – Your analysis is right on. The only problem is there’s no choice for libertarians!

  27. Trent Hill

    “Saying that someone is a better presidential candidate than David Cobb is like saying that they’re a better gymnast than Stephen Hawking.”

    Again–I wasnt comparing them out of a want to prove Baldwin was BETTER. Only for the sake of comparing baseline numbers for each party’s presidential candidates. Try to keep up.

  28. paulie cannoli Post author

    So, is anyone disagreeing that

    A) Cynthia McKinney has way more name recognition than Chuck Baldwin does or than David Cobb did?

    or that

    B) The Green Party has more name recognition, more elected officials, and more registered members (not counting AIP in CA, since we don’t want to start that argument again and since they may or may not put Baldwin on the ballot) than the CP?

    If you do accept these as facts, how do you see Baldwin doing better than McKinney?

  29. Trent Hill


    I accept both premises, but still think Baldwin will score more because,

    a.)Ralph Nader and Obama will SEVERELY cut into McKinney’s possible voting blocs.

    b.)dissatisfaction with McCain will lead many conservatives to vote for Baldwin or Barr.

  30. paulie cannoli Post author

    There’s plenty of dissatisfaction with Obama too. He supports everything from FISA to faith based initiatives to possibly bombing Iran and Pakistan.

    Many of Hillary’s supporters wanted a woman to run. McKinney is the only woman who will be on the ballot for potus in most states.

    As you point out, Barr is rather conservative, so Baldwin has the same problem that McKinney does in competing for votes against two better known candidates from roughly the same side of the US political divide.

    That McKinney is better known than Baldwin is a fact. That there are more dissatisfied voters on the right is, in my view, an error. Conservatives tend to be disgruntled, but they also tend to be immune to change. They are most likely to gripe about McCain but end up voting for him because they are scared shitless of Obama or change in general (including changing their own party).

    I am predicting that there will actually end up being more dissatisfied voters on the left.

    I am further hypothesizing that many of those would have been open to voting Libertarian if the candidate was more left-libertarian leaning, and still might if Barr adjusts his campaign focus later in the election – but I don’t think he will.

    Thus, McKinney stands a good chance of getting a lot of those votes – some will go to Nader, but many will see him as washed up and old news, and among leftists being black and female are pluses, even to those leftists who are lily white male themselves.

  31. Trent Hill

    Ralph Nader will catch his usual 2-4–plus a larger part of the Arab-american community than in 2000/2004.

    McKinney will catch 200k.

    Baldwin, slightly more.

    Barr – 2-3%

  32. paulie cannoli Post author

    His usual 2-4 (million)? No way.

    In 1996, Nader received 685,297

    In 2000, Nader received 2,883,105 votes

    In 2004, Nader received 463,653 votes

    I’d say 2008 looks more like 2004 than like 2000 for him, particularly since he has to compete with McKinney and does not have the Green ballot line as he did in 2000. He also caused a lot of his supporters from 2000 to back away from him because they blame him for Bush in hindsight.

    If anything, he might do worse than he did in 2004.

  33. paulie cannoli Post author

    Barr – 2-3%

    I’ll be very surprised. Thus far his fundraising is less than Badnarik and his media is at about Harry Browne levels (don’t forget the proliferation of talk shows since then). The LP is weaker, with a lot fewer members and active affiliates and a smaller budget than it had in those years. That he is a former Congressman can be taken in view of Ron Paul’s 1988 results.

    I see nothing in Barr’s campaign that would put him outside of that general range, at least yet.

    Badnarik 2004 – 397k
    Browne 2000 – 385 k
    Browne 1996 – 486 k
    Marrou 1992 – 292 k
    Paul 1988 – 432 k

    Incidentally, the number of dues paying LP members now is lower than in any of those elections since 1992, and the party is more divided than it has been since 1984, when David Bergland got 228 k.

  34. paulie cannoli Post author

    Small correction from what I said above.

    Just got the new Ballot Access News emailed to me.

    CP has caught up to GP at 23 states each.

  35. Trent Hill


    He’s polling as high as 10% in NH, 9% in Colorado, and 8% in New Mexico.

    As for Nader–I meant 2-3%.

  36. paulie cannoli Post author

    He’s polling as high as 10% in NH, 9% in Colorado, and 8% in New Mexico.

    Fairly meaningless in July. Badnarik was polling at 5% in NM, and I think that was closer to the election.

    As for Nader–I meant 2-3%.

    That does not change anything substantial. Nader was 0.7% in 1996, 2.74% in 2000, 0.38% in 2004.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *