Comments on: Is Incumbency a Bad Word in America?

By: Amy

Amy — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:32:55 +0000

Unfortunately, all I see the anti-incumbent sentiment doing is sending more hard-line people to Washington to further widen the gap between right and left and snuffing out any chance of getting things done for the country.

By: Maxi

Maxi — Thu, 20 May 2010 22:00:20 +0000

It’s very sad that way the US is thought of in other countries no matter who the president is. I was in Greece before Obama was elected and no one was excited about who won. Now Greece has turned the world upside down.

By: The Declining Talent Pool of Government – Abstract Politics

The Declining Talent Pool of Government – Abstract Politics — Thu, 20 May 2010 16:13:11 +0000

[...] why over 90% of U.S. House members get reelected every two years.3 Despite all the recent hubbub about 2010 being an anti-incumbent election year, I’ll be stunned (like Sides and Yglesias) if that [...]

By: Carpetbagger

Carpetbagger — Thu, 20 May 2010 15:12:55 +0000

I think it’s too simplistic to label Tuesday as anti-incumbent. I agree with David that these were three unique circumstances in play. But I don’t agree with his take to blame the Dems.

1) Pennsylvania voters just seemed anti-Specter. They were tired of his act. It was painful to see Obama and labor in the tricky position of having to hold their noses and back Specter, otherwise nobody would ever switch parties again. PA’s Dem voters went with an authentic Dem.

2) Kentucky was just the Republican civil war between the Tea Partiers and the GOP establishment. Not sure how his ultra-right wing views will play in the fall. Personally, I think he will turn off independents.

3) Ark was a Democratic Civil War between moderate and progressive Dems.

I don’t think you can paint these three races with the same broad brush. The extreme sides of both parties(who tend to vote in primaries) may be in a “kick the bums out” mood, but the fall will still be decided by the independents. As PA 12 proved, when it comes to a general election, as upset as the country is with the state of things, I’m not sure they’re ready to turn back to the GOP.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:32:09 +0000

bulzdude,
You are so right about that. We are becoming a nation that is more and more divided along ideological lines. This does not bode well for the future of this great land. Legislative gridlock may plague us for many, many years to come.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:26:45 +0000

VH,
I stand corrected. McConnell endorsed Trey Grayson for the seat formerly held by Jim Bunning, who is retiring. I actually remember when Bunning used to be a Major League pitcher; Yikes!

By: admin

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:22:55 +0000

Marc Chamot,
The Republicans have been crowing about how they are going to take back the Congress in November 2010. I hope the voters realize that Republican victories will only throw government into an even worse state of grid-lock. The answer to peoples’ dis-satisfaction with government is not more Republicans in office, but less; a lot less!

By: admin

admin — Thu, 20 May 2010 13:17:59 +0000

David,
Yes, the Democrats did enjoy a filibuster-proof majority for one short year. This is hardly enough breathing room to develop , discuss and enact major pieces of legislation. The Republicans would love to have the electorate believe it was the Democrat’s fault that Obama’s legislative agenda was not passed. We both know that the Republicans have blocked anything and everything whenever they could. Obama cannot be held responsible for Republican intransigence.

By: bluzdude

bluzdude — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:33:33 +0000

By: VH

VH — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:20:09 +0000

“In the State of Kentucky, Republican (actually Libertarian) Rand Paul soundly defeated Trey Grayson, who was hand-picked by retiring Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell.”

McConnell is retiring? I thought it was Jim Bunning.

By: Marc Chamot

Marc Chamot — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:14:53 +0000

Great post! I totally agree with you. It’s something we’ve been talking about for a while, and these Washington pols been ignoring. Interesting to see what the future hold.

By: David

David — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:07:45 +0000

I’ll be exploring this subject in a post later at my own blog, but I would like to make a couple of points.

1) The dynamics in each race were different. Specter was trying to win a Democratic primary after decades of Senate service as a Republican. It did not surprise me that many Pennsylvania Democrats apparently looked upon his motives with a certain amount of suspicion.

Incidentally, Sestak has as much Washington experience as Obama had when he sought the presidency. He just isn’t seeking as important a job.

2) Rand Paul’s victory in Kentucky also did not surprise me. The Tea Partiers have been largely identified as Republicans, perhaps the most motivated of Republicans in 2010, and Paul cashed in on that. Kentucky was once a competitive state, in both general elections and party primaries; today, not so much.

3) In Arkansas, I was surprised that Lincoln and Halter ran neck and neck — but not that there will be a runoff. Lincoln is not especially popular in Arkansas right now.

I agree with your assertion that the mood in America is ugly, but I don’t necessarily agree that the Republicans should bear most of the blame. The Democrats control 59 seats in the Senate. In fact, they actually enjoyed the fabled “filibuster-proof” majority through the second half of 2009 — until the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s seat in the special election.

With that kind of advantage from late June 2009 (when Al Franken was declared the winner in Minnesota) until January 2010 (when Scott Brown won in Massachusetts), why did the Democrats fail to act more decisively?

If, as you say, the campaign promises of 2008 have not been kept, isn’t that the fault of the Democrats? And, as titular leader of his party, isn’t Obama responsible for that failure?