Catch The Wave

Stuart Rothenberg writes that it is NOT an anti-incumbent election cycle setting up for November. It is, in his opinion, very much a “wave” election.

A Republican wave:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was re-nominated with almost 90 percent of the vote in his May primary. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) was re-elected with 83 percent, while Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) drew 84 percent in his primary. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) drew 80 percent to win renomination in California.

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) and South Dakota Sen. John Thune (R) were unopposed for renomination.

If this is such an “anti-incumbent” or “anti-establishment” year, then why do some — most — incumbents and establishment-backed candidates win easily? So far this year, 98 percent of Congressional incumbents seeking re-election have been renominated.

Read the whole thing. The narrative that is being pushed by the Democrats and the media is that this is all about general disapproval of Washington. But they are masking the fact that the disapproval is specifically directed at the Democrats and Obama.

This entry was posted in Democrats, Obamantics, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Catch The Wave

  1. ropelight says:

    Rothenberg’s article is an attempt to deceive, and it’s every bit as disingenuous as his claim to be a non-partisan analyst.

    He knocks down one exaggerated claim that’s already outlived it’s utility, in order replace it with yet another fraud. Both of them is service to his underlying goal of fostering Democrat prospects in the mid-term elections.

    Rothenburg’s problem is like rolling a large rock up a steep hill. The public is specifically and unalterably opposed to government spending, take-overs of private sector industries, and higher taxes, all of which are typical Democrat policies.

    So, instead of forthrightly acknowledging public opposition to candidates of either party who have records of voting in favor of the despised policies, Rothenberg first attacks the phony claim the public is an an anti-incumbent mood this election cycle.

    The voters aren’t rejecting incumbents in general, nor are they focused on party affiliation, they’re rejecting the spenders, the taxers, and the take-over advocates.

    But, in order to pretend something so devastating to Democrat Party prospects isn’t at the root of voter anger, Rothenburg pushes the equally disingenuous nostrum that it’s really Washington DC that voters are rejecting.

    It’s a stupid argument, and it show the depths of Democrat desperation.

  2. B.B. says:

    Gotta go with Ropelight on this one. This election cycle isn’t about Incumbent vs. Outsider, it’s not about (d) vs. (R). It’s about TARP, and bailouts, and the health care boondoggle, and Crap and Tax.. er Cap and Trade. Rothenberg only digs as deep as Incumbency and party affiliation in his essay, he doesn’t bother to look at each primary case-by-case, he doesn’t ask who the incombents faced from within their own party, or any extenuating circumstances regarding their re-nomination. He peers a mere inch below the surface, and presents himself as deep because he can point to those who only gaze at the reflections on the surface.

Comments are closed.