There IS NO anti-incumbent mood!

Synthaholic

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2010
71,454
51,001
3,605
*
I urge you all to viddy this clip, which pretty much proves that there is no anti-incumbent mood sweeping the nation. Sadly.

It is a completely non-partisan clip, but I must warn you that it is presented by Rachel Maddow.

Now, for those of you whose ideological identity is so fragile that you cannot bear to see a few moments of the scary 'Ms. MadCow', just FF to around 2:39.

But the whole 5 minutes is very revealing about ALL the media hyping this notion that "we've had it, and we are throwing the bums out."

It ain't so. It's a lie.

It's reporting like this that makes Rachel Maddow indispensable. Yes, she has a Liberal POV, but she also covers and uncovers truths about politics that few others in the media touches - on either side.



Rachel Maddow Show
 
You didn't have time to watch that clip, Modbert - 'fess up!
bat.gif
 
How many incumbents lost primary elections in 2008, 2006, 2004, etc in compared to this season so far?
 
How many incumbents lost primary elections in 2008, 2006, 2004, etc in compared to this season so far?
Rachel counts 7 incumbents tossed, out of over 300 running for re-election. Not exactly 'sweeping the nation'.

And the 7 are kinda special, and include Arlen Specter and jailbird Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's mom.

Like I said: special.
 
How many incumbents lost primary elections in 2008, 2006, 2004, etc in compared to this season so far?
Rachel counts 7 incumbents tossed, out of over 300 running for re-election. Not exactly 'sweeping the nation'.

And the 7 are kinda special, and include Arlen Specter and jailbird Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's mom.

Like I said: special.

I saw the video ... she didn't make any kind of legit comparison with the numbers, IMO.

She needs to put them up against other years to make the assertion that there is no "anti-incumbent" fervor this year.

How many incumbents lost in the primaries in 2008? 2006? 2004? Etc?
 
ROFL... Yeah. Dream on. I've yet to talk to a person in real life who isn't so fed up they want to vote anyone who's currently serving in office out, regardless of party.

I've never seen it this bad. And with the ads running right now in MN, it's very likely to happen unless ACORN can get the graveyards and criminals to vote again in this state.
 
How many incumbents lost primary elections in 2008, 2006, 2004, etc in compared to this season so far?
Rachel counts 7 incumbents tossed, out of over 300 running for re-election. Not exactly 'sweeping the nation'.

And the 7 are kinda special, and include Arlen Specter and jailbird Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's mom.

Like I said: special.

I saw the video ... she didn't make any kind of legit comparison with the numbers, IMO.

She needs to put them up against other years to make the assertion that there is no "anti-incumbent" fervor this year.

How many incumbents lost in the primaries in 2008? 2006? 2004? Etc?
What is not legit about counting 7 incumbents who were thrown out this year? Are her numbers wrong? Did she miss somebody (besides the Alaska/Murkowski race which was after her story, bringing it to 8)?

I'm missing your point here, Article 15.

Big Fitz: Yeah, everyone wants to throw the other bums out - just not their own bum.
 
Rachel counts 7 incumbents tossed, out of over 300 running for re-election. Not exactly 'sweeping the nation'.

And the 7 are kinda special, and include Arlen Specter and jailbird Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's mom.

Like I said: special.

I saw the video ... she didn't make any kind of legit comparison with the numbers, IMO.

She needs to put them up against other years to make the assertion that there is no "anti-incumbent" fervor this year.

How many incumbents lost in the primaries in 2008? 2006? 2004? Etc?
What is not legit about counting 7 incumbents who were thrown out this year? Are her numbers wrong? Did she miss somebody (besides the Alaska/Murkowski race which was after her story, bringing it to 8)?

I'm missing your point here, Article 15.

Big Fitz: Yeah, everyone wants to throw the other bums out - just not their own bum.

Then you get the races like in my home district, where a lot of people are dying to throw the bum out but the GOP decided to run an even bigger bum against him - and made sure he was unopposed in the primary. So now what? The devil you know, or the even bigger devil you voted against three times already?
 
Rachel counts 7 incumbents tossed, out of over 300 running for re-election. Not exactly 'sweeping the nation'.

And the 7 are kinda special, and include Arlen Specter and jailbird Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's mom.

Like I said: special.

I saw the video ... she didn't make any kind of legit comparison with the numbers, IMO.

She needs to put them up against other years to make the assertion that there is no "anti-incumbent" fervor this year.

How many incumbents lost in the primaries in 2008? 2006? 2004? Etc?
What is not legit about counting 7 incumbents who were thrown out this year? Are her numbers wrong? Did she miss somebody (besides the Alaska/Murkowski race which was after her story, bringing it to 8)?

I'm missing your point here, Article 15.

Big Fitz: Yeah, everyone wants to throw the other bums out - just not their own bum.

My point is that without knowing how many incumbents lost primaries in previous elections there is nothing to compare her numbers to. Those eight could represent the most in twenty years for all we know.
 
I urge you all to viddy this clip, which pretty much proves that there is no anti-incumbent mood sweeping the nation. Sadly.

It is a completely non-partisan clip, but I must warn you that it is presented by Rachel Maddow.

Now, for those of you whose ideological identity is so fragile that you cannot bear to see a few moments of the scary 'Ms. MadCow', just FF to around 2:39.

But the whole 5 minutes is very revealing about ALL the media hyping this notion that "we've had it, and we are throwing the bums out."

It ain't so. It's a lie.

It's reporting like this that makes Rachel Maddow indispensable. Yes, she has a Liberal POV, but she also covers and uncovers truths about politics that few others in the media touches - on either side.



Rachel Maddow Show

There is no doubt that democrats will lose seats. That is a given. But it is doubtful if there will be any kind of mass turnover.

First because Americans are the dumbest voters in the world.

Second because even though there is great dissatisfaction with incumbents in general. MY representative is just fine. After all he has been there for half of his life.
 
I saw a report recently that claimed there IS an anti-incumbent mood, but that it's limited to YOUR incumbent. Many people who claimed they wanted to "throw the bums out", also said that their guy was OK!!!
 
I urge you all to viddy this clip, which pretty much proves that there is no anti-incumbent mood sweeping the nation. Sadly.

It is a completely non-partisan clip, but I must warn you that it is presented by Rachel Maddow.

Now, for those of you whose ideological identity is so fragile that you cannot bear to see a few moments of the scary 'Ms. MadCow', just FF to around 2:39.

But the whole 5 minutes is very revealing about ALL the media hyping this notion that "we've had it, and we are throwing the bums out."

It ain't so. It's a lie.

It's reporting like this that makes Rachel Maddow indispensable. Yes, she has a Liberal POV, but she also covers and uncovers truths about politics that few others in the media touches - on either side.



Rachel Maddow Show

There is no doubt that democrats will lose seats. That is a given. But it is doubtful if there will be any kind of mass turnover.

First because Americans are the dumbest voters in the world.

Second because even though there is great dissatisfaction with incumbents in general. MY representative is just fine. After all he has been there for half of his life.

That's just SSDD as far as Congressional elections go. Every year the same.

It's not "just" the voters though. I think the parties themselves are partly to blame, it's not exactly like they tend to go out and drum up credible opposition candidates for seats conventional wisdom considers "safe" even if the actual folks on the ground and voting think otherwise. And we all know how well the folks in both parties high enough up to make these decisions listen to everyday people. :lol:

People also get to know their own personal critter. "I hate all those career bastards in Congress, but Joe's a good guy. His wife's nephew's cousin goes to my church and is a really great kid, and our kids played on a soccer team together once in the second grade. He went to my grandkids' school and talked about what he does, and my grandkids thought he was really nice. So he's all right." It's harder to vote against somebody you "know" who seems like a normal person.
 
I saw a report recently that claimed there IS an anti-incumbent mood, but that it's limited to YOUR incumbent. Many people who claimed they wanted to "throw the bums out", also said that their guy was OK!!!

You beat me to it.....however, in my case...I'd LOVE to get rid of our incumbent Congresscritter.
 
I tried my best to get McConnel thrown out last time, but those incumbent loving righties just voted him in again.
 
Reid, Boxer and Feingold are all in races that are considered "toss ups"... Not even "Likely Dem"...

These are normally safe incumbent seats...

Please explain why these races are not at least 10 points+ for the dem right now...
 
Reid, Boxer and Feingold are all in races that are considered "toss ups"... Not even "Likely Dem"...

These are normally safe incumbent seats...

Please explain why these races are not at least 10 points+ for the dem right now...
Feingold is now a tossup? Go Rob Johnson Go! His ads are really shredding him in a very solid way. I'm sure Madison is howling in rage. Have to ask my friend.

I didn't know that Feingold has never held a private sector job for over 30 years.
 

Forum List

Back
Top