The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

No, this isn't an anti-incumbent year

J

JB3

JUB Addict
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Posts
7,142
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Chicago suburbs
Great editorial from Real Clear Politics on why the meme of the 'anti-incumbent' year is one created by the Obama administration to distract from the reality of the situation; voters are turning on the president and his party, and whether they're incumbents has absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/05/this_isnt_an_antiincumbent_yea.html

Ok. So, the idea is that the public mood is anti-incumbent in general, which means we should expect lots of "hand-to-hand" combat between Democrat and Republican candidates as they try to position themselves as being the most anti-Washington.

No. This is totally wrong.

It is a false equivalency being pushed because Arlen Specter is probably going to lose today. If that happens, Snarlin' Arlen will make the fourth high-profile pol that Barack Obama embraced in friendship who was later rebuked by the voters of a blue or purple state. Deeds, Corzine, Coakley, Specter. The White House doesn't want this "narrative" to get out - so they're pushing this alternative instead.

More at source...
Click to expand...
 
Droid800 said:
Great editorial from Real Clear Politics on why the meme of the 'anti-incumbent' year is one created by the Obama administration to distract from the reality of the situation; voters are turning on the president and his party, and whether they're incumbents has absolutely nothing to do with it.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/05/this_isnt_an_antiincumbent_yea.html
Click to expand...

From what I'm hearing in the primary results tonight, it's anti-incumbent year. Republicans and Democrats alike are falling. And it seems the longer they've held office, the sorrier their fate. More in the morning when the results are in.
 
Real Clear Politics is not a credible source for anything. Totally biased website.
 
RCP is slightly right-leaning. Since I'm one of those people that believes true nonpartisanship can't actually be achieved, that doesn't bother me. Being biased doesn't make you not credible. Exhibit A: The Economist. Exhibit B: Walter Cronkite.

That being said, the blog relies on an overly simplistic logic in this particular post. It acknowledges that Republican incumbents are going to have problems in the primaries.

No doubt that Republican incumbents are being rebuked across the country by their primary constituencies.
Click to expand...

It is an anti-incumbency mood. It's also an anti-Democrat mood. We don't have to choose between the two, they are both really powerful. Look at McCain fighting hard to keep his seat, primarily by swinging hard to the right. Note the Rand Paul victory in Kentucky.

These are midterm elections. With the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress and the presidency, they'd be expected to lose seats in any scenario.

They [midterm elections] usually don't turn out well for the party of the president; over the past 17 midterm elections, the president's party has lost an average 28 seats in the House, and an average 4 seats in the Senate.
Click to expand...

I also question this notion that the story is simply being pushed by President Obama and the Dems. On Sunday's MTP, Dabid Gregory asked Leader McConnell about Kentucky's primary as a referendum on him. The tea partiers have made it clear they're going after any and all incumbents that don't satisfy them. The administration certainly is pushing this story line, but they are far from alone. A few weeks ago on MTP, David Brooks commented that the anti-incumbency mood was so strong right now (unprecedented, he said) that he almost feels as if a third party were viable.
 
Where I live it's slightly more anti-Democrat than anti-incumbent. But the mood is such that I think if someone with the plain charisma (and the bucks) of Ross Perot were to pop up championing a third party, that party could clean up on a local and state level, and even in some Congressional races.
 
Why does everyone think that these by-elections and primaries have anything to do with Obama? Especially in the House specials, LOCAL issues are that the forefront. That's why the Republicans keep LOSING them. They keep trying to make these special elections national referendums on Obama and the Democrats and they keep LOSING to Democrats who run good campaigns for the the Districts.

All politics is local.
 
BeMused said:
Why does everyone think that these by-elections and primaries have anything to do with Obama? Especially in the House specials, LOCAL issues are that the forefront. That's why the Republicans keep LOSING them. They keep trying to make these special elections national referendums on Obama and the Democrats and they keep LOSING to Democrats who run good campaigns for the the Districts.

All politics is local.
Click to expand...

The republicans lost PA-12 because it was a seat held by democrats for 36 years, not because of any deficiency on the republican side. The democrat was expected to win there, and they did.

And if you honestly think all politics is local, you're in for quite a shock come November.
 
A Democrat wasn't expected to win. You clearly weren't paying attention to the beltway wisdom. The polls showed a dead-heat, and the Dem won by 8 points.

All politics IS local, ultimately. Massachusetts politics played the biggest role in Scott Brown's election way more than the Tea Party, or Obama or anything else.

I wouldn't be surprised by much of anything in November. I'd be surprised by Dem PICKUPS. A Republican controlled House, while looking less likely, wouldn't surprise me in the least. But the Republicans who have been running campaigns on national issues have been losing to Democrats focusing on their Districts. That's observable. They should shift their strategy.
 
BeMused said:
A Democrat wasn't expected to win. You clearly weren't paying attention to the beltway wisdom. The polls showed a dead-heat, and the Dem won by 8 points.

All politics IS local, ultimately. Massachusetts politics played the biggest role in Scott Brown's election way more than the Tea Party, or Obama or anything else.

I wouldn't be surprised by much of anything in November. I'd be surprised by Dem PICKUPS. A Republican controlled House, while looking less likely, wouldn't surprise me in the least. But the Republicans who have been running campaigns on national issues have been losing to Democrats focusing on their Districts. That's observable. They should shift their strategy.
Click to expand...

National elections are different. As are primaries and special elections. The november elections will not remotely be 'local'; if you honestly think that, you WILL be shocked come November.

Read this and you'll understand why there was no chance a republican could have won PA-12, and why anyone that thought it was a 'level playing field' had no idea what they were talking about:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/05/is_pa12_a_bellwether.html
 
Droid800 said:
National elections are different. As are primaries and special elections. The november elections will not remotely be 'local'; if you honestly think that, you WILL be shocked come November.

Read this and you'll understand why there was no chance a republican could have won PA-12, and why anyone that thought it was a 'level playing field' had no idea what they were talking about:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2010/05/is_pa12_a_bellwether.html
Click to expand...

Really?

Cuz what I read in your link seems to contradict that.

From what I've read it's group of "armchair" political strategists/former campaign managers trying to "crunch" the numbers for a National Prediction for how the electorate is going to go this Fall.

It's still too early to tell.

From some of the polls that I've read over the past few day, Nationally most registered voters are opposed to Congress in general, but a closer percentage think that "their" Congressman/Senator should be re-elected. :rolleyes:

BeMused said:
Why does everyone think that these by-elections and primaries have anything to do with Obama? Especially in the House specials, LOCAL issues are that the forefront. That's why the Republicans keep LOSING them. They keep trying to make these special elections national referendums on Obama and the Democrats and they keep LOSING to Democrats who run good campaigns for the the Districts.
All politics is local.
Click to expand...

Unless the Tea Partiers are actually listening / voting the way that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are telling them (thus proving once and for all that they've given up their ability of that awfully "progressive" idea of "free thinking"), the majority of the electorate (Both Republicans and Democrats) are going to vote "locally."

Meaning that whoever gets elected will be determined upon which "base" can get out more of the vote, as compared to the base that either isn't motivated, or to ambivalent to care.

The Tea Party movement, from what I can tell has a base that seems to be more motivated against the current Republican Party, and if any Democratic Party Candidate can find someway to "split" those votes, they can still win. ..|
 
Droid800 said:
voters are turning on the president and his party, and whether they're incumbents has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

"Turning on the president and his party" is pretty much what always happens in midterm elections if you look at history, with very few exceptions.

So them being incumbents actually has everything to do with it.
 
JohannBessler said:
Did you all see his appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show? Beejeesus! I was shocked beyond belief by some of his ideas.
Click to expand...

Did you all see his appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show? Beejeesus! I was shocked beyond belief by some of her ideas.
 
hotatlboi said:
"Turning on the president and his party" is pretty much what always happens in midterm elections if you look at history, with very few exceptions.

So them being incumbents actually has everything to do with it.
Click to expand...

So a Republican incumbent can expect to be voted against heavily because people are turning against the president and his party?
 
Kulindahr said:
So a Republican incumbent can expect to be voted against heavily because people are turning against the president and his party?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily because a single representative doesn't exist in a vacuum. The anti-incumbent sentiment would tend to benefit Republicans and hurt Democrats since the Democrats have the White House and a large majority in Congress. Voting for a Republican (whether incumbent or not) would be a vote against the incumbent leadership.
 
hotatlboi said:
Not necessarily because a single representative doesn't exist in a vacuum. The anti-incumbent sentiment would tend to benefit Republicans and hurt Democrats since the Democrats have the White House and a large majority in Congress. Voting for a Republican (whether incumbent or not) would be a vote against the incumbent leadership.
Click to expand...

So being an incumbent doesn't have anything to do with it -- being a member of the majority party does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top