Rothenberg:"[not] an anti incumbent election, it's an anti Bush election"

[Tiggeroshii]

Monday, September 18, 2006
An Anti-Incumbent Election? This Year? Of Course Not
By Stuart Rothenberg

Over the past year or so, I’ve heard more than a few people talking about 2006 as an anti-incumbent election. Well, those people are wrong. We are not going to have an anti-incumbent election in November. We are going to have an anti-Bush election.

First, let’s get our terms straight. If “anti-incumbent election” means anything, it is that voters are so dissatisfied with the status quo that they vote against all incumbents, regardless of party. The term highlights one, and only one, quality of embattled candidates: their incumbency.

This kind of election is not about party or ideology or how Members voted on a particular piece of legislation. If it were about any of those things, it wouldn’t simply be an “anti-incumbent” election. An anti-incumbent election is a referendum on the “ins,” and voters, for whatever reasons, are so unhappy with the performance of those “ins” — all the “ins” — that they throw them out. All of them.

http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/

[jwirr]

1. He is partially right. It is about *ss but unfortunately for the GOP

most of us see the current congress as accomplices that agree with *ss completely. A twin entity?