Could the anger against incumbents not be that deep?

[nadinbrzezinski]

Serious, all those predictions that primaries should see a lot of turn over... well not quite...

SO I am starting to think that perhaps this is the throw the bums out, just not my bums!

Of course I'd have to see polling data, but all those great revolts from them voters seem to have truly fizzled, which makes me wonder, this press narrative might be all wrong and stuff. (Like it's happened before by the way, polls have been way off since oh about 2000, and actually there is a good explanation... not popular, but people answering polls are a pretty self selective crowd any longer.)

[Frank Booth]

1. I think the press narrative created the press narrative.

Competitive races and new faces mean higher ratings. Plus the challengers are probably more big business-friendly than most of the incumbents (though with the Democrats the way they are these days, there's not much difference).

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. That or it's "the devil you know" coming in to play.

:shrug:

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

3. or the TEA Party challengers just plain suck

[LiberalAndProud]

7. Well, there *is* that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Angle comes to mind in fact

[Echotrail]

4. Not angry enough to stop $21 million primaries

which is what McCain had to spend to fend off his challenger.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I know but elections are getting way too expensive

no matter how you look at it.

[JJ]

16. Yep, if this keeps up only the ultra wealthy will be able to buy representation

in our government. (oops, too late)

[saltpoint]

5. Good question, well worth watching it play out, too.

Any suspicion of the media's narrative on politics is owed a healthy skepticism.

:thumbsup:

[Dawson Leery]

9. Too many incumbents are winning their primaries

for there to be such a massive anti-incumbent wave.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Exactly my point

so the press narrative is throw the bums out... the real narrative, throw them out, but not my bums...

[rufus dog]

13. The narrative isn't throw the bums out

It is throw the Democrats out.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

11. Forget the primaries, these assholes will be out in force in November

At the end of the day, Tea Partiers are just Republicans. They aren't all that interested in new blood except to push everyone electable in their party further to the right. See: John McCain.

[rufus dog]

12. It is a very simple play from an old play book

The Democrats are in power, the Democrats have two hugely successful election cycles, in a mid term the controlling party will almost always have some losses.

So it is a no lose for the media and the Republicans. Rip the shit out of the incumbents chances, then when the inevitable losses occur pat your self on the back. Ignore the fact that the losses are statistically insignificant when viewed in historical context.

Page two of the play book is to say there is no difference between the two parties, this works really well for Republicans because they will NEVER vote for a Democrat because they are, socialists, atheist, elitists, homosexuals, hippies, tree huggers, too dark, .....

Page three is to have a wedge issue, abortion, gay marriage, and if those fail throw out some racism.

[JJ]

14. The media (the rich bas.. er.. people that own the media, that is)

are trying to bandwagon a "throw the bums out" mood like they did in '94. It worked then, not so much now. Happens every time Democrats hold a majority.

[Obamanaut]

15. When incumbents run, we reelect them at about a 90% rate. The best

chance of getting a new member of congress is via death or retirement.

We vote for "the name you know" - from the Eddie Murphy movie "The Distinquished Gentleman"

They all know this, so they don't worry too much about polls.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. I know why some form of term limits should be considered

but that is another discussion.

Here I was 'xpecting 'nother night of the long knives... they told me so...

:sarcasm:

[Obamanaut]

18. No 'long knives' here. You mentioned incumbents, and turnover, and

I suggested a reason as to why there won't be much of one.

There rarely is.

[seabeyond]

19. maddow keeps saying it is non existent. made up by media. i agree.

i never saw it, even when they first started. maddow gives all kinds of examples and how hard media continues to push it even when they are ontinually wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

Of course and we all need to make fun of made up memes

anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Of course and we all need to make fun of made up memes

anymore.

[PRETZEL]

21. I think you line,

"SO I am starting to think that perhaps this is the throw the bums out, just not my bums!"

is the truism here. No matter how much you listen to all the talking heads rant and rave about pork spending and who they're aligned with, in the end, when incumbants go back to their districts and talk about the number of jobs created by this project or that project, that's really all that matters at the local level.

It's the old saying "It's only pork when someone else gets it"

[Dawson Leery]

22. With all the complaints about pork spending (i.e special district projects).

people would scream bloody murder if their pork was to be cut.
Newt Gingrich was the king of pork for his district back in his days as speaker.

[Llewlladdwr]

23. Been an awful lot of retirements this cycle.

A lot of incumbents are taking themselves out of the race rather than face a hostile electorate. Not sure about the House, but there's like 11 open seats in the Senate. That seems higher than usual to me.