Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Incumbents must be some kind of endangered species, with the Beltway media continually telling us that voters are enraged and will throw all the sitting senators and representatives and governors out. This is the age of the Tea Party change after all.
But as Rachel Maddow noted last night, the results of Tuesday's primaries show that the facts contradict the favored narrative. Maddow:
"We therefore find it very uncomfortable to have to report that actually all the incumbents are winning.
"Here's Wednesday's New York Times: 'Anti-Incumbent Rage Bypasses Arkansas.' Here's another one from Reuters, 'Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln Survives Anti-incumbent Wave.'
"See, it's a little wave, an ineffectual wave that doesn't affect some incumbents depending on who they are. But we really want to keep calling it a wave.... Don't let the facts hit your narrative in the butt on the way out.
"Listen, I understand that the Beltway media decided at some point a few months ago -- what do they have, conventions or something? They decided that this was going to be anti-incumbency year. The anti-incumbency theme was going to be the story that they told to explain politics this year.
"But that has been sold as if it is a predictive story. They're saying here's what's going to happen. The voters are going to throw all the incumbents out. They're going to throw the bums out. And then the bums keep not getting thrown out.
"In New Jersey, like I mentioned, 13 incumbents on the ballot in New Jersey, all of them won. In California, a whopping 52 incumbents -- 52 incumbents on the ballot in California, each and every one of them winners.
"How about Virginia? Eleven incumbents on the ballot in Virginia, all 11 incumbents won. In Iowa, seven incumbents on the ballot. They all won as well. In Arkansas, three incumbents on the ballot, all three incumbents won.
"In South Dakota, two incumbents running, both winners. In Maine, two incumbents, both winners. In Montana and North Dakota, one incumbent each, not one of them a victim of the mythical anti-incumbent rage.
"In fact, if you look at this whole campaign season, all of the races, all together, who among the incumbents has been thrown out? Well, I can tell you. It's easy to remember. There haven't been that many of them.
"There were two guys who switched parties -- Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama -- and they lost. That's not that weird. There were two guys with corruption scandals -- Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia and Gov. Jim Gibbons of Nevada -- who lost. Also not that weird. There was one guy who wasn't voted out, Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah. He was just unselected by a small number of party activists at a convention. That's not even that weird.
"And then there's Congressman Bob Inglis of South Carolina. Bob Inglis of South Carolina legitimately is an incumbent who got voted down in a primary without a corruption scandal or a party switch or a weird activists-only vote at a convention to explain it. Bob Inglis. That's the one.
"That's the one piece of data supporting the whole national narrative of the anti-incumbency wave, one guy who most of us had never heard of before Tuesday night. One guy, for what it's worth, who didn't even lose. He's in a runoff. "
Leave a Comment:
It never made sense to me. There was this big anti government movement some months ago. Yet Obama was still hovering around 50%. Then it dawned on me that the people complaining probably don't even vote. Once again I believe the silent majority just sits back and watch all the hoopla going on. They are the ones that actually vote.
225 million people were eligible to vote in 2008. 131 million actually voted. I'm willing to bet the people crying and screaming about incumbents are the ones that don't even vote.
Unhappy. On this new format I can't get the show to play.
I had the same problem, but was able to get it the player to work by quickly hitting the "pop out" button to the lower right of the player. It opens a new window, which still uses the old flash video player (please please don't change this yet!).
I sent MSNBC tech support an email about it. Wish they would give an option to either use the new beta player or the old version. Bad form to go live with software that isn't ready.
Is there an easy set of links to source materials that I could share with an open-minded conservative friend who (I am sure) would not take Rachel's word for this?
As an aside, there are some questions kgb.com won't answer for 99 cents. "What are the names of incumbents for both US House and Senate who have lost a primary challenge in 2010" is one of those questions. :)
It's my opinion that the Beltway Media uses the prediction narrative to attempt to manipulate the public into proving their credence. It's not possible to actually know the mind of the voters, but it is possible to use the political ploys to attempt to plant a seed. The problem with that is; there's always the chance it can backfire when someone like Rachel calls them out and exposes their tactics. That's why we love her show.
She doesn't have to prove she is good. She just is. The Beltway is more interested in themselves and their power than they are in keeping the public aware of the news. They seem to think their job is directing the public into thinking the way they want them to think, than in providing the government with the mindset of the public.
It's like when the politicians say, "The American people want" when they have no clue what the American people want. They just know what some individuals have said, if that. I think they think we are all mindless. Obviously, we're not.
Thanks Rachel.
Your posts are always 'guesses', hatenomer, and all of them are hazardous. Your 'facts' are discriminatory, at best, and biased, at worst. You're attempting to prove me and every other poster on Rachel's Web, wrong. There must be a Website, somewhere, that fits your personality. By the way, don't you work?
You know full well that most of the media manipulation is not democrats. I would say it was about 50/50, so get off your hump and either write a decent self opinion or go fly the proverbial kite. Believe it or not, we can all read and know what's in the papers.
I don't post 'positions', I post opinions; Mine. And mine of you is; You're black, male, a follower not a leader, in your thirties to forties, hate yourself and blame the world, and would rather sit around under a big white shoulder chip and complain. Oh, also have a religious afiliation that is fundamentalist in doctrine.
You're obvious.
My apologizes, Dear. I've been known to change my opinions, but I don't think I'm all wrong on this one.
Hatey, you are described as "black, male, a follower not a leader, in your thirties or forties, hate yourself and blame the world...". You respond by saying "none of what you say is true....". I guess you are either admitting you are neither black nor male, or you are lying now in saying you are neither black nor male. Those lies are catching up with you pal.
Now, I step aside and allow don to continue running you through the wringer a few more times. Just thought I shouldn't miss an opportunity to point out more of your lies to the assembled masses here.
You really like that idea of demonetization, don't you hatenomor? Does that come from your religion or your lack of leadership ability?
I do know what complaining is. Is setting the record straight all you do? Then why are you complaining about 'our side' lying when you have obviously lied about a straight record?
I could have been wrong about your age. Sometimes late teens or early twenties have trouble dealing with idealistic issues, but I still think you're older and have lost all of your idealism when it comes to Life. Prove me wrong!
Oh, believe me, Dude, I have no interest in you personally. I just find it really weird that you get your jollies posting on a website that you use to criticize and judge. AND, I think you're pissed because you were caught in a lie.
I'll be glad to 'NOT' reply to your posts as long as you don't reply to mine.
From what I know about your religion, you're committing a lot of sins. Baring false witness - using baddy words - gossiping - not loving your neighbor. Need I go on?
I'm trying to figure out what I've accused you of that you haven't done. I'll let you know if I come up with anything. From what I've read, you've done a lot to further your cause on a website that really isn't interested in your agenda. I think you're an egotistical monger who has made it his agenda to push himself into a discussion that is none of his business. You have a right to your opinion but that right stops at the door of my opinion.
I will not reply to anything else you say. You're worthless and so is your posting.
Fluoride? I don't want to drink it! As a progressive democrat I do my research before making such uneducated statements on TV google fuoride deception
The point is, (and Rachel just made it on the show) that this anti-incumbency wave is a media creation backed by spurrious poll results ( aren't they all) and a media frenzy to make something out of nothing. My partner predicted six months ago that democrats would not only hold the house and senate, but might increase their senate majority by at least a seat, (Kentucky anyone), and might even increase their house majority by a seat or two. people are looking around for answers, and whether the Tea baggers like it or not, WE NEED the federal government and this oil spill (no matter how much frustration there is about the gov't response) is a perfect example. if we had Sharron Angle as our president, there would be even MORE de-regulation of the oil industry. So it seems this anti incumbent wave, which is code for let's throw "vulnerable democrats and moderate republicans" out has about as much veracity as BP saying there are no oil plumes below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. The tea baggers have the GOP by the short curlies, and that hurts...personally as in independent i'm happy prop 14 passed. Can we have a blog topic on that?
At the time, I thought prop 14 was going to cause so much confusion at elections that the polls would be deserted, but since then I can see the value in an open forum to allow everyone to have a voice in who is in a governing position that affects us all.
The election of Sharron Angle opened my eyes. I'm sure a lot of Liberals would have liked to have had an opportunity to deter the possibility of a person with her philosophy having, even a minute say, in the governing of our country. When someone thinks they can run on the platform of destroying the social amenities that are the basis of survival for a lot of citizens, their election needs to be open to the whole elective base. She should have been cut off at the knees.
Hey don, fortunately Ms. Angle has not yet been elected, just nominated. There is still an opportunity to prevent her election by supporting her opponent.
Yes, you're right, mightbe, I guess I was thinking of winning in the primary election. I can't believe she will win, but nothing surprises me anymore.
I do think many of the so-called experts have this anti-incumbent thing wrong. I also think the idea that there is an actual anti-Obama thing at work in some of these primaries is wrong too. When is comes to the Democratic primaries (the Republicans have something else at play), I really think this is anti-Progressive. Despite party affiliation, Americans have always been a little right of center. Progressives thought they had a blank check after 2008, and Democrats that did not fall in line were threatened by Progressives that they would be thrown out of office. This tactic seemed to work to bully Health Care through, but now America has had enough of the elitist attitude of Progressives. Bill Clinton had to learn to govern from the center, and when he did, we had a prosperous decade. If Obama does not learn that lesson after the 2010 elections, he will be a one term president with a weaker legacy than Carter,
Oh if wishes could only come true!!!!
I should know better than to reply to Tim since hatenomor agrees with him, but I do have some disagreements. I posted earlier about the audacity to speak for America, but I will say again. Where do you get off declaring what 'America' wants? And, how can you assume you can see the future? You cannot know that progressives had an agenda to get rid of anyone who did not "fall in line". That is sheer elitist to the max.
Your opinion of Obama is yours to have, but it is just your 'opinion' and it is not based on any fact except wishful thinking. You say that Clinton had to learn to govern from the center. Does that mean our presidents have to be taught to abide by the rules we choose? If that's so, why do we need them? Oh yeah, so we have someone to pick on.
Clinton left office with money in the bank, that is true, but he didn't have anywhere near the challenges that Obama met when he took office. Thanks to your illustrious George Bush. Don't patronize him with your idiotic logic and keep your charlatan predictions off of a liberal website. We prefer to enjoy our dinner without the smell of garbage.
What he should have said was "the little segment of America that I belong to and we want is" and that would have been better.
After all we all bring our own wants, desires, dislikes and prejudices to the discussion table. We surround ourselves with like minded individuals that help stroke our egos...that's why the tea party people feel so sure they are correct in everything they say and do.
I'm, by no choice of my own, surrounded by males who are 30 to 45 years old, white, "self-employed", conservatives who hate this president and anything he does. They often quote Rush or Beck to me in our discussions and I have to do everything in my powers not to loose it. Its a shame that they don't read more or really understand politics...one day I pray they will.
Sorry I have not watched this thread, but I have to say if you don't think the Progressives have an agenda to purge the Democratic party of moderates then you have not been paying attention. Have you watched MSNBC and the stream of hosts and guests? How about the attacks on Democrats like Blanche Lincoln? How about the Democrats that were attacked for wanting strong abortion language in the health-care bill?
Also, he's not my illustrious George Bush, but the fact is there was a beginning of a recession in the last year of Clinton that Bush inherited... we were attacked on 9/11 caused by security shortfalls inherited from Clinton... the housing bubble was caused by a push by the government to push sub-prime mortgages inherited from Clinton. The recession we should have had was pushed off because of things like 9/11, the housing bubble, and a fed policy of cheap money.
People like you, accept the idea that a year and half into the Obama administration the BP oil spill is Bush's fault because Obama just didn't have time to properly evaluate and fix "the damage he caused" but when looking at 9/11, which happened only 8 months into the Bush presidency, and say Clinton and his policies were not at fault at all... even though the first attack on the World Trade Center was on his watch and he had the opportunity to take Obama out back then.
Nice Freudian slip there, saying that Clinton had the opportunity to take Obama out after the WTC bombings. Says something about your point of view, eh?
I don't think I'd blame the first recession of Bush's administration on Bush, as it was beginning at the end of Clinton's administration. What I will do is blame Bush for taking a huge budget surplus and turning it into a record deficit in just one years time, and then increasing that deficit every single year of his presidency. Even then, he hid the true size of the deficit by funding his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through emergency funding measures, often twice a year, so that they wouldn't be added to the annual Pentagon operating budget. And yet, where was the Tea Party outrage then? Where was the far right clamoring for fiscal responsibility? That's right, they were either voting to approve those budgets, or were sitting on their hands.
Obama does come in for some blame on this BP gusher. There was an IG report in 2007 that detailed the incredible corruption at MMS, but nothing was done by the Bush administration, nor was anything done when Obama came into office. That IG report should be used as a basis to fire those named in the report, and to initiate criminal prosecution if warranted. Salazar should be canned, as he had the opportunity to clean things up in his department, and he didn't.
So when we hear all the shouts about sending all the incumbents home it only means to send every other incumbent home except my rep. and senator. I think that's what we have people who don't understand how the process works...asleep in civics class I guess.
Or maybe all the "send them home people" are the same headline grasping loudmouths that disrupted the health care town hall meetings a year ago. Thanks Dick Armey for all you dirty work. You've at least earned you paycheck now go away and let the people elect the best qualified for the job not the ones you want to control.
Speaking of numbers, aren't you just a little ashamed of your latest ratings and still having a job?
During the presidential campaign I frequented a site that was crawling with (Ron) Paulistas. Their favorite word was 'wave' right up until the fail. It looks to me like a large chunk of the media picked up this 'anti-incumbency wave' talk from the Paulistas, and with approximately the same level of accuracy.
I can't tell if the support from the media is sincere in that the media is chock full of libertarians or if it is just wishful thinking by people who want something snappy to report in order to boost ratings.
Rachel, I think your comment was right on the mark on this anti-incumbent idea. After hearing years of right-wing talking points I've learned that those talking points are just rumors started by the right wing to try and convince the general public to believe what right wants them to believe. Propaganda. They're always trying to define the future, thinking that if the idea is popular with many other people it will take hold and come true. A good example is link when Fox News in the 2000 Presidential election declared Florida for George W. Bush when a couple of the other major networks had already declared Gore the winner of those electoral votes. They (Fox News aka right-wing talking point organization) scared and bullied the other networks into doubting themselves and ultimately gave power to the confusion that threw the election into recounts and the Supreme Court for final determination. The right-wingers are still counting on that tactic to this day. If can buffalo enough people (and even other news organizations) into believing and following them they end up winning the manipulation!
They are doing this now with elections for November and to sabotage the job creation efforts of the Obama administration and Democrats in congress in their efforts to make them all think that most American voters are more concerned about Deficits when in reality they want Jobs. As Paul Krugman points out, we should be looking at spending to stimulate jobs with more stimulus rather than cost cutting.
Americans making under $250, 000 a year are not worried at all about the Deficits. They're worried about getting and keeping an income!