Sucks to be an Incumbent

[Lemur]

Haven't seen this brought up yet, so: Anti-incumbent fever, baby!

Sleestax beats the mummy king!

Mini-Ron Paul takes Kentucky!

Incumbent R Senator ousted in Utah!

There's probably more, but these three are enough. Especially the defeat of Bennett; how often does a sitting Senator get taken down in his own party's primary? Not often, not often.

There's a hardcore anti-incumbent mood out there, and I have no idea what it portends. Here's what the Canadians think (they can't seem to get past the Tea Party angle, which I believe sells this phenomenon short):

“We’ve come to take our government back.”

Those triumphant words from Rand Paul, a Tea Party candidate who trounced his Republican rival in a Kentucky primary Tuesday night, might seem aimed primarily at Democrats, given they control both the White House and Congress.

But Rand’s verbal smackdown of establishment politics is making Republicans equally nervous about the mid-term elections looming in November while a bout of anti-incumbent fever continues to sweep the United States.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, backed Rand’s rival, Kentucky lawmaker Trey Grayson, as did other top Republicans — former vice-president Dick Cheney among them. Tea Party guiding light Sarah Palin, meantime, supported Paul, an eye doctor who’s the son of one-time Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.

“It suggests real trouble for both parties, but Tea Party candidates are going to win in traditionally Republican districts, and then they’ll be in the Republican caucus in the Senate,” Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, said Wednesday.

I disagree. You can't look at the victory of the Sleestax as any sort of Tea Party endorsement. There's something else going on. Thoughts?

[drone]

A lot of incumbents are probably getting bit by the health care fiasco. Benedict Specter was vulnerable and untrusted by both parties, no real surprise there. And a libertarian winning in Kentucky doesn't shock me either, you should probably post that dog picture when discussing that outcome.

Spring cleaning time. And a lot of incumbents that survived the primaries are going to have a hard time of it in November as well, especially if the economy doesn't turn around.

[Lemur]

So your theory is health care bill + unemployment? Makes sense, I guess. Here's another perspective:

The fall of Arlen Specter and the rise of Rand Paul don’t make an overnight revolution in American politics. Instead, they continue trends that have been with us for a while: the decline of party establishments, the erosion of the center in Congress, the power of media (mainly conservative) to control the political agenda. We are seeing the rise of the politician as electronic loner, brought to power in a system that looks more like direct democracy than republican government.

The Senate used to be dominated by men like Specter. Lyndon Johnson called them “whales”—lifers, committee chairmen, able to work on both sides of the aisle and forge coalitions around specific issues, nakedly opportunistic in some of their political calculations. A few decades ago, no one minded when an eighty-year-old ran for reëlection on promises to keep bringing home the bacon. Today, with the electorate in a state of perpetual outrage, Specter’s maneuverings to hold his seat are taken as unseemly, like an old man chasing after a young thing in a skirt.

Less than a few decades ago, Republican voters would never have defied their most powerful politician—in this case, Mitch McConnell—and nominated a party outsider like Rand Paul. It’s almost certain that Paul will win in November, and when he gets to Washington he’ll make Jim Bunning seem like a dull, go-along-to-get-along insider. The prototype for Republican senators these days is no longer McConnell, and it certainly isn’t an aging centrist like Richard Lugar. It’s Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who holds office not to legislate but to blow things up, who doesn’t need to make party elders happy because he can create his own base of support by making himself irresistible to cable news. Rand Paul will up DeMint’s ante, and “the world’s greatest deliberative body” will continue its descent into mass-media hell.

A decent analysis, although I do not understand why everybody seems to take it for granted that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are nutty and insane. Sure, they hold some views that are outside the mainstream, but who doesn't? I find it especially troubling that Rand Paul's condemnation of our Iraq adventure is cited as his craziest position. Invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. It's not nutty to admit it.

[TinCow]

A decent analysis, although I do not understand why everybody seems to take it for granted that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are nutty and insane. Sure, they hold some views that are outside the mainstream, but who doesn't? I find it especially troubling that Rand Paul's condemnation of our Iraq adventure is cited as his craziest position. Invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. It's not nutty to admit it.

I'm a leftie, but I was pleased to see Rand Paul win. I very much like the idea of politicians who do not owe their positions to the party establishment. Those people are far more likely to vote on positions based on their own beliefs, rather than simple party-line. That has a much greater chance of resulting in cooperation on important issues than the current system. I see the trend towards increasing deadlock in Congress as one of our greatest evils. Anything that breaks that deadlock is a good thing, regardless of whether it swings the country left or right.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

So your theory is health care bill + unemployment? Makes sense, I guess. Here's another perspective:

The fall of Arlen Specter and the rise of Rand Paul don’t make an overnight revolution in American politics. Instead, they continue trends that have been with us for a while: the decline of party establishments, the erosion of the center in Congress, the power of media (mainly conservative) to control the political agenda. We are seeing the rise of the politician as electronic loner, brought to power in a system that looks more like direct democracy than republican government.

The Senate used to be dominated by men like Specter. Lyndon Johnson called them “whales”—lifers, committee chairmen, able to work on both sides of the aisle and forge coalitions around specific issues, nakedly opportunistic in some of their political calculations. A few decades ago, no one minded when an eighty-year-old ran for reëlection on promises to keep bringing home the bacon. Today, with the electorate in a state of perpetual outrage, Specter’s maneuverings to hold his seat are taken as unseemly, like an old man chasing after a young thing in a skirt.

Less than a few decades ago, Republican voters would never have defied their most powerful politician—in this case, Mitch McConnell—and nominated a party outsider like Rand Paul. It’s almost certain that Paul will win in November, and when he gets to Washington he’ll make Jim Bunning seem like a dull, go-along-to-get-along insider. The prototype for Republican senators these days is no longer McConnell, and it certainly isn’t an aging centrist like Richard Lugar. It’s Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who holds office not to legislate but to blow things up, who doesn’t need to make party elders happy because he can create his own base of support by making himself irresistible to cable news. Rand Paul will up DeMint’s ante, and “the world’s greatest deliberative body” will continue its descent into mass-media hell.

A decent analysis, although I do not understand why everybody seems to take it for granted that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are nutty and insane. Sure, they hold some views that are outside the mainstream, but who doesn't? I find it especially troubling that Rand Paul's condemnation of our Iraq adventure is cited as his craziest position. Invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. It's not nutty to admit it.

I'm glad Specter got booted. He is to old to be in office anyhow. There should be a age limit for government officals.

[PanzerJaeger]

The fall of Arlen Specter and the rise of Rand Paul don’t make an overnight revolution in American politics. Instead, they continue trends that have been with us for a while: the decline of party establishments, the erosion of the center in Congress, the power of media (mainly conservative) to control the political agenda. We are seeing the rise of the politician as electronic loner, brought to power in a system that looks more like direct democracy than republican government.

The Senate used to be dominated by men like Specter. Lyndon Johnson called them “whales”—lifers, committee chairmen, able to work on both sides of the aisle and forge coalitions around specific issues, nakedly opportunistic in some of their political calculations. A few decades ago, no one minded when an eighty-year-old ran for reëlection on promises to keep bringing home the bacon. Today, with the electorate in a state of perpetual outrage, Specter’s maneuverings to hold his seat are taken as unseemly, like an old man chasing after a young thing in a skirt.

Less than a few decades ago, Republican voters would never have defied their most powerful politician—in this case, Mitch McConnell—and nominated a party outsider like Rand Paul. It’s almost certain that Paul will win in November, and when he gets to Washington he’ll make Jim Bunning seem like a dull, go-along-to-get-along insider. The prototype for Republican senators these days is no longer McConnell, and it certainly isn’t an aging centrist like Richard Lugar. It’s Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who holds office not to legislate but to blow things up, who doesn’t need to make party elders happy because he can create his own base of support by making himself irresistible to cable news. Rand Paul will up DeMint’s ante, and “the world’s greatest deliberative body” will continue its descent into mass-media hell.

I agree with the gist of that analysis, but not the negative tone. Packer apparently mourns the passing of a time when politicians did not have to submit to the will of their constituents, when the media cycle was slow and people were more out of touch. America is in decline, and it is in no small part due to these career politicians. I say bring on a new age of vibrant, involved politics.

[Lemur]

America is in decline

Couldn't disagree more. It's early days in America yet. Just wait and see.

[Subotan]

But can they govern?

[PanzerJaeger]

Couldn't disagree more. It's early days in America yet. Just wait and see.

I sincerely hope you're right, regardless of which party is in power.

[rory_20_uk]

America is in relative decline merely as there are other countries on the ascendant such as China, India, Brazil. None look like being able to challenge the USA in the short or medium term, BUT they no longer do what they're told like 3 year olds.

America does have work to do with its deficit, else this will further hamper its importance. Again, not impossible by any means - but not definite either.

On topic, I hope that there was a better reason for ousting these Senators than they were incumbants. But also I do feel that they do all to quickly get to a feeling of entitlement to the seat and attached perks.