Incumbents
- Image by hlkljgk via Flickr
For quite some time the media has been playing up the idea that the voters are sick of the same old politicians. The media folks also speculated that the incumbents would take a beating in the primaries. Now that the results are in, the media folks seem to have been somewhat mistaken. It turns out that in 82 of 84 primaries, the incumbent won outright. So much for the alleged anger at the incumbents.
Suddenly at a loss for a theme, the media folks decided to go with the fact that some women have won the chance to run for office, such as the (in)famous Carly Fiona. This allowed them to make witty remarks about “ladies’ night” and “girl power.” Good save, folks.
Despite the sweeping incumbent victories, voter displeasure might still be real. After all, primaries are not general elections and differ from them in many ways. Primaries, obviously enough, just involve one party. Also, primaries can be rather orchestrated by those who control the party and they would tend to favor the incumbent. These factors might mean that the results of the primaries cannot be projected onto the general elections. An incumbent winning the primary for his/her party is one thing. An incumbent beating an opponent from the other party (or even that rare political animal, the viable independent) is another matter.
I suspect that the media folks will trot out anti-incumbent anger again when the general elections roll around. It will be interesting to see if they will be vindicated or if they will be struggling for another narrative when they are proven wrong. Again.
A Philosopher's Blog 
Now, if Orly Taitz would run for office and defeated an incumbent, we’d know for sure the inmates are running the asylum. Oh, wait!
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/06/orly_taitzs_dream_has_been_def.html
Who would have known sanity reigns in California!?
I propose a game where we name states where she may have ‘won’ that primary. I’ll start: Texas.
There are limits even to madness.
The inmates are running the asylum in CA. In fact, Texas beats California by almost any measure.
The Golden State isn’t worth it
In America’s federal system, some states, such as California, offer residents a “package deal” that bundles numerous and ambitious public benefits with the high taxes needed to pay for them. Other states, such as Texas, offer packages combining modest benefits and low taxes. These alternatives, of course, define the basic argument between liberals and conservatives over what it means to get the size and scope of government right.
It’s not surprising, then, that there’s an intense debate over which model is more admirable and sustainable. What is surprising is the growing evidence that the low-benefit/low-tax package not only succeeds on its own terms but also according to the criteria used to defend its opposite. In other words, the superior public goods that supposedly justify the high taxes just aren’t being delivered.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/01/opinion/oe-voegli1
I’ve gotta admit, Calif., may not be the nuttiest, but it’s only a lap or two behind Texas.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/53746
“So it is fitting that the GOP, in defeating Birther Queen Orly Taitz, instead nominated former XFL player and real estate company owner Damon Dunn, who describes himself as a “recovering non-voter” who never voted until 2009. He joins ticket-toppers Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, notorious non-voters both, on the GOP ticket.”
I’m inclined to favor modest taxes with modest benefits. The state should cover the basics (education, roads, police, fire, and so on) and the rest seems better left to the discretion of the citizen.
“Who would have known sanity reigns in California!?” Not ironic enough for you?
Of course, I’m talking in terms of basic lunacy here. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. Texans have discussed the subject of secession, and I wish they’d follow through. They need a harsh reminder that it’s not the early 1800’s anymore.
There are many meaner, more powerful countries that might have designs on the Longhorn State’s resources. . . Ultimately Texas residents might have to decide which way of life suits them best—one where they can’t have everything their way or one where they can’t have anything their way.
Good luck to’em on their little “island” up against the rest of the world.
Ummm…yeah. These are just primaries. The main attraction happens in November. That will be the real test.
Let’s get rid of professional politicians. Term limits now.
Amen! ?
But first let’s have a discussion about the pros and cons, like the FF’s did during the construction of the Constitution. I hear tell “Washington and Jefferson argued in support of term limits, while Madison and Hamilton opposed them.”* We know the FF’s final decisions are virtually sacrosanct— Isn’t that’s why Scalia, Thomas, etc. fall all over themselves to determine and follow original intent and why they argue consistently against adjustments to constitutional interpretation that take into account changes that have taken place over two centuries.
So the first question in the discussion would have to be: If not having term limits was good enough for the FF’s, why isn’t it good enough for us?
http://www.wisegeek.com/are-there-term-limits-in-the-united-states-congress.htm
There are some talking points there.
In their wildest dreams the FFs could not have imagined Charlie Rangel or Rod Blagojevich. We’re not in Virginia any more, Toto.
I wonder if Jefferson sat up straight in bed of a summer night, bedshirt soaked, eyes bulging, teeth chattering, overcome with fear that the loose language of the 2nd would have to be reined in by the National Firearms Act (1934) and the Gun Control Act (1968)to account for AK-47’s and weapons of their ilk in an attempt to ” insure domestic tranquility” and “secure the blessings of liberty.”?
So [to paraphrase the question in my previous response]: The first question in discussing the 2nd Amendment would have to be: If the phrase “shall not be infringed” — taken as an anti-regulatory term in “ALL” of its dictionary senses and thus meaning NO regulation as some would have us believe—was good enough for the FF’s, why isn’t it good enough for us? Why modify it with the 1934 and 1968 Acts?
Blind adherence to what some would interpret as “original intent” may be contraindicated in some instances. It is only “their (and we know who they are)” “best” interpretation of what someone more than two centuries ago meant, after all. Term limits and 2nd Amendment issues, in my opinion, are issues that demand a 21st-century discussion and interpretation based on 21st-century realities.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7818650/Unemployed-military-veteran-Alvin-Greene-wins-South-Carolina-senate-nomination.html
Apparently, in SC they demonstrate a non-partisan attraction for “spoiled goods”.
Democrats:A man “facing a criminal obscenity charge”.
Republicans: Mark Sanford. . .
Can we hear from the Libertarians?
Apparently they just didn’t want anybody they knew anything about. lol.