Anti-Incumbent Voters Win
After spending 10 hours glued to the TV watching the election results, it became obvious none of the politicians, or the pundits for that matter, understood what was taking place. The change in leadership in the House of Representatives, and likely the Senate, was a result of a growing anti-incumbent movement amongst voters, which decided to hold incumbents responsible for lack of results and solutions to America's growing list of problems.
By 2:15 AM this morning, the spin had already begun. James Carville (D) said this was not an anti-incumbent election, but an anti-Republican one. Halley Barbour (R) said this switching of parties was just part of the cycle, which voters go through every 12 to 16 years. Others said this was all about Iraq. But, they missed the central theme of yesterday's elections.
Statistics will be crunched and analyzed for months to come. However, some statistics now available speak to changes in American voting. The Libertarian Party ran over 600 candidates in this election, won no federal races, but as of early this morning, had won 7 local water district, city, and county council races nationwide with many results not yet reported on their web site. The Green Party ran 389 candidates in 38 states nationwide. Greens have won 48 local races, so far this year. Clearly, these third party gains in local races evidence the growing anti-incumbent sentiment toward Democrats and Republicans. In my own state of Texas, I saw a huge jump in the number of Libertarian candidates on the ballot running for court and commissioner races.
What is crucial in understanding the election results, I believe, is the lack of alternative to incumbents provided by third party candidates at the federal level. Third Party candidates running for U.S. Congress were small in number and had relatively little campaign money in this most expensive of all mid-term elections in American history; 2.8 billion dollars. With little money and no name recognition, third party candidates did not provide anti-incumbent voters a viable option even if they were on the ballot for federal office. Consequently, voters looking to register an anti-incumbent vote in the ballot box, were far more inclined to vote for Democrat or Republican challenger. That said, it may yet prove to be true as the numbers are crunched, that votes for third party candidates registered higher in this election on a district, by district basis, than in previous mid-terms over the last decade.
Clearly, growing numbers of Independent voters sometimes referred to as swing voters, who have rejected straight party ticket voting, were crucial in last night's results. When I do a web search for 'decline to state', there are a number of articles referencing the declining number of registered Republicans and Democrats which can only mean a shift toward Independent voters in America, reserving their right to vote against incumbents regardless of which party they tend to favor. In California for example, David Lesher
of The New America Foundation reports:
The state's population growth has added 2.4 million citizens to the voter rolls since 1990. Meanwhile, the percentage of registered Democrats declined from 49.9 percent to 42.7 percent, while the Republican share dropped from 39 percent to 34.7 percent.
Yesterday's exit polls indicated:
Asked which issues were extremely important to their vote, 42 percent said corruption and ethics; 40 percent, terrorism; 39 percent, the economy; 37 percent, Iraq; 36 percent, values; and 29 percent, illegal immigration.Those voters most concerned with corruption or, whose financial situation had not improved in the last 2 years, voted against Republicans. This constituted a clear anti-incumbent vote at play, and negates James Carville's spin that there was no anti-incumbent vote. Carville would have Americans believe voters elected Democrats because of their party platform and agenda. In previous polls, it was shown most American voters not registered as Democrats, did not know what Democrat's platform or agenda was, other than being against Pres. Bush, and the Republicans.
Surprisingly the poll indicated voters trusted Democrats and Republicans about equally on the war on terrorism, effectively removing that issue as a main driver in the election results.
Corruption was the biggest issue for voters according to exit poll results as reported by CNN: " when asked which issue was extremely important to their vote, more voters said corruption and ethics in government than any other issue, including the war, according to national exit polls." Assuming the public does not find the Democratic Party very much more desirable when it comes to corruption and ethics, this appears to be major evidence that an anti-incumbent sentiment is very much in play in the election results. Voting for the challenger instead of the incumbent was a way for voters to register their dissatisfaction on this issue. And, since Republicans controlled the branches of government, these 'complaint' votes would predictably go to the challenger, accounting for Democratic gains.
There is a lesson to be learned here, and indeed, some politicians anticipated the lesson and began speaking to it before the polls opened. Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain both remarked this week that American voters are looking for results, looking for solutions to our nation's problems first, and foremost. Since both are likely to be running for President in 2008, it is somewhat encouraging to see that they get how to speak to anti-incumbent voters.
Yesterday's election results reflect a clear intent by voters, not for Democratic leadership, but for politicians to produce positive results, lasting solutions, and attendance to the issues which the voters most care about, or be removed from office. That is an anti-incumbent message. This was an anti-incumbent election. But, I suspect most politicians won't see it that way, and have not yet learned the lesson voters tried to teach this November 7, 2006.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.voidnow.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/303
Comments
There was definitely an anti-incumbent sentiment across the nation.
Voters certainly demonstrated they are angry.
There were definitely a lot of incumbents ousted at the federal level, but not so many at the state level.
The City of Dallas certainly voted out a lot of incumbents.
There were more Independents, Libertarians, and other Third Party candidates on the ballots than I've ever seen before (in my lifetime).
Unfortunately, too many voters re-elected incumbent Democrats, and only ousted incumbent Republicans.
Ideally, voters should have NOT re-elected irresponsible incumbents, regardless of party.
It is doubtful that Democrats will solve much between now and 2008, so the anti-incumbent sentiment is likely to grow larger.
Voters are expecting solutions to our pressing problems, but voters are more likely to get grid-lock instead.
Interestingly, I am optimistic (in the long run) because the system is somewhat self-correcting.
It is painfully slow.
It is 2.000 steps forward, and 1.999 steps backward.
But, most voters will suffer the consequences of their own negligence (as it should be).
So, the pain and misery voters bring upon themselves is their own fault (but that's the only way they will ever learn).
BAD_Voters = BAD_Politicians = BAD_Government
But, the voters education is in the pipe-line.
Voters will eventually get that education (provided they don't mess around too much and somehow lose their right to vote or get an accurate vote-count).
77 million baby boomers are those most likely to feel the consequences of so much fiscal irresponsibility.
Currently the total federal debt is a MASSIVE $22 trillion:
The current $22 trillion of total federal debt is $176 % of the $12.5 trillion GDP.
And federal revenues are $2.2 trillion (about 18% of GDP).
$2.2 trillion in federal revenues and $22 trillion of total federal debt is like you making $100K per year, but being $1 million in debt.
That's hard to do when you have a wife (who works too) and two kids (or more), a mortgage, car payments, college loans, medical bills, medical insurance, etc.
So how easy would it be to pay back that $22 trillion of total federal debt when 90% of it is already dedicated to pay-as-you-go Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, pension systems, welfare, National Defense, Homeland Security, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?
So, the question is, will voters learn the smart, less painful way?
Or will it be the hard, painful way (again)?
At any rate, only education can help voters learn sooner, rather than later.
Posted by: d.a.n | November 8, 2006 11:15 AM
Vati Vati
Vati = Vote Against The Incumbents.
[That's v-a-t-i, with a long A and a long I.]
The present state of America makes me sick. It actually makes me nauseous to ponder how far this once magnificent country has slipped into mediocrity. When I was a young man, fifty years ago, you could mention just about anything: And America was best at that. Back then, America enjoyed the best health care, the best schools, and the best working conditions on Earth, while we worked fewer hours, made more money, and enjoyed a life style never before seen upon this planet.
Our coal mines were producing more coal, our steel-mills smelting more iron, and our assembly-lines led the World in the manufacture of beautiful automobiles, refrigerators, wash-machines, dryers, and the hoard of smaller appliances and gadgets (which eliminated most of the drudgery of our daily chores) and introduced mankind to the life-of-ease, we all now enjoy. Now, American High School Graduates rank only average (whether tested in Mathematics, World History, Language, Science or any other critical field of expertise) and compared with the student's test scores, from the other industrialized nations.
Our so-called health care system stinks, it is without question, the most dysfunctional conglomeration of nonsensical laws bureaucrats have ever assembled. It assures illegal aliens and greedy politicians unlimited free health care, while it renders millions of hard working honest citizens incapable of obtaining any kind of health insurance. The new Social Security Drug Plan deducts a premium for drug insurance, which you can bet will double every year (for at least the next two years) from the social security checks, of subscribers. A great many drugs are not covered by this new plan, and it only pays a maximum of about 70% on any drug, a lot less on most. When the total drug bill (what the retiree and the government pays) reaches $2250.00, Grandma gets cut off, has to pay it all herself, until her total drug bill reaches $3500.00. Obviously if Grandma can not afford her drugs, her bill will never get to $3500.00, so she will go without her drugs for the rest of the year. Of course the monthly premium will still be deducted from her Social Security Check. The drug companies formulated this drug bill, got it enacted, and only the drug companies are going to benefit from it. (Our government gives them the premiums.) In short, this Shaft Our Grandparents Bill is nothing but a multi-million dollar windfall for the drug companies.
The above bill is sure not the worst medical bill our elected officials have ever enacted. It just happens to be the last that made me angry. Hundreds of anti consumer bills and amendments are on the books, which benefit only the medical and/or the drug industries. Foreign competition to American Drug Companies is nonexistent. If it was legitimatized, we could import drugs from reputable foreign drug facilities, for as little as 10% of the extortion we now forced to pay our American Drug Companies. Sad to say, but the Medical Cartels and Drug Companies, with their unchallenged power, are not the worst villains when it comes to manipulating our US Government [or our state governments] into giving them a license to gouge us. The international oil and gas conglomerates, the interstate utility companies, railroad companies, automobile and airplane manufacturers, the cable companies, international shipping cartels and a score of other business concerns all wield as much or more power over our Congress, Senate and President, than the drug companies do. Big Business is our real enemy. Big Business controls our government, and Big Business is the real reason America is losing ground on all fronts, the reason America is steadily slipping into mediocrity.
The companies mentioned above, along with a score of Countries and a hoard of other mighty financial cartels, funnel billions of dollars, pac-money, annually into Washington, to influence the Republican and Democratic Party Leaders (Lords) to legislate on their behalf. The leaders of the Democratic and Republican Parties, the Party Lords, in the Congress and Senate, now have more control over their subservient Congressman and Senators, than any Marine General ever had over his troops. The political parties control the pac-money. And the pac-money is what decides who will get elected, or heaven forbid, smeared.
These political Lords can't just walk down on the floor and tell a congressman or senator that they are fired. But they can have anyone that fails to kowtow to the powers that be, ostracized, rendered powerless, and they can definitely keep anyone from being re-elected. It is very important that we all understand that these Party Lords have strict control over our congressmen and senators. And folks that's not Democracy, that's Bureaucracy.
And if we are going to declare war against our greedy bureaucracy, prudence behooves us to learn all we can about our enemy. Now, I just pulled what I have written here off the top of my head. So if you find a mistake, don't get excited, it is not that important, the overall theme of this opinion is correct. And furthermore it is also correct that with a minimum of research, anyone can ascertain for themselves that this greatest of all nations, is rapidly slipping into mediocrity. And even the United States of America, the greatest nation that ever existed, can fall from within, if we continue to allow misguided politicians the right, to barter away piece after piece of good government, to anyone who is able and willing to pay for preferential treatment.
I have been telling people for years; when in doubt always Vati. But only in this last year has the urge to really push this concept become obligatory. Actually, Voting Against The Incumbents, is a very viable method of straightening out what is wrong with America. Many congressmen and senators win their seats by very small margins, less than 5%. So, if just 5% of the electorate would vati, we would probably get between 20 and 25% of the Congress and Senators. And you can bet we would get their attention.
If as many people vatied, as voted for Ross Perot (he got 18.9% of the popular vote) we would unseat half of both houses. Folks this is a plan that definitely has possibilities. Politician's egos are all wrapped up in their positions. Actually the only thing in the World politicians love more than pac-money, is their influential positions, their jobs. And on the very day our legislators learn that their electorate is actually going to vote them out of office, they are going to be magically stricken with a burning desire to legislate on behave of their constituency.
The only question left is, where are you going to place your loyalty, to the political party that you have been blindly supporting - or to America? You can't serve two masters, and be loyal to both. We have to take the power away from the political Lords, to the extent that it allows our elected representatives to vote the way we tell them to vote. Or in thirty years you are not going to be able to tell the difference between Washington and the corrupt Government of Mexico, or for that matter, tell the difference between America and Mexico.
Grandpa Nate @ Rawlins, Wyoming.
See more @: http://voteagainsttheincumbents.blogspot.com/
Posted by: GrandpaNate | August 27, 2007 9:15 AM