May 20, 2010--Political Spin
Except for one obvious observation, you can pretty much ignore everything else that politicians of both parties and media pundits have been saying after Tuesday's election results. So let's get the obvious out of the way--
it's tough out there for incumbents or any candidates who appear to be too incumbent-like. But this has been true for some time, From even before Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts. Lest we forget, Barack Obama won the presidential election nearly two years ago in large part because John McCain felt like the establishment while Obama came across as a fresh face brimming with the promise to change business as usual in Washington. Now of course Obama also has the incumbent problem--he is suffering from overexposure, promising too much while delivering too little, and seeming to be just another ambitious politician who is better at promising than accomplishing. That's in large part why Democrat candidates have asked him not to do too much campaigning for them.
But if you look beyond the obvious at Tuesday's results, take note that for both parties the winners or near winners were the freshest feeling candidates.
On the Democratic side the biggest loser was Arlen Specter, the quasi-Democrat who until a year ago, for his first 29 years in the Senate, was a Republican. And the winner in the Pennsylvania primary, Joe Sestak, was, yes, a Congressman but one who seemed young and anti-establishment. And on the Republican side, in Kentucky, hunky Rand Paul won the nomination to run for the Senate because his opponent was handpicked by Mitch McConnell who smacks even more of Washington than poor Arlen. True, it probably didn't hurt among ultra-conservative Kentuckians, who make up the Republican base, that Paul was supported by the Tea Party. But we'll see in November how much that helps . . . or hurts.
Then, in Arkansas, insider Blanche Lincoln, the incumbent, almost lost to a relative unknown in the Democrat primary. The Arkansas lieutenant governor Bill Halter came within two percentage points of toppling her; and thus, since neither candidate received 50 percent of the vote (there was a third candidate) he forced a runoff election in earlier June. My guess--he will win and will have a pretty good chance in November to save the Senate seat for the Democrats.
My other guess is that Barack Obama made the right and intentional decision not to do too much campaigning for either Lincoln or Specter, even though he had indicated earlier that he would do so and is being criticized in the media for not manning up enough to do so. Who do you think has a better chance of winning in November--Specter or Sestak? Lincoln or Halter? If I were Obama, no matter what I might have said in public, in private I would have been hoping that Halter and Sestak would win since in their states they are the better candidates for the general election.
But above all, keep in mind that there was only one real election on Tuesday--the race in the 12th Congressional District in Pennsylvania to replace the recently;y-deceased Democrat John Murtha. The 12th is a very conservative district where voters kept Vietnam war hero Murtha in office for decades because he brought more pork barrel money back home than any other member of Congress. One would think that with his unexpected demise, with no clear heir apparent, this would have been an ideal venue for the Republicans and the Tea Party to pick up a seat in the House. After all, back in 2008, McCain trounced Obama there. But the Democrat, Mark Critz, won big, gaining 53 percent of the vote to only 45 percent for his Republican opponent.
And let us recall that since Obama won his election all elections with real consequences such as in Pennsylvania's 12th have been won by Democrats.
As George H. W. Bush charmingly used to say: Message--don't be fooled, from Scott Brown to Mark Critz, no matter the party, the best candidates who appeal to the fears and hopes of voters will win elections that really count. So my suggestion to John Boehner and Eric Cantor (both waiting in the wings to to take over Nancy Pelosi's Speaker's chair, is to focus on their current members who are busy preaching abstinence while molesting their congressional aides.
it's tough out there for incumbents or any candidates who appear to be too incumbent-like. But this has been true for some time, From even before Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts. Lest we forget, Barack Obama won the presidential election nearly two years ago in large part because John McCain felt like the establishment while Obama came across as a fresh face brimming with the promise to change business as usual in Washington. Now of course Obama also has the incumbent problem--he is suffering from overexposure, promising too much while delivering too little, and seeming to be just another ambitious politician who is better at promising than accomplishing. That's in large part why Democrat candidates have asked him not to do too much campaigning for them.
But if you look beyond the obvious at Tuesday's results, take note that for both parties the winners or near winners were the freshest feeling candidates.
On the Democratic side the biggest loser was Arlen Specter, the quasi-Democrat who until a year ago, for his first 29 years in the Senate, was a Republican. And the winner in the Pennsylvania primary, Joe Sestak, was, yes, a Congressman but one who seemed young and anti-establishment. And on the Republican side, in Kentucky, hunky Rand Paul won the nomination to run for the Senate because his opponent was handpicked by Mitch McConnell who smacks even more of Washington than poor Arlen. True, it probably didn't hurt among ultra-conservative Kentuckians, who make up the Republican base, that Paul was supported by the Tea Party. But we'll see in November how much that helps . . . or hurts.
Then, in Arkansas, insider Blanche Lincoln, the incumbent, almost lost to a relative unknown in the Democrat primary. The Arkansas lieutenant governor Bill Halter came within two percentage points of toppling her; and thus, since neither candidate received 50 percent of the vote (there was a third candidate) he forced a runoff election in earlier June. My guess--he will win and will have a pretty good chance in November to save the Senate seat for the Democrats.
My other guess is that Barack Obama made the right and intentional decision not to do too much campaigning for either Lincoln or Specter, even though he had indicated earlier that he would do so and is being criticized in the media for not manning up enough to do so. Who do you think has a better chance of winning in November--Specter or Sestak? Lincoln or Halter? If I were Obama, no matter what I might have said in public, in private I would have been hoping that Halter and Sestak would win since in their states they are the better candidates for the general election.
But above all, keep in mind that there was only one real election on Tuesday--the race in the 12th Congressional District in Pennsylvania to replace the recently;y-deceased Democrat John Murtha. The 12th is a very conservative district where voters kept Vietnam war hero Murtha in office for decades because he brought more pork barrel money back home than any other member of Congress. One would think that with his unexpected demise, with no clear heir apparent, this would have been an ideal venue for the Republicans and the Tea Party to pick up a seat in the House. After all, back in 2008, McCain trounced Obama there. But the Democrat, Mark Critz, won big, gaining 53 percent of the vote to only 45 percent for his Republican opponent.
And let us recall that since Obama won his election all elections with real consequences such as in Pennsylvania's 12th have been won by Democrats.
As George H. W. Bush charmingly used to say: Message--don't be fooled, from Scott Brown to Mark Critz, no matter the party, the best candidates who appeal to the fears and hopes of voters will win elections that really count. So my suggestion to John Boehner and Eric Cantor (both waiting in the wings to to take over Nancy Pelosi's Speaker's chair, is to focus on their current members who are busy preaching abstinence while molesting their congressional aides.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home