Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So apparently I've been hearing that out of the 139 primary races that we had across the country, not one incumbent was unseated. Despite having historically low congressional approval ratings. This is ludicrous! I find it really odd however, that I can only find information about this on various blogs and offbeat newspapers.. Does anyone else find this disturbing?
So apparently I've been hearing that out of the 139 primary races that we had across the country, not one incumbent was unseated. Despite having historically low congressional approval ratings. This is ludicrous! I find it really odd however, that I can only find information about this on various blogs and offbeat newspapers.. Does anyone else find this disturbing?
Yes, it is disturbing, and it is the result of gerrymandering. Something needs to be done to quit carving districts into either blue or red.
It is a joke. People need to stop complaining if they continue to vote for the same ones who put us in this mess.
Traditionally, the off year elections always tend to favor the incumbents in the primaries. A big part of why this is so is due to the much lower voter turnout that almost always happens. The voters who are most likely to show up are the voters who seldom miss any ballot measure- they're the same ones who vote for local school bonds and other local elections and all the other small ones, and these voters always tend to vote for the incumbents unless the incumbent has completely hit bottom somehow recently.
The Republican party's heavy pushback against the tea party, and the following election results shows the tea party agenda has largely succeeded in turning the party further toward the right, but the agenda may be beginning to crumble after the government shutdown of last year.
It's easier for a conservative incumbent to move toward the middle than it is for a challenger, especially a first timer. The pressure from all the public to get Congress to end the deadlock and go to work also favored the incumbents, as they're the ones who are congressional committee and caucus leaders. The challengers would all be junior members at a time when senior members are the only ones who can break the deadlock.
Since the House is Republican, the voters gave them very clear marching orders. This has happened before many times; it was another last-chance election, and a sign that if the deadlock does not change, the House could swing to the Democrats in 2016 as it did in 2006.
There is very little support for throwing all the bums out at once now. The 2010 election did that when it put a bunch of the tea party into Congress and they failed. In a time like this, voters will go for the one they know, even if they don't much like the person, rather than making a riskier choice with someone they don't know.
there are reasons for this: no, not a reason for not making the news, but for incumbents having the edge: 1-mid term elections, specially the primaries do not hold the same interest as the elections during a presidential election year and name recognition plays a part. Just because an incumbent wins the primary, does not make him or her a shoe in to win the general election. In the states that also have governor elections you will see a better turn out.
and many time the incumbent is running unopposed or their competition is a total unknown or not qualified experience wise.
Then come the general you have to vote for him because of the letter after his name no matter how sucky he has been.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.