It's the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 2010....

[Keukasmallies]

will you vote against all incumbents office holders?

 

For my part, I intend to vote against EVERY incumbent, even those local office holders that just might be kind of OK, because I want to take every opportunity to "tell" incumbents that business as usual isn't good enough by half--not local, state or national!

[Gene Frenkle]

will you vote against all incumbents office holders?

 

For my part, I intend to vote against EVERY incumbent, even those local office holders that just might be kind of OK, because I want to take every opportunity to "tell" incumbents that business as usual isn't good enough by half--not local, state or national!

That might make you feel better for 5 minutes, but then you're just left with a bunch of new idiots, some of whom might actually be worse.

[John Adams]

That might make you feel better for 5 minutes, but then you're just left with a bunch of new idiots, some of whom might actually be worse.

 

That might be true but I plan on firing the people who suck. If their replacements suck, I'll fire them too.

[DC Tom]

will you vote against all incumbents office holders?

 

For my part, I intend to vote against EVERY incumbent, even those local office holders that just might be kind of OK, because I want to take every opportunity to "tell" incumbents that business as usual isn't good enough by half--not local, state or national!

 

I'm voting for conner, Hedd, and Da Big Man as write-ins.

 

Because if you're going to elect idiots, you may as well elect the funny ones.

[Gene Frenkle]

That might be true but I plan on firing the people who suck. If their replacements suck, I'll fire them too.

That was pretty much my point. Going down the ballot and checking every name that isn't incumbent might feel good, but may not be the best plan in the end. Your method seems more effective.

 

The baggers are angry!

[KD in CA]

Going down the ballot and checking every name that isn't incumbent might feel good, but may not be the best plan in the end.

 

Actually, it probably would. If we voted out every incumbent in every election, it would essentially create a one term limit. Politicians whose primary motivation is the next election are not usually acting in the best interests of their constituents.

[DrFishfinder]

That might make you feel better for 5 minutes, but then you're just left with a bunch of new idiots, some of whom might actually be worse.

Meet the new boss,

same as the old boss.

[John Adams]

That was pretty much my point. Going down the ballot and checking every name that isn't incumbent might feel good, but may not be the best plan in the end. Your method seems more effective.

 

The baggers are angry!

 

No, my point is that unless the antichrist is running as the challenger, no incumbent at the federal or state level will get my vote in Novermber. (Of course, I haven't voted for an incumbent in so long that my decision on this is not going tomake a difference.)

[Chef Jim]

That was pretty much my point. Going down the ballot and checking every name that isn't incumbent might feel good, but may not be the best plan in the end. Your method seems more effective.

 

The baggers are angry!

 

This crap won't be solved in one election.

[Joe Miner]

No, my point is that unless the antichrist is running as the challenger, no incumbent at the federal or state level will get my vote in Novermber. (Of course, I haven't voted for an incumbent in so long that my decision on this is not going tomake a difference.)

 

Not that I disagree with you.

 

 

But in reality, can you really fix the turds in the punchbowl with a strainer?

[IDBillzFan]

(Of course, I haven't voted for an incumbent in so long that my decision on this is not going tomake a difference.)

I think a large portion of our country has caught up to your thinking (myself included), and I have confidence that this November will be the first real evidence of this. And it's not as simple as getting rid of incumbents, but also keeping an eye on the primaries leading up to the November elections. On the liberal side, Barbara Boxer is getting her clock cleaned by Carly Fiorina, but conservatives know Carly would not be a whole lot better than Boxer, and that Chuck DeVore would be a better conservative choice. (That said, this IS California, so the best chance to beat Boxer is Carly. At this point, though, DeVore still gets my vote.)

 

In other words, while it's easy and lazy to claim "the baggers are angry," the reality is that the people who are angry (and yes, most of them are Republicans or conservatives) are not just standing by ready to get rid of an incumbent; they're paying closer attention to the options for replacement, and that truth gives me hope.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

will you vote against all incumbents office holders?

 

For my part, I intend to vote against EVERY incumbent, even those local office holders that just might be kind of OK, because I want to take every opportunity to "tell" incumbents that business as usual isn't good enough by half--not local, state or national!

YES, I do it whenever I am unhappy with the elected delegate.

[Magox]

I think a large portion of our country has caught up to your thinking (myself included), and I have confidence that this November will be the first real evidence of this. And it's not as simple as getting rid of incumbents, but also keeping an eye on the primaries leading up to the November elections. On the liberal side, Barbara Boxer is getting her clock cleaned by Carly Fiorina, but conservatives know Carly would not be a whole lot better than Boxer, and that Chuck DeVore would be a better conservative choice. (That said, this IS California, so the best chance to beat Boxer is Carly. At this point, though, DeVore still gets my vote.)

 

In other words, while it's easy and lazy to claim "the baggers are angry," the reality is that the people who are angry (and yes, most of them are Republicans or conservatives) are not just standing by ready to get rid of an incumbent; they're paying closer attention to the options for replacement, and that truth gives me hope.

What about Tom Campbell? He's beating both Carly and Chuck in the primaries

[Keukasmallies]

Here's my formula going forward: Fire 'em all by voting them out; fire the next batch, too. Maybe after two or three times through the cycle, we'll get some who listen when the majority speaks. No? Start all over again.

 

What is the worst outcome if we woke up in mid-November w/ no experienced elected officials? Chaos in government? (See NYS w/o a budget, w/o a plan out of budget deficit paralysis.) Could rookies do worse than those w/ so-called experience?

 

What possible campaign promise would entice you to vote for an incumbent?

 

You may not be able to fix the turds in the punchbowl with a strainer, but you can keep pouring the punch through the strainer until you're satisfied with the punch.

[EC-Bills]

I think a large portion of our country has caught up to your thinking (myself included), and I have confidence that this November will be the first real evidence of this. And it's not as simple as getting rid of incumbents, but also keeping an eye on the primaries leading up to the November elections. On the liberal side, Barbara Boxer is getting her clock cleaned by Carly Fiorina, but conservatives know Carly would not be a whole lot better than Boxer, and that Chuck DeVore would be a better conservative choice. (That said, this IS California, so the best chance to beat Boxer is Carly. At this point, though, DeVore still gets my vote.)

 

In other words, while it's easy and lazy to claim "the baggers are angry," the reality is that the people who are angry (and yes, most of them are Republicans or conservatives) are not just standing by ready to get rid of an incumbent; they're paying closer attention to the options for replacement, and that truth gives me hope.

 

It'll be interesting to see how the CA primary turns out. It sounds like you have some decent choices. We don't have that too much here in Illinois. Some of the crap these idiots stand for makes me nauseous. I constantly have to tell myself it's about the economy to get past some of this stuff.

[John Adams]

Over 95% of Congress incumbents get reelected. I have no confidence.

[IDBillzFan]

What about Tom Campbell? He's beating both Carly and Chuck in the primaries

I honestly didn't think that was the case until you mentioned it, and after some digging, you're right...he's up on Carly a bit. This surprises me because I don't see him out there as much as her (or even DeVore), and he took a public beating when he decided to drop from the Governor's race and get into the Senate race. He's within the margin of error vs Carly, I see, and interestingly all three candidates pose a similar problem for Boxer.

[Keukasmallies]

Is there even a scintilla of, a whiff of, a long long shot in the making of a possibility that Fancy Nancy might go down to ignominious defeat....?

[Chef Jim]

I honestly didn't think that was the case until you mentioned it, and after some digging, you're right...he's up on Carly a bit. This surprises me because I don't see him out there as much as her (or even DeVore), and he took a public beating when he decided to drop from the Governor's race and get into the Senate race. He's within the margin of error vs Carly, I see, and interestingly all three candidates pose a similar problem for Boxer.

 

I really think Boxer's toast regardless. Of the three I like Campell the best. I've always liked him.

[KD in CA]

Is there even a scintilla of, a whiff of, a long long shot in the making of a possibility that Fancy Nancy might go down to ignominious defeat....?

 

What, and San Fran vote in someone even nuttier? I guess anything is possible there.