John Adams Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Incumbents roll My dead horse on this is almost dust at this point but people do not vote for challengers. They like things the way they are. Obama will roll in 2012 and the Democrats will likely not lose much ground (nor gain much) in Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostbitmic Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 As long as all levels of government remain inept, to put it nicely, I vote against all incumbants and with 3rd party candidates if available. Needless to say my candidates rarely win so I can always say ... not my fault, I didn't vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Incumbents almost always roll because of ignorance in the population (I dont mean stupidity....I mean not knowing what a given position does/is responsible for/etc). Its easier to just vote for whoever is already in charge. The only time the flips really happen is when something goes wrong.....which is why we have seen as much turnover in the last 5 years of election cycles. Because theres an inherent conclusion construct that thinks A) The people elected to position A are responsible for XYZ B) XYZ isn't satisfying so it must be the holder of position A who is at fault C) The opponent of position a's holder "can't do any worse, amirite!?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frostbitmic Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 When group A & B are as incompetant as can possibly be... cough ... dems and reps ... cough ... Its time for groups CD&E to get their chance to fail like their predecessors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 Incumbents almost always roll because of ignorance in the population (I dont mean stupidity....I mean not knowing what a given position does/is responsible for/etc). Its easier to just vote for whoever is already in charge. The only time the flips really happen is when something goes wrong.....which is why we have seen as much turnover in the last 5 years of election cycles. Because theres an inherent conclusion construct that thinks A) The people elected to position A are responsible for XYZ B) XYZ isn't satisfying so it must be the holder of position A who is at fault C) The opponent of position a's holder "can't do any worse, amirite!?" There hasn't been much turnover at a federal level. It's just not happening. People don't vote out their own garbage officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There hasn't been much turnover at a federal level. It's just not happening. People don't vote out their own garbage officials. Because they are bribed with others tax money in the form of pork projects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There hasn't been much turnover at a federal level. It's just not happening. People don't vote out their own garbage officials. I think if it's going to happen, given our current 2-party system, it would have to happen in the primaries--dems probably aren't going to vote for a repub, and vice versa. It could happen if the 2-party system made it easier for competing parties to qualify candidates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Incumbents roll My dead horse on this is almost dust at this point but people do not vote for challengers. They like things the way they are. Obama will roll in 2012 and the Democrats will likely not lose much ground (nor gain much) in Congress. Yes, this is tired. Why don't you do us a favor, and either move to San Francisco and convince them all to get rid of Pelosi, or, stay in Philadelphia and convince them to get rid of whoever their "doesn't matter who they are, they get 80% of the vote" person is. Oh, you can't? Why not? Is it because these areas have a high concentration of a particular constituency, who wants what they want, and whose representative is merely giving it to them? The Constitution is clear: these people are to represent their constituency, and that's what they do. Most of the incumbent vote you are decrying is coming from districts who will NEVER elect somebody from the other party, so honestly, what do you expect? These districts are all about corruption and bad peformance, on both sides, because short of a scandal or bad blood in their own party, they will never be held accountable by anyone. You might as well write them off. Relatively small places like Bucks County are where national elections get decided, because those are the only places where issues matter, and candidates matter. If you want to do something about incumbency stop posting this thread after every election, and instead, move out to Bucks and raise hell there. I am sure your new neighbors will love you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Because they are bribed with others tax money in the form of pork projects Or stimulus checks, like we got from GW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) You're an idiot. And you're both boring and pretentious...(Edit: and phony, let's not forget phony). You whine about something, I provide you a solution, but you are too phony to actually do something about it, aren't you? Edited November 9, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 And you're both boring and pretentious. Ironic idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Ironic idiot. Yawn. Can we expect another phony, devoid of all insight, tilting at windmills that are obvious to everyone but you, post after the primaries as well? Your lack of insight is nowhere near as annoying as your pretentious expectation that whatever you post will automagically be seen as insightful by us that = the fingernails on the chalkboard. Edit: in that way, you are exactly like Mike Schopp. That's the best way to put it. Perfect analogy. Edited November 9, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Edit: in that way, you are exactly like Mike Schopp. That's the best way to put it. Perfect analogy. The coup de grace. period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 Good monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Good monkey. Hows "The Bulldog" doing? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 There hasn't been much turnover at a federal level. It's just not happening. People don't vote out their own garbage officials. Asleep 2 years ago were you? Biggest House Turnover in 70 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 9, 2011 Author Share Posted November 9, 2011 (edited) Asleep 2 years ago were you? Biggest House Turnover in 70 years 87% House incumbents won in 2010. 84% Senate. Pretty much on average historically. Used, abused without clues, I refused to blow a fuse. They even had it on the news. You my friend believed the hype. Edited November 9, 2011 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 87% House incumbents won in 2010. 84% Senate. Pretty much on average historically. Used, abused without clues, I refused to blow a fuse. They even had it on the news. You my friend believed the hype. It's all relative. The last time the percentage of incumbents being reelected was that low was in 1970. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 10, 2011 Author Share Posted November 10, 2011 It's all relative. The last time the percentage of incumbents being reelected was that low was in 1970. In 1970, the House reelection rate was the same as 2010. The Senate reelection rate has been lower than 2010 many times, including 2008 and 2006. 2010 was not a watershed year. Maybe in 2012, we'll get 83% reelection. A real bloodbath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts