Oxrock Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 (edited) 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. It's all a matter of scale. All of those other years were the standard. Not the 87%, but over 98%. So, a reduction by a factor of 10 is progress. That was only two years ago. Perhaps 2012 will repeat 1970 and 2010 or surpass both. But the truth is the trend was broken. Will there be a new trend? We will find out in 1 year. Edited November 10, 2011 by Oxrock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 It's all a matter of scale. All of those other years were the standard. Not the 87%, but over 98%. So, a reduction by a factor of 10 is progress. That was only two years ago. Perhaps 2012 will repeat 1970 and 2010 or surpass both. But the truth is the trend was broken. Will there be a new trend? We will find out in 1 year. We can only hope. The historic problem is that people hate Congressmen/Senators from other districts, but love the one that gets them pork money. That's why House members typically have a 92%ish chance to be reelected. It's almost a perverse reverse NIMBY situation; people hate the Congressmen in other people's back yards, but don't want to lose their own. Though I will say that I have zero intention of voting for that liberal moron who currently represents my Congressional district. She only managed to win a special election because another Democrat bought the local TEA Party endorsement (oh and also coincidentally also gave the guy who sold that endorsement a $50,000 job designing his campaign website), stealing 10% of the votes from the GOP nominee. She's going to get stomped in a legitimate election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry Posted November 10, 2011 Share Posted November 10, 2011 Because they are bribed with others tax money in the form of pork projects Well this is exactly right, and completely rational. If a district has a representative that is able to secure funding for the local library or post office or whatever, why in the world would they vote him out? Why would they work against their self-interest? As with everything in this (and probably every) country, self interest rules the day. It's always "valuable public work" when it stays home and "pork" when it goes to another district. It's exactly like the majority of midwest red states that scream about socialism and out of control spending but then have no trouble collecting checks off of the various farm and ag bills that get passed, year in and year out, affecting consumer prices in a negative way while paying the farmers that are "vital to the nation's health" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts