Do you think that ALL incumbents will have the worse time getting re elected?

Question

Never mind dems or repubs, I think that ANY incumbent is going to have the worse time getting re elected. What do you think?

yeah, I know that historically incumbents are re elected. But I don't think that will be the case in our coming elections, especially if the primaries were any indication of what's to come...

Answer 1

It depends on if the voters are actually paying attention. Many people vote for the familiar name without knowing too much about their voting history, political views, etc. Sad but true.

In my state for example, Rick Santorum is up for re-election. I have never seen so many bumper stickers and political signs for the new challenger. Maybe one good thing about these past 6 years is that more people are starting to pay attention.

Answer 2

I guess that I'll stake out a middle ground here. Lieberman's primary defeat has seemed to signal that incumbents will have a tough time this year, as dissatisfaction is running so high. In my opinion, more incumbents than usual will be defeated in 2006, but I don't expect wholesale changes. Maybe, it's the case of the 'devil you know" being preferable to the unknown.

It should prove to be a very interesting election, however.

Answer 3

a million. that may no longer historic previous, this is subjective. How does historic previous fee air of secrecy, whether you capitalize the interest. 2. Clinton not at all won a majority of the traditional vote in the two election. Obama can no longer discover the money for that. 3. And Clinton dropped his well-being care reform; are you asserting that Obama will additionally? 4. so which you're saying that the economic gadget replaced into undesirable whilst Carter replaced into defeated in 1980? That the economic gadget replaced into solid in 1984, whilst Reagan replaced into re-elected? This is going against the generic Democrat view of those years. BTW. if your view of historic previous runs to sort, the Republicans will income administration of Congress by utilising 2014. that's what befell for the duration of the Clinton presidency. Sleep nicely on that theory.

Answer 4

I think Conn made it very very difficult for moderate democrats to cater to a moderate base. Connn has now set a precedent that democrats are slaves to the lunatic fringe base and that any moderation will result in exile. I believe the dems are going to have a harder time than republicans. Besides there will be more terror plots (hopefully just plots & not attacks) busted and that will do nothing but remind people that the terrorist declared jihad on us and that we must keep on the offensive and ensure the safety of our country. Which means keeping the conservatives in power!

Answer 5

actually history shows that incumbents are re-elected more often than not. there are always some that are de-throned. but for the most part statistics favor the incumbent to win over the newcomer.

Answer 6

No. Just the moderate ones.

Both parties like extreme candidates so the moderates are likely to loose in primaries.

Any moderate incumbent who can get past their primary will probably get reelected.

Answer 7

I'd love to believe it! Every now and then we get a throw the bums out attitude no matter the party involved. Unfortunately, thanks to the McCain-Feingold "Incumbent Protection Act", it seems to get harder to throw them out. It's a surprise to see Lieberman and McKinney go down. In Lieberman's case, I think his state party went radical and abandoned him. In McKinney's case...well, she's just plain nuts. Maybe this time, Georgia Dems will reject her for good.

Answer 8

No. Most incumbents will be reelected easily. Very few will even be in close races. That goes for both major parties.

Answer 9

yes this congress has the worst rating (29 %) of any congress in history. people are ready for a change, and that is why the democrats will win mid-term elections.

Answer 10

I sure hope so,
im voting 3rd party all the way from now on.