Seems to me that incumbency vs. those who want it trumps republican vs. democrat in the halls of power. Does that seem reasonable or am I being too suspicious?
2006-09-16 15:43:41 · 2 answers · asked by larry n 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well, that may be the case sometimes. I don't think it's always the case, however. Here in Michigan we just had our primary in which the incumbent, a moderate republican who was doing an excellent job in office, was beat out by an idiot of a ultra-conservative republican. Our moderate was told he was TOO liberal and not a good enough republican to continue his position. It wasn't that they incumbent was doing a good or a bad job, but that he wasn't republican and conservative enough, apparently. It was really crazy and now I feel we have no representation in Washington, as we are in a republican district and the democratic contender doesn't have a very good chance of winning.
The whole situation was made even worse by the intervention of the Club for Growth, a PAC which plugged in about a million dollars into the ultra conservative republican's campaign.
2006-09-16 15:52:34 · answer #1 · answered by poppet 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes it seems very much that way. Incumbents have a voting record and are scrutinized precisely for what they have done. Usually incumbency is an advantage because it attracts money, and because the longer you sit in the House/Senate, the more seniority you get, and with it committee chairs etc... i.e power.
But in some elections, voters have been fed up with incumbents and voted them out on an anti-Washington tide of feeling.
2006-09-17 11:03:54 · answer #2 · answered by MBK 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋