Thread: Political waves: Primary tides sweep out incumbents

Political waves: Primary tides sweep out incumbents

Voters have a long history of being in favor of throwing the bums out. Just not their bums.

Tuesday's primary elections suggest that this year might be different. Voters in both parties turned against their own by rejecting incumbents and anyone labeled an "establishment" candidate. That could help bring new blood to Washington (good) but also be a recipe for even greater partisan gridlock (not so good).

The anti-establishment tide was evident in Pennsylvania, where Democratic voters ignored endorsements by President Obama and Gov. Ed Rendell and dumped five-term Sen. Arlen Specter, R-turned-D, in favor of Joe Sestak, a former Navy admiral and relative newcomer to politics.

Republican voters in Kentucky, meanwhile, soundly rejected Trey Grayson— a Senate candidate handpicked by Mitch McConnell, the party's leader in the Senate and a potent force in state politics — in favor of Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist and political neophyte who is a favorite of the "Tea Party" movement.

These snubs came on the heels of losses by two other veteran incumbents, Rep. Alan Mollohan, D-W.Va., and Sen. Bob Bennett,R-Utah. Another sitting senator, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, was forced into a Democratic runoff against liberal Lt. Gov. Bill Halter.

Whether the trend will continue through November is anyone's guess. Personal factors were also at play in some races, and true anti-incumbent elections are rare. In the past five congressional elections, an average of 96% of House incumbents seeking re-election, and 85% of Senate incumbents, have won.

Moreover, in most cases when manyincumbents are defeated, the losses are concentrated in one party or the other. In 1994, for instance, 34 House incumbents lost. All were Democrats. In 2006, 22 House incumbents lost. All were Republicans.

But something is clearly at work this year besides the strong tailwinds expected to benefit Republicans in November.

It is easy to see why voters might be frustrated with the status quo, given the state of the economy. Voters tend to get more ornery during tough economic times. And who can blame them? They are hurting and fearful for the future. A bloated and inefficient government in Washington seems incapable of addressing their issues and incapable of being serious about fiscal responsibility, regardless of which party is in power.

But while it's healthy for entrenched incumbents to feel the heat, it is equally hard to see what is to be gained by voting in ways that push candidates more toward political extremes. If the country is going to avoid a devastating debt crisis, it will be because Republicans and Democrats work together to make extraordinarily painful decisions about spending and taxes.

Lawmakers will never get to that point if voters in each party evict anyone with centrist tendencies. That would populate Congress with anti-establishment activists who do little but draw lines in the sand and point fingers at each other.

At this point, it's impossible to see where that would end. Optimistically, with much-needed detente between the parties, or the creation of a centrist third party. Pessimistically, with a long-term decline in the nation's economic vitality and influence.

It's something to ponder while throwing the bums out.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... titialskip

The devil you get

maybe worse than the devil you've got.