The midterms: More exaggerations?

Stu Rothenberg goes anti-establishment: “The narrative that this is an anti-incumbent political year is already well-established, and only a fool would fight it. So here goes. While there is some truth to the storyline, the narrative being pounded into your head daily on television and in print is clearly misleading. … Incumbents have lost, and so have some “establishment” candidates. But the results have many explanations, most of which have nothing to do with incumbency. Alvin Greene’s victory in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary ought to be proof of that. (Surprisingly, I haven’t yet heard anyone say he won because he was the ultimate ‘outsider.’)”

ALASKA: “Inspired by an endorsement by Sarah Palin, the group Tea Party Express examined the politics of Senate hopeful Joe Miller and decided it, too, would back Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s challenger in the Republican primary,” Roll Call writes.

CONNECTICUT: In a recent interview with a Connecticut paper, per the New York Times, Richard Blumenthal “said he joined the Marine Corps Reserve in April 1970 knowing that reservists could be activated for service in Vietnam. ‘I did not want to avoid service,’ he said. ‘I did realize reservists could be called up, and that it was something that I wanted to do.’”

“But military experts said there was no expectation that reserve units would be activated at the time Mr. Blumenthal enlisted, particularly given how drastically public opinion had turned against the war.”


ILLINOIS: The New York Times writes about another resume exaggeration by Mark Kirk (R). “Representative Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, a Republican candidate for the United States Senate, has often reminisced about his time as a teacher… A review of public comments that Mr. Kirk has made over the last decade shows that while he may refer to himself as a former teacher, he does not talk about the brevity of his experience: a year in London at a private school and part-time in a nursery school as part of a work-study program while he was a student at Cornell University.”

MASSACHUSETTS: “Governor Deval Patrick is battling a recession and a national backlash against incumbents, but it was his Republican rival, Charles D. Baker, who found himself on the defensive more often yesterday during the first major debate of the gubernatorial campaign,” The Boston Globe reports. “The wide-open format in the initial face-off, and the presence of independent candidate Timothy P. Cahill, helped Patrick deflect criticism on issues where he is most politically vulnerable: taxes, health care costs, immigration, and state government spending.”

NEW JERSEY: Chris Christie’s election hasn’t changed Garden Staters’ negative feelings about their state. In fact, they’ve gotten worse. Political Wire writes, “A new Quinnipiac poll finds 44% of New Jersey voters describe Gov. Christopher Christie (R) as a ‘leader’ while 43% call him a ‘bully.’ Voters also say by a 52% to 38% margin that he is ‘confrontational,’ rather than ‘honest and refreshing.’ … A total of 75% of New Jersey voters are ‘somewhat dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with life in the Garden State, the worst satisfaction rating ever in New Jersey.”

SOUTH CAROLINA: “The South Carolina State Election Commission will not investigate Democrat Alvin Greene’s controversial victory in last week’s Senate primary,” The Hill reports. The state election commission sees no reason to initiate an investigation into our voting system,” Chris Whitmire, a spokesman for the commission, said, “We have full confidence in the reliability and accuracy of the state’s voting system and we have nothing to indicate there was any voting-system failure on June 8. The system has performed accurately and consistently.”

Jenny Sanford and Mitt Romney will campaign for Nikki Haley tomorrow.

Discuss this post

Ofcourse the corrupt election officials in corrupt south carolina don't want to investigate themselves because they know they cheated. It's obvious that south carolina is for rightwing political cheaters and they will protect their corrupt conservative Diebold machines because they don't want anyone knowing how much election fraud they cause.

Well New Jersey you made your bed now lie in it. Maybe now the voters of New Jersey will smarten up and stop voting for repugnant ones like Criminal Christie who is bullying your state into bankruptcy.

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:24 AM EDT

We hear plenty about the anti-incumbent fever racing across the country. Yet, with few exceptions, incumbents have won their primaries. Rachel Maddow gave the statistics on this after Superduper Tuesday. It seems to me that the anti-incumbent fever is on the right; the Tea Party challenging incumbent or GOP supported republicans.

After superduper Tuesday, the Iowa papers were filled with how republican voters outpaced democrats--it's a sign. Well, the democrats had no challengers in districts whereas republicans had 2, 3 and 4 for each slot ranging from moderates to Tea Party and mostly far right candidates. Of course, GOP voters were more numerous, they wanted their "choice" to win. We would have seen similar democratic numbers had there been challengers in the races. Yes, democrats aren't as fired up right now; their post-primary meeting had delegate attendance problems but I wouldn't write them off yet.

    Reply#2 - Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:29 AM EDT

    National Public Radio, along with Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and the Republican polling firm Public Opinion Strategies, teamed up to produce a new poll on the upcoming midterm elections.

    NPR concluded that there are about 70 House seats in play in November...seats with a good possibility of changing hands.

    Of those 70 seats, 60 are currently held by Democrats; only 10 by Republicans.

    Republicans need to flip 40 seats to regain control of the House...

    The data retrieved in NPR's poll leads them to state that "The results are a wake-up call for Democrats whose losses in the House could well exceed 30 seats".

    Remember...this is coming from NPR, not some ultra right-wing Republican outfit.

    No more "whistling past the graveyard"...NPR concludes that Democrats "face a daunting environment in 2010."

    Not a pretty picture for Madame Speaker...is it?

      #2.1 - Thu Jun 17, 2010 10:54 AM EDT
      Reply

      CONNECTICUT: In a recent interview with a Connecticut paper, per the New York Times, Richard Blumenthal "said he joined the Marine Corps Reserve in April 1970 knowing that reservists could be activated for service in Vietnam. 'I did not want to avoid service,' he said. 'I did realize reservists could be called up, and that it was something that I wanted to do.'"

      "But military experts said there was no expectation that reserve units would be activated at the time Mr. Blumenthal enlisted, particularly given how drastically public opinion had turned against the war."

      You're kidding, right?

      You're going to use your press corp telepathy 40 years after the fact to know what this guy was thinking and know whether his volunteering for the marine reserves in 1970 meant he wanted to avoid going to Vietnam rather than wanting to go to Vietnam? And then you're going to extrapolate from your press corp telepathy that he is currently lying about it based on that?

      The Vietnam war ended in 1975... 5 years after he volunteered. U.S. military involvement wasn't prohibited until 1973. 1970 was not 'near the end of the war.'

      Are you guys on crack? Seriously.

        Reply#3 - Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:12 AM EDT

        Hey, Michael-

        Maybe they were tipped off by the fact that, according to the New York Times (May 17, 2010), Blumenthal "obtained at least five military deferments from 1965 to 1970 and took repeated steps that enabled him to avoid going to war, according to records."

        Actually, 1970 was in fact, very near to the end of the war as far as U.S. ground troops were concerned.

        I served in Vietnam in '71 and '72 with the U.S. Army in two different assault helicopter units supporting South Vietnamese Army units fighting on the ground. By then, there were few, if any Army ground personnel (other than advisors), and I never saw any Marines the whole time I was there. Virtually all of them had returned to the U.S. long before I got there in 1971.

        I always find that anecdotal personal observations, where applicable, add something to any discussion.

        Seriously.

          Reply#4 - Thu Jun 17, 2010 11:33 AM EDT
          You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
          As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.