Anti-Incumbent Wave

Commentators trying to make sense of recent elections are attributing results to the nation being mired in an anti-incumbent mood.

In short, the country is mad as hell and bent on shaking up the establishment.

From Liz Sodoti, AP national political writer:

With the electorate's intense anger reverberating across the country, this is all but certain: It's an anti-Washington, anti-establishment year. And candidates with ties to either better beware.

Any doubt about just how toxic the political environment is for congressional incumbents and candidates hand-picked by national Republican and Democratic leaders disappeared late Tuesday, when voters fired Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, forced Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln into a run-off in Arkansas and chose tea party darling Rand Paul to be the GOP nominee in Kentucky's Senate race.

"People just aren't very happy," Ira Robbins, 61, said in Allentown, Pa.

With anyone linked to power, it seems.

Taken together, the outcomes of primaries in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Kentucky - following voter rejections of GOP Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah and Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan in West Virginia - provided further evidence that voters are in the mood to choose outsiders over insiders.

An exception was the race to fill a vacant House seat in a conservative-leaning Pennsylvania congressional district; voters elected the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha's one-time aide, Mark Critz, over Republican businessman Tim Burns. Oregon also held its primary; there were no surprises.

Perhaps indicating that voters were expressing their frustrations at the ballot box, turnout appeared to be up in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Kentucky from the most recent previous statewide primary elections.

The tone for the party-nominating season was set on the busiest primary night of the year and as more contests loomed large, particularly among Republicans. But it's difficult to say whether this early season trend will hold true during the general election; much could change between now and November, especially given the uncertainty of economic recovery after the worst recession in generations and an unemployment rate hovering at 10 percent.

Tuesday's primaries came a little less than five months before the midterm elections. President Barack Obama backed incumbents in his party's races, but despite the stakes for his legislative agenda the White House insisted he was not following the results very closely. He had worked to elect both Specter and Lincoln, and the outcomes stoked questions about the scope of his clout. In the past six months, Obama has watched candidates for whom he campaigned in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts lose.

The mantra is that the country is angry. That translates into voters lashing out at incumbents.

Clearly, the White House and its media mouthpieces have a stake in depicting voters as mad. The American people are being driven by emotion rather than making rational choices.

The late Peter Jennings might declare the nation to be in the midst of a hissy fit.

I think that's an inaccurate read.

Yes, voters are angry.

They want change.

The problem for Democrats is that Obama was sold to Americans as the embodiment of change. He was hope and change personified and Americans bought into that.

Now, Americans have buyer's remorse.

I guess you could say there's an anti-incumbent wave sweeping the country, to the extent that Obama is the incumbent-in-chief.

I guess you could say there's an anti-establishment groundswell, to the extent that Obama represents the establishment and business as usual in Washington.

In the end, I think American voters feel betrayed. We want our elected officials to listen to our concerns and act on them.

That's the key. Stop ignoring us.

We are holding officials accountable. That's bad news for the old guard, the establishment. By old guard, I mean anyone elected in 2008 or before.

I wonder if Obama grasps the reality that recent elections have been a referendum on him, the grand incumbent.