Analysis of Tuesday's Primary Results
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-05-19/analysis-tuesdays-primary-results
Key primaries in a handful of states Tuesday will reveal much about voter attitudes toward incumbents and the Obama agenda. Analysis of the results and what they could mean for Democratic and Republican prospects this fall.
Guests
Amy Walter
Editor in Chief of National Journal’s Hotline On Call.
Chris Cillizza
is managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of "The Fix" on washingtonpost.com.
Gerard Matthews
Associate Editor for the Arkansas Times.
Dave Davies
Senior reporter for public radio station WHYY in Philadelphia.
Amanda Van Benschoten
Political reporter for the Kentucky Enquirer
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Numbers count. As do traditional politics. Not widely reported:
1 Both Lincoln and Halter dominated Boozman in Arkansas, 145K and 139K vs 74K.
2 Both Democrats in the Kentucky senatorial primary out-gained Rand Paul.
3 Before Spector changed parties, Sestak was the party favorite to win the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Spector was less the incumbent in the primary than the not very credible Republican-turned-Democrat.
4 The incumbent's staff member won in PA-12.
I'm with Bob (above) on this... and was nettled to find a weird consensus in the media that the results of these primaries were about anti-incumbency. The numbers just don't tell that story.
It's bad enough that Fox has dimmed the brain function of so many Americans. That NPR, the New York Times and WaPo fall into the same net is really "bad news" in every sense of the term!
From my point of view, I estimate that the American electorate is simply outdone with the tone of discourse on Capitol Hill. However, I believe that the political "noise" being caused by the Tea Party'ers and other naysayers is driving voters to condemn any politician currently in office. Please do not take my comments as a net approval of the Congress, I just believe that rhetoric coming out of these highly-contested elections is driving the dissatisfaction that voters are attempting to express at the polling place.
I am now listening to the podcast of this broadcast and I am very offended by Amy Walter. I realize that she was complimented by Chris Cilizza, who I do respect, but she is so broad-brush with her statements that her analysis is nothing but standard narrative that too many in the media cling to and is not new. I also believe that the press in repeating this narrative (and adapting it slightly when it fails them) is doing a great disservice to their profession and the American people.