It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where Is The Anti-Incumbent Movement That The MSM Claim Exists?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Hello ATS,

I was watching MSNBC last night and attempted to figure out where this "anti-incumbent" sentiment they've been talking about for months is exactly.

As far as I can tell, there are only about 8 out of possible 300+ races, where the incumbent has lost their seat to the challenger.

Yet the MSM and political pundits keep talking about how incumbents are in "danger" of being removed by the anti incumbent movement "sweeping the nation".

Have you all noticed this? Why does the MSM attempt to paint America into some non existant movement? Also everytime they've reported on one of these races, the headline always reads something like " Incumbent wins primary amid anti-incumbent mood."

IMO when you tell people there is a giant movement for change, people stop attempting to be a part of it as they think " Well there are plenty of people already working on it, so why should I? "

This is the conspiracy here, to make people think there is something existant when it clearly is not.

To clarify my findings, please see the following website for the actual election results. A quick glance at the winner's will show you what I mean.

Thoughts ATS?

~Keeper


[edit on 8/25/2010 by tothetenthpower]

[edit on 8/25/2010 by tothetenthpower]




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Look at last weeks Florida Primary!

Relative Newcomer and Tea Party candidate Rick Scott beat out the favorite, our Atty Gen Bill McCollum, even though McCollum is a household name, was endorsed by every major Republican including Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist, and he lost to a guy that only promises to "stay an outsider."

Charlie Crist went from superman Governor to losing his own party's nomination for the Senate Race, so he switched to Independent, but Marco Rubio (Tea Party candidate) got over 70% of the primary votes from Republicans, and he is the favorite to win a 3 way race in November.

Did you forget about all the earlier Primaries where relative unknowns took down powerful nominations because of..........you guessed it.....TEA PARTY SUPPORT!!!

Don't trust the MSM for info on the Tea Parties. Don't even trust Fox. Go visit a rally, or meet some members. You will be shocked to find Libertarians, Democrats, Constitutionalists, and even Black People and Hispanics!!! The Tea Party is an "anti-incumbent" movement, and it has the full-backing of the common man in your community, regardless of what the press says!!



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Again, those are just a few of the primary races, there were over 300 seats up for grabs, yet only about 8 lost their seats to challengers.

That is NOT a "nation sweeping anti-incumbent movement" as far as I am concerned. I see no evidence of this in the actual election results..

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Does seem to beg the question: how, in an "anti-incumbent mood" do incumbents get re-elected?

Programming us to accept that the country can't be changed maybe?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Does seem to beg the question: how, in an "anti-incumbent mood" do incumbents get re-elected?

Programming us to accept that the country can't be changed maybe?


I think if you talk about something long enough and pretent it exists, then people will believe you.

If every American thinks there is a "movement" to throw out the incumbents and that the movement is strong, why would bother joining it?

You are already under the impression that somebody is doing this for you.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by eNumbra
Does seem to beg the question: how, in an "anti-incumbent mood" do incumbents get re-elected?

Programming us to accept that the country can't be changed maybe?


I think if you talk about something long enough and pretent it exists, then people will believe you.

If every American thinks there is a "movement" to throw out the incumbents and that the movement is strong, why would bother joining it?

You are already under the impression that somebody is doing this for you.

~Keeper


Very, very very true.

I suppose if no one asks the same question I just did it will work.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Because “they” (the News Programmers-editors) want you to carry on watching their mindless rubbish!!! If they make out e.g. half the 300 might loose their seats (as opposed to say 8) then you-someone like you, is more likely to watch their TV. And (as a result) your not e.g. talking to real people about politics, producing literature, going on ATS or doing anything else that could make the media-governments (over all) hold on power, any different to yesterday's.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by eNumbra
Does seem to beg the question: how, in an "anti-incumbent mood" do incumbents get re-elected?

Programming us to accept that the country can't be changed maybe?


In no way am I in favor of an armed revolt.

BUT.....

I think if this November's results do not reflect the "real" sentiment of the country, then we are looking at trouble!

If the polls and the news outlets report more of the same ol' same ol' and the people know in their hearts that they voted differently. AND, if the people are already organized into Tea Parties, Militias, Political Action Groups, etc., etc. AND, if a little spark happens here and there, then it could catch really quickly!

I hope the polls show at least enough of an anti-incumbent movement for the hardest of the hardcore to feel a sense of accomplishment, and build some hope for actually changing the country through the political system. If there isn't at least a glimmer of hope, then "some" will start looking to change the country in some other manner that is more direct.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:13 AM
link   
The Tea Party: The Movement That Never Was

There's two ways you can take the 'anti-incumbant' movement: 1) Anti-establishment, GOP incumbants losing their seat to another GOP member who's supported by the Tea Party or 2) anti-democrat, GOP candidate winning in November regardless of TPM support or not.

I understand your confusion OP, how can the country be feeling 'anti-incumbant' when the incumbants have won 90% of the primaries so far? The sentiment is still there, but the media focus has been on GOP primaries and NOT the democratic primaries. The only time you'll see the anti-incumbant sentiment is in November...if the democrats win, you'll see that the TPM has been all smoke and mirrors. If the GOP wins you'll see the established candidates moving forward without the fringe support, which is exactly what the TPM is, fringe.

You do have members, getreadyalready as an example, who will attempt to paint the picture of a 'big tent' movement of blacks, whites, hispanics, liberals, conservatives all supporting these ideals...when most media reporting has shown old, white, conservatives.

I'm not going to go to a rally, because I do support Obama, Reid and Pelosi.

I'm not going to go to a rally, because I do support the healthcare bill that was passed.

I'm not going to go to a rally, because I do support the democratic partys agenda.

The members have been stoking eachothers fires, believing themselves to truly be in the majority of America. This belief is dangerous to them and the country, because if they lose...they're going so far as to say they'll revolt. Violently.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


You know, I don't entirely disagree with you, and I only have experience in my local Tea Party, and even within it there are some "fringe" members.

Even if your motivation is to smear the Tea Party as a whole, you are still on to something, because the MSM will paint it exactly as you say. If there is a big Republican Surge in the fall, FOX will take the credit and martyr the Tea Parties while no real change happened. If the Democrats win, MSM will crucify the Tea Parties and claim their "fringe" element ruined the election for the Republicans, and every legitimate candidate will avoid the TPM like the plague!

In November, the TPM will be dead either from too much unwanted success from Republicans, or from too much unwanted success from the Democrats. Either way, the TPM loses.

The only "acceptable" outcome is a true housecleaning, where outsiders get into important positions, and they stick to their campaign promises and start to make a change.

I think most of us know this is a pipe dream, and the TPM is only the next victim of the Two Party runaway train!

As for supporting Obama, I voted for him, I still admire his aggressiveness in office, but I absolutely did not support the Bail Out or Healthcare Bill, just because of their sheer size when other options were already available, less cumbersome, and more efficient. Pelosi?
Democratic Party agenda? I like a lot of it too, and you would see that if you Did go to a rally? Why not? If you support what you say you support, then what is the harm in checking out a rally? You might meet some like minds, or you mind change someones mind.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Every eletion period the media and certain political groups will always hype some upsetting event to occur, and it rarely ever does.

This just gives certain political groups and media outlets the chance to attract attention to themselves.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It's "common wisdom" that in off-year elections the party in power loses seats to the opposition. Witness the sizable Democratic Congressional wins in 2006. This doesn't seem to be the case now though.

I don't know why most of the MSM, including the New York Times (which is supposed to be so liberal), want to hold onto this notion so badly.

It seems most of the media want to give the impression that President Obama and the Democratic agenda are so unpopular (presumably because they're liberal) that they are about to be swept away by an enraged American public.

Too bad for them.

The Democrats are still a force to be contended with, and yes, "average Americans" are among them. All of us aren't conservatives.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Again, those are just a few of the primary races, there were over 300 seats up for grabs, yet only about 8 lost their seats to challengers.

That is NOT a "nation sweeping anti-incumbent movement" as far as I am concerned. I see no evidence of this in the actual election results..

~Keeper


I think it's a misreading of people.

There's not an anti-incumbency movement. It seems there's a larger group of people revising their view of the voting system. Before - they seemed to take the idea that they were voting for someone to be in charge of them. Now, it seems people are looking more at the issue as a voting in a representative.

Take Ike Skelton - he's a democrat and is older than the hills. But he does his job and represents the people before his party, for the most part. Including telling people in congress to stick it up their ass (THAT is representation!)

I've no problem with voting him in again.

It doesn't matter if the guy has been there since the dawn of creation or the past five seconds - if he will vote party-line or for legislation that will adversely effect the state he represents - then he doesn't belong in the office.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



It doesn't matter if the guy has been there since the dawn of creation or the past five seconds - if he will vote party-line or for legislation that will adversely effect the state he represents - then he doesn't belong in the office.


Excellent clarification. I guess it is more of an anti-establishment or anti-party line movement. The point is to remove the entrenched politicians that are only motivated by party affiliations, political clout, and personal gain. We need people in there that are not afraid to serve 1 term and go. Their motivation should not just be re-election, but it should be representation.

Independents, Libertarians, and Constitutional Party candidates will have their best year ever. Republicans will try to ride the Tea Party wave, and some moderate Democrats that are not afraid to stand up for what they believe despite party politics will all benefit from the movement. Some Republicans will be driven out. It is certainly not a Republican movement, maybe skewed somewhat in that direction, but not entirely.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


The problem with your post is that it doesn't seem to reflect reality. If you can find me one third party candidate in a house race that stands a chance of winning I'll maybe accept that. However, to say that libertarians and the constitutional party will stand a chance is...just incorrect.

Voters realize that they need to pick the candidate that's mostly in-line with their worldview and has the greatest chance of success. This is what perpetuates the two-party system in our country, we've been conditioned to believe that a vote for a third party only strengthens the opposition (in this case the democrats). This also contributes to the exact reason that tea party candidates are running as republican as opposed to a more accurate moniker of constitution party or libertarian. Interestingly enough, the action of voting against someone instead of voting for a candidate also results in some candidates with 'life long' seats. Add to that the multi-million dollar backing of the national GOP there's littler or no-chance for a third party to rise.

I'm not going to doubt that there are members of the tea party who are anti-establishment, but when they failed to properly form a third party they inherently shot themselves in the foot and will instead vote for established republicans who will continue to support big business interests, war, corporate welfare and everything else we had under the GWB administration.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by links234
 


Tea Party is endorsing Paul McKain in Florida and he has a very good shot! He was a Libertarian, but he switched to Independent.

Also, Charlie Crist lost the Republican nomination and switched to Independent because the Tea Party backed Marco Rubio. If either one wins, it is because of the Tea Party influence. Either one more Independent gets in, or the TPM Republican gets in.

Also, Bill McCollum just lost his Gubernatorial Republican Primary in a surprise upset by newcomer Rick Scott. Guess who backed Rick Scott? The Tea Party!!

The Press is grossly underestimating the influence that this movement has. It is also mistakenly associating the small local Tea Parties with the Glenn Beck/Palin Tea Party. Those are two different animals.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by links234
 


Tea Party is endorsing Paul McKain in Florida and he has a very good shot! He was a Libertarian, but he switched to Independent.


You did find one runner in the house with Tea Party backing but I don't think he'll fare well, primarily because he's running in a democrat held district (since 1997) with a 'substantial' republican opponent in Steve Southerland.

Latest cash raised numbers indicate the following for that particular race:

Paul McKain (I): $46,477 (June 30)
Steve Southerland (R): $400,672 (Aug 4)
Allen Boyd (D): $1,781,656 (Aug 4)


Also, Charlie Crist lost the Republican nomination and switched to Independent because the Tea Party backed Marco Rubio. If either one wins, it is because of the Tea Party influence. Either one more Independent gets in, or the TPM Republican gets in.


That's a senate race. Also, Crist was a republican and he's currently the governor...in the event he pulls supporters from their voter pool he will provide a greater chance for the democrat to win between the two. Voters may recognize that and vote for Rubio though. In the event that Crist does win, he's still an 'established' politician...completely opposite of anti-establishment TPM.


Also, Bill McCollum just lost his Gubernatorial Republican Primary in a surprise upset by newcomer Rick Scott. Guess who backed Rick Scott? The Tea Party!!

The Press is grossly underestimating the influence that this movement has. It is also mistakenly associating the small local Tea Parties with the Glenn Beck/Palin Tea Party. Those are two different animals.


The point of my above post was that no third party will rise this year, the TPM is not their own seperate party. I've mentioned various other times the handful of reasons for TPM candidates to run under the GOP banner. Rick Scott, while being backed by the TPM is still running as a republican...not a constitutional or libertarian candidate. That race does have a libertarian candidate in John Wayne Smith though.

Once again, I don't think anyone's downplaying anything. The fact that the TPM, while claiming antiestablishmentarianism, is proving anything but by nominating and providing republican candidates. A fact that probably has its roots in the FreedomWorks funding on the national level.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
theres alot of misinformation in this thread already.

anti incumbent........

ted kennedys seat going to a newcommer brown etc.

other elections followed suit.

big hype? no dems have gotten kicked out of majorities before in the 90s

just like republicans did in 2006.

if your sitting there wanting proof well your just gonna have to wait and see like the rest of us in novemeber.

then noone can deny which way its gonna fall.

right now there really is too much bs to sift thru im leaning on a republican sweep but thats real iffy.

fact tho democrats are in trouble and they know it.

but as wishy washy the american voter is and to those who made their one time vote back in 2008 and sit mideterms out because they all went back to chasing chics and mtv etc.

the conservative base is fired up but will that equate at the polls who knows.

the liberal base is fired up to but they arent happy with mr obama either they might decide to make a statement and get his attention .



actually i wonder what the vegas odds are in nov.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I think why there is a disconnect between what the news says is anti incumbent movement and what is happening in reality is this. People say you need to get rid your incumbents, then when they go vote they say they need to get rid of their incumbents but, I am voting for mine because he is ok. So we gets lots of talk but no change. Sure here or there you might get a suprise or two just like always but, people like to complain and then vote for the same people over and over. The Dems should loose control of congress this time as that seems to be how thing have been happening over the last couple of decades. For some reason the voters always seem to change congress to whatever party the President is not in. That of course kills any chance of change. And to be honest despite the talk, when people get change all the do is complain anyway.

[edit on 29-8-2010 by MrSpad]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The media is attempting to make this ABOUT something.

Does that not make you go, hmmmmm?!

This is NOT an anti incumbent movement.

WHAT A JOKE.

This is a anti big government. Lower taxation. Transparency.

Yeah, if this was about anti incumbency, that would mean we would have to kick politicians like Ron Paul out.

Seems to me like some have fallen for the ruse.

Typical.

We all know that the Two Party snake attempts to install Progressive big government tyrants in.

Look at the situation in, what was it-New York-where the Republican endorsed the Democrat to stop the Independent from getting elected.

That had nothing to do with Dem Repub, that had to do with the progressive big government attempting to destroy the conservative-libertarian movement.

Quit allowing the MSM to define what this is about. That is how they operate.




new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join