Is Rothenberg Right?

November 30, 2007 12:09 AM

The Rothenberg Political Report says:

Democratic voters are angry with Congress now for not taking Bush on strongly enough over the war in Iraq. That explains why Congress' job ratings are so low. But that anger is likely to dissipate, and it is difficult to imagine Democrats (or even independents) voting against Democratic House incumbents merely to make a point.

Could Stuart Rothenberg be right? Or, is he unaware of VOID's existence and growth and the recent development that America now has more registered Independent voters than either Democratic or Republican?

Rothenberg provides no rationale for his conjecture that Independents won't vote against Democratic House incumbents. And this last month's off year election results continued the Democratic trend in local races around the country, though on very low turnout.

One rationale however could be that a majority of Americans don't even know who their House Representative is, and therefore, will vote the incumbent as opposed to any other unknown. That may prove to be the case. There just isn't enough research yet done on this new independent voter group to say one way, or another.

Another rationale goes like this: Most independent voters really lean Republican or Democratic, but, register as independents out of protest against their favored party's performance. But will vote for their favored party's incumbents anyway, instead of the opposition party's candidate. For the general election, this rationale will surely be in play. But, to what extent remains to be seen.

One relationship we know Rothenberg is unaware of is between VOID's rationale and independent-minded voters. We know this because this relationship is not yet formed across the country. Of course, VOID is about to change that. The marriage of independent-minded voters with the VOID concept of removing disappointing incumbents, is more beneficial in the long run than voting for a less than desirable challenger. Doesn't sound right, does it? Not until the following simple common sense strategy is made.

If Democrats and Republicans see their reelection rate drop from the 90% range to the 60 or 70% range, they will demand to know what is happening. Their pollsters will tell them that a growing number of voters are not voting for broken promises and unmet goals. They are voting for results and solutions. Upon hearing this from their pollsters, many more Congress people wanting to be reelected will change the way they vote in Congress; choosing solutions over gridlock and partisan power plays.

If this logic appeals to independent-minded voters, and we believe it will, then the motivation grows to vote against disappointing incumbents, even if it means voting for the less desirable party or candidate. When millions of voters do this, Democrat and Republican Congress persons will see their party's re-election rate drop by 20 or 30%. In self defense, they will choose to put responsible governance up as their first priority to prevent becoming the next incumbent to lose office.

Rothenberg hasn't heard of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, yet. But, we are going to insure that he and the mainstream media will.


0 Votes

Comments

Enter Comment or Scroll Down To Read 1 Comments












1 Comment


Stephanie Crist said at :
3:04 PM, 01 03 2008 | Permalink

I loved this statement made by Rothenberg: "Few, if any, lost merely because they were incumbent officeholders."

To me that shows that he just doesn't get it. Anti-incumbent voting isn't about the fact that the "representative" has been elected in the past and has, until now, continued to be re-elected. Anti-incumbent voting is about ousting politicians who do not serve their constituents or their country/state while in office. Anti-incumbent voting is, however, against politics-as-usual, which Rothenberg seems to advocate in this article. Perhaps through ridicule he expects to be able to maintain status-quo. Politicians have been doing that for years.