Is 2010 really an anti-incumbent year?
In another swipe at the conventional wisdom, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg today dissects the view that 2010 is going to be a big anti-incumbent year in politics.
"While there is some truth to the storyline, the narrative being pounded into your head daily on television and in print is clearly misleading," Rothenberg writes in Roll Call.
While there is plenty of evidence voters distrust politicians and all that, "this mood has not resulted in voters engaging in a scorched-earth policy against incumbents or in most 'establishment' candidates falling in primaries. It simply hasn’t happened.
"Incumbents have lost, and so have some 'establishment' candidates. But the results have many explanations, most of which have nothing to do with incumbency.
Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post takes a similar view in a column he wrote earlier this week.
So maybe this is the new conventional wisdom?
Rothenberg, a widely respected pundit, clearly has been feeling contrary lately. Earlier this week he wrote that, despite new Democratic optimism, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada still is likely to lose in November.
