Wednesday, September 15, 2010

The September Primaries: Down With The Establishment? Really?

The results are back and everybody's talking about what last night's primaries mean for the November elections.  Is the Tea Party spelling doom for the Republican party?  Are the grass roots candidates overthrowing the incumbent/establishment candidates? Before we get into that, let's provide a recap on some of the key races last night:


In Delaware:
R Glen Urquhart:  49%
R Michele Rollins: 48%

In Maryland:
R Roscoe Bartlett: 70% (incumbent/"establishment")
R Joseph Krysztoforski: 16% 

D Elijah Cummings: 91% (incumbent/"establishment")
D Charles Smith: 9%

D Steny Hoyer: 85% (incumbent/"establishment")
D Andrew Gall: 10%

In New York:
D Charlie Rangel: 53% (incumbent/"establishment")
D Adam Clayton Powel IV: 25%

D Carolyn Maloney: 81% (incumbent/"establishment")
D Reshma Saujani: 19%

R Peter King: 91% (incumbent/"establishment")
R Robert Previdi: 9%

In Rhode Island:
D Jim Langevin: 57% (incumbent/"establishment")
D Betsy Dennigan: 34%


In Delaware:
R Christine O'Donnell: 53% (Tea Party)
R Michael Castle: 47% ("establishment")

In Maryland:
D Barbara Mikulski: 82% (incumbent/"establishment")
D Christopher Garner: 8%

In New Hampshire:
R Kelly Ayotte: too close to call
R Ovide Lamontagne: too close to call  (Tea Party)

In New York:
D Kirsten Gillibrand: 76% (incumbent/"establishment")
D Gail Goode: 24%

So from where I'm sitting, unless my eyes deceive me, just about every single incumbent/"establishment" candidate won their respective primary last night against their own party's challenger except for Christine O'Donnell in Delaware who beat the "establishment" Republican Mike Castle to become the Republican Senate candidate who will face (and as many conservative pundits predict - will lose to) Democratic Senate candidate Chris Coons.  

So before we go any further, the main stream media (MSM) really needs to let go of this so-called "incumbent/establishment candidate overthrow" narrative that it likes to keep pushing on the public. It's just not true.  The incumbents in each party still have juice, as evidenced above.  Yet, every time a Tea Party candidate wins, like Rand Paul, the MSM skips over alllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll the other stories where incumbents have won and instead focuses on the one upset.  Now I'm willing to concede that an upset story is, indeed, newsworthy in and of itself (I mean who doesn't appreciate a good underdog story right?) - HOWEVER - that does not excuse the bullshit narrative that the MSM keeps pumping out there like its the gospel.  It's not the rule, it's the exception to the rule. Get it right, MSM, and report it as such.

The only narrative that actually has some merit is the observation that there is a clear division within the Republican party with respect to establishment candidates and Tea Party candidates. To the extent that the MSM is reporting upon this observation I'm willing to give them some credit.  Obviously the Tea Party is feeling itself right now and think they have a shot at the title come November.  We shall see.

Thoughts on the Primaries?
Are the Establishment/Incumbent Candidates in as much trouble as the media makes them out to be?
What does O'Donnell's Win mean for the Republicans come November?

blog comments powered by Disqus