All the news stories have been talking about the "anti-incumbent mood" of the electorate.
I never believed it for a second. Most of the incumbents, Republicans and Democrats, that have lost their seats this primary season have been beaten by challengers that are to their right; that is, more conservative.
Blanche Lincoln's win in the Arkansas Democratic Senate primary is an example of what I'm talking about.
All the "experts" were saying that Lincoln was toast, that she was going to loose to Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter. Well, Lincoln up and won.
Now, watch the news heads say that the "anti-incumbent mood" is calming, or skipped a state, or some other excuse. I maintain that the anti-incumbent mood was never there; it is an anti-left, anti-big government mood.
Halter had support of George Soros and manyliberal (they call themselves "progressive," but they're just liberal) groups.
Look at Lincoln's win in the Arkansas primary. She was the more conservative of the two. Maybe least liberal would be the better way of saying it.
Now, in races where there was no incumbent, either due to retirement or races in the opposition party, the more conservative has not always won. But the winner was relatively conservative; that is, conservative by standards of that state, and speaking against runaway spending.
Tea party candidates have done well. And the tea party is, by and large, anti-liberal and anti-big government.
So, some talking heads will continue to be surprised. Because they've decided it's incumbency. It's not. It's the liberalism.
And it's more important to get rid of the liberals than it is to get rid of the incumbents.