does anyone here think its a shame

[AlanCranston]

that in wave elections, all the sane incumbents in either party usually get thrown to the curb while the wackos on both extremes stay in office. In 2006, you had a few moderate/mainstream republicans who represented districts that Kerry won, who were thrown to the curb after voters had to take their anger out on somebody. Most of the right wing demagogues (except for maybe Pombo or Hayworth) were in safe districts, so their reactionary constituents re-elected them.

Its the same thing in 2010, some of the more moderate democrats representing districts won by John McCain were booted out because they could only protest Obama by voting out the incumbent. I heard there were many people in Central Texas who usually voted republican in other races but voted for Chet Edwards in congressional races, but decided to vote against him even if they liked him, just to vote in protest against Obama. Meanwhile the real democrats that people were sick of (like Pete Stark) coasted to re-election because he had the luxury of being in a 70% Obama district.

The wave results of the last three elections honestly produced nothing except for polarizing the congress and making it harder for them to cooperate.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I suspect that angry people elect angry politicians.

And that goes for both ends of the spectrum...

Which demolishes the saner voices and produces the polarizing behavior we see today.

And hell yes, it's a shame.

[villager]

2. Would the real Alan Cranston have ever used a misleading phrase like "wackos on both extremes?"

Especially when it has no bearing on reality?

Unless there are a slew of revolutionary Marxists secretly holding Congressional offices and governorships that only you and a few others know about?

:shrug: