As today's primaries unfold, watch for more of the conventional wisdom that it's an anti-incumbent year, an anti-Democratic year, an anti-Obama's-health-care year, or whatever political catch-phrase serves as a synonym for anti-establishment.
We've argued against that kind of oversimplification before, and it's worth remembering today, especially because two vulnerable incumbents -- Harry Reid of Nevada and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas -- could lose their party's nominations today. But remember -- individual races in isolation don't tell you much about what will happen in November. "Even in these major swings, the incumbency is still huge," says Jennifer Lawless, a professor of political science at American University. "At the end of the day the overwhelming majority of incumbents are still going to get elected."
Lawless says what's really different about 2010 is how much uncertainty there is. In 2006, political scientists knew Democrats were likely to make major gains, but they could more easily pinpoint the races where things might change, and how they would change. There are a significant number of non-establishment candidates getting attention this year, and that changes things, as when Rand Paul won the Republican primary in Kentucky but then stumbled once propelled onto the national stage. "When you inject more uncertainty and more fresh faces, both parties have to stay on their toes. We haven't seen this many races," Lawless says.
-- Monica Potts
