The ubiquitous post-election “analysis”

First of all, let me start by thanking all the candidates who put themselves “out there” and ran for office this year, whether that office was governor of the State of Wisconsin or something far less significant. Political campaigns are a tremendously time-consuming, sometimes disheartening and frequently expensive undertaking, but the voters are better off for having had no shortage of candidates to choose from this year.

While I’m obviously disappointed that Sen. Feingold and Mayor Barrett lost their respective races, I’m encouraged that Chris Larson and Chris Sinicki won their races for the State Senate and the State Assembly, respectively.

I’d also like to specifically thank Sen. Russ Feingold for his years of service to the citizens of the State of Wisconsin as our United States Senator. While I’m sure a fair number of folks who read this blog aren’t fans of Sen. Feingold, it’s no secret I’ve been a fan of his, and I think Wisconsin could have done a hell of a lot worse than Sen. Feingold for the past 18 years.

I’d also like to congratulate all those candidates who prevailed last night, whether Republican or Democrat. Winning an election is no easy task, and so those candidates who prevailed deserve to be congratulated.

As for my “analysis” of the 2010 mid-term elections, both here in Wisconsin and nationally, I think it’s pretty clear the electorate believed (whether rightly or wrongly) that the country took too sharp a turn to the left in the past two years. However, as I’ve said and written elsewhere, politics is cyclical, so while Democrats may be down right now, they’re surely not out.

Share:

Related Articles

12 thoughts on “The ubiquitous post-election “analysis”

  1. I can’t congratulate someone who allowed/ignored mentally ill women to be raped while they were seeking treatment at the MHC. That’s never going happen.

    I was very happy to read this morning Milwaukee *County* went to Mayor Barrett. The people who know Mayor Barrett and the Weasel the best voted for Mayor Barrett.

  2. “I think Wisconsin could have done a hell of a lot worse than Sen. Feingold for the past 18 years.”

    Oh, we will do a hell of a lot worse. For the next six years, anyway.

    ” …it’s pretty clear the electorate believed (whether rightly or wrongly) that the country took too sharp a turn to the left…”

    I think it’s more that the Democrats failed to clearly assert what they’ve done and will do about the economic distress and anxiety Americans have. the GOP doesn’t really have a solutions, but they have excellent messaging.

  3. A damn classy post Zach – and illustrative of the single biggest reason I continue to be a pain in the rear by visiting here.

    Political campaigns are a tremendously time-consuming, sometimes disheartening and frequently expensive undertaking…

    And let’s not forget the personal attacks and those against the candidates’ families that can levy an even more costly toll.

    but the voters are better off for having had no shortage of candidates to choose from this year.

    I share your appreciation for those that step forward, and I was very happily surprised that my ballot had no unopposed races – at least for “governance” offices. We did have three county offices (sheriff, coroner and clerk of courts) that were unopposed, but I’m fine with that. They’re jobs more than political positions and all three were incumbents who have been doing a fine job.

    I view unopposed races (whether in-fact or de facto unopposed) as a terrible thing, and undemocratic. Even a weak challenger can usually force an incumbent to answer some questions, to go on record taking some positions, to fill out candidate questionnaires for local newspapers.

    I hope others experienced a similar improvement in the number of unopposed races and hope the improvement for my districts/municipalities is the new norm rather than an exception to it.

  4. Great post Zach. Politics can be rough and tumble and I agree that anyone who puts themselves out there these days deserves some credit. You win some, you lose some, and it always comes full circle. Both parties are needed to keep the other in check and away from excesses.

    1. You would think that the parties would keep each other in check, but in reality they don’t. If the parties we’re in check alot more would have been done in this session of Congress. But unfortunately you have a new House full of Republicans who want to take everything away that Obama and the American people have worked so hard for. All your gonna get now is more gridlock, more damaging effects from the Repubs.
      Most republicans just don’t like Obama to begin with for one reason only (my opinion) his skin color, don’t believe me, read Sen. McConnell statements about making sure Obama is a 1 term president….McConnell’s never said it about any other President he’s served with.

      1. Sen McConnell and Rep Boehner only have the best interest of the people in mind. They are true populists and can hear when the American people speak.

      2. If the parties we’re in check alot more would have been done in this session of Congress.

        Apparently you didn’t notice, but both houses of Congress (and the White House) were controlled by the same party. The whole thing about the parties keeping each other in check doesn’t exactly work when one has total control. We’re seeing the only check the Democrats had come into fruition – the will of the voters. Or maybe they’re all racists too.

      3. “But unfortunately you have a new House full of Republicans who want to take everything away that Obama and the American people have worked so hard for. All your gonna get now is more gridlock”

        That’s what I call keeping each other in check. The American people rejected the overreach of Obama by sending people to Congress who would reject his liberal policies.

      1. Yes, great spin! 🙂 Although I did say you and the other contributors, and MadCityMan did not let me down, spinning away about Ron Johnson buying the election. Gotta love politics!

  5. forgotmyscreenname:

    Do you think it’d be a good for the President to keep the GOP House “in check” by vetoing anything they propose?

    Do you think it’ll be good for some single Democrat in the Senate to keep the GOP House “in check” by blocking any legislation the way it was done by GOP members the past two years?

    What’s the difference between keeping each other in check and trying to “destroy” presidency?

    The president has continually watered down his agenda in the interest of bringing the GOP on board, and has continually been met with obstruction.

    The role of the minority party in this country used to be precisely watering down the opposition’s agenda. The GOP’s new version has been arrogant obstruction.

Comments are closed.