American Midterm elections

If only I were joking...

Haven't seen Minnesota results but I'm *way* annoyed about Florida.

It's not just two years, it's decades of damage if you look at the right wingers they'll appoint as judges. And possibly centuries of damage if you look at how the arrogant and divisive policies they will now launch will alienate not just America's traditional enemies, but people all over Europe etc. And it will certainly mean death for many innocent Iraqi citizens, and even some British soldiers who will no doubt perish, like last time, by 'friendly fire'. And after Iraq, Sudan? North Korea? Space?

WE ARE FUCKED. AND MOST AMERICANS LOVE IT.

P.S. we are having an election party. there is wine, and there is much yelling at the television. um, and we took a break to watch SHIPMATES- the BikInI episode. briefly, we could breathe. ahhh breasts....

p.p.s. i'm actually really afraid. and why did he have to die?

I voted Mondale because although he is a more centrist candidate than Wellstone, he's still not THEM and Wellstone's kids asked him to stand in for their dad. I loved Wellstone, and thought the best way to honour him was to not let the bastards win, because it'll be like 'Gee Bubba, they got out their least offensive former Veep and we still sprayed 'em with a can of whup-ass!' Yucch.

American society reminds me of British society in the '80s, when nobody you knew would ever have voted for Thatcher's Tories, her policies made everyone you knew physically ill, yet somehow there were enough votes for Tories to keep them in office.

And I was not perving on JT, I merely think his single is grebt. He still looks like Screech.

"It was a great win for the president of the United States." - Chairman of the Republican Congressional Committee

Er, what is wrong with that statement? He seems have forgotten that Congress isn't there to cater to the President, though I'm afraid that may be the case.

Look, I can remember when Reagan took everything in 1980 inc. senate seats for IR candidates in MN and...it didn't last long.

But this is weird in that for the first time the US has a REGIME instead of a government.

I don't know if I personally know anyone who's happy with these results, although I'm sure the publicly traded company that I work for -- which put a mugging GWB on its online service's front screen for the five days leading up to the election ("What, us try and nudge the agenda?") -- is thrilled.

But still: Ugh. Ugh. Ugh.

1) Are the candidates the Democrats offering up all that good? And if not, why is there surprise if they're losing?

2) Why is everybody assuming that the only Republican voters out there are 'cracker morons' or idiots? Because this *just might* -- in some circles at least -- explain why there might be a sense of alienation from the left if one's target audience is being told that about themselves.

Especially in Massachussetts, where 47% of residents voted to abolish the state income tax yesterday.

1. No, and no, I'm not surprised, and have been hollering at my weeping leftie parents all morning for being surprised.

2. I think that your supposition is true, although this says nothing about the smartness or good of those being alienated by being called dumb and evil.

Instead of all expatriating, lets rally all the hardcore leftists in the country together. We will all move to one small state, and we will take it over completely, and expand from there. Its a war!

How is this the case? The turnout for midterm elections, and this one is no different, is lower than the turnout for presidential elections. Populous states largely controlled by Democrats didn't have Senate elections, and the Senate by design distorts the popular vote even more than the Electoral College. And the key races the Democrats lost were quite close.

I don't think there were large numbers, compared to 2000, voting for Republicans. But the Democrats, typically, ran scared, and failed to offer any sort of comprehensive alternative program in a set of races that Bush managed to nationalize.

I'm a bit relieved that with Missouri, the control of the Senate didn't boil down to the antagonistic tone of the Wellstone memorial service. That would have shown the Democratic Party at its stupidest in stark isolation: a bunch of party hacks jeering at everyone else.

They also wonder what you mean when you say America is on Corporate Welfare thanks to the GOPiggies.

And that nobody wants a war, but those nasty nasty people who could fly into a building and kill all those innocent people are going to know exactly how it feels when we go and do it to them.

"I'm not entirely sure Americans are seemingly so much happier to to back their leaders into war"

So which is it?

You probably need to know that the war in Iraq wasn't an election issue (except possibly in the Georgia Senate election, where a Republican somehow managed to impugn the patriotism of a TRIPLE COMBAT AMPUTEE who actually voted for the Iraq resolution), and that only about 45% of the eligible population voted anyhow.

The conditions-- a poor economy, corporate scandals, and a heavy-handed foreign policy-- were there for the Democrats to offer an alternative national program. They didn't.

As for the point about "war on their soil in recent memory," I'd agree with you that the physical distance from Europe, or really any other countries of high international stature (sorry, Mexico and Canada), tends to create an isolationist mindset in the US-- as it has for the entire history of the US as a world power. But WW2 was 57 years ago-- barely in the memory of my own parents-- and moreover, the violence of Sept. 11 probably tended to galvanize American popular opinion towards war in a way that the Cole bombing/Tanzania and Kenya bombings/anything else "over there" would never have. The almost immediate memory of "war" on American soil, counter to your point, seems to increase the likelihood of war in Iraq (note that I don't think Iraq has anything to do with Sept. 11, and that I find the desperate attempts by Bush to link them to be nauseating).

I seem to remember that after Sept. 11, many (pundits on TV) were thinking that the events would cause America to be more aware of what was going on in the rest of the world. Implicit in that idea is that our increased awareness would allow us to make the distinctions between different countries in any given region, the type of government in those countries, and the leadership styles of those who were in power, etc. The opposite has happened. We have become more general in our accusations. I am feeling sick, too.

I don't deny that the war on Iraq wasn't an election issue, but the fact that Bush is making gains despite his incresingly isolationist attitude to world politics, will be seen by the rest of the world as support. That's the way I saw it anyway, not knowing a huge amount about internal US politics.

And although the US was involved in WW2, it wasn't to anywhere near the extent that europe was involved.

While there are other, domestic, issues that the Congress has more direct control over, Sept. 11 and its aftereffects-- Iraq, Israel, homeland security, etc.-- is Topic One, and if the Democrats entirely defer to Bush on that, they look ineffectual as national leaders.

Well, yeah, but there were, by the end of the war, 13 million Americans in uniform. At the time, the US population was 140 million. And there were over 300.000 combat deaths of US soldiers.

So while the US wasn't as involved as Europe, it had a substantial involvement in the war.

What is really fucked up in America is that we have, at the same time, in the same people, is the fervent belief in god, christianity, etc., and the nihilism and selfishness that results from the death of god. what gives? instead of either loving thy neighbor or shooting him, we shoot him for the love of god.

No reason that the left needs to write creationists off as ignorant rubes who will necessarily support regressive taxation and oil companies.

44 per cent agree with the statement 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so' = 44 per cent are monkeys.

Can we eat them before they eat us?

just a few quick question for everyone...

should presidents be allowed to campaign for others? (I don't think I would want Gore or Nader to be telling me who to vote for, either.)

is political strategizing killing off democracy? (strategizing will always be part of the game, but to what extent should it play a part?)

I think this is something that's very important. Running view of Bush around here and in other circles = chimp, end of discussion. But if he's no Reagan when it comes to a popular touch, he's definitely much better than his dad, and ignoring this populist approach or trying to laugh it off and/or laugh off those who respond to his stances on things means setting yerself up for one huge fall.

Creationism not touched with a fucking bargepole in my old school, they actually thought it might be more useful to have a highly regarded science department.

Aaron: it would be very difficult to limit the campaigning of the prez without violating his right to free speech. But a little dignified restraint might be a good thing.

And creationism is BS, and I really have nothing to say to people who believe that "creationism" = "science." Lines do have to be drawn.

i mean, i'm not saying that the wholesale buying of these types of lies by members of the public is at all excusable, but i think that the democrats have been atrocious lately at a) providing counterspin (but then, it's a lot harder to explain why one person's use of a term is not what it seems than to just throw that term out there in the first place) and b) spotlighting problems with the GOP agenda before the GOP realizes that they need to do some public relations shoring-up of it, quick. the agenda was dictated such that this was an 'election about nothing,' and unfortunately the democrats did not do enough to dispute or work that claim—even though there was so much that this election could have conceivably been about, issues that might have raised turnout or at the very least consciousness.

Do you give a shit for kids and/or old people? YES NO

"Northern Virginia voters soundly defeated a regional transportation tax yesterday that opponents said would have funded suburban sprawl and forced families to pay more to governments they already distrust."

This proposal was so idiotic. Raise taxes and build more highways! The conservatives detest the former, liberals the latter. The only ones in favor of this bill were the good old boys at VDOT (Virginia Department of Transportation).

If it makes anyone feel any better, the Democratic winner here in the 8th district of Virginia, Jim Moran, accepted no-interest loans from a corporation that had an interet in the legislation he was deciding on. Oh, and he is my former employer. But he gave me a space pen!

It really isn't as if I haven't tried to understand. It's actually a little close to home, since my mom became a born-again Catholic in the Reagan era, while my father's become this total anti-government curmudgeon. And they seem to be chiefly motivated by fear and distrust - it's very difficult to reason with people when their beliefs are not based in reason. It's a lot harder to make excuses for people when you grew up in it and it's your own people who are doing it.

(oh and Moran won by over 90%)

People can and do force evolution off the school agenda because they feel their children's long term interests (ie their eternal souls) will be served by Creationism. Doesn't make them reasonable or right.

absolutely. and that interest can even be a single one that might be undercounted in importance by those on the left, like faith in a christian god (look at all the GOP winners who thanked the almighty last night) or even the whole anti-choice stance. and when you get all those voters together—i mean it's no secret that the right has had a much easier time of uniting people with possibly disparate interests. i would think that part of it is the collective mobilization behind one god, but i could be wrong.

and i feel that a lot of people who did vote GOP are out of work, or hurting financially, just as a matter of mathematics. why did the democrats not collectively jump on the bush tax cut, or the economy, in their campaigning, forcing the issues to make this election about much more than nothing?

is there even a democratic leadership in this country right now? who would you say the 'leader' of the democrats is—bill clinton? al gore? tom daschle? bush's approval rating may be lower than clinton's was at the time of the 1998 midterms, but a majority of people still embrace him as president. the question, then, becomes a) engaging those who don't, and b) getting the message of why people might not out there, beyond the lefty journals and punditry web sites and message boards geared towards, well, the types of people who post on ilx and other places. this sort of message-mongering is difficult, i realize; the more i consume news products the more i realize that the construct of 'objectivity' has ultimately turned much of them into a white house megaphone (look at the controversy over the 'overcoverage' of the antiwar protests a couple of weeks back for proof of this). but it must be done, because, well, i don't want to live in this particular governmental situation beyond january 2005—a date which already seems eons away.

(slightly offtopic: did mtv show any rock the vote ads or choose or lose segments this year?)

(I didn't see any rock the vote stuff. this election may turn me off pop music forever!)

who, I think all of us here agree, have acted with inexplicable lack of logic or intelligence

No, I don't agree with that. I don't agree with their voting choices in the main here, but neither do I see it as simply a matter of them 'lacking' logic or intelligence. To deny them both logic and intelligence denies the possibility that they think like this:

"I believe in these general points of view, x y and z, and believe that putting them into practice is best for this country and people as a whole. These points of view are best represented by the Republican party, and their candidate stands by these general beliefs. The Democratic candidate represents points of view that are to me unwelcome, irritating, maybe even quite repugnant. The minor parties don't interest me. I may even have some particular concerns about the Republican candidate on some issues, but on balance my choice is clear: I am voting Republican."

Switch the party affiliations around and we have a perfectly reasonable way to vote Democrat, that none of us would happen to argue. Should someone say that they vote GOP, however, the result appears to be nothing but accusations of illogic and stupidity. A lot of the arguments here run along the lines of "But I know GOP voters and they ARE like that!" Are all GOP voters like that? Are all Democrats as perfectly 'sensible' as my model above?

People can and do force evolution off the school agenda because they feel their children's long term interests (ie their eternal souls) will be served by Creationism. Doesn't make them reasonable or right.

Personally I agree with you. You have missed one key point, though. THEY feel they are reasonable and right! Either that point is so obvious it doesn't need saying or it's so glaring in its absence that it needs to be brought back into the discussion, I don't know which.

An example: John Ashcroft, who I do not care for at all, is someone who believes in the inherent correctness of what he does. He is a strong believer in Christianity, a staunch Republican and more. He does not sit down every day thinking "Now I'm going to fuck people over because I'm a horrible person dedicated to nothing but the ruining of lives," we who don't like him just think he does!

whether creationism is idiocy or not, the belief will not be eradicated by making the believers feel more self-righteuous due to the fact that they have been attacked...we don't have debates based on reason or intellect. we are an emotional country.

Quite right on both counts. The latter point is one reason why my little construct about how a citizen might decide to vote up above is just that, a construct, an ideal. Dividing things down the line between 'us, the smart thinkers who know what is right' and 'the deluded fools over there' -- a division that occurs on both sides of the party lines! -- ignores a greater truth about how democracy and its republican incarnation is practiced here in the States.

As for me, I'm most concerned about the people who don't vote because they don't take an interest in it or because they don't feel they can have any impact.

Yup. This is where the outrage should really lie -- what were the percentages of people who didn't vote this time?

ned, i acknowledge yer points and all, but right now i am just disgusted. and it isn't as if i don't or haven't tried Maura's approach -- in real life if not online. but a big part of my frustration and exasperation today is, that that approach isn't working either. shit, in my line of work i spend a good portion of my time trying to explain the estate and gift tax regimen (which Bush and the Republicans want to gut totally) to some of my firm's clientele, how it's not a problem -- or at least not a major one -- for them, at least not with some planning. you won't believe how much nonsense some of these people carry into the office with them when they meet or talk with me -- they really believe that their small businesses are going to be wiped out, or that they won't be able to devise anything because of the E&G tax, sometimes even after you demonstrate how that's not going to happen. and the only reason these people have these ideas in their head is because of non-stop right-wing propaganda to that effect.

i agree that there's a time for a more reasoned, calm and dispassionate assessment for last night's debacle, for how the Democrats can get back on track and stop Bush and his ilk. but not today. and one thing is for sure -- Democrats have to start talking like Democrats again (and I say this as an unabashed admirer of both Clinton and Gore). it turns out that Nader was right about that much.

If we flip the party affiliations and x, y and z are disarmament, gay rights and higher gasoline taxes, a lot of folks leaning right would consider THAT well-reasoned idiocy. Point is, this goes both ways.

Capisce?

Well, great, and let's hope they walk it like they talk it as well! Otherwise forget it.

Gray Davis won the governorship out here with 48% of the vote, Bill Simon ran an awful campaign and still pulled in 42%, while the Green candidate Pete Canejo got 5%, the largest any Green candidate has pulled for a statewide office and a three percent increase from four years ago. There's yer object lesson of the day, I think.

not at all, and that is what is most frustrating to me, and probably many others. if the democrats had won control of both the house and the senate, it would have been wonderful in terms of maybe preventing war in Iraq, and other practical concerns. but a victory by the democrats would not automatically mean that the american system was working any better that it already is. it would also not signify a general raise in IQ levels nationwide. many democrats use arguments for their beliefs that are just as hollow and self-serving as those of the worst republicans. this is really another motvations vs. actions fite. some (not accusing any ILxers) don;t give a fuck why anyone would vote democrat as long as they do.

my point is actually that it goes NO ways -- that is, being able to coherently explain that a candidate represents what you believe is best for you says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about your intelligence or goodness either way.

To give honor, praise and glory to the Lord our God, and His son , Jesus Christ. To promote second amendment rights under the US Constitution, as bestowed on us by our Creator, and to provide our customers with firearms at dealer cost + 10%.

(gunfinder.net)

yay america!!!

Tell me why I should have nothing but contempt for people like that. Try to, in any case. Motherfuck them.

What happened in Georgia sounds really damn sad, I agree. My immediate thought, though -- was that the only issue of the campaign? If it was, that says that enough Georgia voters feel threatened enough to think the Homeland Security Act was a good idea. Did Cleland make the case to the voters that it wasn't? Is Chambliss a better communicator in general? Who read the voters mood more accurately? I don't know, I wasn't there in the thick of things. Yeah, this is a cold-blooded attempt of analysis of an obnoxious result, but it can't be ignored.

last night on the daily show, john mccain, right before his interview ended, gave cleland what sounded to me like an apology/statement of support, which i thought was indicative of just how nasty the campaign got.

Momus, since you seem to be so interested in damning America (not w/o good cause), on this thread as well as others, doesn't that interest encourage you to actually learn something about the country? Or do you just want to repeat selective poll results which reinforce your skewed viewpoint? Because I've yet to see you say anything which represents even a passing familiarity with Americans or American history.

But as for reason against smugness, I'm with Ned and Colin.

There are at least a few conservative posters on this board; I'll be curious to see whether they'll post or whether they'll be happy just to watch a bunch of pinned liberals writhe in their hermetic glass case.

However, I get tired of that argument when I see it around here. Smug, my ass. A lot of us grew up in these repressive environments. Some of us, in fact, are such insufferable, out-of-touch ivory tower snobs that they've spent the past two months living with their Republican parents because they can't pay their medical bills. It would be nice if you didn't misattribute our motives or our backgrounds.

As such, you sound like a bunch of puritanical, moralizing scolds who make a big deal out of an emotional outburst. I'm back to lurking again.

"Some of us, in fact, are such insufferable, out-of-touch ivory tower snobs that they've spent the past two months living with their Republican parents because they can't pay their medical bills." - priceless. If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, than a liberal may be a conservative who's had to pay a medical bill without insurance.

and i'm sorry about your medical bills (and i think that the if -> then statement james extrapolated from your post should be on signs everywhere). i am currently looking for insurance ... ugh.

A very good statement indeed -- there was a letter I was reading in response to an article about doctors volunteering to cover patients without insurance that caught my eye. The letter-writer explained her unfortunate situation -- a young family, lack of appropriate coverage, how her salary essentially goes to nothing but premiums -- and how a few years back she opposed the Clinton national health insurance plan as being a cover for the 'lazy,' but now realized how wrong she was to do so. Doubtless she's one of many such voices.

I don't begrudge people their feelings; yesterday was maddening. But if there's anything we've learned from this election - and the last year and a half - isn't it that Dems and liberals in general need a focused, positive, constructive set of ideas? Call me a scold, I don't care, but I'm not going to join in calling my neighbors and friends (see, I don't live in an ivory tower either) names just because they've got their shit together.

I really hate to say it, and even taking into account ineptitude by certain key Democrats, but the rot goes much deeper than this. And that some folks of good will here are taking offense at my calling humbug humbug, and bullshit bullshit, only underscores that.

I'm gonna have to step away from here, I'm going on rhetorical overdrive and I don't like it much myself.

doesn't this question belong on ILM?

the second is a symptom of the first. the republicans, at least, have conviction regarding their (misguided) ideology. it seems to me like the democratic candidates are saying what they think others want them to say. the republicans presented a unfied front, and talked about the same core issues.

And speaking of GOP slime tactics: Let's not forget that the amount of money spent during the course of a campaign is key to the umpteenth degree. The Republican candidates in this election were very well-capitalized (did anyone else get the e-mail asking for money for the Mondale campaign last week?). Some numbers from Altercation:
"...I'm guessing that not too many pundits on those endless gabfests focused on the fact that, as reported by AP, the Republican National Committee and its congressional campaign arms had outraised their Democratic counterparts by $184 million through mid-October. This does not include, of course, the billions Bush gave them through the federal government. This is the kind of thing that makes all the difference in close races and that's just what happened last night.

"As Eric Boehlert noted in Salon yesterday, to take just one tiny example
about how aggressive the White House has been about this--and how easy the so-called liberal media has been on them--the administration billed the Office of Family Assistance $210,000 to help pay for five trips in which Bush promoted welfare reform at official events, then made fundraising stops for Republican office seekers, according to the Washington Post. In all likelihood, the White House scheduled Bush to make brief speeches about welfare reform in cities where he already had fundraisers scheduled. That way the Republican Party, which has to pay for fundraising activity, would not have to pick up all of Bush's travel costs.

"According to available records, Clinton also billed government agencies to share the cost of domestic trips that had a political agenda, but at nowhere near the rate Bush does. During his final four years in office, Clinton billed Health and Human Services $243,862 for 45 presidential events. By contrast, Bush has already billed HHS $210,000 for just five trips in six months. Siphoning off hundreds of thousands of dollars appropriated to assist needy families in order to pay for Republican fat-cat fundraisers? There's no better symbol of the Bush White House priorities."

I've decided that politics are not the convincing-people debate that we like to think of them as -- they're not a matter of demonstrating to people that one's policies are right. Please don't read this as Republican-bashing, but if it were a matter of arguing policy, this would be a nation of Democrats: campaigns for many years now have been a matter of unsuccessfully complex policy gestures by Democrats and successfully vague rhetoric about "values" and "character" by Republicans.

What it is about is casting a wide net over people who are already inclined to agree with you and then energizing them. I think that energy, that sense of vigor and righteousness and momentum, is what brings people into the fold, not careful logic -- because in the end, most people can't make heads or tails of the Nation or the Weekly Standard, because they don't follow points of logical principle and don't care to, because in plenty of cases they're probably not even clear on what roles the positions they're voting for even play.

Third parties understand this, actually. I think Nader understood that it wasn't the specifics of his politics that brought a lot of previously-uninterested people to him: it was the pure sense of momentum he had around him. This should serve as a test case for people with any political views -- the guy had a certain type of young person flocking to him not necessarily because they understood the first thing about his politics, but because he seemed to ... well, to have something going on.

Republicans have run very well on this idea, reducing their rhetoric to certain archetypes and certain key issues people respond to, and they've seized control of the agenda itself. The problem for Democrats right now is to figure out the right way to combat that. Will it help to get technical, to try and articulate exactly what's wrong with Republican ideas? Or is it more important to ignore that and articulate some competing framework?

Funnily, I don't think the two are as incompatible as they seem: it's possible to do the former in practice and the latter in spirit. Go further left: yes. Call Republican ideas idiotic: by all means. I think the worst thing about this election is that it will likely lead to Democrats caring more about their elections, which is a terrible thing -- the best they could do right now is stop caring, to come out with the sort of fight that would please both a guy like Tad who follows the issues and a guy who doesn't follow the details but can recognize conviction when he sees it. It's not about appeasement and careful argument and trying to please, it's about momentum; it's not about professionalism, it's about looking like you're there because you want to be. A lot of Democrats right now look like they're scared people are going to notice they have no purpose, and it's exactly that fear that makes them look so purposeless.

As for us on a social level: well yeah, writing off conservatives and calling them stupid is often a bad idea. Too many people have gotten used to the idea of sitting around a Thanksgiving dinner with their Freeper uncles and racist grandmothers and keeping their mouths shut, saving the argument for when they're "home" among their own type and don't have to articulate anything other than "they're horrible." What the entire left needs right now is just a better, more confident way to say "I'm sorry, but that's idiotic and I reject it." If this is a nation of cracker morons, nothing looks worse than hiding under a rock and cursing them to yourself: it makes you look weak and scared. You're better off striding casually out to the morons and cursing them to their faces -- plenty of them will believe you!

Especially in Michigan, everything was re-districted to the Republicans' advantage.

Also, I think the party divide becomes less and less significant as you come down to more and more local races: at some point the positions become about competence and trustworthiness more than ideology. (In Illinois, for instance, the problem with state and city government has always been not ideology but corruption and cronyism from both parties -- when it comes to a position like Secretary of State or State Treasurer I'd take a Republican I trusted over a suspect Democrat any day.)

Agree with them or not, at least Republicans had a message. Republicans were saying, "When you vote for me you are voting for this, this and this." Democrats were saying only, "Vote for me."

I'm learning every day, comrade.

just kidding.

America is a nation conceived in fear. One of the finest founding tenets of the USA is written on the Statue of Liberty, it says, 'bring me your tired, poor and huddled masses'.

The large part of these had something to fear, from the pilgrim fathers and east european jews fleeing fear of persecution, to those fleeing the fear of financial hardship and serfdom. This current of fear runs right through to the present day, as the cartoon above so eloquently puts it.

The upshot of this is that when the US got to global big school, sometime between the genocide of 600,000 Philippinos in the Spanish American war in 1901 and FDR's semi-orchestrated attack on pearl harbour in 1941, The USA became a global Bully. Not that there haven't been others.

G W and his cabal, who incidentally are descended, in the main, from the less fearful; the second sons of Anglo-Saxon Gentlemen off to the new world to seek their fortunes, have played to these fears for their own ends (GW Bush's ends TM Carlyle group, Exxon et al.)

someone said that part of the reason that democrats are losing their popularity is that immigrants are more conservative than they used to be. many now want to assimilate, make money, and vote republican. they may believe in the mythology of america more than many americans (who have lived in this country for a longer period of time), and are therefore captivated by the rhetoric of the republican party.

this is obviously a huge generalization...

for chissakes don't start this stuff. Though I will agree with your general point.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mpearlharbor.html

too lazy to make a link so cut and paste...

http://www.electionri.com/Results/TopTicket.htm

If Laffey wins the Republican primary, the common thought is that their goose is cooked.

My current pet theory is that the prevalence of redistricting / gerrymandering has resulted in people using primaries as a new forum to throw the bums out - Connecticut having gone through a similar episode on the Democratic side.