.
September 29th, 2010
04:54 PM ET

Why would you vote for any incumbent?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's no wonder the Tea Party has the traction it does.

House Democrats voted Wednesday to adjourn so they can go home and campaign for the midterm elections. There is no budget, there is no decision on what to do about the Bush tax cuts that expire January 1. There is no willingness to confront any of the pressing issues they are paid to deal with.

You see, our lawmakers are cowards. They don't want to have to vote before an election. Could be bad for them. To hell with the American people. At the end of the day it's all about them.

They're getting ready to leave town - again - and won't be back for five weeks.

Before heading out, the House is expected to vote on a measure to keep the federal government operating through December 3. That's necessary because they never bothered to pass a budget.

Here's the problem: Large majorities of Americans disapprove of Congress and only one in four people trust the federal government to do what is right always or most of the time. But when they enter the voting booth, they re-elect the same people over and over: the people who are taking this country right down the drain.

This year there are signs that the midterm elections might be particularly brutal for the party in power, the Democrats. Experts think the Republicans have a decent chance of picking up the 39 seats needed to take control of the House. The experts also say Republicans have an outside chance of gaining 10 seats to control the Senate.

Things are bad for the Democrats all over, but especially in the Midwest.

One Republican pollster says that part of the country will be a "killing field for Democrats this year."

Here’s my question to you: Why would you vote for any incumbent?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Wilhelm writes:
Because in some cases the challenger is completely unacceptable, Jack. Out here in the Nevada Senate race, the alternative to Harry Reid, which is the Tea Party Republican Sharron Angle, is just plain NUTS and wants to take away the Social Security and Medicare I paid into my whole working life. For a senior like myself, that would be like a Chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

Donna in Wisconsin writes:
Because they voted the way I wanted them to on the majority of issues. Democrats got health care passed (not a perfect bill, but a great start, long overdue), financial reform, etc.

Bob in Kansas City writes:
Because the incumbent would be the lesser of two evils given some of the nutcases who are managing to get on a ballot in various parts of the country.

Loren writes:
I don't think there are any incumbents running in Illinois, they've all been indicted or in prison. And if they're not, they should be.

Jon writes:
Vote for someone new, and next election that person will be the incumbent. It's stupid to focus on this. Vote for the best candidate, period. If the person running is a lunatic, should I vote for her just because the alternative is an incumbent?

Bill writes:
Is it better to vote for a career politician or a wannabe career politician? Is there really a difference? None of the above needs to be among the ballot choices. I sense the right type of individual for the job is either too smart to want it, unelectable, or both.

Dave in Orlando writes:
OK, I give up. Why would you?

Keith in Ohio writes:
Is this a trick question, Jack? There needs to be another lever for the voters to use in the election. That would be "FLUSH"!


Filed under: Election Process • Elections
soundoff (168 Responses)
  1. Rick

    Elections are never about putting in power the noble and just.
    It is about kicking out the moron and corrupt.
    This election will be no different.
    If you are an incumbent, yes all of you, you are out.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  2. craigB

    Jack,

    The best reason to vote for an incumbent is that he or she is not a REPUBLICAN!!!

    (Really!)

    Craig
    Wesley Chapel, FL

    September 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  3. Kevin B

    NOT anymore! Absolutely time for term limits. The Dems have controlled congress going on four years now and our debt continues to rise. I am not surprised by this vote at all. You said it best, "our lawmakers are cowards."

    September 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  4. David

    I will never vote for another incumbent again. The system is corrupt and we must return to the citizen representation. Not Professional Representation.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  5. Kevin in CA

    Because I'd rather eat barbed wire than vote for a ultra right wing Republican.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  6. jeff, alabama

    Jack, I've been advocating term limits for years.
    I get flack from everyone about it. Term limits would
    eliminate the problem with incumbents just like
    capital punishment would eliminate repeat offenders.
    If you spend two terms in D.C. you are richer than your
    salary could possibly make you. Term limits would
    cut the corruption out and the candidates would go back
    to working for the voters (FOR A CHANGE) !!!
    One term per senator and one term per congressman.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  7. Todd

    Why indeed? We were sold "hope and change." Yet, I have seen nothing but "blame and same" from this Congress and White House. Obama does nothing except tell his "the GOP drove us into the ditch" story over and over again – some change, huh? Partisan attacks and the blame game. At the same time, he refuses to acknowledge his party was back-seat driving and navigating, since they controlled Congress the 2 years leading up to the collapse. I haven't seen any policy items that differ significantly than what the Dems have had on their agenda for 30 years. Except of course that for the most part, now that all the apologizing and collecting "Peace Prizes" is over, our policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Guantonamo, and essentially all of the Patriot Act stuff are the same as what Bush had. Meanwhile, the GOP is doing a laudable job of not really offering anything of substance beyond filibustering and believing we're all dumb enough that a promised tax cut will cure everything, including ironically the deficit.

    Makes me long for the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neil.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  8. ERIC FROM TEXAS

    I think it is time for term limits. If a senator spends 6 years in office and can not get done what needs to be done then he/she should not be seeking re-election. A representative only has two year per term so I would maybe give them two or three terms. I generally vote as a conservative which in Texas means Republicans but at the last election I voted for neither republicans of democract if I had a third party choice. Until Congress fears the voter or knows their time is limited then they have very little motivation the change the system.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  9. Bob Hurley

    I don't intend upon voting for any incumbent. I feel that any that have been in office for more than 4 years are partly responsible for the Wall Street meltdown. They only communicate to me when they need my vote.
    Being from Texas, when I email both of my Senators, I do not receive a specific answer to my email. I receive a general topical non specific answer that works a multitude of questions. I have lost all respect, and it has nothing to do with political party. Change was the theme for the 2008 Presidential election in 2010, it will be the initiative.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  10. John

    I will not be voting for any incumbent. I will be making a list of the outsiders who are running, learning their names and voting for them regardless of party affiliation. This country has been duped for far too long by professional politicians, a country that was founded and meant to be governed by and for the people. What we need is term limits for all elected officials, especially Congress!

    September 29, 2010 at 5:50 pm |
  11. Ron, Texas

    If the incumbent pile of it is better than the new pile of it who is running to replace them, then we might as well keep the pile of it we have.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  12. DaveFromMaine

    Why would anyone vote for any incumbent? No matter what political party they represent! They were voted in to do a job, and i haven't seen any representative in the past 20 years, actually stand up for the people, and represent them like they were elected to do. I"ve always considered myself a conservative, and a republican.....but, it reached a point, where I'd vote for anybody, who would at least have enough intestinal fortitude, to say "we got serious problems here, and we need to tighten out belts, and we'll all take a hit, but, we'll see the benefit's in the long haul"! Not all the lies, and what they think the people want to hear, to secure another term in office.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  13. Rad Dye Utah

    When people do a bad job they should be fired, that is how the capitalist system works. All incumbents should be fired, and keep getting fired until
    they get the message. It is amazing that the entire country will not get on
    board.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  14. Cynthia

    In this case the incumbents (Democrats) are the best we have right now. The Republicans are running on the same policies that got us in this mess. I will not take that chance on the Republicans.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  15. dan leonetti

    We must all be pessimists that believe all politicians are the same so why not vote for the criminal you know.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:51 pm |
  16. Andrew Eden-Balfour- Regina, SK

    I would imagine it's because alot of the GOP challengers that are going against the Democratic incumbents are even more looney and worse then the incumbents themselves. There are major problems of labelling this an "anti-incumbent" election, as most of the time it's focused on the Democratic incumbents and not the Republican incumbents. If this is really an anti-incumbent election, the politiicians from both sides of the spectrum would have a bulls-eye painted on they're heads; but that isn't the case right now is it?

    September 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
  17. J

    I don't plan on it

    September 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
  18. DP Cisneros

    Jack – the options to the incumbents are pretty grim in many parts of the country and we're left with a great illustration of the old adage of "better the devil you know..."

    September 29, 2010 at 5:52 pm |
  19. J

    I dont plan on voting for an incumbent.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
  20. Dave from Dallas, Texas

    I WOULDN'T.

    Jack, the two party system is BROKEN, yet the sheeple keep voting the same clowns in. There is no difference between republican and democrats. Jack unless people realize this, and soon, we're in big trouble.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:53 pm |
  21. Mike S

    The incumbants are looking more appealing by the minute. If what is waiting in the wings are the lunactics from the Tea Party. Never thought I would see the day that moderate Republicans with a proven track record would be shown the door. It seems the candidates with the most radical and nutty ideas are winning the Republican nominations. What does this say about the republicans?

    September 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  22. Linda

    There is no way I'd vote for any incumbent. Here's what I would vote for: TERM LIMITS!

    September 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  23. Keith B Rosenberg

    My standard voting strategy is to not vote for the incumbent unless said incumbent demonstrably puts the welfare of their constituency as a whole above their own political ambitions and ANY interest groups including their own party. Very few meet this standard.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  24. Rick

    Honestly at this point the name does not matter, seems like every politician elected to Washingtom blindly votes on party lines. I look back at some of the votes, seemed like if a democrat did not vote for the health care and other bills forced upon the American people, they lost the backing of their own party. Seems to me the country is being run by just a few people, those in charge of the party, or more importantly, those in charge of the parties money.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  25. Jeff in NC

    I am not going to vote for any incumbent. I am sick of the poitics and finger pointing while the country suffers. I am sick of the vanished manufacturing base and I'm sick of the Mcains, Obams and the rest of the lot saying "those jobs are gone forever.

    Vote them all out. If you want to vote Along party lines that's your right but for the sake of our nation DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY INCUMBENT!!!

    September 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm |
  26. Sasha

    Voting for republicans would only cause this country to go all the way down into the dumper. Its happened 3 times in my lifetime having GOP in the white house. Never again will I vote GOP if there isn't someone suitable on the Democratic side I will not vote. I cannot in good conscience vote for the party that has caused this horrible recession.
    NEVER AGAIN

    September 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm |
  27. Evan, VA

    If you think the country is in bad shape now, just wait until we have a house and senate full of Rhodes scholars like Christine O'Donnell

    September 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm |
  28. Matt A

    Based on the information just presented, definitely not voting for the same people this year.

    I would only vote for an inc-umbent if they could prove they've been following what their constituency wants rather than their party. But that's a huge stretch.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm |
  29. Richard Stevens

    Only reason is ,you and i know one of two parties will rule. We do not want the rich to get richer ,because as any fool knows that is what the Republicans are , do and stand for.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:55 pm |
  30. Alan Patterson

    Let's see Dems in control, vote out incumbents, so Repubs take control. Their Plan... is the failed Bush Policies. "Burn me..", how did W. say that line?

    And extend Tax credits for the top tiny percent, so they can create jobs... Wait, that didn't work for the last nine years, why would that suddenly change?

    ObamaCare from the Dems or We-Don't-Care from the Repubs, some choice! Oh wait, abortion. I'm pro-life and the Dems didn't start a War. OK, I vote for the Dems! An eighteen year old that takes a bullet, that's an aborted life. no argument there.

    But then there's the Socialist thing... Oh wait, again Jesus Christ was the ultimate Socialist, and I'm a Christian! I have no choice, it's the Dems!

    September 29, 2010 at 5:56 pm |
  31. Chuck

    I am writing from the Seattle area.

    I know you asked for people who were voting for incumbents, but, here in the Seattle area, a heavy democratic area 90% of our elected reps are democratic.

    So, to vote against incumbents means voting republican.

    I don't see that happening in this democratic strong hold.

    So, that is why people will vote for incumbents.

    In fact what will probably happen is that the only incumbent that will lose will be a republican House member. That will make the area 100% democratic.

    Thanks,
    Chuck

    September 29, 2010 at 5:56 pm |
  32. wm littlepage

    Right On Jack, what I need to know is who are the non incumbent democrats in my state so I can vote with the party that best represents the middle class. Guess I need to do a little research instead of just heading for the voting booth

    September 29, 2010 at 5:56 pm |
  33. Bill M

    Jack, you are right, throw all the bums out.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:56 pm |
  34. Pam from Edmond, OK

    It's time to clean the "house" to rid it of useless politicians who haven't been effective in the time they've been there. There is no reason to elect an incumbent. Start over fresh and elect the new person.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:56 pm |
  35. Greg, San Francisco, CA

    Because the other choice for California Senator is a failed CEO who proudly outsourced jobs and spied on her own employees.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
  36. Jay Beighley

    It is my single minded goal to vote out every incumbent I possibly can. I can't imagine why any incumbent would get a single vote. Wake up people!

    September 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
  37. Mike Morgan

    Because they control the money. If you don't vote for an incumbent that has delivered pork to your area, you wind up with a powerless newbie who will be pushed aside by the incumbents that get re-elected. Its not about what is right or wrong anymore, but about selfish, short term, destructive greed.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:57 pm |
  38. Amish Airline

    Sorry, Caff. . .it's the same old story: "Vote the bums out!". . .just not, of course, OUR bum. He's ok! And besides, his challenger is a (Democrat or Republican), I can't possibly vote for him! That's not my party!

    The system is rigged, and it's rigged with one goal in mind: to keep incumbents in power at all costs. Don't believe me? Look at a map of your congressional district. Mine looks like a bad Jackson Pollock painting, and for some reason winds serpent-like around any neighborhoods containing poor people or minorities. Representative democracy my a$$.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  39. katiec Pekin, IL

    Jack,
    If the incumbent is a Democrat I will vote for him.
    We cannot allow your republicans to regain power. They have not and never will represent the American people. Notice you shy away from articles on their voting against a policy to bring jobs back to our country, their fillibustering the tax cut issue and never mention to your readers that they, in 22 months, have enacted over 100 fillibusters against anything and everything that would further help our country.
    Your parties goals have been and are to try and stop any improvement, advancement in the economy, our country all for the sake of regaining power and trying to win this next election, sacrificing us and our country in the process.
    No thanks to voting for any republican.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  40. Tom

    They're arrogant. Pelosi and co. think they are smarter then we are that's why they shoved healthcare down our throat.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  41. KEN KRIEGER

    I want smaller government. The housing crises was caused by greed and a congress that wants all Americans in homes even if they could not afford it. Wall Street and the banks lever too much. The country did not get electric lights until 1920. Now welfare people have large screen TVs and airconditioning.They have not been taught to work. They have been raised in cesspools of crime, drugs and poverity.The health care lobby has bribed congress and fixed prices. We pay twice as much for health care as other developed countries. If you want to save on health care just let us shop for the cheapest care anywhere in the country or world and reward us 50% of the savings. The health care folks wiil reduce prices and become more efficient to compete If you just look at our schools at $200,000 per class room and they are the same look and size as prisons. 4 teachers teaching from home with one quarter the pupil size earning $50,000 with out the overhead and taxes. Small is better. An honest days pay for an honest days work a little money in the bank, a good woman and a cold Schlitz beer. Truely heaven on earth. Ken Krieger Cape Coral, Florida

    September 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
  42. blue

    Everyone hates the incumbents, unless, of course, they are from your district.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
  43. Aubrey Zaner

    I never vote for an incumbent, unless their opponent is so much obviously worse.
    If I had my way, there would be NO incumbents. After serving a term of public service as an elected official, you would be prohibited from seeking any other elected office until you had remained in the private sector for the length of time that you had served as an elected official. Which means, if you were President for four years, you couldn't even run for Dog Catcher until four years afer you had left the presidency.
    In my opinion, this should largely eliminate the control the special interest groups have over our government.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
  44. Jenny

    I would only vote for democrats. Never for republicans. The voting people in this country are stupid. They seem to forget who is responsible for this awful recession. Don't they pay attention? Hoover then Ronnie, then the Bushes have taken this country into the sewer.
    Why is it the voting public cant see that? I will never vote republican EVER.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
  45. Sharon

    In my state it is a choice of voting for Governor Manchin or Raese to take Senator Byrd place in the Senate. The problem is Governor Manchin will vote with the Dimocrats and I don't like Raese who has ran against Senator Byrd before. I like Manchin but still angry over his decision to not to support WV voters during the 2008 election. I am a 40 year ex-Democrat now Independent who wants Pelosi and Reid to lose control of the Senate and House so maybe something will be done for middle class America. I wish we could bring back the Clinton years but America had its chance in 2008.

    September 29, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
  46. Rodney Wilson

    My sentiments exactly. This is why, while at the courthouse the other day, I changed my voter registration from what it was to "No Party Affiliation". If there is a choice on a ballot between "incumbant" and "someone who's never served", guess who's gonna get my vote?

    September 29, 2010 at 6:00 pm |
  47. common sense in Texas

    I honestly cannot think of an answer of why would I vote for an incumbent. I mean when we have an elected official who's afraid the island of Guam is going to "tip over" from potential over-crowding and the man at the top who's nothing more than a community organizer.... Seriously how much worse could anyone else do?

    Wimberley, TX

    September 29, 2010 at 6:00 pm |
  48. Frank

    Throw the bums out! Let them beg at the bankers doorsteps for leftovers.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:00 pm |
  49. Steve Brown

    I think we ought to just vote out all incumbents for the next three federal elections. That way, we will get all the senators out, as well, and no congressman will have been in long enough to make their back-room deals with the fat cats. Both the Republicans and Democrats are to blame for the mess they have made. No one wants to compromise in Washington. The American people keep voting in their own guys, thinking their representative is okay, but everyone else is a crook. I've got a news flash, they are all crooks. I have been trying to vote out my representative, Sheila Jackson Lee, for years now, but everyone else seems to love her. She is worthless!

    Houston, TX

    September 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  50. Jeff S

    The real question is why we dont have term limits for the Senate and the House.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  51. don

    I would not! After the Democrats decision to adjourn to campaign they deserve to be impeached not relected!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:01 pm |
  52. Ryan

    Democrats don't want to vote on tax cuts because they know that if they did the RIGHT THING, then it would upset their small, but vocal, liberal base. And since they long ago lost most rational "independents," they need that liberal voting block. Voting to extend all tax cuts can't hurt the outlook for jobs, it can only help. And since when was it the governments right to spend your money anyhow? Tax cut?! What does that even mean? The liberals tell us that we should be thankful that the Democrats let us keep more of the money we earn?! That is crazy.

    IT IS MY MONEY. If they want to help control the deficit then they can start with CUTTING wasteful government programs. Let hard working Americans of every tax bracket keep more of what is rightfully theirs, our money.

    Why should we give anymore money to a government that refuses to do what the people want? I don’t see a reason, do you?

    September 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
  53. stef

    I can't vote for an incumbent. For years my philosophy has been to never re-elect anyone, but in my defense, polliticians have earned that philosophy.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
  54. A fresh Start

    I truly say dump them all and start new. It's almost like the party baggage they are carrying is to heavy to allow them to govern. And, if they can't govern, what good are they to the American People , so let's get rid of all of them.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:02 pm |
  55. Mark

    Absouletly not we need to throw all the crooks and liars OUT!!!!!!
    The American People need to take our Country back from these so called Representatives of the People. What a joke all they do is get rich and line there pocketson the backs of the working people! The American people need to TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK,THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH GOD BLESS AMERICA!!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
  56. Nate

    What I don't understand is how congressional democrats continue to blame ANYTHING on the republicans. With two full years of a democratic president AND a fully democratic congress, there was very little legislating done. We got a toothless, useless, and entirely too expensive healthcare bill, yes, but they sure know how to squander a victory.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:04 pm |
  57. Annie

    Why would I vote for an incumbant? Because everywhere I look the people challenging them seem to be total wingnuts.

    I am not voting for any person that seems like "more of the same" that we have been living with these last 30 years.

    If they have worked hard and only been mildly successful at challenging the status quo and big money and interests I will vote the incumbant. If all they have done is said no to everything to shore up their own power base I'm not voting for them.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:04 pm |
  58. Charles M

    There are a few incumbents who genuinely want to do the right thing, and would do so in a changed Washington. But on the whole, Jack, you're right. The gang in there now is profoundly broken and needs to be swept out. And, if a few good ones get tossed along with the many bad, that's the price we may have to pay for allowing this mess to continue as long as we have. Because, in the end, it's our own fault. The electorate is responsible for electing people to do its work and, if we fail in that regard, the responsibility rests with us.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:04 pm |
  59. Botch

    I HAVEN'T voted for any incumbent, save one, in 32 years (and I vote every election). If more people did this we'd be in a lot better shape.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  60. John

    I wouldn't. Personally I'm tired of all the self serving Republicans and Democrats that we have serving in Congress. For a change I would like to see some Americans run for office that have a clue and are willing to do the right thing even if it may cost them some votes.
    John B., Apache Junction, AZ

    September 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  61. Bill

    Its a good question Jack. Why would we keep anyone tainted with the ineptitude of the present Congress. Democrats who pass legislation we don't want and Republicans who place obstacles in the way of other legislation we do want.

    Each side focused on itself...not the republic. Each side more concerned with caucus than constituency. Whether the name is Pelosi, Boehner, McConnell or Reid...none have cared about us before their own self interest.

    I thought we fought a war 250 years ago to be rid of these kind of people.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
  62. Mike, Denver, CO

    The reason to vote for an incumbent is the same as the reason to vote for any person: because they're the best option. Painting all incumbents with the same brush smacks of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'll vote for an incumbent if that person, as an individual, is doing a good job, and/or if I think the incumbent will do a better job than their opponents. Seems simple enough.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
  63. tom

    I did early voting today. I voted against all incumbents. If the incumbent was not opppsed, I skipped ahead without voting.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
  64. dave from fresno,ca

    Because the people are just like the politicians,jack.They only think about which candidate will do the most for them.That is why Mickey Mouse could run as a democrat and still get 90% of the black,latino,and "too lazy to work" vote.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
  65. Henk, Colorado

    I vote for the same guy as last time because during every discussion on TV about why I should vote for someone else there is always one of my favorite reality shows on at the same time.
    Can you please ask the networks to adjust their schedules? Gotta go, DWTS is on.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:06 pm |
  66. Scott Stegall

    I pick and vote for my candidates after looking at how they vote, how they act, what they have done, and what they say they are going to do. Also I try to look at their voting record compared to their promises.
    Voting for incumbants is usually about choosing the devil you know vs the devil you don't.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:07 pm |
  67. Austin

    I would vote for an incumbent, if the alternative is even worse.

    For instance, if the alternative is just as radical/ridiculous as Christine O'Donnell, well, that's just replacing one out-of-touch politician with an insane politician. Not going to help, just make things worse.

    Although if there was a GOOD alternative, I would vote against the incumbent, seeing as how they tend to pay more attention to getting elected than actually working.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:08 pm |
  68. BD70 Webster NY

    Campaign promises. That is why I would vote. After researching their records on accomplishments. Problem is once in Washington DC they forget who they represent. Republicans are no different. When they upset their constituents then the Dems are voted back in. On and on. Like a pendulum.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
  69. D. Lamar Williams

    Politicians have made careers out of being in office. The President and most Govenors have term limits. Why wouldn't we have term limits for the Senate and Congress. That would take partianship out of the picture for most things and possibly get some real work done. After so long in office, both parties only think their party way and not the big picture by looking at all sides.

    Think of the ones in their now. Would you buy a used car from any of them. Even John McCain who I use to have respect for changes his tune depending on the political season. When he thought he was in trouble in Arizona this year and people related he was not a true conservative and a maverick. All of a sudden he is saying he is not a maverick, never has been. Come on, he ran for president twice on that banner. He is not the only one, they all do the same.

    Maybe with term limits we can get away from negative ads and have ads that actually state what the candidates will try to do when in office with a real plan instead of rhetoric.

    Thanks for you time

    Lamar Williams

    September 29, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
  70. Steve

    Simple...when the alternative is worse.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:10 pm |
  71. Jim Bennett

    If the election is a choice between to party of "no" who brought this economic mess, and those attempting and achieving progress, Democrats are ok.
    If the election is a whining oportunity, Democrats are in trouble.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm |
  72. Wally

    nothing is getting done Jack. They all have to go! America is falling off the cliff and its only going to get worse.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:11 pm |
  73. Tony

    I'm a republican, but this election season and maybe again in 2 years, whether its republican or democrat, I am voting the incumbent out. There is too much complacency and selfish attitudes in Congress today while we are suffering. I'd rather take my chances with rookies than most of these "seasoned" vets. Tony-Chicago

    September 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm |
  74. George

    Two words: Term Limits.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:12 pm |
  75. Doug Smith

    'It is wrong to bunch all incumbents together as they are not a homogenenous group. There are many incumbents who provide a high level of service to their consituents, and who try to do the right thing. There are others who are less committed and will do what appears to be expedient to their own ends.

    Both parties appear to be afraid of really leading–at least in terms of confronting the growing disparity between expectations of what the government should do, what it can do, and what it can afford to do.

    However, by not voting for good incumbents, the probabilties of a complete deadline will increase exponentially in January

    September 29, 2010 at 6:13 pm |
  76. biggeorge22

    Because you don't want those Tea Crazies in congress. We can't get anything done now as it is. The "Party of No" didn't expect problems from within. So now what do they do because they have issues with Tea Party extremists too.

    So now we will probably have a divided government or weakened Democrat's at least. So what will happen... Nothing. If they couldn't agree with the Democrat's before why would they now? Get ready for the Gridlock. if you thought it was bad before just wait.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:13 pm |
  77. Ned Alpert

    I certainly have doubts about voting for ANY incumbent, if nothing else but to send a message of dissatisfaction.

    However, I will not vote for an opponent who espouses removing civil rights, such as Pro Life and Anti-Gay/Equal Rights.

    I am against the Religious Right and fundamentalists of any religion.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  78. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio

    Jack:

    I think the word incumbant has to be re defined or defined so we are all on the same page. Is an incumbant a career politician, one who is connected by the dollar or is it the one currently in office? I have voted for incumbants and usually I end up regretting and suffering the choice. This time I will vote for the stranger, even if it looks like an alien, you know, our forefathers (and mothers).

    September 29, 2010 at 6:14 pm |
  79. Bruce

    I NEVER vote for an incumbent. Any individual who does is the root of all our problems and needs to stay home and get educated.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  80. Bruce

    Unless there is a compelling reason, I never vote for the incumbent. Public service, in the form of elected office, should be temporary, not a career.

    In addition, again unless there is a compelling reason, I always vote for a woman over a man because there is less chance a woman will be part of the "good ole' boy network", less chance of corruption, and less chance of a sex scandal.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  81. Mike Horton

    Jack, Jack, Jack. Not ALL incumbents need to be voted out, just SOME.
    There are inordinate number of unqualified, or outright bat crap crazy people who have gotten the GOP nomination due to the Tea Party movement. Have you noticed most of them can tell you what they're against but not what they'd DO if elected? Even if these wingnuts like Angle, O'Donnell and others of their ilk get elected they will not gain enough seats to ram their idiotic ideas down the Congress's throat. Resulting in (drum roll): SURPRISE -CONTINUED GRIDLOCK & NOTHING WILL GET DONE! AGAIN! Jeez.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  82. Roger C

    Better the Devil you know.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  83. Ron

    It's simple. CNN can start a "Vote for number 4" campaign. Forget the name on the ballot. Just vote for number 4. That will get the bums pitched out.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:15 pm |
  84. RG

    The next one could be worse "George W. Bush"!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  85. Teresa Crittenden

    Because the alternative is just horrific, if not ignorant.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  86. Mark

    I would vote for any incumbent Republican OR moderate democrat who apposed anything Obama and Pelosi has tried to force on America.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  87. Gerry Cabalo

    Jack, I see no plausible reason to vote for an incumbent in either party. In fact I have not seen any reason to vote since and including the election in 2008. Whether in collusion or not, both parties have succeeded in turning the greatest creditor country on this planet into the greatest debtor. One party just wants to spend and spend and raise taxes, while the other wants lower taxes and talkes a good game of fiscal responsibility/restraint but continuing to spend like the other party! Furthermore, whoever now is out of power refuses to cooperate with the other for the good of the country. Success to one now means failure for the other. Let the country and the people be damned!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  88. Alan

    Jack:

    I have been advocating for years not to vote for any incumbant. Until these politicians get the message that we have the backbone to fire them for poor or under performance, they will continue to do the same thing over and over. They run on a platform or principal until the day after the election and then resurrect that same old platform just before an election. The rest of the time they spend wasting our money and resources. Fire them all! Then if the next batch does not perform, fire them too! I estimate it is going to take about 10 years to cycle through these clowns and finally get a group that is responsive to the will of the people.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  89. Jessica Troilo

    I wouldn't, not even my President is immune at this point.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  90. Daniel - TX

    Jack, We shouldnt vote for any incumbent. But, we also have the responsibility to vet the alternative. The alternative this year is as bad as the incumbents.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm |
  91. MoneyedPoliticians

    It doesn't matter what political party you vote for, they are both owned by corporate America. That's why nothing ever changes.

    Jack Lohman
    Colgate, WI

    September 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  92. Jason

    The answer is simple and obvious – when the alternative is clearly worse.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  93. Shelly

    Have you seen and heard the newcomers on the block.?...Sharon Angle ( rid of Social Security), Christine O'Donnell ( witchcraft and fraudulent use of campaign money), Ken Buck (no abortion for those raped), Rand Paul ( no unemployment benefits), Palladino( has e-mailed pornographic and racist and sexist material) and similar idiots. NO thanks!!
    I probably will stick with the tried and tested Democrats, not these fresh lunatics to decide our destiny!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  94. Rik Packham

    Lesser of two evils. Nuff said. Unfortunately. *sigh*

    September 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  95. mike sey

    Because the alternative is often not only worse than the incumbent but inexperienced too!

    mike, Ontario, Canada

    September 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  96. Harlan Robins, Columbus, OH

    Based upon the alternative, at least you know what you are getting with an incumbent. Anti-incumbency fever is just that, and we will feel better/get over it during the next election process. At this juncture, its a toss up either way anyway.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  97. Bill

    Would not vote for an incumbent. Congress needs to be cleaned out and replaced with only independent voters. People need to vote for the indpendent candidates to get the country back in the right direction.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm |
  98. Ken in NC

    Let's face the real truth Jack. Every voter feels like his or her candidate is the only one left that is honest. That having been said, you do the math.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  99. Melvin Farris

    Brewster's Millions Jack.
    Non of The Above should be everyone's vote.
    Now if I just had the millions.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  100. Alex

    I refuse to vote for any incumbent. I ask my friends why they would vote for any incumbent but can't seem to get an answer. see people vote for people based on party rather than whose best for the job. There are many candidates that aren't democrats or republicans and my question to you and the rest os the u.s. citizens are why not give these other candidates a chance?

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  101. ed

    As an independent in Oklahoma, not a chance of my voting for my incumbents. I do not think replacing congress with all new people would make any difference at all...power corrupts.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  102. Nell, South Carolina

    Some incumbents are hard-working, sensible legislators.

    Some, such as Jim DeMint, who have deliberately refused to legislate and have used all their votes to undermine every sensible proposal before Congress (in his own words, in order to destroy President Obama) deserve to be dumped. Unfortunately, he won't be.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  103. Lisa Illinois

    I would vote for an incumbent if they are running against someone from the tea party.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  104. Hank

    Have you met Sharon Angle?

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  105. nina1fox

    If the Republicans control Congress, the Average income American is screwed; due to the Republican platform desiring to continue with tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans which can use off shore accounts and tax shelters!!! We might just as well as shoot ourselves in the foot and be done with it.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  106. gloria slater, Poughkeepsie NY

    Honestly jack im not voting for any of them. If i had it my way i would fire them all and start over with a fresh batch. It can't be any worst than what we got now.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  107. Chris Bevers

    Jack –

    Have you forgotten all the airtime that was given to Congressional debate about allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire? The Democrats didn't have the votes... do you know why? Too many Republicans. Same for care for 9/11 responders... and any number of legislative initiatives that have stalled in the Congress. Say it with me, Jack.... Too Many Republicans.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:18 pm |
  108. phil

    The question is: Why would anyone vote for
    a no nothing tea party candidate with no credentials to do anything in government.
    Everyone I have seen is a Radical, Idiot, or
    in the case here in Florida...Senile.
    ie: I hate all this government spending and I am not going to take it anymore but don't touch my Medicare Advantage, Social Security, my Military Pension with VA Benefits or the Senior
    Center in my neighborhood.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
  109. Pierre Angiel

    I voted to stop Republican economic policies which were ruining us. I would vote for any incumbant who helps to keep those Republican policies in the garbage can where they belong.

    Miami, FL

    September 29, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
  110. Keith Jones

    I won't but it really doesn't matter because all of the so called "angry" voters will and we'll end up with the same do nothing congress. Fire them all and do it regularly.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
  111. jim

    Why vote for an incubent, because the person running against him isn't any different than the last one. The only person he cares about is himself. But then isn't that biggest problem America faces, a very large "Me first" population.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:19 pm |
  112. Rusty Garrett

    It's time for Americans to do their homework. We need to part ways with the "parties" and actually look at what the people running for office stand for. How can anyone simply vote for someone under the premise of what party they are affilliated with alone. Americans need to think for themselves...then vote in the person that will best represent their views! Incumbent or not!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  113. Paul

    I like my congressman. That is why I vote for him. He is a democrat by the way.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  114. Randy

    Because there would be a man standing behind me with a gun. Even then, I would still have to take my time and think about it.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  115. Chris

    Jack, I can't think of a single reason to vote for anyone holding office now, not a Republican (which I am) nor a Democrat. That's a sad state of affairs, but ever since public office became a lucrative right as opposed to a privilege subject to renewal by an informed electorate, that's been the situation.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  116. Darryl Schmitz

    I would vote only for the incumbent from the 14th district of Texas – the only congressman who first subjects every bill he votes on to a constitutional litmus test. It's sad that only one out of 535 choose to do so.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  117. Ronda (from Canastota, NY)

    Because when push comes to shove, people will vote for incumbents because they'd rather go with the devil they know than the one they don't. They're afraid someone new might make the situation worse than it already is. As for me, I'd vote to throw the bums out and take my chances with a fresh new face. When you're down that low, the only place to go is up.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  118. Deb Bland

    Well my choices are: vote for a weasel with experience or vote for an idealist with no experience. We all know that newbies to the political system soon morph into the same weasels currently in office so why should we sacrifice the experience and the political clout by voting for the non-incumbent?

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  119. Bill Wade

    Because Sharon Angle is running against him...

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  120. Gail

    I would vote for an incumbent who agrees to term limits. Luckily, my senator does. How many others do?

    Gail in Lexington, SC

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  121. bob w

    Jack, I haven't voted for an incumbent in years. I abstain if necessary. I will put term limits on the bums since they will not do it themselves. The partisanship is sickening and they act like selfish children. Until we get rid of career politicians I don't see much changing.

    Good Day

    Bob in PA

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  122. Glen

    When i go to the polls, I vote against every incumbent in every race. its my way of saying we need term limits and I'm tired of you.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm |
  123. Kellen-SD

    I'm not sure why this country is not giving the Democrats a longer amount of time to fix 8 years of disaster that they inherited. Things do not happen over night; much like a seed doesn't grow into a plant the next morning. Give them more time to produce results and Yes Jack, I will vote for my congresswoman

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  124. Suzanne

    Here in Colorado we don't have much choice: A Tea Party senate candidate who supports the incestuous rape of a 14-year-old girl (NO abortion allowed; "that's what adoption is for") or the previously appointed Michael Bennett who isn't much of a candidate (a DINO?). The Extreme Irrational social conservative vs the Non-Democrat non-progressive disappointment.

    I'll probably vote for Bennett, despite my dislike of him, to keep Boehner and McConnell away from gavels. Like I voted against McCain once he lost his mind and chose Palin. But I'm really really tempted to put the Tea Party in charge, despite the anathema of their social positions, just to see what happens.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  125. Gene

    Jack, I mostly disagree with both parties but by throwing the incumbents out all you achieve is creating divided government and nothing gets done! Yes, I'll vote for the incumbent because if one party is in power at least something will get accomplished.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  126. Theobroma Cacao

    It's simple: because many of the folks running against the incumbents are raving loons. As is often (nearly always) the case these days, it is choosing the lesser of evils. (Kailua-Kona, Hawaii)

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  127. Tommy from Santa Monica

    Jack,
    The problem is that people vote along with party lines, rather than voting for the best person to do the job. As long as this continues to happen, we get stuck with all these bums. We should be watching these people we put in power closely. For me, I want all the bad eggs out.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  128. Connolly

    You vote for an incumbent if they promise (in writing):
    > To resign after the election.
    > To return all the wages paid to them since they were elected.
    > To testify against every incumbent they know has misled the American people on any issue.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  129. Bob

    Like Christine O'Donnell would be an improvement just because she not an incumbent? Come on, Jack. We're not all insane Tea-baggers. Some incumbents are a necessary evil. I've always thought we should throw the bastards out, but like Orwell said, "Some pigs are more equal than other pigs."

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  130. John

    Here in Clark County, Nevada we have a choice of Neighbor Harry Reid who does not appear to help Nevada or any of the people he represents OR the Republican Sharon Angle, who appears to be wild eyed and not with any grasp on reality. Both are slinging mud at the other. So, we are left with the choice of the incumbant who does nothing for us, or the challenger who, if elected, will be parking cars due to her junior status...... "None of the above" looks good to me.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:21 pm |
  131. Rick Fearns

    When you vote, you have to consider the opposing candidate too. As usual, it's often a choice between the lesser of two evils!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  132. Joseph

    Becase in the end it will make no difference. Those non incumbents who take office after this coming election will turn out to be, in time, the new incumbents with simiar defects,and shortcomings as their predecessors and will soon lose their principles once in office. Nothing ever really changes in Washington.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  133. Lawrence

    Jack, I would rather cote for the devil I know than the angel I don't know. We are already in a mess as it is. We just have to put fire behind their 'behind"....look what happened to Sen. McCain trying to bring in Palin ( any other incumbent might have helped his campaign)

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  134. PiedType

    Bad as the incumbents are, their opponents, for whatever reason, may look even worse. We the voters must choose the lesser of two evils, or not vote at all. Helluva choice. No wonder we're so angry.

    Sarah
    Denver, CO

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  135. Tim, Florida

    Jack,
    I plan to vote NO for every last one of them. No No No! We the people have to power to fire these bums, and we need to exercise that power.
    I encourage everyone to vote NO across the board. Dems, GOP, all of them!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  136. Kevin

    Any of you fools that vote along party lines because this is your party...Get your head examined. And as for the tea party....half of them I love....but losers like Palin climbed onboard the tea party wagon because they have no where to go. We need a real voting revolution. Replace Pelosi with a 30-something year old military veteran who is a lesbian and a nationalist...she will win in California. We need to get rid of the Baby Boomers...the baby boomers...the baby boomers....the failed generation that ruined the country.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  137. kathy

    Throw all of them out. There is not one who is reliable and most are self serving to say the least. The members of both parties spend too much time in pointing fingers at each other instead of getting down to business. It is just a romper room for adults who get paid alot and cannot function in a responsible manner.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  138. jim

    Voting against an incumbent is nothing more than voting for someone with a differnt letter behind his name. They care less about America than they do about themselves.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
  139. Annie, Atlanta

    I’d vote for incumbents to stop a corporate takeover. If we don’t, who will? Just take a look at where the money is flowing heavily. The candidates, incumbent or not, on the opposing side of that flow should be getting our votes.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  140. JOE

    Jack,
    If you're talking about the incompetent incumbents that were there during the Bush era, then they won't be getting my vote. I have to hold on to HOPE and give team OBAMA a few more years, besides we gave Bush eight. As a child my mother told me to stay out of the Bushes.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  141. Bill E

    Exactly! I have been a registered Republican most of my voting life. I have served as a city councilman and Mayor of a Southern California city, and I voted for Obama. Notwithstanding all of the above, my wife and I have agreed we will not vote for one incumbent, regardless of party affiliations. Our only hope is to vote out the irresponsible people now holding office and hope that they will be replaced with people who will be accountable for their actions. We are totaly disgusted with our current legislators and Administration.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  142. Kate in Silicon Valley

    The only thing that would make me choose an incumbent is if the opposition is obviously worse. Several months ago, I asked my House rep and both state senators to explain to me why I can't have the same health coverage that they do. They failed to provide any sort of reasonable explanation, so I responded with "You're fired." (All of this was via e-mail.) The Democrats are wimps, the Republicans are fear-mongers, and all of them are so busy trying to keep their cushy jobs that they aren't actually doing their jobs, which is to represent us, the people. Consider me one of the growing Militant Moderates.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  143. Ron

    I would not and will not vote for the same jokers we have in office right now.. We the people of the U.S.A need to step up to the plate and make up for our own failings because its us that kept voting them into office. We Have a chance to make a differance this time around even if its to make a strong statement to them in public office that we WILL NOT allow you to get into the smug sence that we will allow you to do a poor job every year after year... i would rather vote for Goofy than re vote them back into office
    And taking a break too go campaining while the country is in the state it is right now you have to be kidding me.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  144. Chip Taylor

    Jack,
    I'm hailing from Suffolk, VA, good evening to you.
    An excellent question with an answer I believe is becoming more obvious election by election to people such as yourself who are painfully aware of this country's current situation and poisonous political climate. I'm a lifelong conservative Democrat, liberal Republican, neutral Independent, and new Tea Party observer.
    It's very clear to me our elected officials are in fact in these jobs for their own well-being and those of the beltway bandit lobbiests reciprocally scratching their backs.
    Absent term-limits, voting out incumbents is a poor voter's only whip to crack on the House and Senate.
    A quote I read recently sums up my opinion, "Fight organized crime, re-elect no one."

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  145. misterheath

    It would be nice if there were a bunch of parties to vote for, and there were term limits for Congress. Also, it would be great if the average man, or woman, ran. And not rich folks. i.e. Successful businessman such as Romney, McMahon, Whitman. Or lawyers, such as the Clinton's, and Obama.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  146. Ginger McGraw

    Here are four reasons, Jack:
    1. Their opponent is less desirable.
    2. If you keep throwing out the ones with experience, the non-elected staff in the office will be the ones who really run the show.
    3. The more seniority your representative has, the more powerful and influential the committee he/she is on, and that can help your state/district.
    4. They are not all bad, Jack. People need to research and not give a knee-jerk response with sweeping remarks such as, "Throw all the bums out!"

    September 29, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
  147. Gigi Oregon

    It is getting troublesome in the US today with so many getting their information from the media and the Internet. Which is so easy to hip up information. and to spread poll numbers as facts etc, I'll be voting in my state for several incumbents because I can research the facts, And I have a memory longer than the end of my nose. I remember how weary everyone was during and after the Bush years that we wanted change. And change is what the people voted for but...they wanted it yesterday and you can't undo years of bad deals in 2 or 3 years. Yes I'll vote for those who have voted for change even if it takes 4or 5 years to straighten out the mess the Republicans put us in.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  148. Cindy Merrill

    From Owls Head New York:
    Like a famous comedian and philosopher once said: Elected officials are like diapers: They require frequent removal for precisely the same reason. Both Bush Administrations and Obama's have one thing in common: Contempt for taxpayers who worried about the National Debt and too much involvement overseas- well, we ( Independants like myself)are sick and tired of being ignored. So whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, better pack your bags. Don't think your political ads will help, either- most of us have a MUTE button on our TV remote control , and we know how to use it, too.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  149. Duop, Colorado Springs, Colorado

    Jack, The so call "incumbents" will still show up on our door steps even if we get rid of them. Here is the question you should ask: Why voters seem to be confused between the two major political parties?

    September 29, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  150. Rudiger Burk

    I think we need to clean out anyone who has been in office more than 10 yrs. And set a term limit of 8 yrs. both parties

    September 29, 2010 at 6:24 pm |
  151. Larry

    Believe me, I am not defending politicians here, but I think if we are going to be totaly honest ,any politician who tells the public what it really takes to pull out of this mess would be in an unemployment line. The american public is looking for someone to make it painless and if we don't get what we vote in someone else who is less than honest. After all, everyone gets something from the government and no one wants to give up their goodies.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:25 pm |
  152. Emily

    Why vote for an incumbent? I will vote for the incumbent because there are too many quacks running against them. How can you vote for a quack?!!! Especially for a quack that says one thing one day and denies it the next!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm |
  153. Jimthedo, Phoenix, AZ

    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm |
  154. Vulpine, Elkton, MD

    Question: Why vote for any incumbent?

    How about when the challenger is the former incumbent who was voted out four years ago?

    Quite honestly, you can't make a global statement when the individual races will have unusual circumstances.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:41 pm |
  155. Lynn

    I'll vote for Democrats, because I'm not drinking the TEA! I know who got us into this mess, and a unnecessary war. Republicans deregulated everything, even raided our 401k's. If we vote those people back in office again, we get exactly what we deserve. I don't want hear any complaining whatsoever!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:42 pm |
  156. Lawrence, Pensacola

    Jack, the problem is that the vast majority of voters are not in any way properly informed when heading into the polls. We simply vote along party lines and do not care enough to look at what individual politicians have done (or not done) for this country. If the budget hasn't been passed, then all Democrat politicians must be "bad". The same thing happened last election cycle; we were still fighting two wars, thus all Republican politicians must be "bad". The bottom line is that the majority of politicians are not helping this country, but the problem is that we are two lazy to truly figure out who comprises the minority that are.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:42 pm |
  157. wayne

    Reasons to vote for an incumbent wouild be nut jobs like Christie O'Connell andSarah Angle. Sommetimes you need to vote for the least desirable.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm |
  158. Jim Blevins

    Bush et. al. did more damage in his 8 years than could possibly be corrected in two. I will vote for incumbents based on what they do, not based on some expectation of a miracle.

    Jim, Craig, CO

    September 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm |
  159. Willie12345

    If we vote all of the incumbents out of office it will send all of the politicians a strong message. Do the job we sent you to Washington to do, or you're history. It's about doing the job, not about being extremely loyal to the party.

    Party leaders should be ones that are under the most pressure. Their job is to make the government work, not to act as a road block to our nations progress. They must learn to compromise !

    September 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm |
  160. Sue

    I will not vote for any incumbent.

    Most posts have written my sentiments of TERM LIMITS a must!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm |
  161. Kevin

    I recently read that Brazil will not let Francisco Silva run for Congress because he is clown. If we adopted this rule in the United States then Congress would be empty. Maybe that's a good thing

    September 29, 2010 at 6:43 pm |
  162. Dorothea

    Considering what the "new" blood consists of, the likes of O'Donnell, Palin, and that nut case running against Reid– yes, we could do worse.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:44 pm |
  163. johnny kage

    Its funny how some voters say they dont want career politicians, but back in 2008, also didnt want to give obama their vote because he hadnt been in Washington long enough!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
  164. Anne

    I have never, and will never vote for any incumbent. There has never been anyone in office doing anything I think is worthwhile to make me vote them in for a second term. I am a huge proponent of term limits. If the president can only serve for 8 years, that is the absolute longest any other politician should be able to serve. The current administration, Republicans and Democrats alike, are doing nothing to assist small businesses or citizens much less preserving the American way of life.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
  165. David

    Members of congress are no different from any of the voters who continually elect them. The basic attitude held by most is "please fix this enormous mess, but don't take anything from me, take it from that guy over there". The moves that must be done to correct this mess are equivalent to political suicide. Taxes must be raised. Tax cuts must be allowed to expire. Programs must be cut.

    Now, please do all that and go home to voters to try and be sell it. Would you do something you know will get you fired? No, and most of these guys won't either. The fact is that voters don't want to accept what has to be done to fix things. Toes get stepped on, and people just clam up and do nothing. Any solution you look at will almost always be solved at the expense of someone or something not affected by the person proposing it.

    "without pain, without sacrifice, we will have nothing" – Fight Club

    David J
    So California

    September 29, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
  166. guy from NM

    As long as we do not have a "none of the above" option, we, as citizens are loosing the battle. Will not vote for any Republicans, and maybe will vote for Democrats, most likely third party if available. there must be a least 3 or 4 Democrat incumbents that are not too rotten. But I have no illusion, the whole system is owned by corporate dollars.

    September 29, 2010 at 6:46 pm |
  167. Victor

    Do not vote for the Incumbents, They did NOT include themselves in the Health Bill they passed, nor do they contribute to Social Security.. They did NOt elected to be a part of any health care program they passed for the American people. They voted to have thier own retirement fund and health care program. Both of which is much better than what they voted for the Americam people.
    Vote the BORN AGAIN STUDIP members out of ofiice.
    IT is "WE THE PEOPLE" !
    No Taxation without HONEST representation!

    September 29, 2010 at 6:47 pm |
  168. Michael R

    Adjourn to Campaign? Are the Democrats the only party in Congress? I agree that everyone and especially politicians should be held accountable, but we are the ones who are insane. We keep voting the same people back into office and expecting different results. This economic mess didn’t develop over the last 18 months and it’s not going to be great again for years. We can’t keep changing that momentum every two years. We need some stability, whether we like our government or not. It’s too soon to tell and I’m for letting the incumbents prove themselves.
    Denver,CO

    September 29, 2010 at 6:48 pm |