“Marc Ambinder”:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/stupid-pundit-tricks-incumbency/62995/:
bq. Because political pundits like to be contrarian on mornings like this, they’ll unleash one of their old standbys, like, “Well, you know, Steve Doocy, 98 percent of incumbents are going to get re-elected. So it’s really not correct to say that this is an anti-establishment, anti-incumbent cycle.”
bq. That line is content-less. It’s like saying that your record as a political prognosticator is excellent because you correctly picked the winner of 400 of 435 House races. Actually, only about 35 (or 70) House races need prognosticators.
bq. In places where the political environment allows for a competitive race, it SURE AS HELL is an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment year. It is many more things, too, but don’t fall for that bit of punditry tomfoolery.
Since I’ve apparently been “making”:https://themonkeycage.org/2010/06/feel_the_anger_people.html a “content-less” argument and engaging in “stupid pundit tricks,” let me respond.
Ambinder’s sleight-of-hand is in the phrase “where the political environment allows for a competitive race.” Hmm. Let’s see, what is one aspect of the “political environment” that might prevent a race from becoming competitive? Oh, I’ve got it! A STRONG INCUMBENT.
Ambinder’s argument is the equivalent of my saying this: on all the golf courses that Tiger Woods currently isn’t playing, I can definitely beat Tiger Woods.