bq. I know I could lose my pundit’s license for saying this, but I have no idea what Tuesday’s elections mean.
That is Matt Miller, saying what no pundit has the courage to say. He goes on:
bq. As in all such moments, we’re seeing an orgy of instant analysis that is largely useless.
Indeed! Someone asked me today why I hadn’t posted on yesterday’s elections. And say what, exactly? What can we make from a handful of primaries and special elections? Not much. I’ve said this before.
So kudos to Miller. Well, mostly kudos. And the end, after joking that his wife tires of inconclusive ramblings and urges him to “feign a strong opinion,” he proffers this:
bq. My best guess is that we’re entering a period in which anti-incumbent fervor will become the default attitude of an electorate whose economic prospects have dimmed. This is not just because of the recession. Even after steady economic growth resumes, more and more Americans will find themselves struggling. What these trends portend is lasting voter frustration as it dawns on a widening swath of Americans that the perquisites of middle-class life, and the prospects of upward mobility for their children, may elude them.
I have no idea whether that will prove true at all, but I would be very surprised if any “anti-incumbent fervor” put much dent in the extraordinarily high rates at which incumbents are reelected.
But Miller saves himself with this conclusion:
bq. Today that gives us Rand Paul. Tomorrow it may give us his opposite. Your guess is as good as mine.
The world would be a better place if all the political “analysts” on cable news were given the title “guesser.”
[Hat tip to Andy Karch for the Miller piece.]