There is no doubt that there is a lot of frustration across the country with Washington. There always is some simmering level of it. It’s in the nature of the American psyche to be suspicious of the establishment. But in their analysis of a small number of off-year and off-season election results on Tuesday, the media has really overstated the case. They’re looking for a story, I suppose. In fact, I don’t think that was much of an issue at all.

The more local an election gets the more it is about local elections and about the person running. Candidates can actually meet voters, and the way they come across matters. This was a huge factor in the special election to replace Senator Kennedy here in Massachusetts, for example. Scott Brown simply got out more, shook more hands, and was a more likable candidate. Yes, frustration with Washington and the policies of President Obama was a factor, but more so in making sure people Brown’s supporters turned out than in swaying undecided voters. The President still has a high approval rating in this state. In off-year elections, however, it is generally the angry voters that turn out. I can’t say if that was an issue in the elections Tuesday, not having been in the states where campaigning was taking place, but it may have been.
There were also specific issues in most of the races that the media most focused on that made them exceptional. To me the most obvious example is Senator Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. He may well have won in a general election, but he was running in a Democratic primary. He was a victim of the increasing polarization of both parties and, while I respect Senator Spector greatly and am disappointed to see him go, I can understand why primary voters made that choice. Where I Pennsylvania voter, I might well have done the same. Specter is simply too conservative for my tastes.
The only race that had a Democrat running against a Republican was the one to fill the Congressional seat of John Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, and it was won by a Democrat who was a former Murtha aide.
I’ve followed other races less closely, but the Houston Chronicle sums them up nicely. It seems they were issue based.
High sensitivity of penis nerves is the generic viagra generic most common issues faced by men is erectile dysfunction (ED). Instantly soon after levitra pills for sale discover for info remedy and remedy, adults using the sickness are able of are living entirely functional life-style with quantity of troubles. There are a wide range of factors that cause this cialis from india online situation. Sometimes, spyware is used purely for criminal purposes, such as stealing your credit card information or social security number whenever you enter this information secretworldchronicle.com buy tadalafil 20mg into an order form or email form so that it can take time to discover what is going to make a difference.

In Arkansas, the same labor-liberal-left coalition backed Lt. Gov. Bill Halter against incumbent Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who had opposed a public option for health care reform. She barely outpolled him 45-43 and faces a difficult runoff campaign.
The one bright spot for the tea party came in Kentucky with the victory of Republican senatorial candidate Rand Paul, the ophthalmologist son of Texas congressman and recent presidential candidate Ron Paul. In the race to replace retiring GOP Sen. Jim Bunning he easily defeated Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who had the backing of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also from Kentucky. Paul will now face Democratic state Attorney General Jack Conway in the fall.
Interestingly, 178,000 more Democrats cast ballots in Kentucky Senate primaries than did Republicans. While the tea party rocked the GOP establishment, it may be less potent in a general election.
November is still a long way off, but if Tuesday established anything, it’s that the outcome of the midterm elections is even more in doubt.