We've been hearing a lot from the media about how voters are in an "anti-incumbent" mood. I would have to say the "anti-incumbent" label is false--anti-republican is a much better fit. Once again, the media is killing us with hostile framing, excusing the republicans and instead blaming incumbents in general for all the nation's problems.
This fits perfectly with the PR strategy the GOP has used with FOX: if there's bad news for Republicans, run some story putting the two parties at the same level. Example: Republicans took money from Abramoff, but Democrats took money from Abramoff clients. Tom Delay might have his network of corruption, but Alan Mollohan and William Jefferson are ethically questionable. The Republicans might have stuck FEMA into DHS, underfunded it, and appointed Brownie as the director, leaving the agency unprepared to do its job, but throw enough shit at the democratic governor and mayor and it all evens out. Never mind that their crimes aren't even in the same ballpark.
Now, the Republicans have ruined the nation and people are picking up on it, so they label any challenger victories the result of "anti-incumbent" sentiment. How about people are sick of Republicans and their collaborators? Joe Lieberman didn't lose because he was an incumbent, he lost because he acted like a Republican. Republicans aren't losing in the polls because because they represent more people; they're losing because voters don't like what they've been doing.
Here in North Carolina, our incumbents are still generally popular--and they're all Democrats. North Carolina views federal incumbents unfavorably, but the democratic governor, administration, and legislature remain popular. If this was anti-incumbent sentiment going on, it would hurt state level people too, but it doesn't because they aren't republicans.
If this was a year of anti-incumbent sentiment, you would see relative parity in challenger strength across party lines. We are not. Out of the 27 close races for which polls were shown on blogs earlier today, only 5 were currently held by democrats. Out of those 5, all the Democrats--the incumbent party here--were ahead. Among Dems, that's a 5-0 incumbent advantage. In the 22 Republican-held seats, Democrats were ahead in 13, constituting a 9-13 challenger advantage. Add it all together, and you get a 14-13 incumbent advantage. This is clearly not very anti-incumbent.
However, if you open your eyes past incumbency, you see that out of the 27 races, republicans are favored in 9 and democrats are favored in 18. This is a clear advantage and should be the focus of any poll analysis. Anti-incumbent mood holds only if and only if the incumbent is a republican. Calling it anti-incumbent is not only spin, but it's just false.
People want a change, but that doesn't mean that people are going to go vote against every incumbent they see--it means they're going to vote against every republican they see. The media needs to realize this and stop parroting the anti-incumbent line and favoring the republicans. True objective reporting means telling the truth, not lying to promote the party of your corporate owners.
It's time to change this narrative. We cannot ever use the word anti-incumbent, because it feeds the myth that 2006 is anything but a reaction against failed republican governance. People are pissed at republicans, and we cannot pretend that it's their standing as incumbents that makes them vulnerable.