Just some random observations about election 2010...
First up, you can't beat -- at least not in most places -- a p.o.'d electorate. With few exceptions -- more on that in a minute -- if you were an incumbent, you were gonna get tossed. While the citizens (actually that should say voters) of the U.S.A. want something done, they don't want just anything done, and they especially aren't happy with rocking the boat when it comes to big issues like healthcare.
Second, for those that can't remember the past -- it's the economy stupid. Yup, same old issue that this time cost the Democrats in Congress dearly, and nearly lost them the Senate as well.
Third, people don't like the appearance of buying a seat in Congress, or even a governorship. Well, that, and the fact that some states (California, and most of Maryland for that matter) are so steadfastly blue that they just won't elect a Republican no matter how badly the rest of the country is signaling that it's time for a change.
Enough with the numbering of the points, let me just ramble a bit more on that last point. Maryland was one of the few places (along with California), where Democrats held onto power for the most part. Much of Maryland continues to "hope" and "has Obama's back". That was pretty much a foregone conclusion. I noted previously that Ehrlich ran a poor campaign and let himself get painted and defined by his opponent with some misleading labels that he just couldn't shake. The Democrat governor energized his base, promised to keep moving the state forward (right into a wave of higher taxes, most likely), and the hope-rs and believers in the state have gone along for the ride -- depsite a nationwide wave calling for change.
California kept the senator and went Democrat for their governor despite one of the most screwed up budget and economic situations ever. In that state the amount of money spent by the GOP candidates was nothing short of obscene. It gave the appearance of trying to buy the election, and in the end it was a waste of money as the state was so overwhelmingly blue that you would have needed a McCain type RINO candidate to be running, and even then they would likely have had to be touting a history of multiple abortions and years of appearances at gay pride events.
Some voters just won't be swayed, at least not until things are so horribly screwed up for them and/or their families that it would likely be too late to make a difference. Until then, well, some voters will continue to follow that old "it's not my representation that is the problem, it's the other people's that are" adage. That still makes me long for hard and fast term limits that would require change every so often. Yeah, yeah, I've heard the old tired arguements that the best term limits come at the hands of voters, but there are places that just doesn't happen. I see absolutely nothing wrong with the military style of "up or out". Put in limits that basically force people to move up or out along the way. At least that would turn over offices regularly, and as a by-product, if someone really is that good along the way, wouldn't we want to have them continue working at higher and higher levels?
I am looking forward to all of the political signage coming down, and looking forward to having cleaner airwaves (Radio and TV) to listen to. I know the TV and Radio stations, along with the print media, etc., are going to be sad that the gravy train of political ad money is gone now, but I want the peace and quiet that is coming. Please let it come soon