More On "Anti-Incumbency."

Sean Trende over at Real Clear Politics published an article this morning entitled 2010: Anti-Incumbent, Anti-Liberal or Anti-Democrat? It goes along with our contention that 2010 is not simply an "anti-incumbent" year.

Trende accurately notes that "anti-incumbency" is the story line currently being pitched by the Democrats...just as Republicans did in 2006. He goes on:

Nevertheless, I don't think it is likely that this will be a generalized anti-incumbent election. The reason is pretty simple: We don't have "anti-incumbent" elections in this country. Stu Rothenberg noted in 2006 that the closest we've come in the past fifty years to a generalized anti-incumbent election was 1990, when six Democrats and nine Republicans lost in the general election, and in 1978, when 14 Democrats and five Republicans were defeated that November.

Finally, he concludes:

The historical record provides no support for 2010 being a generalized anti-incumbent year; the elections to date this cycle in major statewide races certainly don’t support this scenario either. The real question is whether moderate or conservative Democrats who oppose the Beltway Democratic agenda will be given cover from angry voters, or whether the electorate will thoroughly clean house this fall. That’s where the difference between a bad Democratic year and a debacle of historic proportions can be found.