Year of the “What?”

I’m not really a political expert.  If I were, I’d be making my living running political campaigns and working to get the “right” people elected to office.

But, while I may not be a political expert, I am an expert when it comes to watching politics.  And, right now, I see an interesting political phenomenon that I haven’t seen since 1992.

Now, for those of you who can’t remember 1992, or don’t want to remember, let me give you a quick history lesson.

The national media declared that 1992 was the “Year of the Woman.”  After the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas debacle, women began to mobilize, helped by a national press which declared it the Year of the Woman, and garnered listeners and viewers.

Women felt empowered.  Right, here, in our own state, the soccer mom in tennis shoes, Patty Murray, rode the woman’s wave into office as the first woman US senator from Washington.

She was helped by the fact, that the incumbent Brock Adams, had decided not to run, after more than a half dozen women said he made unwanted sexual advances towards them.

Woman all over the state swept aside incumbent males and made a major inroad into the state legislature.

On a national level, six women were elected to the US senate including two from California.

1992, the so-called Year of the Woman – – designated such by the national media- – turned out to be, the year of the woman.

Now, my political instincts tell me that the national media are at it again.  They’ve put up their finger, sniffed the air, and determined that 2010 is now the “Year of the Anti-Incumbent.”  They are predicting that the electorate will turn out of office, many incumbent legislators.

Will the thurst of the media once again turn out to be true?  Will the mere fact that the media is predicting an anti-incumbent vote, actually produce an anti-incumbent vote?

They were right in 1992 when they called it the Year of the Woman, and voters in our state elected Patty Murray to the US senate.

Well, guess what?  Patty Murray is up for re-election this year, and she’s an incumbent.   Once she swam with the current, riding the year of the woman all the way to Washington DC.  Can she do it again, this time swimming against the current?

Are voters in Washington state really angry?  Do they really want to vote out all incumbents?   We saw an anti-incumbent trend last year when 75 percent of all incumbents lost their jobs.

Will it happen again?  Will Patty Murray retain her seat garnered during the Year of the Woman, or will see lose it now, in the Year of the Anti-Incumbent?

Stick around.  It gets more interesting the closer we get to the election.