In a previous post, I proposed that the Financial Times might provide interesting coverage of the election:
[V]otes can be cast–and correctly interpreted–as “productive misunderstandings.†The Democrats are not an anti-war party, but they may benefit from popular anti-war sentiment anyway. If so, much will depend on the media coverage of the elections. Will the election be interpreted as a vote against the war, even if the party that benefits is not against the war?
One reason why I often turn to the Financial Times for election analysis around the world is that they understand that some elections are lost by incumbents, even if they are not really won by challengers. It will be interesting to check in with the FT Wednesday.
Here is Ed Luce from the Financial Times on Wednesday, in an article entitled “Iraq War Decimates Republican Vote“:
Whether they were representing districts in America’s traditionally liberal north-east, in the more embattled swing states of the Midwest, along the ideologically pragmatic states of the west or even in conservative districts south of the Mason-Dixon line, Republican incumbents were punished for their association with President George W. Bush’s unpopular war in Iraq…
“The principal story of the 2006 mid-term elections is that voters were driven by their opposition to the war in Iraq,†said Charlie Cook, whose Cook political report is widely read among pundits in Washington. “This was not a vote for the Democrats so much as against President Bush and against the war in Iraq.â€
Financial Times, old faithful.
Before they get caught up in bipartisan spirit and the Pentagon’s forthcoming Study Group plan, the new Dems in Congress would be wise to check the graphic on the left side of this NYT page: according to a nationwide election exit poll, more Americans favor the withdrawal of all troops than any other option for troop presence in Iraq.