So says the National Journal:
Despite being fed a steady diet of political vitriol about the evils of earmarking, Americans are more likely to vote for a congressional candidate who brings home the bacon, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.
In addition, the public is nonplussed about partisan standard-bearers. More respondents by far said it makes no difference to their vote if a candidate is affiliated with President Obama, former Republican Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, or the tea party movement.
Funneling money back to the folks back home was the only factor that would indicate support for a congressional candidate.
This applies to both 2301 and 2302.
In 2301 we over elections and the factors which lead voters to choose one candidate or party over the other. While people like to talk about principles, we tend to be driven by pocketbook considerations. Who in fact is going to provide us with the material needs we need to live our lives?
It's a similar point in 2302 when we cover the legislature. We say we don't like earmarks, but we punish members of Congress who don't provide them for us. Member of Congress know this, and it helps explain why they seldom give serious thought to deficit cutting. Again, we like it when they say they want to cut the deficit, but we punish them when they do, especially when it means that we must lose a local spending project.
This brings us to another point from 2301: The quality of public opinion. Are we truly rational? Do our individual preferences make sense in the aggregate?
