Two Numbers Behind Voters Sour Mood - WSJ

[SassyLady]

I thought one of the numbers would have been the Unemployment %.




Understanding this year's big midterm election isn't so hard after all.Two numbers from a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll—46 and 48—tell you all you need to know.
<!-- lib_json_commons.ftl -->http://m.wsj.net/video/20101021/102110hubpmvoters/102110hubpmvoters_512x288.jpg (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575565811875371180.html#)
Jerry Seib has details of a new WSJ/NBC News poll showing that nearly half of American voters think President Obama's health-care overall was a bad idea and are alright with sending a candidate with no political experience to Washington.


Audio


Listen: Many voters think the health-care overhaul is bad and many would rather vote for a candidate with no experience. WSJ's Gerald Seib reports. (http://podcast.mktw.net/wsj/audio/20101022/pod-wsjepseib/pod-wsjepseib.mp3)

The first is the percentage of voters who think the health-care overhaul was a bad idea, which shows how that legislative achievement has never become the asset Democrats hoped. Instead, for some Democrats at least, the milestone has become more of a millstone.

The second number is the percentage of voters who say they would rather elect a congressional candidate with no experience whatsoever than one with 10 years of experience. That sentiment illustrates the rise of the tea-party movement and the general mood of insurrection that marks this year's campaign.

In their own ways, those two numbers confound both conventional wisdom and what history would lead us to believe. They show why this has become such an unusual year, and underscore that America is in a phase of broad political volatility.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575565811875371180.html

[SassyLady]

more from same article........



Even more important in understanding the dynamics of 2010 is the broader backdrop. That broader dynamic became clear when voters were asked in the poll how they would vote if their choice for electing a member of Congress came down to a candidate who had served 10 years in Congress or one who was running for political office for the first time.

Given that choice, 48% said they'd vote for the political novice, while just 23% said they'd pick the candidate with experience.

That finding captures the throw-'em-out, break-some-crockery mood that produced the tea-party movement, which in turn has done much to define and animate the campaign. Indeed, a striking 68% of those who identify themselves as tea-party supporters said they'd back the political novice, while just 10% would pick the candidate with experience.

But the finding illustrates more than the genesis of the tea party. It shows just how much Americans' political impulses have changed since the end of the Cold War. For decades, being the experienced candidate usually proved to be an asset in the end. The backdrop of a nuclear standoff with another superpower told voters the stakes were high and the world was complicated, and that they'd better not take chances with novices. Experience was something to tout.


This year, experience has become, for many candidates, something to apologize for. The irony for Democrats is that this attitude actually represents s continuation of the one that made President Obama possible in the first place. At the outset of the 2008 campaign, many wondered whether the country would elect a man just four years removed from the Illinois state senate to be president, but Mr. Obama's outsider status—his ability to project an image of change—turned out to be an asset.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575565811875371180.html

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1029cd20101028071422.jpg

[Kathianne]

I thought one of the numbers would have been the Unemployment %.

Yep, I would have thought deficits and unemployment/underemployment. Health Care is a big deal to me, though I've always thought that at minimum they were going to be forced to scale back.