Last week I spent some time in Missouri. I arrived in the capital city just after the primary election and met with legislators, regulators and several state government staffers. Not once did I hear a word about Kerry, Edwards or any of the candidates who had been on the front pages of their morning papers. That is, not once until I spoke with a woman at the American Airlines counter at the Columbia-Jefferson City airport. This woman ? one of only four employees that I counted in the tiny facility ? showed interest in my destination/home. When she saw my driver?s license, she commented on John Edwards? win ?down in ?Carolina.? She said that she likes him because he is a lawyer and speaks plainly. I responded that most people don?t like lawyers so I found her opinion interesting. She went on to say that there are lots of lawyers, with more being made every year, and each lawyer has a family who loves him. To her mind, there are no more crooked lawyers than there are crooked mechanics, corrupt clergy or ?rotten corporations.? At this bit of wisdom, I knew I had found a great conversation partner. We proceeded to have a very nice talk about education policy (she is for more funding for special education services), the state budget (she thinks they waste money in Jeff City) and Iraq (where ?those guys working for Saddam were up to no good.?)
Anecdotal at best, but as a snapshot of how folks in the rest of the country see our senior Senator, it was an eye opener. It also suggested that although this particular voter may follow her favorite issues closely, support for a candidate might in the end be made less on reason and more on intuition.
Would anyone care to comment? Have you observed a case where evidence suggests majority support for candidate X?s proposals and yet candidate Y wins based on ?likeability??
