Voters Chose Angry Candidates, But (Mostly) Rejected Incompetent Ones
Robin Marty over at Care2makes the case that even though being a Washington outsider was a major badge of pride among the Tea Party crowd, voters largely rejected the most inexperienced, unqualified candidates in big-ticket races. They may have been angry, but they weren't stupid, she says, citing the defeats of loopy candidates like Christine O'Donnell, (likely) Joe Miller and Sharron Angle as an example of voters vetting their candidates' credentials. Marty writes that Rand Paul was the exception to this somewhat heartening trend. She added:
Yes, Democrats received a lot of very bad news in the midterms. There will be a new and full freshman class of politicians coming in that could change the face of politics in the country. But for the most part, these aren't completely green politicians, and at least we can be grateful for that.
Josh Marshall at TPM notes the same trend, and wonders whether if these particular candidates were running for more obscure, less spotlighted House seats, they might not have more quietly won their elections. It was the media and their opponents really highlighting their lack of experience or incompetence in one area or another that helped sink them, he surmises:
I think out of the 65 or so Republicans who won tonight you've got a number of Joe Millers and Sharron Angles.
There are lots and lots of House races. The candidates tend to get much less scrutiny than Senate candidates. Much less. There are just too many of them.