This strikes me as a pretty simplistic -- that is to say, almost simple-minded -- analysis:
INDIANAPOLIS — What do President Barack Obama, Schools Superintendent Tony Bennett and State Treasurer Richard Mourdock have in common, aside from losing Indiana voters this year after winning them over on previous ballots?
They all represented break-neck change, and Indiana voters said "No, thank you."
In the case of Obama and Bennett, voters gave them a shot four years ago, but rejected them this year. In Mourdock's case, voters heard his comments that pregnancy resulting from rape was something "God intended" and opted for the candidate who literally positioned himself in the middle of the road in his campaign commercials.
Certainly it's not startling to claim that Hoosiers as a general rule don't care much for change, especially rapid change. But it's a big stretch to find evidence of that in this election. Bennett's loss, for one thing, was the result of an intense social-media campaign by teachers and their union. I'm not sure most Hoosiers thought much about the radical change of education reforms one way or the other. And voting against Barack Obama and Richard Mourdock is the classic "sending a mixed signal" vote, don't you think? Hell, maybe Hoosiers were just smarter than a majority of voters in recognizing that a president with a lousy first term would likely have a lousy second term?