I didn't even know there was such a thing as nationalhogfarmer.com, but here they weigh in with what seems like a commonsense obersvation missed by everyone else about the Lugar-Mourdock race:
Voters keep saying they want the partisanship to end in Washington, DC, but in the last month they have voted to increase partisanship. Two respected members of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees were defeated because they were not politically pure.
I said "seems" like common sense. It breaks down because the assumption is made that the voters who say they want partisanship to end and the voters who vote to increase partisanship are the same people, and they're likely not. It occurs to me I might have been guilty of the same fallacy when I wrote that people tell pollsters they support gay marriage then reject it overwhelmingly at the polls. It could be that people who support gay marriage are less motivatved to go to the polls. The proposals usually come in the form of defining marriage as the untion of one man and one woman, and that's a framing designed to get the strongly pro-tradition forces out to vote.
