Earmarks: Rehabilitated, or Never a Dirty Word with Voters in the First Place?

Link to August 2 Pew Research Center for the People & The Press report, "Earmarks Could Help Candidates in Midterms; Palin and Tea Party Connections Could Hurt".

Excerpt:   In the congressional elections this fall, candidates with a record of bringing government projects and money to their districts may have an edge. A majority of Americans (53%) say they are more likely to vote for a candidate with a record of delivering earmarks for their districts; just 12% say they would be less likely to vote for such a candidate. A third of the public (33%) says this would make no difference in their vote either way.

Far fewer say support from Barack Obama, Sarah Palin or affiliation with the Tea Party movement would make them more likely to vote for a candidate in this year's congressional elections...

If we believe the results of this survey, how do we reconcile them with this report?  (A question I'm not going to answer 'on the record'.)

Link to July 26 Politico report, "Senate hopefuls imperil earmarks".

Excerpt: A new crop of Senate candidates is threatening one of the last bastions of unapologetic earmark protection: old-bull senators and lobbyists.

More than 15 Senate candidates — ranging from tea party conservatives to liberal Democratic hopefuls — have promised to either forgo pet projects or ban the practice altogether, putting them in direct conflict with senior senators who view earmarking as both a constitutional right and a senatorial privilege. Add these candidates to the growing cadre of junior lawmakers who have sworn off earmarks already, and 2010 may mark the beginning of a cultural change that prompts Congress to curtail its appetite for pet projects — if the candidates keep their campaign promises.