WV Citizen Action Group on MA-SEN Special Election

wrong (0.00 / 0)

for many it was about the health care bill...that they have a particular program in place in mass. does not mean mass. voters are disinterested in the national health care bill and its potential effect on them, the economy etc...spin it anyway you want but that vote was a direct shot across the bow of an arrogant congress and immature executive trying to shove something down americas throat which they do not want..politicians on both side of the aisle are an arrogant bunch whose egos inflate with each time they are hounded by people calling them senator or congressman and wanting something...we will see if that arrogance sinks tham or whether the listen to the voters...who, contrary to what some have posted on this site today, are on the whole alot smarter than they are given credit for...

---

by: stevewvu @ Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 20:39:59 PM UTC

btw... you never did answer my question (4.00 / 1)

What channel did you hear all that "news" on?

And, are you well informed enough to know what Sen. Brown's position is on health care reform?

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 21:12:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

on fox and (0.00 / 0)

on the local radio news when they interviewed people leaving the polls...i also picked alot of it up reading the comments sections of the boston globe online

---

by: stevewvu @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 17:58:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are aware that Fox is a political and entertainment enterprise, not a news org., aren't you? (0.00 / 0)

Fox "News" successfully fought off a lawsuit by establishing the legal precedent that they have a right to present knowingly false information.

During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre's claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.

There's ample evidence they've been exercise their right to present false information ever since.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 19:58:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sen. Coburn toldhis contituents to STOP listening to FOX (0.00 / 0)

What so you think The Boston Globe meant it when they said NO EXIT POLLS. How do you even know whether the paper's commenter voted?

Sen. Coburn was asked a really ridiculous, IMHO, question at a town hall just last week. Rather than turn it on the questioner he asked where they got their information. The citizen said FOX. He said stop watching, and read two newspapers like he read the Washingtonian Post and the Wall Street Journal.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 01:11:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Even Brown voters want a public option (4.00 / 1)

Why did people who voted for Obama for President over a year ago vote for Brown yesterday? Instead of just guessing, someone actually ran a polled them to find out. Turns out that even Brown voters want a public option:

DEMOCRATS LEARNING WRONG LESSON FROM MASSACHUSETTS? EVEN SCOTT BROWN VOTERS WANT THE PUBLIC OPTION, WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

HEALTH CARE BILL OPPONENTS THINK IT "DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH"

       * by 3 to 2 among Obama voters who voted for Brown
       * by 6 to 1 among Obama voters who stayed home

   (18% of Obama supporters who voted supported Brown.)

VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION

       * 82% of Obama voters who voted for Brown
       * 86% of Obama voters who stayed home

OBAMA VOTERS WANT DEMOCRATS TO BE BOLDER

       * 57% of Brown voters say Obama "not delivering enough" on change he promised
       * 49% to 37% among voters who stayed home

PLUS: Obama voters overwhelming want bold economic populism from Democrats in 2010. See more results here.

Democrats need to be bolder. Time to lead, not concede.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 23:51:53 PM UTC

Then they are complete friggin idiots (0.00 / 0)

considering Brown ran repeatedly stated that he would vote against HCR. Brown is as much for a public option as Limbaugh and Beck are!!

Why in God's name would someone who wanted a public option vote for someone like that!1?

Honestly, would you really vote for a Teabagger who promised to kill health care reform because the existing bill didn't go far enough? Are you seriously asking me to believe that large groups of people in MA did?

This is just ridiculous.

---

by: Bobzim @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 00:36:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Policy discussions are one thing, voting is another. (0.00 / 0)

Voting is an emotional response, and if there was frustration with lack of health care reform and I would argue financial reform also but this was not in this poll, you can stay home as a Democrat out of that frustration or register a protest vote stemming from that emotion if you are an independent and have no party identification. And independents out number the total of Democrats and Republicans in the Bay State. As an anecdote, this echoes what I heard in my own kitchen last night from the offspring of people who worked for Democratic administrations for generations.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:27:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Brown likes universal healthcare... he's not the same boat as Limbaugh / Beck (0.00 / 0)

It makes more sense if you actually listen to some of the not-very-clear reasons Brown gaves for HCR opposition:

"We have insurance here in Massachusetts. We have some of the best doctors, nurses and hospitals in the country, that's why people come here," Brown said.

Massachusetts does indeed have universal insurance--but that's because in 2006, Romney spearheaded and signed a health care reform bill in Massachusetts, that made health insurance a requirement; just like the Democrats are trying to do right now. And, as you might've guessed, as state Senator, Brown voted for it.

Which makes statements like these all the more puzzling: "I'd like to send them back to the drawing board, because I believe people should have insurance, not this particular bill because it's not good for the country."

So what's good for Massachusetts is not good for the country, then?

Wrong again! Turns out, it's not even good for Massachusetts!

"Not only is this bill going to be bad for the state, my job is to be the senator from Massachusetts," Brown said. I'm not going to be subsidizing for the next three, five years, pick a number, subsidizing what other states have failed to do."

For the same reasons why so many low information voters were duped by "compassionate conservatism" in Nov. 2000, I can see how voters full of "hope for change" in Nov. 2008 decided someone who had voted for their state health insurance plan might be just fine representing them in DC. (I don't agree... in the long run I think MA votes will be disappointed with Brown... but I can understand the short term angst fueling such a vote.)

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:07:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I can't. (0.00 / 0)

For me, seeing a left-wing poll that says that 82% of Obama voters voted for Scott Brown - who explicitly said he was against a federal public option - because the current HCR bills don't have a public option is right up there with the Survey USA poll that said 71% of Republicans thought it was "extremely" or "quite important" "to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance".

They're both blatantly absurd, and when we use these very dubious statistics to get as agro as FireDogLake - raising money to 'primary' incumbents in conservative districts/states - we're committing suicide.

I'm not even sure what the goal of poll is. Are we supposed to join Brown in killing the bill because it doesn't have a public option? Are Dem pols supposed to be warned that if they don't start voting for a public option, we're going to have a permanent GOP majority because most supporters of a public option will continue to vote Republican until they get with the program in spite of their constituency?

To me, it's all extremely counter-productive and adopting Tebagger tactics reminds of the old adage: Fighting fire with fire only makes a lot of ashes.

---

by: Bobzim @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 13:11:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

These are cross-tabs (0.00 / 0)

It doesn't say that 82% of Obama voters voted for Brown... these are cross-tabs, which definitely can get confusing to interpret.

The results are saying that of the Obama voters who voted for Brown, 82% support the public option (plus or minus whatever the margin of error for the poll is). It says of the Obama voters who stayed home, 86% support the public option.

It doesn't say (in what I cut-and-pasted, at least) how many Obama + Coakley voters support the public option. It also doesn't say what percentage of Obama voters did what (Brown, stay home, Coakley). I'm sure those estimates are readily available somewhere.

The usefulness of a poll like this is to help put to bed factually-challenged rumors about what did or did not motivate people who voted for Obama to vote for Brown. Now we have some actual data.

My take away from this poll is that the Brown/Coakley  "swing" voters were not motivated by healthcare reform. They were motivated by other issues and candidate personalities. If there was any national message take-away it would be frustration in the lack of tangible results from an overwhelming Democratic majority in Congress.

If you want to know what Mass. voters think about healthcare, there's probably multiple surveys available on the topic. I bet we'd find that most residents are really happy with the universal healthcare coverage they have in Mass. What this survey tells us that a large majority of people who voted for Obama in Mass. would also like a public option in national healthcare reform.

I don't think these election results change one whit what Congress should do about healthcare reform. Obviously, as long as the country is held hostage by the tryanny of a GOP Senate minority, Congress will have to change how it procedurally goes about doing it.

---

by: Clem Guttata @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 13:58:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, I'm not going to belabor this all day, but (0.00 / 0)

you linked to the poll and wrote

Why did people who voted for Obama for President over a year ago vote for Brown yesterday? Instead of just guessing, someone actually ran a polled them to find out. Turns out that even Brown voters want a public option:

But now you're saying

My take away from this poll is that the Brown/Coakley  "swing" voters were not motivated by healthcare reform.

I'm not trying to slam you, Clem, I'm just trying to point out that the use of suspect polls ends up causing more harm than good.

The country is very narrowly divided, and every independent vote counts. We are not "held hostage by the tryanny of a GOP Senate minority", we are competing for the votes and support of moderates who helped us get to the majority in the first place.

The filibuster rule is hugely unfair and detrimental, but instead of complaining about it (even though we have a right to) we should spend every ounce of effort to highlight the differences between progressives and conservatives and why our way will be better for all of us.

Winning is contagious, but complaining about losing isn't.

---

by: Bobzim @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 14:44:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Rasmussen Reports for the Center for Information and Research (4.00 / 1)

on Civic Learning and Engagement at Tufts University.

In '08, however, 47.8% of the under-30s voted in Massachusetts, compared with 81% of the 30-and-over population. On Tuesday, only 15% of young voters cast ballots, compared with 57% of the 30-and-over population.  

---

by: MadAnne @ Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 23:54:41 PM UTC