Skip to main content

There has been up until now a lack of polls explicitly dealing with what the pundits and politicians are most curious about, which is what exactly voters were asking for in the MA-SEN.

A new Washington Post Harvard Poll shows what it was not:

* It was not a call to return to the Bush years. 63 percent of Massachusetts voters thought the country is on the wrong track, but that is still down from 83 percent in 2008.

* It was not a sign Obama has made no progress on the economy. 45 percent say they are very worried about the economy, but that is down from 55 percent in 2008.

* It was not a sign the government should do less. 50 percent thought the government should do more. That was down from 63 percent in 2008, but given that we've had mostly the bailouts since then, it's a surprise it hasn't gone down more. Voters want government action for them, not for Wall Street.

* There was overwhelming support for working government and passing legislation under Democratic leadership. 82 percent of all voters should Scott Brown should work with the Democrats. Only 11 percent said he should "stop the Democratic agenda." That includes 75% of Brown voters. 60% of Brown voters feel strongly that he should work with Obama.

* There was overwhelming support for passing health care reform. 70% of all voters think Brown should work with the Democrats to get something passed. Only 28% want to 'stop Obamacare'. Brown voters are sharply divided on the question. Only 50% want to 'stop Obamacare', whereas 48% of Brown voters want Brown to work with Democrats on health care. 94% of Coakley voters want the same.

* It was not a rejection of Obama or a referendum on Obama. Scott Brown himself was perfectly correct about this. 61% of all voters approve of Obama, including 33% of Brown voters. 69% of nonvoters also approve of Obama.

* It was not a rejection of Obama's policies. 52% of all voters were enthusiastic or satisfied with Obama's policies, while only 47% said they were dissatisfied or angry, a perfect mirror of the election result. The 'angry voter' narrative is statistically wrong.

* It was (by a slight margin) a rejection of the Senate bill, but only by a plurality, not a majority. By a 48-43 margin, voters opposed the proposed changes to health care as of Jan. 19, with 66 percent of Brown voters strongly opposing.

* However, voters overwhelmingly supported the very similar Massachusetts bill, despite worries over how well it's been managed. 68% of all voters, including a bare majority, 51% of Brown voters support the Massachusetts Universal Health Care Law, which is very, very similar to the Senate bill. This suggests that had Obamacare passed, it would have been popular after the fact.

Everyone needs to stop hyperventilating over Massachusetts and see it for what it was: (1) the economy is in horrible, horrible shape, with unemployment at 10 percent, (2) it is an effective mid term environment, (3) moderate voters wanted 'balance' to the Democrats' 60 seat supermajority, and most of all (4) Scott Brown ran a far, far superior campaign and was a more appealing candidate, while his opponent disdained campaigning at all.

The narrative has been allowed to run waaaaay out of proportion to reality.

Originally posted to papermoon on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:59 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (358+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, tmo, Bill in Portland Maine, hester, decisivemoment, irmaly, alisonk, Pandora, tin woodswoman, TrueBlueMajority, emal, PeterHug, bread, savvyspy, Debby, Psyche, wu ming, Jim W, LuLu, MarkInSanFran, bumblebums, zeroooo, housesella, CatM, concernedamerican, joynow, bronte17, understandinglife, Janie, jiffykeen, nudger, Time Waits for no Woman, highacidity, Minerva, buckeyekarl, kitebro, Jesterfox, Cedwyn, antirove, sidnora, celticshel, wader, Getreal1246, psnyder, Nag, Lynwaz, pat bunny, leevank, mad ramblings of a sane woman, grannyhelen, Nina, cosette, 42, lizah, defluxion10, Catte Nappe, betson08, hazzcon, AbsurdEyes, chickeee, sancerre2001, riverlover, JayBat, zerelda, ybruti, randallt, Vicky, Wife of Bath, Thestral, Schwede, ganymeade, boran2, Josiah Bartlett, Sybil Liberty, sebastianguy99, vivens fons, davidkc, hopalong, Julie Gulden, rapala, madaprn, Pokerdad, jfdunphy, wmc418, glynis, Othniel, klamothe, PBen, electricgrendel, willibro, Irons33, ccasas, basquebob, Brooke In Seattle, kldave, WinSmith, NLinStPaul, majcmb1, LABobsterofAnaheim, skyounkin, peteri2, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, FindingMyVoice, deepsouthdoug, stillrockin, Cory Bantic, peacestpete, psyched, Alan Arizona, Jim P, begone, OnlyZuul, Nowhere Man, Grassee, Mother Mags, LongTom, third Party please, elliott, meghna, Keone Michaels, Taunger, vigilant meerkat, ej25, Clytemnestra, dharmafarmer, profundo, Gorette, Yellow Canary, martyc35, dougymi, Naniboujou, Wary, fiddler crabby, kck, goodasgold, danktle, MJ via Chicago, bubbanomics, Glorfindel, Libby Shaw, armadillo, bleeding heart, sceptical observer, soccergrandmom, doinaheckuvanutjob, Nedsdag, 5x5, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, blueoregon, revgerry, Temmoku, AllanTBG, Nulwee, OHdog, bmcphail, Aaa T Tudeattack, DrMicro, DBunn, lams712, pgm 01, marykk, BeninSC, Loudoun County Dem, Femlaw, dmh44, camlbacker, uniongal, Outrider, yowsta, ezdidit, DWG, St Louis Woman, bnasley, Seneca Doane, bmx writer, jayden, Giodude, vbdietz, cyncynical, mudslide, jnhobbs, millwood, yella dawg, Rumarhazzit, A Person, Bikemom, Predictor, Dem in the heart of Texas, coachster, JayC, Scioto, AnnieJo, swampus, DraftChickenHawks, MikePhoenix, scooter in brooklyn, geez53, Youffraita, spencerh, Thomas Twinnings, crescentdave, elwior, skohayes, lineatus, monkeybrainpolitics, royce, pamelabrown, pickandshovel, SottoVoce, mnguy66, Gemina13, luckylizard, Keninoakland, Blueslide, binkycat, Danise94, jonnie rae, mos1133, maggiejean, Sun dog, Bule Betawi, MufsMom, driftwood, bushondrugs, snackdoodle, greengemini, bsmechanic, Moonwood, banjolele, Mol, weltshmertz, Methinks They Lie, pvlb, DFH, h bridges, velvet blasphemy, Daily Activist, lookit, beijingbetty, virginwoolf, worldly1, MKSinSA, asym, oxfdblue, johngoes, soms, sanglug, allep10, RadioGirl, Massconfusion, RoCali, PoliticalJunkessa, sherijr, Tortmaster, jfromga, Sleepwalkr, Indieman, Livvy5, deviant24x, Leftcandid, French Imp, Words In Action, Amber6541, awcomeon, marabout40, Morus, TFinSF, Obamican08, Vacationland, Commoditize This, eXtina, bullyness, estreya, breathe67, gramofsam1, blueyescryinintherain, amk for obama, TheWesternSun, on board 47, teachme2night, CS in AZ, angelajean, Polly Syllabic, sunny skies, polar bear, DavidHeart, JoanMar, TKO333, pixxer, ItsSimpleSimon, Puddytat, juturna, renior, Betty Pinson, sniperfire, ericlewis0, Bobbysmom, alamacTHC, cany, HylasBrook, Quantumlogic, indubitably, no way lack of brain, VitaminD, annieli, gobears2000, bmat, kerflooey, Journalist Julia, DParker, Dretutz, ban nock, implicate order, wildlife advocate, TomK1960, msmacgyver, BlueJessamine, scarysota63, lighttheway, kevin k, princesspat, two moms in Az, KHinSF, thethinveil, lovespaper, marleycat, Carolyn in Oregon, Cinnamon Rollover, theone718, Grandma Susie, tier1express, MRA NY, durrati, nokomis, GrandmaMJ, corvaire, Druggy Bear, littlebird33, lincoln deschain, just another vortex, rscopes, zenox, MikeBoyScout, moonpal, Huginn and Muninn, lol chikinburd, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Proleft, AguyinMI, im hip, too young to give up, anthony21, New Horizon, Patric Juillet, mod2lib, isabelle hayes, SaintC
    •  Glad to see this made the rec list (46+ / 0-)

      Imagine how well these two bills would go over if people actually understood what was in it for them.

      Many I talk to have no idea.

      "Don't fall or we both go" Derek Hersey

      by ban nock on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:42:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the Kaiser poll showed that (62+ / 0-)

        DemFromCT's fp post pointed it out yesterday.

        another broader poll question, published by Kaiser yesterday, looks at this:

           A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll finds that Americans are divided over congressional health reform proposals, but also that large shares of people, including skeptics, become more supportive after being told about many of the major provisions in the bills.

        Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

        by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:51:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nate has an interesting take on all this, too (31+ / 0-)

          Posted about 20 minutes ago (just after noon EST).

          His focus: what is the real story on healthcare attitudes?

          There is no planet B

          by Minerva on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:30:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  thanks for the link (5+ / 0-)

            his embedded link about the public misinformation about the bill is a good read too.

            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:37:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lack of enthusiasm is why we lost. (10+ / 0-)

              Journalists continously underestimate the importance of enthusiasm in dismissing the importance of the liberal base.

              The fact is, I may well have held my nose and voted for the Brown despite the democrat utterly failing to even try and deliver on their promises (such as the public option, regulating the financial sector, getting rid of don't ask don't tell etc) in 2008. The polls suggest that many liberals didn't even do that and many stayed home. But I wasn't enthusiastic about it, which meant that I didn't talk up democrats with my friends and family members, who barely pay attention to politics and listen to what their peers say when making their decision. And I certainly didn't donate my time or money to the campaign.

              The fact is, democrats need the base. The republican base was enthusiastic. They donated to Brown and volunteered for him like crazy. They talked him up like crazy. But the liberals had nothing to be enthusiastic about. The public option was dead, killed by Obama himself.

              •  You weren't enthusiastic? (10+ / 0-)

                Brown winning and the potential negative impact on this country were not enough to motivate you?

                How much out of state money poured into Massachussets to finance Brown's campaign and where did it come from?

                The republicans saw the election as a way to screw Obama and they don't give a shot about anything else.

                Eight years of Bush and he destroyed the country and that wasn't enough to motivate you to help defeat Brown?

                Why is there a need to be motivated beyond you have the right to vote which is also an obligation?

                If you exercise your right to vote and vote to do what is best for the country, why would anyone vote for Scott Brown? Oh, right. Coakley ran a bad campaign. It wasn't a damn popularity contest.

                Thanks Massachusetts.

                •  Just look at your response.... (8+ / 0-)

                  Here is all she/he got from you:

                  You weren't enthusiastic? (1+ / 0-)

                  Brown winning and the potential negative impact on this country were not enough to motivate you?

                  How much out of state money poured into Massachussets to finance Brown's campaign and where did it come from?

                  The republicans saw the election as a way to screw Obama and they don't give a shot about anything else.

                  Eight years of Bush and he destroyed the country and that wasn't enough to motivate you to help defeat Brown?

                  You havent pointed to a single policy that wikoogle could talk up re Obama/Dems... what they plan (and are fighting) to do, what they are doing/fighting for, what they stopped doing wrong...

                  All you have given the poster is we are not them... and themz iz bad!

                  Look at the gas gauge ... running on empty. People wont make the trip on fumes.

                  Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                  by NYCee on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:37:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  there have been plenty of posts (4+ / 0-)

                    that have provided policies that wikoogle could have talked about.  Here's two, the hate crime bill and the Ledbetter bill.  There are many more.  Do you need to have it spoon-fed to you?

                    Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                    by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:01 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Those are not mover-shaker talking points. (6+ / 0-)

                      Not by a longshot.

                      I suppose next you'll tell me he reversed the Mexico City Policy (no funding for abortions, foreign soil) that Bush reversed from Clinton's reversal and...

                      Some things are the throw-away crumbs that anyone, even someone with the mouse-sized political courage of Obama/Dems, doesnt think twice about throwing to the base. Mexico City, like Ledbetter, is done the day after the R or D gets in the WH: the R prez reinstalls it, the D prez undoes it...

                      You will have to give us more than hate crimes: "Arent all violent crimes hateful and abhorrent?" Whether you like it or not, that is what you'll hear, or youll get a "so what" shoulder shrug instead of "WOW, he/they did THAT! Get me to the polls!" Try holding someone's attention as you make your rousing arguments against that logic.

                      And equal pay for women, in case you havent noticed, is not exactly considered a major problem, at least not from what Ive heard in the public square - my ears have gathered exactly... nil.

                      I'm afraid you'll have to do better. But then, that goes back to my point - in order for you to do better (or anyone, in selling Obama/Dems) they need to do better.

                      Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                      by NYCee on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:40:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Just look at the polls, this is why Dems lost Mas (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Indieman, wildlife advocate

                        A state which Obama won by 27 points had a huge number of his voters go back and vote for brown...

                        I want to cite Newsweek's recent article, "Four ways Obama can win back liberals"

                        A lot of liberals are saying "I told you so" in the glum aftermath of the Massachusetts election, when the voters who propelled Barack Obama into office didn't show up at the polls or, if they did, cast their vote for the conservative in the race. A poll conducted immediately after the race by Research 2000 found that Obama voters who supported Republican Scott Brown said the Senate health-care bill "doesn't go far enough." Obama voters who stayed home agreed 6–1.

                        Turnout among young people was a pathetic 15 percent, echoing the dispirited mood that led to the Massachusetts shellacking. The candidate who only a year ago inspired the world had become a president without a defined mandate or image, in search of an elusive consensus with a political party that wants him to fail. Liberals have been called upon to make all the compromises while Obama spent his first year worshiping at the altar of bipartisanship. Now, with the voters rebelling, the time for reaching out to Republicans should be officially declared over.

                        Journalists continously underestimate the importance of enthusiasm in dismissing the importance of the liberal base.

                        Our enthusiasm for our candidates trickles over into our more moderate friends and families. If we are not enthusiastic about our party and the other side is, then the entire electorate will shift over to their side.

                        It's group psychology. The fact is, liberals influence every single person that they are around, as are conservatives, whichever side is more enthusiastic is the side that the moderates turn to.

                        •  That sure is an impressive poll (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          auapplemac, glynis

                          With lots and lots of graphs and stuff.  But I just can't get past one thing:

                          Brown campaigned on being the 41st vote against HCR.  He trumpeted it.  I thought, to be honest, that this would be why Martha would win.  

                          But he did say that, over and over, and swamped us.

                          So I find some of those results unbelievable.

                          •  No he didn't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Jeff Y

                            That Brown is campaigning as the 41st vote against healthcare is the spin that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh put on him to get votes.

                            Brown campaigned as an outsider, a populist, and someone sick of politics as usual.

                          •  yes he did (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            iHEARTmartha

                            in fact he himself told Hannity that he would be the 41st vote.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:43:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "the spin that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh put" (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm not trying to be combative, but I dont listen to fox or rush limbaugh, and I heard this over and over, again and again, even from the candidate himself.

                            So unless they digitally produced fake vids of Brown, I will have to respectfully say that you're swallowing propaganda yourself.

                            I mean, if we're going to win elections, we're going to have to start being honest with ourselves about what's going on around us:  what helps our chances, what hurts our chances, etc.  Lying to oneself is never a good idea.

                          •  I think you directed this to the wrong person (0+ / 0-)

                            I didn't say that.

                            I completely agree with you.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:53:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Right right, i know... (0+ / 0-)

                            I guess i clicked on the wrong reply button.  I was trying to respond to the same person who you were responding to.

                            Sorry! :)

                          •  no worries (0+ / 0-)

                            that person likely won't see it unless you redirect it.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:33:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In other words he LIED since he is planning to (0+ / 0-)

                            stonewall the democrats agenda which based on this polling is not what the voters want but what they voted for.  People are just not very bright.

                            "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

                            by lakehillsliberal on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:40:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Rasmussen exit poll showed 56% of voters named (0+ / 0-)

                            health care bill as primary determinant in their vote. That part of it actually got publicity.

                            52% of Brown voters said it was most important but 63% of Oakley voters
                            so actually there were more who voted for it than against it if we look at those who voted based on that.
                            Yay! We won.
                            Oh wait...

                          •  I dont find that inconsistent w/what happened... (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, Brown wanted to kill it.

                            Many Dems who say it doesnt go far enough mean it doesnt have enough good... and probably has too much bad... doesnt go far enough progressively speaking. So they think its a bad bill, thus stay home, dont promote voting for those who will go along as the Dems did in the Senate, etc. As for those who actually voted for Brown... well, I guess they wanted to really make sure it was killed, or else they weirdly thought Obama would go full tilt Reagan when they voted for him, and were disappointed it wasnt quite that much rightwardness... I mean, he isnt going on the road against Medicare!

                            Whatever.

                            But no, they dont like it. They dont want the bill. They didnt want to send a message they were for the Dems, especially Senate Dems, given what Senate Dems have given us.

                            Should a "progressive" Dem blog dwell in the safe zones of a tame party, or should it drive a tame party to break out?

                            by NYCee on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 05:33:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  are you kidding me? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gobears2000, moonpal

                        You can't drum up any enthusiasm from women for the Ledbetter bill and from gay people for the anti hate crime legislation?

                        What you really mean is that they need to do what you want because you won't accept anything else.

                        Obama is not just the President of progressive Democrats.  Not every Democrat will be motivated by the same thing.

                        If you can't see that then you are the one with the problem.

                        Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                        by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:39:29 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  ABBB! (anybody but Brown - Republicant!) n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    Progressives will win when the country becomes Progressive.

                    by auapplemac on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:15:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Of course it's a popularity contest! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  auapplemac

                  It's always a popularity contest.  That's what elections are for.

                  "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

                  by Benintn on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:48:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And what did YOU do to help? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  marabout40

                  I am getting sick of the Massachusetts bashing after this election.  It's not like no one knew this was coming.  I'd like to know how much critics like you did after the primary. Or in early January.  Or even getting out the vote to the primary.  It's possible that if turnout was better for the primary, we could have had a better candidate than Martha Coakley. Somebody who would have tried to win the seat, like Mike Capuano or Steve Pagliuca.  So, where were you? Huh?

                  -7.13, -6.97 No Martha, it IS your fault. Who goes on vacation during a special election campaign?

                  by klamothe on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:48:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  This Is Not About "Us" (4+ / 0-)

                  Most regular readers of DKos who could vote/contribute in this election understood the stakes and that alone was enough for us.

                  But not everyone is as engaged in the process. If you're the majority party looking to retain a seat, you ought to have something to point to that says to your base why you deserve to stay in power. Or a candidate who can convince people that they can make things better or keep things running smoothly. And our party and candidate really had neither.

                  Stuck Between Stations : Thoughts from a bottomless pool of useless information.

                  by Answer Guy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:06:03 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  this is just malarkey (8+ / 0-)

                The public option was dead, killed by Obama himself.

                The PO was killed in the Senate by Lieberman refusing to vote for it.  The medicare buy-in was killed for the same reason.

                Obama wasn't voting on it.  If it passed he would have signed it.

                Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:42:06 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And did he lean on Holy Joe? .. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bmcphail, vintage clothes

                  No!! .. that's the point .. he didn't apply any pressure .. besides HoJo owes Obama .. and Obama seems to have a problem calling in his chits when they are due

                •  don't think so (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama wasn't voting on it.  If it passed he would have signed it.

                  Rahm to Reid: Give Lieberman what he wants

                  The White House, while giving lip service to the public option in public, has been secretly campaigning against it from day one. Why? Because the PO violates the sleazy deals Rahmbama made with the insurance rackets.

                  "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                  by DFH on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:34:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  blah blah blah (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gobears2000, moonpal

                    Obama was secretly campaigning against it.  I'm so sick of hearing that.  You wouldn't have been satisfied unless Obama said he'd veto any bill without the PO.  He would never have done that because it was clear the votes weren't there in the Senate.

                    Yeah, he told Reid to give Lieberman what he wanted to get a bill passed so it could go to conference.

                    It was not Obama that killed the PO.  He doesn't get to vote on it.  

                    The idea that the PO was the only thing that was worthwhile is far out of the realm of reality.  

                    Intransigence gets you nothing.  Apparently many people are happy to settle for nothing.  

                    Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                    by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:50:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  "blah blah blah" yourself (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      vintage clothes

                      Obama was secretly campaigning against it.  I'm so sick of hearing that.

                      Can't handle the truth, huh?

                      There is tons of evidence that he was doing just that.

                      When you make sleazy deals with campaign donors "stakeholders" to create an industry-friendly bill, and then do everything in your power to sabotage every element of the bill in the public interest (such as the Kucinich Amendment):

                      But we did something else: We were able to get a bill in the committee passed that would protect the right of states to be able to have—to pursue a not-for-profit healthcare plan at a state level to shield it from legal attack. And that was taken out of the legislation after it had passed. It was taken out by the administration, which has whittled down the public option to the point of not having it truly compete with insurance companies.

                      This bill is crap, and it's exactly what the administration wanted. Deal with it.

                      "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                      by DFH on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:15:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  ah, backwards logic at work. A beaut, too. (6+ / 0-)

                Let's see. Coakley literally took a vacation and told a reporter she was too good to press the flesh in snow and cold weather.
                And you blame us for a lack of enthusiasm?

                Let's b. The White House ignored a 60th seat election, never bothering to check the status, review the operation, or work with the candidate.  And this is our fault?

                Let's c. Again. The White House's strongest, most coherent and oft repeated message has been, "GOP Good, Progressives Bad. Behave, you liberal scum. You'll take it and love it."  Yeah, I can see how that would make us enthusiastic.

                Much of what you say is accurate, except that enthusiasm bit. That was the wrong choice of words.

                What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

                by agnostic on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:32:39 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Can't agree with him entirely (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3goldens, aliasalias

            at the link he says:

            Secondly, a lot of objections are to the process rather than the policy substance. In an open-ended question among voters who said that health care was a key determinant in their vote, 19 percent of all voters and 30 percent of Scott Brown voters cited a procedural reason, such as "dealmaking", "closed doors", "lack of transparency", "partisanship", "moving too fast", etc.

            Without exception, those were GOP / Teabagger talking points with little basis in fact. For the most part, the process has been very open and transparent. I'm surprised someone as smart as Nate would fall for Teabagger gospel hook line and sinker.

            He also mentions his disdain for the polling done by "interest" groups like MoveOn and DFA, yet he has no problem with news media polls.

            The "interest" group polls were much more detailed on policy questions, teasing out voter objections to policy in greater detail .  Unless he can come up with some evidence as to why he thinks those polls aren't scientifically reliable or valid, he sounds like someone who is simply catering to a special interest group himself, one inside the beltway.

            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:38:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Republican noise machine has been very (22+ / 0-)

          effective in obscuring the issues.  This was purposeful, and you can see the hand of Karl Rove, such that my nephew, a teabagger, actually believes that HCR would raise his taxes, and KILL people.

          Who wouldn't want to fight that, were it true?

          We have been successfully swiftboated.   When will we learn?

          Very happy to see David Plouffe.

          •  Its also Obama's fault. (7+ / 0-)

            For not setting out at the beginning what he wanted in the bill -- and then beating the shit out of Democrats to make sure that was what was in the bill.

            Instead, be basically let the Senate write the bill and had some vague suggestions that he was noncommittal on and often gave up.

            •  he did set out what he wanted (15+ / 0-)

              what a concept, letting Congress do their job.

              Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

              by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:39:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He had a few suggestions, yes. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                3goldens
                •  oh baloney n/t (6+ / 0-)

                  Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                  by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:40:25 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here's how you do it: (9+ / 0-)

                    I want this plan to cover 95% of all Americans

                    I want a public health insurance plan -- JUST LIKE MEDICARE -- that people can choose if they DON'T LIKE THE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE OR ARE BEING OFFERED.

                    I want costs controlled so that Medicare doesn't go bankrupt in 8 years. Without controlling costs, Medicare is in dire trouble. This plan must SAVE MEDICARE.

                    IF NECESSARY, WE WILL RAISE TAXES ON the wealthiest to pay for the cost of implementing the plan.

                    Now get to work, Congress. If you don't come up with a plan that meets all of tehse goals -- I WILL VETO IT. I am not going to sign a bill that doesn't fix our health care system -- or makes it worse.

                    Period.

                    •  the only thing he didn't do (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nina, sebastianguy99, marabout40, JoanMar

                      is say he'd veto a plan that didn't have everything in it he wanted.

                      That's a sure fire recipe for failure.

                      Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                      by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:56:08 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Because we had a great victory doing it your way? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Noisy Democrat, 3goldens, PinHole

                        ROTFLMFAO!

                        Obama did not do what I said he should do. He didn't shift the pressure to Congress to create a good bill. He put bipartisanship ahead of good public policy and gave way too much to people like Ben Nelson.

                        Had he taken the approach I just paid out -- right from the beginning -- and also put reconciliation on the table as a threat from the beginning -- we would have not only had a health care bill passed months ago -- but one everyone could be proud of.

                        Obama forgot that he was the President -- and acted instead like he was still in the Senate or was Prime Minister.

                        This country needs him to be President, not Prime Minister.

                        •  This, Hesiod, should become your new sig line: (9+ / 0-)

                          Obama did not do what I said he should do.

                          It really speaks for you.

                          Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

                          by SottoVoce on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:15:51 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  reconciliation was on the table as a threat (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          sebastianguy99, marabout40, moonpal

                          It was threatened all summer.

                          What you said he should do was say what he wanted.  He did do that.  What he said he wanted was not all the things you said YOU wanted.

                          Both the House and the Senate created the best bills they could get votes to pass.  That's the way it's done.  No secret the Senate bill was going to be very different than the House bill.  Obama even talked about that.  And he stated the conference was were to reconcile them and he was involved there too.

                          Obama hasn't forgotten he's President.  You've forgotten what a President acts like.

                          Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                          by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:36:10 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't recall (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama ever speaking out or advocating for reconciliation as a viable option.  Maybe I missed it.

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:45:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  good grief (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            marabout40, moonpal

                            Senior members of the administration of President Obama "are pressing lawmakers" to use the budget reconciliation process, which allows legislation to move through the Senate without the threat of a filibuster, to pass his proposals for health care reform and other issues, the Washington Post reports.

                            Link

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:54:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That was in March (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hesiod, 3goldens

                            The WH backed off that option fairly early in the game. Around August, they fell silent on the issue.

                            We just didn't hear anything specific from the WH later in the process except the occasional words of support for the much more unpopular Senate bill.  

                            The WH was working behind the scenes, but they were pushing the plan the public didn't want.  In order to push the less popular provisions of the Senate plan, they had to keep a low public profile. It became fairly obvious to the public that Obama was fighting his own party's leaders to push a less popular plan. Bad strategy.  

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:05:32 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            marabout40, moonpal

                            nothing seems to be good enough.

                            Maybe they fell silent because of the push back from the Senator's who said they wouldn't go that route.

                            Bad strategy is furthering the Republican talking points that you pointed out that was routinely being done.

                            Obama continually said that the House and Senate bills would be different and that the differences would be worked on in conference.

                            He was pushing to get what could pass in both the House and the Senate so that something would get to conference.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:10:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So he abandoned reconciliation (0+ / 0-)

                            because the focus then was on getting 60 votes in the Senate to pass their bill.

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:06:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ah no (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama can't order the Senate to do reconciliation.  Democratic Senators themselves were pushing back against it.  A fight between Democratic Senators and a Democratic President is also bad strategy.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:28:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He stopped selling it (0+ / 0-)

                            There's no evidence that Dem Senators were opposing it.  A few did, but only those with whom the WH had already aligned themselves.

                            But perhaps you're right. It was better that they lost Kennedy's Senate seat than pursue a reconciliation strategy./snark

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:38:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oh please (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            moonpal

                            there was plenty of evidence Democratic Senators were pushing back against it.  

                            Apparently you have selective memory.  

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:58:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Some were opposing reconciliation (0+ / 0-)

                            and coincidentally, they were the same senators Obama was supporting.  

                            When did he meet with and support the senators who were building a coalition for reconciliation?  Actually, when did he meet with any progressive Dem senators at all?

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:17:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what Senators are you referring to? (0+ / 0-)

                            Feingold?  Byrd?

                            Obama met many times with Senate Democrats. The previous link I gave you said his senior advisers were meeting with them to push for reconciliation.

                            Your arguments are intellectually dishonest.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:52:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders (0+ / 0-)

                            and some of the other progressive members of the Gang of 10.

                            Yes, Obama blew them off, he never met with them in spite of repeated requests.

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:01:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  What people get from that speach: (5+ / 0-)

                      Cover 95% of all americans.

                      Public health plan like medicare I can choose instead of my current crappy plan.

                      REFORM -- and cutting costs -- IS NEEDED TO SAVE MEDICRE

                      Raise taxes on the rich to pay for it.

                      Obama will veto anything that doesn't accomplish these goals.

                      Simple. Direct. Easy to explain. Easy to defend.

                      And it puts the onus on the Congress to meet these goals -- and allows Obama to rake them over the coals if they don't. It puts Obama on the side of the public -- against the Congress. Which is where he wants to be.

                    •  I have been reminded lately (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      3goldens, Brooke In Seattle, PinHole

                      that the SS fund has been raided to shore up the Treasury and to pay down debt.  Then the argument is Look the SS system is going broke, privatize.

                      It seems the message is one all the time, and the real deals are not publicly obvious.

                      "Never, desist till we ... extinguish this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, will scarce believe that it suffered a disgrace and dishonor to this country.

                      by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:40:35 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  I find it amazing that one of the major beefs the (15+ / 0-)

                    liberal left had with the Bush presidency was that it was 'an imperial presidency run by Executive Order'.

                    Now it seems that this is exactly what the electorate really wants.  It seems that when this amorphous so-called supposedly monolithic 'American People' we are always being told about really want is Daddy to do it.

                    As far as i am concerned the really terrific aspect of this past year has been the forced awakening of the American people from their 200 year old sleep. It seems obvious most of them owuld prefer to go back to sleep.

                    Fascinating. We are like a flock of birds veering en masse from side to side.  I do agree though that Obama needs to communicate better as he realises that the electorate can only deal with simple concepts and one page bills.  I have faith he realises he overestimated the intelligence of his supporters, and will start treating us like the children we are.

                    It's fascinating this morning listening to everyone left and right justifying and blaming each other.  Politics sure is fun!!!!

                    •  Imperial president? (4+ / 0-)

                      No one on the "liberal left" as you call it even suggested such a thing.  Obama was only asked to do what any president has done in the past to get legislation enacted - do a little hard bargaining and arm-twisting.

                      To characterize that as anything close to Bush/Cheney is extremely inaccurate and misguided.

                      "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                      by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:47:58 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  actually... (0+ / 0-)

                        Obama was only asked to do what any president has done in the past to get legislation enacted - do a little hard bargaining and arm-twisting.

                        Actually, he did plenty of arm-twisting & bargaining. Unfortunately, it was all against the public interest in order to get an industry-friendly bill (Link @ my sig).

                        "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                        by DFH on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:38:36 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  What Made Bush Imperial (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      3goldens, bmcphail

                      The Bush administration dictated what policies Republicans would inact with no imput from the vast majority of the Republican caucaus (let alone Democratic input) who were expected to rubberstamp whatever was put forth by the House and Senate leadership. Most of what Bush wanted had nothing to do with anything he had promised to voters and in fact much of what he did was exactly the opposite of what he had campaigned on.

                      Furthermore, Bush ignored anything that came out of Congress that was not to his liking through signing statements in which he often boldly stated his intention to ignore parts of the law he didn't wish to obey. As if that wasn't enough, he routinely engaged in both illigal and unconstitional behavior. Once his party lost control of the House and Senate, he refused to allow the Legislature to legislate by vetoing virtual every bill put before him. Bush was arguabley the most imperial president in the history of this nation.

                      Nobody is asking Obama to be an Imperial President. They want Obama to do his job which is to honor his campaign promises by working vigoursly to enact the change that people voted him into office to create. They want him to use his Constitutional power as President to address the American people and get them to press their Congressman to enact legislation (Something that Reagan was brillant at) and to use his very real mandidate to convince members of his own cacuas to make it happen.

                •  "a few suggestions." You proponents of the "Obama (7+ / 0-)

                  Fail!" meme are hilarious. It's like the freaking teabaggers and MSM. You think that if you keep saying something over and over it becomes true.

                  Well it doesn't. The facts disprove your claims. The abundance of activities around health care reform from this administration is beyond anything we've ever seen before: http://www.healthreform.gov/...

                  Please help StopRushLimbaugh. Because hate should not be profitable.

                  by marabout40 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:50:54 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't think that Obama's "activities" is (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    3goldens

                    the issue. I think that the message that gets out of teh White House has been problematic. Voters see him meeting big Pharma only to find out they stabbed him in the back. He meets with Congress critters only to have them ignore his goals.

                    I don't blame him for his goal or for the meetings, I do think it sets up the optics of a weak POTUS. The message gets confused and voters don't know what's going on.

                    There is a difference in supporting the President and offering alternatives to his approach to the problem. He is signaling a change in his efforts now, does that mean anything?

                    "Take it back, take it back. Oh no you can't say that. All of my friends are not dead or in jail." John Prine

                    by high uintas on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:58:54 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Perhaps if we took control of the narrative (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      high uintas, Nina, sebastianguy99, glynis

                      and showed that the president has been trying and has been willing to bring everyone to the table - even the evil health care industry. The problem isn't him so much as it's big Pharma and Congress critters.

                      Obama is trying to work with all the stakeholders to bring about the change. He's on the right side of this fight. It's up to big pharma, congressional dems, rethugs, and the media to get on the right side with him.

                      Please help StopRushLimbaugh. Because hate should not be profitable.

                      by marabout40 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:09:19 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Maybe you don't think so (4+ / 0-)

                      I don't think that Obama's "activities" is the issue

                      But that certainly has been an ongoing refrain around here.

                      Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                      by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:37:59 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I want to be clear. I support our President (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        3goldens, bmcphail

                        But, I have been very unhappy with the way HCR was handled from the beginning and I believe that our only hope of getting meaningful progressive legislation through is with a strong POTUS.

                        I feel more positive after listening to his town hall, the re-introduction of Paul V. on finance, and the more populist tone coming from the White House. Yes WE can matters, and I will do all I can to spread teh word that he is doing good things for our country.

                        But, if I feel the messaging is getting muddled, I will say so. If I feel that too much is going to the banks and too little to the people, I will say so. Pushing to the left is what I'm all about and I believe it will save the President's next term if he harnesses the anger of the people and turns it back on the monied interests that are harming them.

                        "Take it back, take it back. Oh no you can't say that. All of my friends are not dead or in jail." John Prine

                        by high uintas on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:03:02 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  as long as (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          marabout40

                          when you say so you aren't furthering the Republican narratives about Democrats and you're not just focusing on what's going wrong but also talking about what's going right.

                          Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                          by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:06:06 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Why would I want to do that? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            3goldens

                            The Rs want to paint him as the devil himself, I have no intention of agreeing with them. Their only aim is to further weaken him and to put an end to any progressive movement.

                            My main beef has been that we haven't been progressive enough, or populist enough and the people have bit on the idea that the tea baggers are "standing for the people". It's silly, but it's selling.

                            The more our President communicates with the people who elected him, the better off we are. I want to hear more from him and from his surrogates about the good things that we have done. And, I want an end to blue dog/bi-partisan dominance. We won the election and we should be governing as such. (I put 90% of the blame for this on Congress.)

                            "Take it back, take it back. Oh no you can't say that. All of my friends are not dead or in jail." John Prine

                            by high uintas on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:15:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I was using "you" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            high uintas, marabout40

                            more to mean everybody not just you personally.  I should have made that more clear.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:18:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  **sigh** (0+ / 0-)

                            when will people come to terms with the fact that Sen. Obama IS a blue-dog Democrat?

                            "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                            by DFH on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:40:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Lol, once upon a time President Clinton was (12+ / 0-)

                blamed for health care not passing because congress was not greatly involved.

                •  In fact, the Obama admin used the Clinton (5+ / 0-)

                  admin as a template of what not to do.

                  He who distinguishes the true savor of food can never be a glutton, he who does not cannot be otherwise. - Thoreau

                  by the fan man on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:38:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And maybe the solution (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PinHole, the fan man, pgm 01, princess k

                    lies somewhere in between.  He would be much more effective if he modified his strategy to re-engage in a meaningful way to get the bill out of Congress and enacted.

                    Congress reviewed every option possible. At some point in time it was necessary to pick the best ones and get them passed, with both the WH and Congress pushing hard to get it done.

                    "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                    by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:51:46 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes, Clinton didn't give Congress enough rope (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      the fan man, bmcphail, cameoanne

                      so they had a fit.  Obama gave them to much rope and they choked themselves and became an anchor to Obama.  He gave them way too many extensions and did not put his foot down firmly enough.  He should have had a firm deadline and some solid things that he demanded were in there (I would have liked that to be the Public Option) but he needed to set some boundaries.  Without boundaries Congress does their normal thing, they pass facades of change so they can appear to do something without risking a backlash from actually doing something.

                      •  Like "I want it on my desk by August." or "I want (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        pgm 01, moonpal

                        it on my desk by Thanksgiving." Or "I want it on my desk before I give the SotUa." Those firm deadlines?

                        Please help StopRushLimbaugh. Because hate should not be profitable.

                        by marabout40 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:36:22 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Those were obviously not firm (0+ / 0-)

                          otherwise the bill would be done.  I'm thinking like a college paper, you can get a legitimate extension but keep pushing your luck and there will be consequences.  Obama never gave them consequences and therefore they never met his deadline.

                          •  I'm sorry, but the government is not college. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            glynis, moonpal

                            The relationship you, as a student, has with your professor and/or college administrators is not the same as the relationship the president has with the congress which is a CO-EQUAL BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT! Get that through your head. The president cannot dictate to the congress what to do. He can guide. He can recommend. He can negotiate. He can facilitate. He can collaborate.

                            HE CANNOT DICTATE.

                            Please help StopRushLimbaugh. Because hate should not be profitable.

                            by marabout40 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:42:55 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The President has two duties (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bmcphail

                            he is of course President and has his Constitutionally mandated duties.  The second is that he is the political leader of his party.  As leader he can and should dictate.  He should be scaring the pants off Reid who should be doing the same to the weak Democrats who successfully hijacked the reform, in order to prevent them from hijacking the reform.  When the leader of your party sets out an ambitious plan for reform, you work your ass off to make it happen, you do not try to drag it out to kill it.  Those who try to kill it should be afraid of political punishment for their actions.

                            Part of being the leader is to set the boundaries and what happens when those boundaries are crossed.  By letting the Senate run free, you get the screwed up mess we have now.

                          •  And what is that political punishment (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            marabout40, moonpal

                            that folks like Nelson should be afraid of? Much of the Democratic Congress comes from conservative states and districts.

                          •  Reid does what Obama tells him (0+ / 0-)

                            I wouldn't place all the blame on him.

                            They have to do reconciliation now.

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:18:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  scaring the pants off Reid with what? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            glynis, moonpal

                            Is Harry Reid a child? Harry Reid is the leader in the Senate. What should Obama be "scaring" Harry Reid with, pray tell?

                            It is the voters of AZ to whom Harry Reid is beholden. It is the voters of his state who Reid is afraid of - not the President. If Reid's constituents were happy with him and Obama went after him, Obama would pay a price for that - not Reid. As it turns out, Reid's constituents are unhappy with him and the president threatening him won't help either of them at this point.

                            Please help StopRushLimbaugh. Because hate should not be profitable.

                            by marabout40 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:24:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  there is no such thing as a firm, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            glynis

                            enforceable deadline that can be imposed on Congress, like it or not.

                          •  August derailed them (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            pgm 01

                            Obama did do the right thing in setting the August deadline, but the Blue Dogs and GOP derailed that.

                            I'm still surprised the Blue Dogs were allowed to help kill the August deadline, paving the way for the Teabagger recess. Given those were Rahm's Blue Dogs, it seems they could have been reined in.

                            But once Congress re-convened after the recess, the wheels seemed to come off.  The WH backed off talk of a good bill, PO, reconciliation, etc. and allowed the whole process to founder in Congress.  Past that point, the WH seemed to begin working behind the scenes to push the Lieberman plan w/ all the good parts removed.  They stopped talking and twisting arms in Congress, took reconciliation off the table and stopped selling a popular HC plan in public in favor of pushing a watered down version in the Senate.  Bad strategy. Killed it. Their major mistake was in believing Lieberman would agree to any plan that was remotely popular with the voting public or would be accepted by the House.

                            Ok. They learned their lesson. Now the WH has to go back to the original strategy and aggressively push a good plan through.

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:17:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  heh (0+ / 0-)

                            it was after all the August teabagger town halls that threatened to derail it altogether that Obama got it back on track with his joint address to Congress.  The MSM was declaring HCR dead at that point.  Obama gave his address and was meeting with Congressional Dems and momentum shifted back again.

                            No wonder people think he didn't do anything they either ignored what he did or didn't understand the significance of what he actually was doing.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:05:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess I missed the part (0+ / 0-)

                            where Obama helped Congressional Dems get it passed after August.

                            "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                            by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:19:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  did I say he helped them get it passed (0+ / 0-)

                            in August?  Or did I say he got it back on track.

                            Selective reading in addition to selective memory I see.

                            Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                            by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:40:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  he was "engaged" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      moonpal

                      more of that selective memory of yours.

                      Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                      by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:00:33 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  They over did it (3+ / 0-)

                    and it seems no one loves/respects Rahmbo except Obama.  Reid is weak, Coakley was a poor candidate, people are tired of hearing about HC (insurance co care), amongst all their other concerns, which should have been over and done with by June.  

                    Yes, it would be nice if Congress took their responsibility seriously --- but this is the real world.  The longer it dragged on, the more time the lobbyists & Faux had to get their act together.

                    Obama is smart and his head and heart are in the right place - he just has to learn from this mistake.  I doubt 90% of the US understands about Wall St & international banking. Bonuses? In a simple system, those still employed and worried see their tax money going in, and bonuses going out.

                    They do understand that their neighbor, family member, recent college graduate, themselves, still aren't working.  The fact that the policeman, teacher, a few heavy duty construction workers are still employed, doesn't count, because they never lost their jobs to begin with.  

                    Instead of all this bi-partisan nonsense, Obama should have realized he's a middle school teacher, not a college professor.  

                •  yup (6+ / 0-)

                  damned if you don't and damned if you do.

                  Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                  by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:39:19 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  He needed to sell it and push for it (6+ / 0-)

                He had some enthusiasm early on, but quickly faded into the background.  Its no secret many Dems in the Senate were very disappointed that Obama didn't speak out and use his muscle to keep the bill from getting bogged down in the Senate.  

                People can argue whether that was a good strategy or not (apparently it wasn't), but it can't be argued that it was impossible for him to do.  The party paid a political price for his inaction.

                "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:44:16 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  He should have made a public option mandatory (3+ / 0-)

                  Instead, Pres. Obama and the White House kept hemming and hawing about whether to keep it or whether it could be dumped.  And I still blame Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, along with Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Bart Stupak.

                  -7.13, -6.97 No Martha, it IS your fault. Who goes on vacation during a special election campaign?

                  by klamothe on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:51:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If he had (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    glynis

                    there would have been no bill. It is THAT SIMPLE. The very people you cite - Lieberman, Nelson, et al - would never have voted for a public option. Obama can't "make" it mandatory.

                    How is it that you do not understand this?

                    "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

                    by SingularExistence on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:31:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Voters don't like waffling (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bmcphail, cameoanne, DFH

                    And all of those you mention didn't act alone.  Each was part of an extra-governmental coalition that had a clear strategy about how they were going to kill good reform.

                    The list of back room players includes more than pharma and insurance lobbyists.  It includes the DLC, AMA,AHA,mega-hospitals industry groups like the National Restaurant Assn.,Natl Mfg. Assn., Walmart and even some of the more conservative health related non-profits.

                    Remember those HCR round-table discussions Obama held at the WH early in his administration? A lot of them later coalesced under the radar to work with Rahm and Zeke to push a conservative HCR bill. At least two of their henchmen in Congress were Lieberman and Hoyer.  

                    They didn't want reconciliation later in the game because Lieberman was key to getting the plan they wanted. No PO, no national exchange, no removal of anti-trust provisions.

                    Here are some links to the lobbying groups they used, many of whom had an inside track to the WH and Rahm's allies:

                    Podesta Group & Health Podesta

                    http://www.opensecrets.org/...

                    http://www.opensecrets.org/...

                    Foley Hoag (notice how many health care charities are lined up with pharma and industry groups)

                    http://www.opensecrets.org/...

                    Evans Capitol Group - a very specialized practice

                    http://www.opensecrets.org/...

                    There are many more smaller lobbyist groups made up of former WH and Congressional staffers and we've also seen a lot of revolving doors w/former staffers moving to work in-house in government relations jobs w/ these industries.

                    Keep in mind, many health related charities and non-profits are financially linked to industry groups, and not just for health care.  "Cause marketing" has created some unhealthy alliances between charities and companies that put charity logos on their products. That's a topic that needs its own diary, though.

                    "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                    by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:05:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Excellent post (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Betty Pinson

                      Just when I'm about ready to walk away from this site, I find a well-written, highly educational comment such as yours -- with reputable links that support your analysis.
                      Bravo!

                      "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                      by DFH on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:44:41 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thanks! (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DFH

                        For a while I thought I may have gotten too detailed and off topic.  

                        Sen. Grassley (who occasionally does good things) recently sent a letter to a list of 33 non-profit organizations and industry advocacy groups asking them to disclose their financial connections to drug companies, medical equipment manufacturers, etc. Many of these are important stakeholders working on Pres. Obama's panels reviewing HCR, though they also lobby for changes to federal regulations and appropriations. He's not the only one concerned about conflicts of interest. He actually should have targeted a few more groups.

                        http://grassley.senate.gov/...

                        http://www.policymed.com/...

                        The WSJ falsely characterized it as an attempt to undermine access to breast screening for women under age 40, but they inadvertently reveal how pervasive the medical industry is in using charities to advance agendas that place private profit over public need.

                        http://online.wsj.com/...

                        The final health-care bill is likely to require coverage for more mammograms than the new guidelines recommend after women's groups, doctors and imaging-equipment makers stepped up pressure on lawmakers -- one of many threads of the bill negotiated behind the scenes.

                        Many doctors and patient groups have long supported early, frequent screening for breast cancer. In recent years, they joined forces with mammography companies -- striking sponsorship deals, for example, and holding joint events to promote breast-cancer awareness, as well as to tout company products.

                        ...

                        Fighting on behalf of the new mammography guidelines are a handful of women's health groups that receive little or no corporate funding.

                        "The guidelines were always going to create a firestorm because they threaten some groups' existence and challenge long-held beliefs," said Fran Visco, founder of the National Breast Cancer Coalition.

                        Adriane Fugh-Berman, a professor at Georgetown University's medical school in Washington, D.C., said the evidence supports less-frequent mammograms. "You have to ask if there's conflict of interest, because breast-cancer advocacy has become a big business," she said.

                        Though they caught some flak for it, FDL was right to question the links between Susan G Komen For the Cure's hiring of Hadassah Lieberman and Joementum's ongoing obstructionist tactics on HCR.  Komen was co-founded by Norm Brinker, former head of the National Restaurant Assn. another key group lobbying against HCR. Brinker has passed on, but Komen has maintained close ties to the NRA. Its current CEO is the former president of Church's Fried Chicken.

                        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                        A quick view of Komen's leadership team shows many officers from pharma companies and the breast screening biz.

                        Looks like there has been a shakeup recently at Komen. Hala Moddelmog has been replaced by co-founder Nancy Brinker herself. Interesting.

                        http://ww5.komen.org/...

                        Anyway, there's a lot we need to know about some of these behind the scenes alliances and how they've impacted health care reform.

                        "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

                        by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:37:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Grassley (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Betty Pinson

                          I'm guessing that Sen. Chuck was probably just looking for ammo to smear the Dems with. That said, the sheer volume of sleazy dealing & horse trading behind the bloated HCR legislation makes them an easy target.
                          FDL back in August ran a piece about the White House's role in shaping the legislation coming out of Senate Finance, which was of course the template for the final Senate bill. As it turns out, FDL was right on the money.

                          "This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place." -Russ Feingold

                          by DFH on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 07:07:14 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  where's your evidence for this? (0+ / 0-)

                      A lot of them later coalesced under the radar to work with Rahm and Zeke to push a conservative HCR bill.

                      Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                      by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:09:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  yes he did use his "muscle" (0+ / 0-)

                  just not in the way you could see apparently.

                  He got it back on track in the Senate with his address to Congress and meetings with Senate Democrats.

                  Apparently you've forgotten all that too.

                  Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                  by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:07:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  now that's leadership (3+ / 0-)

              if he would do otherwise, he would be a dictator

              how is your water treated: http://water-treatment.questionpro.com/

              by WateringTheRoses on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:45:50 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, this explains Massachusetts (4+ / 0-)

              Democrats adjusted to Republican complaints by passing a bill that gave validity to some of those complaints, not sensibly addressing the problem.  And all for fear of losing, instead of simply controlling and defining the debate, showing America whya good bill was actually a good bill.

              Instead, Democrats once again took it for granted that everybody knows what they know or what might have been mentioned once or twice, never mind the towering cacophony of constant misinformation out there.  Hard core democrats ignore it, so everybody else must also!

              As does this diary also help Massachusetts, which seems to miss the point:  There is ALWAYS a reason for something that happened politically that should hot have, but it never seems to be the way Democrats approached things, just some extraneous circumstances.

              Also, of course, Democrats taking things for granted, another near constant theme, and which Democrats did in Massachusetts, as well.

              •  I understand it (0+ / 0-)

                And I still think it's a sh*tty bill.

                We need to beware of automatically thinking voters only oppose this because they "don't understand it.  That could really hurt come election time.

                Plus, the polls I've seen that claim people "warm to the legislation once some of its provisions are explained" include all of the good things and none of the controversial ones!  Now that's just propaganda.

                Save the parrots: Drink shade-grown coffee!

                by oscarsmom on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:02:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

                  the bill is really bad.  there are two separate issues here.

                  One is Democrats not explaining the basic health care issues,what they were trying to do, which MOST of the countryy (including some in the media) never really understood, and selling the bill.

                  The other is presuming that all disagreement of opposition is because no one knows the bill.

                  When it comes to health care, both are operating here.
                  It was poorly explained, it was never sold, but taken for granted that we wanted "health care," and a terrible bill was put together.  Partly because of misleading opposition. And partly because Democrats did not show this. And partly because Democrats did not listen to,and had no clue what the real opposition was, which was more mandates and more government telling us what to do, which they have no done without even doing anything to get at the root of the problem.

            •  He made it very clear. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              glynis, marabout40, moonpal

              He made it extremely clear, from the outset, that he wanted to provide security for the insured, help for the uninsured, and control for costs.  He wanted to focus more on cutting costs than expanding coverage.

              Then, the left got all up in arms and started accusing Obama of not supporting the public option, which he supported all along.

              Then, the right started talking about government takeovers and death panels.

              Obama's decision to allow Congress to define the law is nothing short of what Congress is supposed to do.  Obama has been very actively engaged but has not been involved in writing the actual law, and this is not Obama's fault because Obama's not in Congress.

              We already did it the "write the bill then shove it down their throats" way in 1994 and that didn't get out of committee.

              "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

              by Benintn on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You mean the Clinton's approach? Maybe i'm (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              moonpal

              forgetting that they succeeded.

              He made his own mistake (should have shown the current fire in Aug.), sure, but he didn't repeat that one.

              Only the teabagger pundits called it Obamacare, trying to evoke Hillary Care. Most everyone else pointed to the distinction that this was a congressional plan, unlike the the earlier effort.

              IGTNT...Honor the Fallen...Grace Their Loved Ones.

              by geez53 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:44:45 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  more the hand of roger ailes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PinHole

            This is a product of the fox news machine more than rove. Maybe rove was the product of ailes too.  I don't give rove much credit for anything.  

            ailes is smart. Very smart. rove is a lawbreaking dope.

            A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

            by dougymi on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:05:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is what has been so frustrating for me (22+ / 0-)

          HCR has had no public spokesperson(s) on the left.  The most prominent activist voices on the left have actively sought to kill the bill and the rest have been noteworthy in their silence.  All the public has heard are Republicans, Teabaggers and lefty bill-killers.  Is it any wonder that public opinion on the bill has shifted into negative territory?  We on the left have done a bang-up job of undermining our own efforts to reform health care in the US.  Yay us.  :/

          "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -Gandhi

          by Triscula on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:39:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Pandering for 60 Senate votes (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas, Brooke In Seattle

          created a lot of frustration and confusion among voters, a secondary goal of the GOP, Lieberman's coalition, and health industry lobbyists.  

          Blue Dogs were dumb enough to follow along. They're not the brightest people.

          "The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know". President Harry Truman

          by Betty Pinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:25:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Kaiser poll included (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cameoanne
          public option which is no longer available and showed mandates and excise taxes to be deeply unpopular.

          http://www.docudharma.com/...

        •  The BIG takeaway... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jfdunphy

          Is that in this day and age, legislation can no longer simply be crafted, it must also be SOLD to the people.

          It is the single biggest problem for the Dems.  The people trust the Dems to be on their side.  The Dems WANT to be on the people's side.  But there's no CONNECTION between the party and the people any more.

          Obama HAD IT when he ran for office.  The constant barrage of emails from Plouffe provided the connection the party needed.

          But since the election, that connection is gone, and the rest of the party reaches out to the people like it's 1944.

          We used to get emails from Dean.  We used to get emails from Plouffe.  They MATTERED.  Why can't Kaine do the same thing? He IS still party chair, isn't he?  He hasn't been spirited away to Timbuktu or the Andromeda galaxy, has he?  Lord knows, I can't tell the difference!

          Oh, and spare me MoveOn.org and some of our other "buddies."  It may be bad form to speak badly about one's friends, but they've really dropped the ball lately.  To me, it feels as if the interns taken over the henhouse.

          What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

          by equern on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:40:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The key point being (0+ / 0-)

          that large shares of people, including skeptics, become more supportive after being told about many of the major provisions in the bills.

          There is the lousy media and message management by the dems, right there.

          Between birthers, deathers and mouth-breathers, the gop has got 'teh crazy' and 'teh stoopid' covered.

          by amk for obama on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 05:33:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  and that is basically what the problem is.... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PinHole, bmcphail, bullyness

        when you have a majority of the population that are educationally challenged when it comes to everyday problems and trials in their already hectic lives, how does the Washington insiders expect them to be able to understand the issues surrounding this HCB...this is why I am so glad President Obama has decided to come back to the American people, using his "bully pulpit", to try and explain just what it is that Congress "couldn't or didn't want to" explain...good political decisions can never hurt...and to me this was a good political decision...

        •  That's easy.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cameoanne

          when you have a majority of the population that are educationally challenged when it comes to everyday problems and trials in their already hectic lives, how does the Washington insiders expect them to be able to understand the issues surrounding this HCB.

          You simplify the bill. You focus on a few major, arguments. You hammer those points home repeatedly and relentlessly. You use all the power of the President and the DNC to crush the opposition of recalcitrant Democrats

          1. Healthcare is a right not a commodity.
          1. Without major change, the lives of millions of americans will be destroyed by illness and bankruptcy. The american economy will be severely damaged if nothing is done.
          1. A public option is the only solution that will break the back of the Insurance industry who are the enemies of change.
          1. Anything less is unacceptable and will be vetoed.

          Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves - Eric Hoffer

          by Toe Jam on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:31:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Why don't you tell us (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PinHole

        what is in it for the aberage person?

      •  The Research 2000 exit poll hit it closer (3+ / 0-)

        to the bulls eye in its findings about Mass voters motives and the disastrous impact the Senate HCR Bill has had. The current Senate Bill is simply unacceptable to the vast majority.  In particular, see Items 6 and 7, below:

        The numbers in the Research 2000 exit poll released Wednesday by MoveOn.org and Democracy for America speak for themselves: The Massachusetts election was not a call to go back to conservatism.  

        Questions:

        1. Generally speaking do you think Barack Obama and Democrats in Washington, DC are delivering enough on the change Obama promised to bring to America during the campaign?

        Yes 31%
        No 57%
        Not sure 12%

        1. Do you think Democrats in Washington, D.C. are fighting hard enough to challenge the Republican policies of the Bush years, aren’t fighting hard enough to change those policies, or are fighting about right?

        Not Enough 37%
        About Right 21%
        Too Hard 15%
        Not Sure 27%

        1. If the Democratic Congress passed a bill that laid down stronger rules of the road for Wall Street and cut bonuses for the executives of companies that received government bailouts, would that make you more likely or less likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 general election?

        More likely 53%
        Less likely 14%
        No effect 33%

        1. What would do more to improve our nation’s economic conditions: Decreasing government spending OR tightening government regulation of Wall Street and corporate executives?

        Cut spending 43%
        Tighten regulation 25%

        1. Democrats in Washington are more on my side than on the side of the lobbyists and special interests, OR Democrats in Washington are more on the side of the lobbyists and special interests than on the side of people like me.

        The lobbyists 47%
        People like me 23%
        Not sure 30%

        6) Do you think it goes too far or doesn’t go far enough? (Asked of people who opposed the Senate health care reform bill :)
        Too far 23%
        Not far enough 36%

        1. Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of a government administered health insurance plan — something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get — that would compete with private health insurance plans?

        Favor 82%
        Oppose 14%
        Not Sure 4%
        .
        ..

        The bottom line: This poll also concludes that a progressive populist message on kitchen-table domestic issues is a winning message, even in a time when voters are wary of government and concerned about deficits.  

        Nonetheless, the current Senate Bill is strongly viewed by an overwhelming majority of the voters as inadequate and ineffective without a Public Option, such as the Kennedy "Medicare for All" provision.  That must be in there or the American people will punish the Democratic Party, again.

        Read more: http://www.ourfuture.org/...

        •  The problem with all these polls (0+ / 0-)

          is the framing of the questions and the questions not asked. They are better than push polls where the questions contain only answers that support the agenda of the asker.

          Statistics is so fun because it is merely a map of reality which is far too complex to grasp easily. It is bendable even if you haven't got that intention. It is a tool but like all math does not give a full picture. When you say thousands die from not getting health care then those 1000s become just numbers. It is the anecdotal evidence that really moves most people because they don't see thier lives as numbers or data.

          It is like telling someone that they have 5 to 1 odds of dying... Well I would say don't dismiss me I may be that one. Drs in fact are doing too much statiscal medicine nowadays.

          Easy polls that map to reality are simple ones like are you voting for candidate 1 or candidate 2. But even there there are people who will lie for various personal reasons or maybe won't bother at all or ...

          But opinion polls are really subject to whether someone has just had an argument with another or whether they have a hangover and are feeling contrary or excusing childish or boorish behavior...

          Grayson for President 2016

          by boophus on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:35:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is the result you get... (0+ / 0-)

          When Obama makes backroom deals with big Pharma and the unions.  How can you expect people to identify that with "the people"?

          What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

          by equern on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:43:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  "If they understood what was in it?" But they'll (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bmcphail

        NEVER understand what's in it. It's too complicated, and the Repubs are telling them that death panels are in it. Obama and the Dems dropped the ball on marketing, as usual.

    •  Excellent job! Glad to see this. n/t (4+ / 0-)

      I really don't understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. - John Cole

      by Gorette on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:27:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The local Democratic Party (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PinHole, cameoanne, indubitably

      after years of dominance, was also corrupt.

      A Democratic State Congresswoman was literally caught stuffing cash into her bra.

      It's pretty hard to claim the higher ground until you clean your own house.

      Yes I despise Republicans, but Brown ran as the anti-Republican.

      •  Brown the "anti-Republican" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pgm 01

        is all spin and bullshit.

        •  Well he will now have (0+ / 0-)

          to go on the record, with votes. So we shall see if he is really just another rubber stamp republican or not.

        •  Yeah, but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missliberties, pgm 01

          people believed it.

          "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

          by SingularExistence on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:32:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Yes it is but it worked (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          missliberties

          Brown ran a good series of ads.  If you watch TV, pay attention to Hyundai and Allstate ads.  Both are doing an excellent job of playing to the populist mood of this country even though they are massive corporations.  Coakley should have had ads striking the same chord, she didn't, but Brown did.  Of course it was crap, but even in MA, your average voter is going to vote based on TV ads more than reading a policy paper on a website.  Brown won the ad war and won the election.  Obama won his ad war and won his election.  

          Candidates are just another product to be sold, as sad as that is.  Brown cola might taste like crap and strip the paint off your car but the ads showed it to be as American and regular Joe as you can get.  When Coakley Cola bothered to run an ad, it mostly told why Brown Cola sucks but did not try to sell Coakley Cola or endear the brand to the viewers in any way.  Brown Cola wins because its ad works.  Eventually when faced with the reality of the suckiness of Brown Cola, buyers will be looking for a new alternative, and maybe this time somebody will try to sell them on a better choice.

    •  Great explanation (0+ / 0-)

      I'm curious, however - there was a diary the other day - or maybe I read it somewhere else - stating that Mass. is actually not the liberal enclave the rest of the country assumes it is, and that its substantial conservative population explains Brown's win.

      I know nothing about this, but it seems a reasonable explanation. If it's way off base, however, I'd love to see a good rebuttal.

      Personally, I prefer yours, but that one makes sense, too, at least, to someone who knows little about Mass. Other than Boston is there and something about Alice's Restaurant? Or was that just Stockbridge?

      FDL = The Teabagger wing of the Democratic Party

      by indubitably on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:49:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks papermoon. Good Analysis (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jonnie rae, bullyness

      Now someone tell Brown.  

      Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. --Mark Twain

      by SottoVoce on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:14:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  #1 driver to choice was HCR and % for/vs. it... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jfdunphy, oscarsmom

      ...was 43% for and 48% against. Put 2 + 2 together.

      Learn more about second-class U.S. citizenship at http://www.equalitymatters.org/

      by Larry Bailey on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:25:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The message is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bullyness

      pay attention to your local races.

    •  The narrative, run amok from Republicans, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bmcphail, coachster, cameoanne

      is that Obama has led the country too far to the left. (Mitch McConnell on MTP.)

      David Gregory just left it at that.

      We know better, the Obama administration knows better and Democratic politicians all know better, but they are satisfied to have the truth of the polls be drowned out, abetted by assholes like David Gregory.

      Gregory ought to be ashamed of himself. But polling is never an obstacle to disinformation. Pundits who don't like the results just ignore polls if they don't fit into the narrative with which they mislead us.

      As with Republicans, Democrats do it for campaign money, and they are gambling that their party of bad will win over the recently discredited party of worse.

      They only call it class war when we fight back!

      by ezdidit on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:09:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great Review! Heed this Democrats::: (0+ / 0-)

      From a front-page story by MB on Thursday:

      Two months ago, Harvard's Institute of Politics released its biennial survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes Toward Politics and Public Service. The survey of 2807 18-to-29-year-olds found that 58% approved of Obama's overall performance, several points higher than the approval rating given him by the overall U.S. population. At the same time, however, youth disapproved of his handling of specific issues, including the economy (52% disapproved), health care (52% disapproved), Iran (53% disapproved), the federal budget deficit (58% disapproved) and Afghanistan (55% disapproved - the poll was taken three weeks before the President announced his decision to send more troops, something that
      66% of those surveyed said they opposed).

      Whether views like those plus general impatience with the pace in Washington were demotivating factors in Tuesday's election, this plunge in the youth turnout ought to get some serious attention from Democratic leaders unless they want to see Massachusetts repeated in races across the country come November.

      [my emphasis]

      They only call it class war when we fight back!

      by ezdidit on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:14:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This was not a send Obama a message vote! I've (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gobears2000

      said this all along, now will Progressives stop pushing this spin?! It was crazy to be pushing the meme that these voters were so reckless as to want to vote in a Dick Cheney-like Republican over Martha Coakley, a person who strongly wanted a Public Option, and screw up the Progressive agenda for the next four years, because they were upset at Obama. It was spin, pure and plain, and I hope we can put this crazy meme to bed!

    •  Sneaking in to pimp the Haiti ShelterBox diary (0+ / 0-)
      http://www.dailykos.com/...!

      We need every dollar we can get..or rather the haitians do

      Barack Obama: "Dr. King said, "We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope." Jan17, 2010

      by vc2 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:55:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This doesn't fit the Red vs Blue state meme (21+ / 0-)

    the media and our less thoughtful Congressional members use as an underlying assumption.

  •  The Poll is Very Useful (31+ / 0-)

    ...in understanding what Bay State voters were thinking.  And in a sense you've buried the lede here in your next-to-last sentence: people in Massachusetts overwhelmingly disliked Martha Coakley.

    But in politics, narratives always run way out of proportion to reality.  People want events to have broader meaning. And the MSM lives off of giving events those broader meanings. And pretty soon these narratives take on a political life of their own.

    So while this poll allows us to say to those pushing the narrative that we are not merely hiding our heads in the sand when we reject it, these psephological facts do not--and will not--overcome that narrative politically. That political battle needs to be won through more politics. Unfortunately.

    Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

    by GreenSooner on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:06:41 AM PST

  •  Nice diary (13+ / 0-)

    Thanks for putting all this together.  I wonder sometimes, though, if we're a little too smart interpreting results such as Massachusetts.  I honestly think we give people too much credit sometimes when we try to find their 'reasons' for voting for someone like Brown.  Because we also know that what they did there was not reasonable.  The numbers are interesting but my gut tells me it was just a case of the whole Fox/GOP slime machine succeeding in the midst of a grim winter at driving up cynicism and aimless anger.  

    Not saying it's not worth seeing what's inside the numbers as much as possible as you lay out here.  But we shouldn't forget the forest for the trees.  Many people vote for dumb, simple, emotional reasons that give them results directly counter to what they actually need in their lives.  They don't always make sense.  

    If you don't feel enthusiastic now, fuckin' fake it. -droogie

    by Sun dog on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:07:04 AM PST

  •  There is another issue I think a lot are missing (31+ / 0-)

    Excellent diary, but I want to point out something else I am getting not from polling but from canvassing among Democrats.

    In our canvasses, we are finding that the Democrats (our base--both liberal and conservative Democrats) as well as the Independents definately want some health care reform. They also want the public option or some opening up of Medicare. But the process (as well as the very effective Republican spin) has been really damaging to us. To wit, the buying off of Landrieu and Nelson really hurt us because it made the process corrupt. Therefore, our own base and swing voters no longer trusted the final bill no matter what good is in it.

    This is a problem with just passing the Senate bill IMO. Unless we get rid of and strongly message that we have eliminated the buyoffs, people aren't going to buy in to our plan.

    This is just one issue we have found with the health care bill (there is also a lot of anger about the mandates as well as the incorrect perception that ordinary people will have their health plans taxed.)

    We lost the message war on this, and I can't help but think we should come back at this by putting up a Medicare for all optional buyin and let the chips fall where they may.

    I am not opposed to going with reconciliation with a fix, please note, but unless we sell that before as opposed to after we have passed it, I'm not persuaded yet that we'll find ourselves in a better place.

    "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

    by irmaly on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:10:33 AM PST

    •  Agreed the process has really hurt us. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oysterface, Minerva, JanL, dharmafarmer

      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

      by Micheline on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:11:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irmaly, relentless, Cynic in seattle

        Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Lieberputz...exposed the very worst in the Democratic party, as opposed to the excellent reps. that we do have in both sides of Congress. I don't know how to walk-back the icky feelings that most Democrats I know feel about watching their horse-shit.  The R's we just can't worry about, but our base and those we reach out to are pretty turned-off just now.
        Sigh.

        Think what you are doing today. -Fred Rogers

        by JanL on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:59:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent point re: message war (18+ / 0-)

      The leadership of the Democratic Party seems to have a strong prejudice in favor of technocratic solutions and against populist appeals.

      And they often seem to substitute a kind of "you'll thank me for this when you grow up" rhetoric for actual messaging.  The politics of the issue is just an obstacle to overcome. Once everyone gets to experience the wonder of the policy itself, they'll come over to our side.

      Even assuming for the sake of argument the underlying efficacy of the policies in question (which I don't think is always a fair assumption, given the often extremely neoliberal assumptions of the currently dominant Democratic policy wonks), this way of approaching policymaking simply doesn't work.

      First, a lot of politics takes place in the short run.  It doesn't matter if a policy will eventually yield good results if its opponents can kill it before it's ever enacted.

      Second, people are not necessarily able, in the long run, to realize what policies have brought what benefits....or, in retrospect, to properly allocate blame or credit for past policies.  To give one example: it is shocking that the GOP can still score political points arguing in favor of fiscal restraint. Their ability to do so is based on an image of Democrats as "tax-and-spend liberals" that has remained, essentially unchanged over three decades in which Democrats have been the clearly more fiscally conservative party (and I say that without placing any particular value on fiscal conservatism).

      Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

      by GreenSooner on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:18:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed, but (7+ / 0-)

        part of this problem though is that we're a diverse party, and they are not. They are so successful in getting their message out with short, misleading, and full of shit soundbites because their base is there, mouths open like newborn birds, just waiting for the regurgitation of what they already want to believe.

        Our "side" is much more likely to call bullshit than their side is.

        That said, we need our brightest to figure out a way around this.

        "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

        by irmaly on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:32:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Depends on what you mean by.... (4+ / 0-)

          ....a diverse party.

          There actually is some diversity among Republican voters (though very notably not along racial lines).  Some are rich; some are poor. Some are well educated; others are poorly educated. And despite the rather silly red states/blue states thing, like Democrats, Republicans can win in all regions of the country (though they have an easier time in some than in others).

          But there's much less ideological diversity in the GOP than the Democratic Party.

          However, IMO that's as much effect as cause.  They've gotten a fairly diverse bunch of voters to buy into an extraordinarily rigid series of ideological assumptions.

          And though I wouldn't want to necessarily make the Democratic Party as rigid, it could be a lot more coherent and have a lot more party discipline without in any way sacrificing its own sociological diversity.

          IMO, the ideological diversity of the Democratic Party is a bug, not a feature.

          Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

          by GreenSooner on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:37:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Republicans have been the party of threats (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irmaly, isabelle hayes

        and "protecting" people from them.  Democrats have been the party of bribes.  Nobody's been willing to recognize that the country belongs to the people and we, all of us, are entitled to share in its bounty.  Entitlements in the context of poor people is a real turn off.  Why should only poor people, who are mainly poor because the fat cats refuse to pay them enough, get services from our government?

        Why?  Because that pattern actually reinforces the myth that being looked after has to be earned.  And that's a consequence of the generational antagonism that's held by the old for the young.

        People have children or not and then they discover that parenting or just dealing with relatives involves work for which they seem to get little in return.  Which is why we've decided as a society to pay people to look after the aged and the aged, because they're paying, actually think that being looked after is something they earned.  Which means that people who aren't being looked after must be worthless.

        See, depending on which preconceived notion you start from, it all makes sense.

        The reality is everybody needs looking after, regardless of how selfish or ornery they happen to be.  Which is why we pay those who look after the most ornery in prison more than the aides in a nursing home.

        How do you tell a predator from a protector? The predator will eat you sooner rather than later.

        by hannah on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:25:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not buying what the pollsters are selling (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irmaly, Cynic in seattle

        I believe there is now a lot of 'buyers remorse' going on. We know Repubs want to obstruct any form of HCR, but Independents jumped on Brown's campaign knowing full well the filibuster proof majority would be lost and ultimately HCR. I think it was both short-sighted and selfish for the majority of folks in Mass. to elect Brown.  Yes most folks are appalled at the massive bailouts and Wall Street greed, so not only is HCR in jeopardy, Wall Street reform is also; in fact every issue Obama wants to tackle for Americans is in question.  
        Pollsters can spin this anyway they choose, I'm personally not buying it. Everyone who voted for Obama had full knowledge of his plans for HCR. The legislation was a sell out by bluedogs and others who should shoulder the blame for the HCR mess; however Mass. voters appear two-faced, voting for Obama, then stabbing him in the back. It's been heavy lifting for Obama from the beginning, now it will be next to impossible to enact any meaningful reforms going forward.

        Progressives, follow me on Twitter

        by Texas Cowboy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:28:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Think you made some excellent points (0+ / 0-)

          It was very short-sighted of Massacusetts voters although I am not sure it was selfish.

          Given the obstruction of the republicans in Congress and their hell bent preoccupation to destroy Obama because he had the audacity as a black man to run for president, how any Obama supporter in Massachusetts could cast a vote for Scott Brown is beyond me and any point of logic.

          There is a great portion of the voters in this country (I'm sorry, I meant to say people that have the right to vote) believe what they see on TV or hear on the radio and and they ae too lazy to challenge what they hear or take the time to eductae themselves.

          Are people preoccupied because they are unemployed and facing personal economic disaster? Yes but it is exactly when they need to be engaged and making good choices when they vote.

          I grew up in Massachusetts and the rest of my familt still lives there. I have since lived all over the country and those outside of Massachusetts have this view as Massachusetts being this liberal, elitst state but let me assure you there are a lot of ignorant and racist people that reside in Massachusetts and unfortunately too many people who think the Red Sox and Patriots are all that matters. They watch network news (or Fox and CNN) and never read a newspaper so their information is limited at best and no way they are going to seek out any other information.

          People did not like Coakley and long before she decided to run for Kennedy's seat. How the state Democratic Party ignored this is beyone me and how the National Democratic Party failed to see this coming and step in earlier is unbelievable but I still think the voters share in the responsibilility for all that happens because of their decision.

          Buyers remorse? Maybe a little too early for that however it's coming and it will come hard.

          Howard Dean said it best: no sense pointing fingers after a loss. The Democrtaic Party at the local, State and National levels have to get their heads out of their asses and go on the offensive and stop taking things for granted.

      •  Corporate Media Manipulation (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfdunphy, relentless, SaintC

        with a conservative bias has helped the republicans score points against dems, i.e., Fox News, CNN, Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, WSJ, Washington Times, etc.

        it is shocking that the GOP can still score political points arguing in favor of fiscal restraint. Their ability to do so is based on an image of Democrats as "tax-and-spend liberals" that has remained, essentially unchanged over three decades in which Democrats have been the clearly more fiscally conservative party

        "Sisters, brothers and the whities, Black and the crackers, Police and their backers, They're all political actors"--Curtis Mayfield

        by Cynic in seattle on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:00:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The poll shows that. (6+ / 0-)

      That was not as urgent a political decision for people in Massachusetts since they got theirs, thank you very much.  They see health care reform as a Washington clusterf**k and that the Senate could have made their healthcare worse.

      It is also very clear that the Republicans saw the Democratic supermajority as a big risk for all legislation and that bills were being jammed through without Republican participation (I know, I know, don't flame me, I just see that as what they think).  Even MA Democrats are afraid of a supermajority government, where they govern without concern for the other party.

      We can overread the MA tea leaves.  If the MA election had not happened, it is not clear that the Senate and House would have ever pulled off HCR and, frankly, we would be in this mess in November with an even bigger shock.  At least now, Obama can try to adjust to reduce the damage in November. Get something out of healthcare reform and then it's jobs, jobs, jobs.

      "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

      by captainlaser on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:34:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JanL

        I still say we have to be careful what we "get" out of health care. If the process continues to be viewed as corrupt, the people will perceive the final product as corrupt. We have to address that in some way.

        "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

        by irmaly on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:41:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Passing the Senate bill will be death (4+ / 0-)

      to the Dem party. Dems had a chance to make it REAL reform. The  Senate bill is written by lobbyists to benefit Big Insurance.

      Call it a Corporate Influenced Democracy if you like. I call it Fascism.

      by CitizenOfEarth on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:47:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am so torn on this (4+ / 0-)

        I realize and respect the fact that our party has to pass something. If for no other reason (and there are plenty of other good reasons) to show that we can be bold, that we are not cowards. People like cowards even less than they like assholes.

        Then again, the health care bill is corrupt to its core, and the people know this. I believe the people like corruption even less than cowards and assholes. Even though Nelson, for instance, got big benefits for his won state, the people there were spitting on him in local restaurants.

        I lean more and more to just putting up an optional Medicare buy in and then letting the chips fall where they may.

        Then, I worry that all those folks in serious trouble with no health care or health care they are about to lose or can't afford will be screwed....

        I just can't decide what's the best action.

        "Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know he's going to vote against me."-- Harry S. Truman

        by irmaly on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:53:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Passing a horrible bill to show Boldness (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brooke In Seattle, dhfsfc, CParis

          is suicide. Bold would have been Single Payer of minimally a REAL Public Option. This bill is corporate payola.

          Isn't it strange the few moral pieces of the bill just happen to be windfalls for Big Insurance. Example, covering the poor is a gift of 40 million new customers paid for by the middle class taxpayers -- who btw are struggling to survive financially now.

          Passing it will not end well for the Dems.

          Call it a Corporate Influenced Democracy if you like. I call it Fascism.

          by CitizenOfEarth on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:06:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with your solution (0+ / 0-)

          but I think you need to adjust your viewpoint.  There is no reason why healthcare reform should disappear for years.  We need to learn to control the agenda.  We can demand that candidates in the next election support real reform.  Even if we enact laws on a piecemeal basis that protect people from medical bankruptcies, ensure life saving treatment is not denied (set up an appeal system that places a high burden on the insurer), etc.  It appears likely we will not get the public system many of us wanted, but we can still fight (indeed, we really have no choice) to correct the injustices within the health care industry.  We cannot afford to give up on this critical human rights issue.  Keep the faith and keep fighting!

      •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

        If the Dems pass the Senate bill without adding a public option or Medicare buy-in through reconciliation, then November will be a disaster.

      •  Go read the Medicare Modernization Act (4+ / 0-)

        The Republican bill that created Medicare Part D was a steaming pile of rancid horse shit.  Ridiculous complexity, donut holes that screwed people, massive give-aways, and no mechanism to pay for it - a true deficit exploder.

        Republicans flogged the benefits mercilessly.

        People now like Medicare Part D.

        The sales job matters a lot more than the details.

        Dems should pass the Senate bill then make Republicans filibuster the fixes - how about a straight up-or-down vote on removing the mandate provision around, say, October?

        There is no planet B

        by Minerva on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:00:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, it isn't. This talking point is just wrong. (6+ / 0-)

        Actually, both of these talking points are wrong. First, what will be destructive to the Democratic party is failing to pass the bill. Being unable to govern or to deliver anything will kill them. As it notes in the diary, this bill will be more popular after it passes than it is now. I absolutely believe that is correct. Much of the negativity about it is based on fear and misunderstandings of what will happen, like the fear of death panes or that taxes are going up. When it becomes apparent that these are not true, and the regulations on insurance companies and subsidies for purchasing insurance on the exchange, and the money for free clinics all over the country starts coming in, people are going to be happy with this law. I know I will be and I want it passed, and I am going to be sorely disappointed in and mad at the democrats if they don't pass it. And yes, I also want them to pass some changes to it in a separate reconciliation bill. This is clearly the only way forward right now that makes sense and anything less will be a big disappointment.

        And secondly, the bill is not written by lobbyists to benefit big insurance -- and you know how we know that? Because republicans are aligned against it. If it was "secretly" going to benefit the industry, we would have had just enough moderate republicans and conservative dems along with it and lo and behold it would have already become law months ago. If they really wanted it to pass, they would not have worked so hard to elect Brown and kill it.

        When they are clearly fighting it to the bitter end and it is about to go down, to claim that the insurance companies are secretly FOR this bill is ludicrous. Unless we are to believe that they don't actually have any power after all, and cannot get their give-away bill to pass congress. Sorry but that just makes no sense. This talking point should be put to rest by common sense.

        Pass the bill, this voter says.

        •  Well since you called me 'just wrong' (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Words In Action

          I'll say the same to you and call it a day.

          Call it a Corporate Influenced Democracy if you like. I call it Fascism.

          by CitizenOfEarth on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:15:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Huge logical leap (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          irmaly

          You've made a huge logical leap in asserting that because the republicans oppose the bill it wasn't written by lobbyists.  The republicans were able to have their cake and eat it too.  They could oppose and decry the bill (great for attracting voters) while watching it pass.  Now that the Dems need at least one republican to move to cloture on any revised bill, I would bet that moderate republican or two would come to the fore.  They are fighting for those lobbyist dollars as much as the Dems.  In the end, they want the same result.  They just have the added advantage of riling up voters through their opposition.  This is why the republican party has been taken off life support.  We should never have let them get their hands on that cake.

          •  Disagree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SaintC

            Once it is passed it will benefit the Dems and the republicans will be revealed as the obstructionist and petty liars they are. They want it killed because that gives them political clout and capital, having defeated the evil "Obamacare" that was going to be a government takeover of health care. As David Plouffe says in his editorial:

            -- Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)

            He is right. Pass the bill!

            •  We simply disagree (0+ / 0-)

              on the likely benefits (politically and practically) of the senate health insurance bill.  I think it would be an unmitigated disaster.  I certainly would not vote for any Democrats if it passed- with its mandates, taxes on health plans, and other failures.  Of course, I would never vote for a republican, but I would find myself voting third party or write in.  (I believe it is a social responsibility to vote.)

    •  Yep... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      irmaly, JanL

      the Nebraska deal was no better than Hatch's "states starting with U".

      •  Glad Nelson got embarrased (0+ / 0-)

        by the voters of his state and withdraw the provision. What a fucking moron and shame on Reid for including it to begin with. It was a huge negative across the country. Nothing more than a bribe for Nelson's vote.

        I hope the dems have someone good to run in Nevada because Reid is going down and we can't lose the state.

    •  Medicare for All buyin would be a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      isabelle hayes

      bad idea at this point....it is not as simple as people think. If we simply made Medicare available on a voluntary basis, it would attract those people with greater needs and less resources. If they got Medicare on the same basis as retirees, it would be a fiscal disaster, putting more strain on a system that's already piling up bigger and bigger deficits. It sounds attractive to us on an ideological basis, but Medicare needs serious reform before it is suitable as a basis for single-payer, which is the only way "Medicare for All" could work. A limited buy-in for those over 50 would be a good addition to the senate bill (assuming a monthly cost per person for regular Medicare of around $550-600/mo premium) as it would provide a more affordable option for people in that age group. But true "Medicare for All" only works as single-payer, and there is a lot of work that would have to be done both to reform Medicare and change attitudes about government-funded healthcare before that can happen.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:13:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is what "60 votes" does. (0+ / 0-)

      In a way, I like not having that available for Senators to extort whatever they want out of a weak leadership.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:02:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is it just me (0+ / 0-)

        or is there a failure on hte part of the Democratic Party not to continually talk up how many large bills passed under Bush with less than 60 votes? Some of them were pretty significant?

        Go for reconcilliation and pound it it to people that Bush did the same things and no one complained then.

        If it for the greater good for the country, we don;t need 60 votes and if 60 votes is solely for political cover, I say fuck that! I vote for US!

  •  There is over 10% unemployment (11+ / 0-)

    That is the bottom line.  Does not matter who created it.  The party in power owns it.

    After 2.5 years of Teabagger Brownie we'll get it back in 2012.

    Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing. --George Orwell

    by thestupiditburns on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:11:51 AM PST

    •  Sort of. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, Turkana, dharmafarmer

      If one does it consistently and repeatedly, one can pawn off some of the blame on one's predecessor, as Reagan did on Carter, for instance.

      The Obama White House has refused to play that game in this case, and is thus taking even more of the blame.

      Stop Obama's Wars Now! Bring the Troops Home!

      by GreenSooner on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:20:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Doesn't any one know if they are going to be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action, Betty Pinson

      releasing money from the stimulus? They should put more money out.

      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

      by Micheline on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:21:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I call BS (0+ / 0-)

      Bush out the country on this path and that needs to be punded in to people over and over.

      Obama cannot create jobs on his own although God knows he's trying. He needs Congress to write bills that provide funding and/or creates jobs and with the onstructionists in Congress that want to see Obama fail, you think that will happen.

      He is president, he is not Superman.

      Id the republicans had not been obstructioniesy, how many new jobs could have been created and how much lower would unemployment be?

      The Democratic Party also need to push info on how much worse the situation would have been if they had not done what was already done.

      Finally, I think they need to also continue to ask: what are the Republicans doing to help the economy and create jobs. The answer is: NOTHING!

  •  This diary should... (5+ / 0-)

    ...be on the rec. list. Congressional staff and media researchers who come here looking for information need to see this diary.  Well done.

  •  Good work. Thanks. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, dharmafarmer, sephius1

    HR 676 - Health care reform we can believe in - national single-payer NOW.

    by kck on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:17:16 AM PST

  •  According to what I heard second hand ... (11+ / 0-)

    For what it's worth, many MA voters were convinced that the HC plan proposed in the Senate would usurp their current plan.  If so, the Republicans did a very effective job lying.

    Mind you this is all second hand from a MA voter I talked to - not a poll.  Your numbers seem to support this.  Remember it would be very damaging if Coakley lost even 10% of the voters that would have voted for her otherwise over this lie.

    Why wasn't the Democratic party out in front on this?  They should have emphasized to MA voters that the Senate bill would not disrupt HC in MA.  Once again, where the hell was Tim Kaine?  I want that guy out; he's done absolutely nothing to help win elections.  If he can't do at least that, he's useless.  Bring back Dr. Dean.

    The shortest distance between two points is never a straight line.

    by noofsh on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:22:06 AM PST

    •  See what lack of communication brings... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Minerva, Phthalo, papermoon, Betty Pinson

      For what it's worth, many MA voters were convinced that the HC plan proposed in the Senate would usurp their current plan.  If so, the Republicans did a very effective job lying.

      Remember, this health care legislation was in trouble in the summer.  When Obama let congress go home for August, he went on vacation, while the insurance companies and GOP were organizing and lying all summer.

      See, you can not let ANYTHING go by with no response.  Why?  People end up BELIEVING IT.  We never recovered from that catastrophe this summer.

      •  There you go with that Obama took vacation crap (0+ / 0-)

        again. The man took 1 week off to spend some time with his kids and wife on Martha's vineyard. One week out of the whole summer. And it wasn't much of a vacation since Ted Kennedy died a day or two after Obama started his "vacation."

        Look at all the HCR activity by the administration over the summer and tell us again how

        Obama let congress go home for August, he went on vacation, while the insurance companies and GOP were organizing and lying all summer.

        August 31, 2009
        The Vice President Asks Your Help: Tell Us Why Reform Matters for You
        August 24, 2009
        Fresh Reality Check: “We Can Afford Reform, We Can’t Afford the Status Quo”
        August 22, 2009
        Weekly Address: Myths and Morality in Health Insurance Reform
        August 20, 2009
        Talking Health Reform with Laralee
        August 20, 2009
        Recovery in Action: Investing in Health Care
        August 19, 2009
        Why We Need a Reality Check
        August 19, 2009
        Reality Checks: Face to Face
        August 18, 2009
        Clearing Up a Few Myths on Health Insurance Reform and the Indian Health Service
        August 16, 2009
        La Realidad: The Truth about Health Insurance Reform is Now Available in Spanish.
        August 15, 2009
        Weekly Address: Real Conversations about Health Insurance Reform
        August 14, 2009
        Addressing Some Misconceptions in Montana
        August 13, 2009
        Health Insurance Reform and Disability
        August 13, 2009
        The Return of the Viral Email
        August 11, 2009
        Health Insurance Reform & TRICARE
        August 11, 2009
        Facts, Falsehoods and the Benefits of Reform in Portsmouth
        August 11, 2009
        12.6 Million is a BIG Number
        August 10, 1009
        Streaming at 2:00: Stakeholder Discussion on Advanced Models of Primary Care
        August 10, 2009
        Reality Check
        August 8, 2009
        Weekly Address: Necessary Reform, Absurd Attacks
        August 7, 2009
        Watch, Discuss, Engage at 1:00: Secretary Sebelius on Health Reform Myths
        August 4, 2009
        Facts Are Stubborn Things
        August 3, 2009
        What Health Reform Means for Veterans
        July 31, 2009
        CEA Chair Romer’s Chat on Health Insurance Reform and Small Business
        July 29, 2009
        Your Feedback on the Eight Health Insurance Consumer Protections
        July 29, 2009
        Full Videos: the Health Care Stakeholder Discussions
        July 29, 2009
        Health Insurance Reform: What’s In It For You?
        July 29, 2009
        The President Highlights Health Insurance Consumer Protections
        July 28, 2009
        A Tele-Town Hall on Health Insurance Reform at the AARP
        July 28, 2009
        The First Lady Visits Caroline Family Practice
        July 25, 2009
        Orszag on the Latest News Out of CBO on Reform
        July 24, 2009
        Weekly Address: Health Insurance Reform, Small Business and Your Questions
        July 23, 2009
        A Health Reform Town Hall in Ohio
        July 22, 2009
        The President's Press Conference - Full Video
        July 21, 2009
        Reforming Health Insurance, Reforming Washington
        July 20, 2009
        “Not This Time”
        July 17, 2009
        Weekly Address: Health Care Reform Cannot Wait
        July 17, 2009
        The President on Health Care: "We are Going to Get this Done"
        July 16, 2009
        More Stable and Secure Health Care For Seniors
        July 16, 2009
        Building a Bipartisan Consensus
        July 15, 2009
        Nurses Join the Call for Health Care Reform
        July 13, 2009
        Dr. Regina Benjamin: Nominee for Surgeon General
        July 8, 2009
        The Consensus Grows: Hospitals for Health Reform
        July 1, 2009
        Full Video: A National Discussion on Health Care Reform
        June 27, 2009
        Your Turn: Join the National Online Discussion on Health Care Reform
        June 25, 2009
        Health Care Reform: Asked and Answered
        June 24, 2009
        Health Reform for Every Region, Every State, Every American
        June 22, 2009
        A Significant Breakthrough to Assist Our Seniors
        June 18, 2009
        Health Reform Stakeholder Meeting with Physicians
        June 17, 2009
        A Healthy Harvest
        June 16, 2009
        Director Orszag on Health Care Reform: Higher Quality for Lower Costs
        June 15, 2009
        Why Reform, Why Now
        June 13, 2009
        Weekly Address: Health Care Reform as the Key to Our Fiscal Future
        June 11, 2009
        A Town Hall, and a Health Care Model, in Green Bay
        June 10, 2009
        Rubber Hitting the Road on Health Care
        June 9, 2009
        Streaming at Noon: Health Care Stakeholder Discussion on Health Disparities and Health Reform
        June 5, 2009
        Weekly Address: President Obama Calls for Real Health Care Reform
        June 5, 2009
        Streaming at 11:00: Health Care Stakeholder Discussion with Women’s Groups
        June 3, 2009
        The President Spells Out His Vision on Health Care Reform
        June 2, 2009
        The Economic Case for Health Care Reform
        June 1, 2009
        Director Orszag Continues the Conversation on Health Care Costs

        http://www.healthreform.gov/...

        Please help StopRushLimbaugh. Because hate should not be profitable.

        by marabout40 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:19:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with this. I think MA voters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Minerva

      were presented with a vague monstrosity that even the Senate didn't know what is was

      against a card that was already in the pockets of the MA voter.

      No competition.  You always will be conservative if you think you might lose something you like.

      "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

      by captainlaser on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:39:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  have you heard anything about how Coakley (0+ / 0-)

      managed to win the primary?

      She couldn't have been so uninspiring and gaffe-prone only for the general... right?  Was this a case of MA Dems simply picking the highest-name recognition candidate?  Any insight?

      The Sleep of Regulation Produces Corporate Monsters.

      by Leftcandid on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:02:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  she was from the westeren part of MA and was the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Leftcandid

        only candidate with state wide name recognition. She benefited as such from a shortened campagin. There's also the meme that people in Boston (read the Mayor) hated her so very little get ot the vote effort was expended on his part - especially to unions.

        The other factor - she's grossly unlikable, a prig, seflrighteous and soulless and fell asleep for the first two weeks of the general...little things like that did not help her cause.  In short she sucked!

  •  So if it is that popular amongst people (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minerva, jfdunphy, papermoon, Betty Pinson

    in Massachusetts, just introduce the Massachusetts health care law nationally.

    It's better than not having anything happen.

    Oh.My.God. Deja Vu flashback.  I wrote that in June last year.

    "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

    by captainlaser on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:22:57 AM PST

  •  50/50 split government should do more a surprise. (4+ / 0-)

    Great diary by the way. Facts and figures and lots of work vs. the empty suit, hair on fire opinion pieces that usually get on the rec list.

    You have to wonder what the 50% who want the government to do less see as the solutions to problems like health care, oil imports, debt/deficit, Wall Street bank economic damage? None of these are going to be solved by a laissez faire government.

    They will only be solved by an activist government pushing progressive, liberal policies that directly address each problem. Nothing clearer on this than health where every other nation long ago solved the problem for half the cost getting twice the results and doing it via government action.

    •  I don't have to wonder. (7+ / 0-)

      I can tell ya.  They're not worried about the solutions to things we don't have - they're the ones who are pissed at seeing what's been done by gov't so far - money flowing out to the very people who've screwed us all over so badly, while nothing flows to them.  An HCR bill that tells them they'll be forced to buy insurance they don't feel will actually help them get healthcare, with provisions to disincentivize the actual use of healthcare, and more taxpayer money flowing to industry.

      Given the record so far, they'd rather have nothing done then more looting of the taxpayer to bail out the wealthy.

      Had we actually SHOWN them 'progressive, liberal policies', rather than simply 'we're giving your money to the wealthy, and we intend to keep doing so', then yeah, they'd be all gung ho for a progressive, liberal gov't.  Otherwise, they'd prefer gridlock.

      Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:29:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What I still do not get (6+ / 0-)

    How does one go from this belief set, to pulling a GOP lever? I can see a MA voter being disheartened by Coakley maybe, but voting for Brown? That makes no sense at all.

    -7.5 -7.28, Sheesh, you call me a socialist like that's a bad thing.

    by Blueslide on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:31:39 AM PST

    •  It is just "throw the bums out" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL

      They'll vote against Brown in two years.

      "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

      by captainlaser on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:40:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We have a system that doesn't let you vote for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pkbarbiedoll

      "None of the Above" unless they stay home.  Voters tend to, well, vote.  If staying home isn't an option, then pulling the lever for the opposition is the only choice.

      •  That's where RUSSIA has a better system. (0+ / 0-)

        RUSSIA, people! They have "None Of The Above" as an option on EVERY ballot, for EVERY position, in EVERY election.

        They've got us beat all hollow on this. But we'll never adopt a superior idea invented by "those evil Commie Russkies" (never mind that they're now more capitalist than we are!).

        If it's
        Not your body
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        AND it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:06:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Coakley's abysmal campaign killed turnout (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of people didn't vote.

      By the way, I suspect Brown will be scozzafavaed in '12. Teabagistan isn't comfortable with his social views.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:54:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He hid is GOP credentials (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      aisling, tmo, CParis, Phthalo, coachster

      and ran away from the republican brand and name very effectively. He campaigned openly and successfully as an Independent.

      I wouldn't be surprised if some voters didn't even know he was a repug until they walked into the voting booth on election day...but by then their minds had already been made up.

      Give the guy credit for hiring the repug marketing guru's that figured out early on a strategy (use the word independent, independent, independent, independent, avoid republican like the plague)how to appeal and capture the large percentage of unenrolled voters here.

      To announce that there must be no criticism of the President....is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

      by emal on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:03:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I coulnd't do it myself but I can see how... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ezekial 23 20

      others might!

    •  Seriously (0+ / 0-)

      I don't get that either. I'm leaning more and more toward supporting a mandatory IQ test to be allowed to vote. /kidding

      Vote for my short story "Two North" HERE. Thanks!

      by Eclectablog on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:20:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  See my comment directly above yours. (0+ / 0-)

      Gridlock is preferable to passing more 'give the wealthy taxpayer money' legislation.

      Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:31:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The vote *is* a sign... (6+ / 0-)

    ...that humanity is probably an evolutionary dead-end.

    There is no planet B

    by Minerva on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:32:44 AM PST

  •  Thank gawd. Back to biz as usual then (4+ / 0-)

    Voters love the historic HCR bill which hands over your wallet to Big Insurance. Voters are happy that bank bailouts continue and don't mind the cozy relationship with Wall St. And thank gawd that since the Banks now have thiers, it is time to get fiscally responsible and cut aid to mainstreet.

    Whew, that was close. thought for a moment there that the Dems just might have to become honest.

    Call it a Corporate Influenced Democracy if you like. I call it Fascism.

    by CitizenOfEarth on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:33:46 AM PST

  •  This diary does not really answer, (11+ / 0-)

    why Obama voters voted for Brown.  Not really it does not.  We all know that voters like Obama, his approval ratings are solid in Massachusetts, yet, these voters are frustrated at the inactivity of not doing anything.  Many would have preferred that the Democrats just pass something meaningful.  Then the question is why have they not?  

    The reality is that the Democrats right now in 2010 are scared and will not pass anything.  If they do I will be shocked.

    The voter anger is real out here with many Obama supporters.  I hear it from the ground ALL THE TIME.  Also, why did voters either vote Brown, sit Tuesday out, or just said, "I don't care".  Because the reality is that is what happened on Tuesday, DEMOCRATS did not show up to the polls.

    And this diary is wrong about voters not worried or concerned about the economy.  Most polls, collectively show the opposite.  People are angry that this WH is perceived as not doing anything and frustrated on not understanding what this health care bill is about.  That is the WH fault and the Democrats fault, but mostly the WH.  They never conclusively said what they demanded, Obama just gave his signature piece of legislation over to congress and we see where it is at.

    Enthusiasm is about who has the juice, right now we don't.  We have lost voters, for now, shake up in that White House is desperately needed.  Quite a few need to LEAVE.  But we will see what happens.

    Right now the health care bill is an albatross on the Democrats neck and remember, people in congress knows which wind the votes blow, if they think it is too controversial for their re-election, they are not going to vote on anything.

    This bill should have been done last year, but no leadership was there to guide it to its conclusion.

    •  These are fair criticisms (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      isabelle hayes

      I don't think there's anyone out there who will deny the WH has big problems, but too much panic can also create a self fulfilling prophecy. Even if people leave, there needs to be some basis to have a fresh start. Unfortunately, looking back on past failures that are by now self evident isn't productive. That's why highlighting polls like this are important. I find it interesting that the second most important issue on this list for Brown voters is 'the way Washington works,' and this is an area where I think some Obama voters might have jumped ship. Washington needs to be seen as more transparent, more responsive, and less concerned with parochial issues.

    •  I'm on the ground here in MA and more than (9+ / 0-)

      anything it was the discussion/'done deal' of the tax on health care benefits that solidified the 'talk', and  especially the timing of it that fueled the discontent about how 'he's caved on the public option', "wall St gets more attention than anything else' and 'I haven't seen ANY change' all about the disillusionedment about the job - not about him, Obama personally, but about the JOBhe is doing - and that was it: 'maybe Brown winning will wake them up'......that was all anyone was talking about and that was when we activists were pleading with our less activist democratic friends and democratic leaning Unenrolled indies.

      The holidays around here were depressing when politics came up.

      •  "not about him, Obama" ?!? (0+ / 0-)

        'I haven't seen ANY change' all about the disillusionment about the job - not about him, Obama personally, but about the JOB he is doing

        So what is the difference between Obama the man and Obama's job? I don't get it. We didn't elect him because he smiles nice or has darling kids. He was elected to DO A JOB. And IMO, all actions so far indicate a cozy relationship with Corporations at the expense of main street.

        Call it a Corporate Influenced Democracy if you like. I call it Fascism.

        by CitizenOfEarth on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:55:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  His personal likeability is separate from his job (5+ / 0-)

          performance for many people.

          The mood around here was 3 D's:disappointed, disillusioned and depressed.

          Nothing to cheer about and frankly it is insulting to suggest that voters were not paying attention: when Coakley was asked during the last debate moderated by Davod Gergen about the health benefits tax she clearly stammered, stumbled, and tried to massage her way out of answering the question.

          It was noticed.

          My husband is in a union.....the faxes were humming for weeks about that aspect - tax on health care benefits, tax on health care benefits, jeezus it was a drumbeat.

        •  People know that the Senate is the hard source (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tmo

          of the problem passing HCR, not Obama personally.  And  they realize from watching TV the past six to eight months that in the relationship between the two, the Senate has the upper hand on HCR.  Obama's speeches on HCR and the media coverage have had the net effect of exonerating him from immediate blame.  Likewise, the House leadership has acted quickly and effectively enough to avoid blame.

          People haven't narrowed the source of the problem down to a single name or entity they can turn their anger on.  But they do hear a lot of the same set of names coming up in the media: Reid, Lieberman, Nelson.  People on the street can't name the Senate Majority Leader, but in Research 2000 pollings Harry Reid always trails Obama and Pelosi by a lot.

      •  yup (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        isabelle hayes

        'maybe Brown winning will wake them up'......that was all anyone was talking about

        Even around here the last week before the election.

        And now there are those around here twisting what the the polls say claiming Brown won because there was no PO in the HCR bill.

        Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

        by glynis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:05:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  But most voters are not as aware politically as (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle, Phthalo, papermoon

      we might like.  They may be Democrats, but they don't pay attention to all the details and nuances.  Which makes them just as suceptible to mis- and disinformation as anyone else.

      Add to that an inability to voice displeasure without voting for an opponent in an election, and you have a very good reason to vote for Brown if you don't like Coakley.  

      And while I don't live in Massachussetts, the few things I have seen of her speaking made ME want to vote against her not just in this election but any future elections.  Bad candidates and bad campaigns turn voters off as much if not more than bad policy.

    •  One thing that does... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emal, Brooke In Seattle, icebergslim

      is a poll showing that union voters actually supported Brown by a 49-46 margin (which alone is probably enough to have delivered Brown the win).

      The tax on Cadillac plans needs to be yanked from the bill.

    •  IBS, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW

      My take on it.

      It's not we haven't done, it's what people SEE being done.

      Those who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God. - Thomas Jefferson

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:33:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Look at the turnout numbers in metro areas (0+ / 0-)

      vs rural areas.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:00:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now, how do we get (3+ / 0-)

    the corporate media and the big heads inside the Beltway to absorb this info?

    Already my (supposedly liberal, supposedly politically savvy) Senator has declared that HCR needs to be put "on the back burner". I almost can't wait till tomorrow to call his office on that piece of brilliance.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

    by sidnora on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:35:38 AM PST

  •  Again we can poll the people... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey

    of MA until the cows come home and slice and dice it anyway we want...but that is not what matters...

    What matters is what message did the 59 non-Republican Senators get from this election and the 252 Democrats in the House...

    That is the poll that matters in the end...

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:35:50 AM PST

  •  Poll: Would You Prefer Mr. Bush's SCOTUS Nominee (3+ / 0-)

    to
    a. Expand individual rights
    b. Stay close to the Constitution
    c. Grant global corporations election campaign rights

    I'm guessing that if we'd run this poll, c would've polled low.

    So while this diary's analysis is probably correct, its applicability has to be worked out between a 3-part Democratic party that combines incompetence, hostility to the people and support for the people, plus the Republican party that knows how to create messages and candidacies that look highly different to voters from what they will be once in office.

    Elections are like marriages.

    You don't marry only the spouse-- you marry the entire family.

    What Massachusetts married was the global plutocracy party.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:36:19 AM PST

  •  In a Word, MA Voters Were Looking Anywhere for a (3+ / 0-)

    Leader.

    Managers won't cut it.

    We may not think Scott Brown is that leader, but MA voters do.

    "Give me but one firm spot to stand, and I will move the earth." -- Archimedes

    by Limelite on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:37:47 AM PST

  •  This shows that Brown voters (8+ / 0-)

    don't really know what they are voting for. It's just another major disconnect that Republicans always seem to benefit from.

  •  Not only is the national media narrative out of (11+ / 0-)

    whack, but the voters themselves were utterly incoherent.

    You support the Mass. Healthcare reform law, but not the national one (which at this point is almost identical to Mass.)

    You want someone who's going to work with democrats, and you vote for a guy who's said out loud he's not going to.

    Whisky... tango.. foxtrot...

    Even this good analysis you've provided is missing the mark slightly: this was an election where emotional voters went for the candidate who acknowledged their emotional state, who ran against an opponent who ran an utterly cold campaign. Nothing more, nothing less.

    •  Bingo (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, emal, glynis, Phthalo, marabout40

      People are feeling vulnerable and scared so they went for the person who spoke to those emotions -- even tho he was lying on a lot of it -- because Coakley barely had a pulse and didn't actually campaign.

      Honestly, I was surprised Coakley lost by only 5% -- I was concerned it was going to be double digits. The only reason it wasn't was that the unions and other activists (like me) phonebanked like crazy the last few weeks.

      "The country we carry in our hearts is waiting." ~ Bruce Springsteen

      by abs0628 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:54:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good luck with that (3+ / 0-)

    "There was overwhelming support for passing health care reform. 70% of all voters think Brown should work with the Democrats to get something passed."

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.

    by RickD on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:42:22 AM PST

  •  just forwarded this to President Obama ~eom (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minerva, zenox

    "Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle." -Helen Keller

    by ridemybike on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:44:28 AM PST

  •  Obamacare? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Minerva, kat68, marabout40

    We're using that term now? I thought that was a right-wing meme.

    Halfway between sanity and insanity = "moderate". Irony is useless in a culture that has no shame.

    by ubertar on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:44:48 AM PST

  •  What insiders already know... (13+ / 0-)

    The Coakley campaign was a joke.

    Her lead pollster was a fraud, taking two sides to every issue and failing to spot significant trends in the MA electorate before it was too late. Just one day after the election she was filmed on BraveNewFilms pointing the finger at every possible explanation except her own failures. Ironically, this poll shows results that run contrary to almost every one of her assertions.

    The campaign was run so poorly, it was doomed to fail. Brown traveled the state tirelessly while Coakley traveled the globe. Coakley's first act after the passing of Ted Kennedy was to head out on a 10 day vacation, giving Brown unfettered access to free media and TV recognition.

    Massachusetts voters who were on the fence were swayed in the last days by the concept that the Democrats had too much power for the own good and were not getting anything done. Mind you, no debate between "good Democrats and bad ones", just Democrats as a whole.

    Finally, the Coakley campaign way overestimated the number of Obama voters who would be dialed up enough in an off election year to come out and vote Democrat again.

    Of course, this series of conclusions is too boring and way to non-controversial to run on the MSM or through the talking heads, so the "anti-Obama" meme was much sexier and ran as if it were news.

    Oh well...

    •  Turnout in cities (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coachster

      vs the rural areas tells the whole story. MA cities for the most part are strongly Democratic/liberal. [exception: Southie in Boston, and a few other isolated communities].

      The rural areas east of the Quabbin are viciously and extremely right wing. William Loeb was from rural MA. There's no shortage of rednecks and yahoos in MA, but normally they are outnumbered by liberals.

      When liberals/progressives in the cities are disgusted and not motivated to vote for a person who conducted a prosecution that brought to mind the Salem witch trials, and minority communities are nearly totally ignored by a campaign like Coakley did, it's no surprise the Tea Bagging winger beats her.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:59:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's confusing the symptoms with the (0+ / 0-)

      disease, and not seeing the forest for all the trees.  I don't know why all this denialism consistently goes on here that makes every elections loss about tactics and micro level policking.  This is all the same wrongheaded "analysis" and denial of the obvious macroscopic factors people here on dKos talked themselves into about Kerry's campaign in 2004.  It's also a taking of Republican excuses and talking points as serious explanations.  It's always painfully delusional and it always takes a year or two until the groupthink and violated egotism of the collective here on the site admits to the hard, high level, reasons for losses.

      Coakley faced two things.  One was the enormous pent up resentments against Ted Kennedy by Republican voters.  The other was having to defend this crap Senate HCR bill with its several unbearable features- the tax gimmick, the all-at-once mandate, the lack of any cost lowering mechanism.  Those two things led to most of the phenomena of the campaign.

      •  Not a single piece of polling (0+ / 0-)

        ...nor an analysis of the numbers of voters would even vaguely support your explanation. Sounds nice, but not true.

        Coakley lost not because of GOP turnout, but because of a lack of her own. Period. This diary lays out the many facets of the voting pool, and non-voters, that were at play. Politics and voting very much IS, ultimately, about micro level events, and trying to plug a macro level meme into a state off year Senate race is folly - pure and simple.

        There has always been GOP resentment of all things Kennedy in Mass. But in the past, the Kennedy base turned out in plenty numbers to overturn him. This time, no such luck, and it does, in fact, boil down to the job Coakley didn't do, more than anything else. If Coakley was HALF as likeable and marketable as Brown, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

        Hate the Senate bill all you want, but get your facts straight before you plug and play that as a driver for all things bad for the Democratic Party.

    •  Yes I agree, but why with so much at stake (0+ / 0-)

      was she allowed to run her own campaign?  Where was the DNC Kaine, where was the senatorial campaign committee, Menendez?  Where was the Mass Congressional Delegation, many lifetime seats.  No one helped her and I want to know why. Is it because Capuano lost in the primary?  Great loyalty to the party Mass elected Dems.  Don’t blame the voters as much as the party.  The voters were never told not to vote for Brown and Martha Coakley received absolutely no support.

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        From what I've been told, there was a concerted push to get better (any?) proven campaign managers in there, and Coakley's people basically told them to shove it. Apparently, their "I got this" wasn't quite as good as Obama's.

        Much of it has to do with the key players being very entrenched in the womens' movement, and wanting to maintain a very tight reign around the campaign with those players. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but when those people end up being extremely ineffective at what they do, you have to get a bit frustrated. Basically, the entire campaign was run by a fairly tight group of progressive feminist activists, and they didn't want "non-club" members in the camp.

  •  if this was a poll of voters (4+ / 0-)

    it ignored one of the biggest stories- those that didn't vote.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:51:09 AM PST

    •  The problem with polls like this, no matter (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      averageyoungman, Turkana

      what one wants to try prove with them, is -

      A plurality of Brown voters oppose the Senate bill.  Ok.

      62% of Brown voters say 'health care is a top priority'.  Ok.

      The problem with trying to understand the numbers is that we're not told what the overlap between these two groups is.  For instance, maybe those who oppose it don't consider it a high priority, or maybe those who support it don't.

      The diarist categorical claim that those who oppose the Senate bill also support RomneyCare is specious, however (or, merely a sign that the Diarist never had to take statistics).

      In truth, there's only a 10% overlap between support for Romneycare and opposition to the Senate insurance company funding bill.  There's a lot of sound reasons to believe that much of that gap won't shift 'after the fact'.

      The Senate bill will, once again, drain wealthy states of cash while imposing a very disproportionate burden on people who live in high cost of living areas.  Many in states like MA and NY and CA are just flat-out tired of their states getting less than 80 cents on the dollar back from what they send to Washington and having to cut state level benefits while they personally are unable to get aid from the Federal programs they pay for even when their limited income barely pays the rent.

       

      All your witch-hunt are belong to us!

      by JesseCW on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:52:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and i checked (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal, averageyoungman, JesseCW

        it is a poll of those that voted. and here's one of the keys that neither the poll nor the diarist addresses:

        As expected, turnout was depressed for this special election compared with last year’s general election. About 54 percent of registered voters turned out, compared with 73 percent in November 2008. In President Obama’s strongest areas — towns where he received more than 60 percent of the vote — the number of voters was about 30 percent below 2008 levels. In the rest of the state, the number of voters was down just 25 percent. In Boston — one of the strongest areas for Democrats — the number voting fell 35 percent.

        this diary plays into a narrative that a lot of people want to believe (imagine that!), but it ignores the real story: the enthusiasm gap.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:08:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  David Gergen just said on This Week (7+ / 0-)

    that 8 in 10 of Brown voters disagreed with HCR.

    You can spin a poll however you want.  He was disingenuous in not pointing out the question that 50% of Brown voters wanted Brown to stop HCR and 50% wanted him to work with Democrats to get HCR through.

    Only 28% of the people in Massachusetts wanted health care reform killed.  70% want this process to continue.

    That should be Obama's message on Wednesday.

    "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

    by captainlaser on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:51:27 AM PST

    •  and chuck todd said (5+ / 0-)

      the teabaggers have a media organ selling them (fox)

      so, like all consultants and pundits he ignores the fact that the tea baggers are DITTOHEADS first and were birthed with 1000 coordinated uncontested radio stations, without which fox would be a mere shell of it's silly self.

      US social and political reality is largely determined by 1000 radio stations blasting coordinated UNCONTESTED repetition all day long.

      by certainot on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:01:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to start driving wedges into the teabag (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        certainot

        movement.

        You cannot ignore it.  

        It is not all wingnuttery.

        We need to give the dissatisfied on the economy a reason to come back and vote Democrat.

        The "no taxes, no blacks, no Government, no yes" movement in the teabaggers will never be more than 30% of the vote (these were the 30% who loved George Bush when he left office).

        If we treat all those people as morons and idiots, we do so at our peril.  The Republicans labelled all Obama supporters as socialists and traitors and look how that motivated us.   Don't give them a hook to draw in more of the disenfranchised and disenchanted.

        I feel disenfranchised and disenchanted.  Plouffe, Axelrod and Obama need to put concrete measures in the SOTU speech which will draw us back.

        "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

        by captainlaser on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:54:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That sounds right -- my (0+ / 0-)

      observation is that this is probably true.   The election was not about health care even though it has become absolute pundit dogma that it was.

    •  dueling polls (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marabout40

      that 8 in 10 of Brown voters disagreed with HCR.

      Gallup:

      According to the poll, most self-identified Democrats (67%) want Congress to continue working toward passage of the bill. However, an even larger majority of Republicans (87%) call for suspension of Congress' current work on the bill. The majority of political independents, whose support has been crucial to recent Republican election victories in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey, would also prefer to see the reform efforts put on hold rather than moved forward.

      "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

      by catnip on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:09:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  David Gergen latched onto this number. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jfdunphy

        But David Gergen DIDN'T tell you that 50% of Brown voters wanted Brown to work with the Democrats on HCR.  94% of Coakley voters hoped that Brown would work with the Democrats on HCR.

        Overall, 70% of those in MA wanted Brown, if elected, to work with the Democrats on Health Care Reform and only 30% wanted to stop the current bill.

        This is in the same WaPo poll that your 80 number came from.

        The message from Democrats has to be "We hear you.  We hear that you are unhappy on how HCR has progressed.  Even Democrats are not happy how HCR has progressed. But we also hear that you want (7 out of 10 of you) for us to continue to bring real health care reform to the US and want Scott Brown to help us do that".

        "Progress" is the core of progressive. Two steps forward. One step back.

        by captainlaser on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:58:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for this diary, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sephius1, papermoon

    hopefully people will listen.

  •  Democrats need to pass a progressive jobs bill. (6+ / 0-)

    Get health care off the table soon (preferrably by passing it) and it should be the next thing done.  Jobs needs to be in every sentence that the Democrats speak and they need to provide an effort to improve the situation beyond its current situation.

    If Democrats don't push a jobs bill soon, we will be sunk at the ballot box in November.

    I am not a yellow dog Democrat, nor am I a blue dog Democrat. I am a progressive Democrat and being progressive is more important than being a Democrat to me.

    by Daily Activist on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 08:58:08 AM PST

  •  Somehow I don't think Scott Brown is... (5+ / 0-)

    listening. This guy is an asshole of the first water. He thinks that the voters were fooled and now he'll keep his own misguided council...polls non withstanding...

    •  There was a special on local cable (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      revgerry, marabout40

      yesterday about him. You know, where he was born (Maine) where he grew up (Wakefield MA), a general biography of him etc...It highlighted how he got involved in politics. That story was so interesting to me.

      Brown said he got involved in the Wrentham, MA Selectman's race when his town was deciding a local prop 2 and 1/2 override taxation question in support of the town's schools. He attended the local selectmens meeting and said that the selectmen were rude and cut people off etc. Brown said he couldn't believe how poorly the selectmen treated the townspeople speaking out at the meeting there. So he said to one of the selectman, how he was appalled at their behavior during that meeting and the response back from the man was, well then if you don't like it run for selectman. And Brown did. So he entered the race next cycle and won a seat as selectman.

      However although that story was interesting and one I did not know, the most interesting and revealing piece of that whole story was that Mr. Brown, being a republican, actually was for the property tax override. Meaning he wanted to increase taxes at the local level via this vote (which is the only lawful way towns in this state can raise property tax rates above 2 and a 1/2 percent from the previous year). Essentially Brown, the republican, the tea bag candidate, supported and wanted to increase taxes.

      How many tea baggers or voters in general knew that he was for tax increases. You'd never know this from his campaign.

      To announce that there must be no criticism of the President....is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

      by emal on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:26:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  People who have school age kids (as he probably (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emal

        did at the time) tend to vote for tax overrides to fund local education. Older empty nesters do not...all towns in the Commonwealth have plenty of both...he was on ste self serving side as usual!

        •  Yup, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Massconfusion, marabout40

          Exactly, he was for it when it suited him personally, but now his kids are out of public schools and so now he's voted as a state senator to cut state funding to public schools, colleges, and universities.

          To announce that there must be no criticism of the President....is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

          by emal on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:21:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps whoever next faces him will bring it up.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marabout40

            fortunatly it won't be Martha!

            I still cannot understand that a politician a nakedly ambitious as Coakley has been for all these years ...screwed the pooch like she did!

            Can't wait for Kennedy to be cold before she declares and didn't defend herself when she opposed Brown's very warm body!

            We got what SHE deserved...too bad for us!

  •  If they wanted someone who would work with (3+ / 0-)

    Obama, I still can't figure out why they elected him.  The poll just doesn't explain that.

  •  angry voters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

     IF YOU THINK BROWN WILL NOT GO WITH REPUBLICANS  YOU SHOULD MOVE TO ARIZONIA.  HE WILL STOP ANY AND ALL AGENDAS THAT ARE NOT REPUBLICAN.

  •  Can you email this (3+ / 0-)

    to the White House, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, please?

    Come to think of it, email it to all the freaking weak-kneed Democrats who think they have to cut back on HCR!

    "Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this...I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over." ~ HAL

    by LuLu on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:04:05 AM PST

  •  Wishing does not make it so. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    averageyoungman, bccobbs, JesseCW

    It was all about health care whether you want to believe it or not.  

    •  No it wasn't. (4+ / 0-)

      It was all about:
      Health Care Reform being bogged down in Congress.
      Coakley being a lazy arrogant candidate.
      The media backing Brown.
      Brown running an extremely impressive campaign.
      Coakley's disgustingly negative ads being run nonstop in all media in the state.
      Kennedy resentment building up for over 4 decades.
      MA Republicans having no U.S. Senator for over a generation.
      MA's state government being completely run by Dems since the 2007 election.
      A horrible economy.
      And more. Believe it or not.

      There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

      by kitebro on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:27:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am not sure where you get the idea the media (0+ / 0-)

        was backing Brown.  Most papers endorsed her.  Of course I do not live in Mass, so I do not see that much.

        •  Here in Western MA (0+ / 0-)

          our local rag ran a hit piece a few days before the primary. But mostly I'm referring to the MSM falling all over themselves about this handsome miracle man who was just your average Joe. Depsite feigning ignorance of the Tea Party movement, video showed up where he spoke at a Tea party. Ignored by the media. His incident at his kid's high school was also ignored. His posing nude as a 22 year old was largely ignored. Coakley's every mistake was pounced on by the media. I see that to be backing him. But that is just my take. And I confess that I don't watch news or news related programming. I simply base that on the ignorance of anyone here in MA that I spoke with about these matters.

          There is a reason that there has only been a Dem in the Oval Office for 13 of the past 41 years. And it ain't Obama.

          by kitebro on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:42:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Polls aren't something you just 'believe', as if (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kitebro

      they have no substance.  Limbaugh and Clusterf*x's panoply of pathological liars may be who you 'believe', but most here prefer to see a credible organization actually tabulate the answers of a statistically valid sample of the people directly involved in making the choices.

      Conservatism is a function of age - Rousseau
      I've been 19 longer'n you've been alive - me

      by watercarrier4diogenes on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:02:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm probably way out in left field, (0+ / 0-)

    but I believe that what happened in MA was choice, and they chose not to place another "Kennedy" (even though her name wasn't Kennedy) in office without the confidence that there would be a strong representative in place, not unlike the rejection of Carolyn Kennedy as a senator from New York.  If they didn't make the right choice, they can change their minds in November.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:07:22 AM PST

  •  They can whistle for this... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, vivens fons, tdub, marabout40

    60% of Brown voters feel strongly that he should work with Obama. * There was overwhelming support for passing health care reform. 70% of all voters think Brown should work with the Democrats to get something passed.

    People.  HE RAN ON BEING THE 41st VOTE FOR OBSTRUCTIONISM.  WHAT PART OF THAT DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND???

    •  'Something' Vrs. 'The current senate bill' (0+ / 0-)

      Not the same thing.

      All your witch-hunt are belong to us!

      by JesseCW on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:53:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He ran an add on Coakley wanting tax increases (2+ / 0-)

      yet he himself admits he got into politics wanting to raise taxes in his own town (and all elderly fixed income property tax owners )for use by the local schools. And yet he specifically said he's not for taxing wall street bankers bonuses.

      Among many other contradictions of what he stated he was for and what his record shows.

      He was for local tax increases for his daughter's schools, yet when he was state Senator he voted to cut funding for all public schools and colleges and universities. (I think by then his daughter's were no longer in public schools...fancy that) Typical republican I got mine screw the rest of you.

      Plus, he said his mom was on welfare at one point, yet now he's says there is so much waste in the system.

      IOW......IOKIYAR.

      To announce that there must be no criticism of the President....is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

      by emal on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:00:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now that the sky hasn't fallen in can we get back (2+ / 0-)

    to work on healthcare, financial reform and the myriad other things that plague us.

    Browns' not surprising win just gave talking heads things to pontificate and get wrong and nailbiters to lose sleep but nothing has changed.  We never had 60 votes for anything in the senate.  Now we just have to get back to work and try harder to recuit electable Democrats for office not charisma and enthusiasm challenged candidates like Coakley.

    Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice won't get fooled again. George Bush

    by ganymeade on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:08:28 AM PST

  •  I still find this position untenable. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bccobbs, marabout40
    * It was not a sign the government should do less. 50 percent thought the government should do more.

     

    To vote for a Republican is to assert, in unequivocal terms, that the government must do less, must be disempowered in favor of the private sector.

    It's obvious that Brown ran a better campaign and that Coakley was an undynamic candidate.
    The idea that people want a more activist government was not made clear in the Massachusetts election.  It has yet to be made clear in any context.

    You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

    by vivens fons on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:10:44 AM PST

    •  I disagree. To vote for a Republican is to vote (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emal, codairem

      for someone who has very craftily lied to you about his positions and taken advantage of an unfavorable comparison to his opponent.

      Lieberman's an example of that. He lost against Lamont, but won against someone the voters of the state saw in an even less favorable light.

      Conservatism is a function of age - Rousseau
      I've been 19 longer'n you've been alive - me

      by watercarrier4diogenes on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:08:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shitty messaging (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    icebergslim, kat68

    I try to pay attention to the HCR debate. I am conflicted about passing legislation partly b/c to be embarrassingly honest, I have NO idea what's REALLY in the bill.... and I"Ve been paying attention.
    I know there's a mandate, no PO, no medicare buy-in, that pre-existing conditions can no longer be used to deny coverage, that they will make policy for that person more expensive, but still beyond the bare bones, I don't really know.

    Which is to say.... imagine the voters who just listened to 'scotty's" ads/lies etc.

    The democrats from top to bottom Stank on the messaging. Someone should have been selling this on the road 24/7.

    "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

    by hester on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:11:20 AM PST

    •  forgot to mention; (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW

      and that's where the President should have taken the lead:
      insist on X (p/o or medicare buy in to offset mandate.
      no gov't program to compete, then no mandate.
      on
      and
      on.

      He needed to set in stone some things that HAD to be in the bill. Not a lot.... but some, the essentials that people wanted.

      "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." Groucho Mark

      by hester on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:15:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They let Baucus stall untill Ted was (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hester

      dead.  It was obviously his objective from the start*

      *I pin this squarely on Baucus.  I truly believe the President and the White House want a bill out of conference and on the Senate Floor before the end of August.

      All your witch-hunt are belong to us!

      by JesseCW on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:59:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well, gee whiz (2+ / 0-)

    60% of Brown voters feel strongly that he should work with Obama.

    When's the last time what The Voters felt made a difference?

    No offense to the diarist, who surely spent a lot of good time and effort preparing it. But my God, I'm so sick of the time-wasting spin/explaining/dissecting of this Loss.

    Let's move forward and get shit DONE. Can we just do that, please?

    Necessity is the mother of revolution...

    by o the umanity on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:12:31 AM PST

    •  That 60% is a clear sign people were not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marabout40

      paying attention to the message Staplenads was shouting out at every turn.

      "Mr 41st Senator" doesn't mean 'work with Obama'.  

      60% are about to be sorely disappointed as Brown votes with the Pugs.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:53:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They didn't ask: Policestater Coakley (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kitebro, revgerry, vmm918, isabelle hayes

    The Mass. Attorney general was outspoken in opposition to the marijuana decriminalization initiative on the 2008 ballot, going so far as to attempt to circumvent its implementation after it passed with 65% of the vote.

    Explains the no-show from younger voters, with the few who did show favoring Brown and Kennedy.

    The Boston Hempfest in September drew 50,000.



    I am not currently Licensed to Practice in this State.

    by ben masel on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:14:24 AM PST

  •  Sad that voters who want the govt. to do more ... (4+ / 0-)

    voted for a guy who will vote against it doing anything.

    •  I puzzle over how Brown will find his goat path (5+ / 0-)

      through the next 2 years. He can't vote like DeMint and get reelected in MA, but if he doesn't he' be Cristed.

      Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

      by bumblebums on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:19:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  More importantly mebbe, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marabout40

        who's the likely Dem challenger. It's not to early for that campaign to begin.

        "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

        by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:49:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yup - someone should get on it right quick (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marabout40

          Markey, Capuano, anyone but Coakley. She needs to keep her dogs happy.

          Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

          by bumblebums on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:52:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Markey would be good, (0+ / 0-)

            but that would leave a seat in the House.

            I kind of wish Joe would reconsider.

            "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

            by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:54:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's gotta be some upcoming young talent (0+ / 0-)

              You don't HAVE to run the same old faces and names all the time - in fact, that just bit MA on the butt big time.

              Much as I like Ed Markey, he may have a solid handle on the Peter Principle and think he's at his level of competence right now - with no wish to move beyond it. If so, he's smarter than the average pol.

              If it's
              Not your body
              Then it's
              Not your choice
              AND it's
              None of your damn business!

              by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marabout40

        If Scotty does the bidding of the Tea Baggers, buyer's remorse on the part of many who either voted against Coakley or stayed at home sets in, quick.

        If he doesn't, these crazed no-nothing Tea Baggers will turn on him.

        If Vicki Kennedy decides to run, she'll clean his clock. Hell, even a horrible hack like Coakley could beat him in two years.

        Air America listeners, check this out

        by shpilk on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:50:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  ...kneejerk reactionaries (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marabout40

      But it isn't only Massachusetts. You can't make your way through a diary across a room without tripping over them these days. (prostrate all over the floors throwing tantrums)

      "Show up. Pay attention. Tell the truth. And don't be attached to the results." -- Angeles Arrien

      by Sybil Liberty on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:46:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The MA voters voted for Brown because (6+ / 0-)

    they were never told not to! Enough with this.  Martha Coakley ran the worst campaign ever, but my still unanswered question is why was she allowed to?? Her ads when they were on TV turned out to be ads for Brown.  His ads were great.  Half the voters didn't even know she was running until the last second, everyone knew about him.  Brown had signs and people everywhere; there was no one and no signs for Coakley.  It was pathetic.  Where was the DNC, Kaine?  Senatorial campaign, Menendez?  Nonexistent.  Where was the Mass Congressional delegation?  Lifetime seats, many of them in for decades.  Why was this allowed Madam Speaker?  No one showed up for Martha Coakley.  Plenty of blame to go around.  So poll all you want, people will say anything to justify what they already did.  But the truth is they were never told not to vote for Brown.  Period.  

  •  Independents Bolted in Droves - Why? (6+ / 0-)

    As WaPo points out:

    a new Washington Post poll shows that Brown won independents over Coakley by two-to-one margin on Tuesday, a huge reversal from the 2008 presidential election when Obama carried independents in Massachusetts by 17 points over Arizona Sen. John McCain.

    So why did independents bolt?  Just look at the polling:

    VOTERS REVOLT AGAINST MANDATES WITHOUT PUBLIC OPTION

    The lesson is NOT, as the MSM would have you believe, that Dems need to move to the right.  Just the opposite!

    Indepenents favored a public option 57% to 29% and a Medicare buy-in by 57% to 27%.  More importantly, independents opposed mandates without a PO 57% to 31%.

    THAT'S why independents bolted.  If the Democrats don't figure it out soon, they are in big trouble.

  •  Mobile Phone App aided Brown campaign (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, papermoon

    http://www.mlive.com/...

    A Mobile Phone App developed for Republican campaigns, allowed individuals instant access to a database matching up supporters of the candidate with information on whether they voted.

    •  this is very helpful - many Dem voters (0+ / 0-)

      I talked with were furious about the number of calls they received.

      If this ap could have been used to update the database from which OFA and MoveOn, etc., were calling, we might have avoided making some enemies during GOTV.

      Brown was responsible for a lot of them. 4 people had decided not to vote for him because they were so angry about the number of calls they received.

      Staying on top of this with an ap would be useful, if the "rules of engagement" were appropriate.

  •  Ugh...lets have real, honest diary titles (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, JesseCW

    These Mass polling diaries should be titled honestly:

    "How I interpret, through my partisan lens, polling for Massachusetts in order to convince myself and others it's really not that bad"

    or

    "New polling:  Massachusetts voters really didn't mean to vote for Brown"

    or

    "New polling: Brown victory was endorsement of Obama" policies

    or, the Keith Olbermann memorial polling interpretation:

    "Mass didin't know they were voting for a racist, sexist, homophobic endorser of violence against women!"

    I think every single Republican out there is salivating at the prospect that we will explain away this election as an anomaly.

    I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

    by The Navigator on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:36:40 AM PST

    •  You say 'we' .. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      emal, mollyk

      I laugh.

      Air America listeners, check this out

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:47:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And what's your bright idea? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk

      If you're so convinced that this is wrong I'd suggest you write up your own diary explaining the situation as you see it and what the Democrats should do.

      •  It's simple (0+ / 0-)

        If the economy has not improved, and unemployment is still near 10%, we lose seats.  Lots and lots of seats.  For every point the unemployment drops below 10%, we save a few seats. Period. It's just that simple.

        No amount of poll analysis, speeches, or strategizing  is going to change that.   Talking about creating jobs and improving the economy is not going to do any good unless you, um, create jobs and improve the economy.  You can only claim success on things that are successful.  It's like the mayor telling you he's going to build a new fire department while your house is burning down.

        I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

        by The Navigator on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:01:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lose seats to what? I'm still waiting for that .. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, marabout40

          ...answer. It's pure lazy speculation that there will be massive losses. Those who are in love with the idea and cannot type repeat it enough, have never connected the dots from bad economy back to trickle-down teabaggism.

          Even with poll results that show that those polled soundly reject Republicans, we still have people selling the back to '94 meme.

          Seems to me that both parties have handicaps in this election. The republicans made this mess. Good Dem candidates will take advantage of that fact as well as the fact that the Republicans have nothing new to offer.

          I wish the "massive losses" people would make the case as to why the country is going to want to go back to more tax cuts for the rich , and more deregulation, etc... If you are going to claim this, then connect the dots or just say that that is just what you are hoping for.

          "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ...Bertrand Russell

          by sebastianguy99 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:33:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're misinformed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk

            Lose seats to what? I'm still waiting for that ...answer.

            To the Republicans. Question answered.

            It's pure lazy speculation that there will be massive losses

            .

            No, it's not "lazy speculation".   Far from it. Indeed, mid-term elections is one area of politics that we have a lot of historical data on, that's pretty consistent (with some significatn anomolies).  We know that historically the party out of power gains an average of 24-26 seats in the mid-terms during a President's first term.  We also know that those losses increase during periods of economic difficulty.  

            True, there's a lot of time between now and November, and past always a good predictor the future, but a it's hardly "lazy speculation" to predict losses in November.

            Those who are in love with the idea and cannot type repeat it enough, have
            never connected the dots from bad economy back to trickle-down teabaggism.

            Actually, more than anything, voters blame the party in power. Again, that's been proven time and again.  MIght not be fair, but it's a fact.  The party in power gets the credit when the economy is good, the blame when it's bad. And it's actually quite stunning when you look at the data about how closely the economic figures track with mid-term elections.

            Those are the facts. Furtheremore, in my opinion, voters will not be in the mood to hear about the "inherited" economy 2 years into Obama's term (again, fair or not)

            Even with poll results that show that those polled soundly reject Republicans, we still have people selling the back to '94 meme.

            Where did I mention 94? I actually think 38 and 82 are much better indicators.  But in any event, it's certainly not unreasonable to look at 94 in this regard.

            Seems to me that both parties have handicaps in this election.

            True.  But Dems have more seats to hold onto, and more marginal seats (where they won in red districts) than GOP due to their gains in 06 & 08.

            Now, did you have anything based in fact to say, or were you just ranting?

            I am that gadfly which God has attached to the state, and all day long and in all places...arousing and persuading and reproaching you.-Socrates

            by The Navigator on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 02:31:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Not a return to Bush years? Never left them! n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712
  •  100% of these voters are morons (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lams712, tdub, marabout40

    There was overwhelming support for working government and passing legislation under Democratic leadership. 82 percent of all voters should Scott Brown should work with the Democrats. Only 11 percent said he should "stop the Democratic agenda." That includes 75% of Brown voters. 60% of Brown voters feel strongly that he should work with Obama.

    If they honestly imagine there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.

  •  They ALWAYS ask the wrong questions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phthalo, papermoon

    because they have their own political agendas in mind.

    If they had asked straight-up if their vote was a rejection of Coakley, you can bet there would be a very high percentage of "Yes" answers. And if they had paired that with "Would you have voted for a better Democratic candidate?", the results would I am sure be most illuminating.

    Politics IS personalities. It's been so from the get-go, only exacerbated from 1960 onward. A good platform with a weak campaigner will lose to a bad one with a strong campaigner, just about every time.

    If it's
    Not your body
    Then it's
    Not your choice
    AND it's
    None of your damn business!

    by TheOtherMaven on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:44:13 AM PST

    •  Read the poll...it's amazingly comprehensive. (0+ / 0-)

      I can't believe people were willing to answer so many questions. They obviously cared. Don't know if this table will hold up once I post, but you can find it by using the link at the top of the diary.

      1. Was your Senate vote more for Brown or more against Coakley?

      Based on total who voted for Scott Brown (N=484)
      Brown
      voters

      70 More for Brown
      25 More against Coakley
       3 Don’t know
       1 Refused

      1. Was your Senate vote more for Coakley or more against Brown?

      Based on total who voted for Martha Coakley (N=387)
      Coakley
      Voters

      57 More for Coakley
      40 More against Brown
       4 Don’t know *   Refused

      3/7/8.Combo Table based on Total Voters
      Total     Brown    Coakley
      Voters   Voters   Voters

      52            100          -          Voted for Scott Brown
      37              70          -               Vote was more for Brown
      13              25          -               Vote was more against Coakley
       2                4           -               DK/Refused

      47                -          100       Voted for Martha Coakley
      27                -            57             Vote was more for Coakley
      19                -            40             Vote was more against Brown
       2                -              4             DK/Refused

      1                 -              -        Voted for Joe Kennedy

  •  Let's look at turnout in the cities (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

    vs the rural areas .. and the fact that the minority communities did NOT turn out for Coakley because she ignored them, made no effort to energize them.

    Look at turn in places like metro Boston, Worcester, Lowell, Lawrence vs the outlying suburban areas - the core urban voters did not show up.

    Coakley was a horrible candidate.

    Republicans will waste a lot of time and money trying to duplicate Senator Staplenads "win", but the real secret is running against a loser like Coakley.

    Air America listeners, check this out

    by shpilk on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:46:31 AM PST

  •  makes 1 or 2 things clear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

    although the pundits have built a narrative that they are strongly going with.

    how is your water treated: http://water-treatment.questionpro.com/

    by WateringTheRoses on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:47:45 AM PST

  •  "Do you support or oppose the proposed changes?" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManhattanMan, papermoon

    is another question designed to get a meaningless answer -- I am so frustrated with polling questions that do not extract real information.  This should have been accompanied by: "What do you think the proposed changes are?"  I wish that you could have had answers to that question to work with as you wrote this post.  Nonetheless, you did a great job with what information was available, and the graphics are terrific.

    I am not quite sure  about your case for stating: "moderate voters wanted 'balance' to the Democrats' 60 seat supermajority."   Could you go into it with more detail?  How are you defining "moderate voters" and which answers contributed to the notion of "wanting 'balance' to the Democrats' 60 seat supermajority"?

  •  Thank you for this..... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99, marabout40, papermoon

    I believe it is correct, it fits with common-sense and I hope this
    posting and its content gets wide circulation!!!!
    Well done!

  •  I'm especially interested (5+ / 0-)

    in those numbers from the non-voters.

    Hasn't a big left-wing meme been that voters will stay home who are unhappy with Obama and his policies?

    I see a 69% approval of Obama and 54% approval of his policies in the numbers for those who didn't vote. Seems to me that indicates something other than Obama led them to stay home.

    Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is important that you do it. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by NLinStPaul on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 09:57:21 AM PST

    •  His team knows how to turn them into votes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NLinStPaul, carmenjones, marabout40

      The poll results destroy the narratives of both the critics on the Right and Left. There is a reservoir of Obama voters out there who are still with their guy.

      I still believe that he wins a second term and it'll be interesting to watch his critics stew in their dislike for four more years.

      "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so." ...Bertrand Russell

      by sebastianguy99 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:25:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  But Brown has vowed to block HCR, period. (6+ / 0-)

    Republican Scott Brown, Massachusetts' newly minted Senator, toured the Capitol today and revisited a theme from his victory speech, telling reporters, "My daughters are available, but if I have my way, health care won't be."

    Chuckling at his remark, Mr. Brown added, "I was just kidding. Not about the health care part, though. I was dead serious about that."

    Continuing to sound his theme, the Massachusetts senator said he would work around the clock "to make sure that Ayla, Arianna and health care all become unavailable forever."

    When asked whether pimping for his daughters was in questionable taste, Mr. Brown replied, "That's my idea of the public option."

    If Brown voters overwhelmingly think he should work to pass health care and work with Obama on other things, then these voters aren't too bright.

  •  There are two Massachsetts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey, Phthalo

    You have to analyze each separately to get any meaningful message from the voters.

    MA one includes the urban areas and the educated areas. This is Boston Brookline, Cambridge, out to Concord and Acton, includes Lexington and other high-income communities. Add to this the distributed urban areas, Gloucester, Salem, New Bedford, etc. These areas will always vote Democratic, they understand the stakes, and are politicaly saavy.

    MA two, exurbia and rural, is independent by nature. They will vote Democratic if there is a better candidate. They have next to no political principles, and they say that Brown is a more desirable candidate, he's a he, he's tall, has a nice chin and he's about socking it to Washington. His momentum seduced all of these voters. Coakley refused to expose herself to these voters. Scott Brown took it all off for them.

    That's the message, the whole message, and I'm standing by it.

  •  When the wrong track is above 50% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal

    the incumbent is in trouble.

    America: our highest paid profession is thief.

    by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:01:49 AM PST

  •  I have been amazed by the panic here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jfdunphy, marabout40

    and the firing squads over this election.
    I have a few times try to say:  All politics is local.
    I have seen many slam the media for not reporting the facts and peddling in gossip and innuendo and spin but, then they turn around and believe the nonsense they see on cable news.

    Do not believe today's media and you will feel alot better.

  •  So the House Dems can stop their collective (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

    bedwetting experience, take a deep breath and pass the Senate bill and not worry so much about reconciliation fixes.  Despite what Chris Van Hollen and others are saying, voters are not focused on the minutiae of this provision or that special deal.  They want to know that their government is getting something done.  So tell organized labor to go away and just pass the Senate HCR bill so that we can do what we said we were going to do, reassure the people that we can govern and move on to the vexing issue of jobs.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:21:36 AM PST

  •  the non voters are the stay at home progressives (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RustyCannon

    who decided to lose faith in this administration.

    amazing how the beltway people really believe that obama "lost the center"  peggy noonan thinks she is so smart.

    the beltway is as intellectually incestuous as any plutocracy has been in the last 3000 years.

    Only the largest financial firms with more than $50 billion in assets will be affected, the bigger the firm - the larger the fee. B.O.

    by innereye on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:25:40 AM PST

  •  To ignore those portions of a lesson... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego

    ... that are uncomfortable is to doom yourself to repeat those mistakes.

    While I will admit that the economy and the relative campaign strengths played an important roll, to claim that Coakley's loss was due only to these factors is dangerous.

    The bottom line is that people are getting frustrated with the lack of results from Washington, and are disappointed with the lack of visible spine from our Congress.  President Obama was elected on certain mandates, as were the legislative majorities.

    Democrats running in 2010 ignore this at their own peril.

    The inadequate is the enemy of the necessary.

    by JRandomPoster on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:36:06 AM PST

  •  You're preaching to the choir (0+ / 0-)

    The Dems have already made up their mind. This was a rejection of the center-right health care bill and an embrace of right-wing extremism. They clearly must move to the right.

  •  Misleading if interesting (0+ / 0-)

    in an esoteric way.  This is how the people felt who were motivated to vote and has nothing to do with how the folks who were not motivated to vote and stayed home felt.  What a perfect example of trying to take those who are dispirited and angry out of the equation.

    That anyone on this site would try to spin those numbers is slightly disgusting.

    We're all one heartbeat away from Forever. kasandra.us

    by KS Rose on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:41:53 AM PST

    •  The way it looks to me is that (0+ / 0-)

      if those who didn't vote had been motivated to vote in much larger numbers, the election would have been closer, and Coakley might have won.

      Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
      meh. Meh, I say!

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:54:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The polls this diary cites may explain (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, marabout40

    Massachusets but it does NOT explain the lack of understanding of the American people regarding the global quantum changes that are taking place.

    All over the Sunday recrimination fests this morning one reality based fact emerges for me. Basically ALL the institutions that the American people relied on for their personal poltical philosophies have COLLAPSED. That incudes American exceptionalism, American economic superiority and her miltiart might brough to tuis knees by a ragged   group of insurgents with boxcutters and underwear, government, the  church, journalism, education, basic essential equality, you name it - they have ALL failed some segments of the population and their can be no consensus or bi-partisanship because the nation is fragmented into too many parts.

    People say the country is centre right, no, its centre left, no its just centre - so Obama has to veer left, veer right or stay in the middle - they are ALL correct if he wishes to attract those consituencies but whichever one he chooses he will lose the other two.

    He either has to ride it out and let the realities of these massive global changes sink in and try and give everyone a bit of everything or he sinks aand we all go down with him. It's OUR CHOICE.

    The only choice i see, is to move forward boldly or move back to the status quo, which is the failed past.  The world has changed and is NOT going to change back. These are the end times. I hope he can bring us all along with him. He has my unqualified support.

    Forward ever, backward never.

  •  From my Massachusetts based sister (5+ / 0-)

    She did not vote. She was so turned off by politics. She's just sick and tired of the noise, from all-day/all-the-time cable political noise and partisanship bs to the netroots on both sides. People are really, really, really turned off by all the negativity. From Limbaugh to Olbermann, Palin to Jon Stewart, she told me more people are really turning off to politics and dealing with other, more mundane matters, like their own lives.

    I think the age of anger and storm the gates are growing old to a great deal of people. I don't want to be angry all the time. I don't want to think obsessively about HCR, the economy and terrorism. People want to get on with their own lives. You can tout all the statistics you want, the bottom line is the democrats burned all their energy, we now need a different message in a less negative way. While the base of the party kept up the negative attacks, mostly on their own (like during the HCR debate and going after Obama, Emanuel, Nelson and Lieberman), republicans are becoming unified in their message. I make this prediction, and you all can HR and ban me from here, if the netroots and cable continue to pursue obsessive political negativity, not only will the democrats lose seats in both houses, they will lose their majorities in both houses. It's time for a positive message or reap the whirlwind of the electorate who are in a "get rid of all the bums" mood.

    Solitude is painful when one is young, but delightful when one is more mature...Einstein

    by tazz on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:46:12 AM PST

    •  I can't watch the news (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marabout40

      especially Fox because they mislead in their news and interviews.

      How to deal with the Liebermans in the Democratic party is a big problem.  Unifying with them, means the same as unifying with the republicans.

    •  Actually this is the best analysis so far (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marabout40

      The unremitting and depressing vomiting and retching does not create an appealing sense that politics is at all worth paying attention to for people who are not involved in the huge energy over hair splitting that characterizes insider baseball.

      Most people focus on the practical and don't want politics to be any different from that.

      People ought to realize that to the extent that Daily Kos is an echo chamber of negativity, there is an impact to the Netroots that may be unintended consequences.  

      The right wing is great at setting up a negative vibe that just becomes pervasive in the environment.  They think tactically rather than logically.  They go negative in every possible way with every possible nuance because they know that a lot of people just hate this and will be demobilized.

      The more people they can demobilize the better, because that helps get candidates like Brown elected and Democrats get defeated.  

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:06:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think there's a lot to what you say (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marabout40

      thus the polling for Brown to work with the Democrats.  Yes, it sounds ridiculous to us, because of who Brown is, and what he's said.  But I think voters may be sending a clear message to stop fighting and get it done, and in the meantime, stop making us feel like we're helpless and drowning in a sea of idiots too busy pointing fingers to actually reach down a hand and help us.  Do I think that's what Democrats are doing?  No.  But the message isn't getting through.  And you know what?  For all the talk of "bipartisanshit", I think the voters LIKE that about Obama.  Not that he moderates his policies and becomes more like Republicans (and gawd knows I'd hate that too) but that he doesn't talk in such a polarizing way, so it's easier to accept his lines in the sand without it seeming political bashing or grandstanding.  And I think they're more tired of that out there than we get from in here.  Just judging by what I hear anyway...

      (Sadly, in Kathmandu no longer.)

      by American in Kathmandu on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:42:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. People bash Obama for continuing to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fhcec

        talk about bipartisanship and claim it's a sign of weakness. That's who Obama is. He's a bridge builder. He's always been that way and he's not going to change. Also, I can bet you that when Axelrod and the other WH operatives poll on that issue, they get favorable results.

        Complain all we want, Obama's push for bipartisanship is going to continue.

        Please help StopRushLimbaugh. Because hate should not be profitable.

        by marabout40 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:54:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  but I think, given the unstinting opposition, (0+ / 0-)

          and what he's said, he's going to spend less political capital waiting and encouraging the other side. He'll keep the door open but won't wait for them any longer. After the Wilson shout out in the Joint Session, he needs a plan to put the Joe Wilsons in their place.

          I think he'll call them out for failure to vote for ANY democratic bill, but not demonize them for it.

          At least that's what I saw in the clips from Ohio I watched last night.

    •  That's partly why Obama had such appeal (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marabout40, mirandasright

      he was perceived as having a positive message. That's also why Reagan and Clinton won, I think. The trick is having the positive attitude while still not giving in to the other side.

      Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
      meh. Meh, I say!

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:52:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree... (0+ / 0-)

        this is a big part of why Obama was able to beat both Hillary and McCain.  Both of their campaigns appeared much more negative than his. Part of his appeal was that he looked like the only sane person at the table.

        That is one reason why I think he still talks of bipartisanship even though he must know it's a pipe dream.  With health care, he's got to just make his line in the sand, state that he truly thinks he's doing the right thing for the American people and let the chips fall where they may.  Americans like a willingness to work with the other side but we also like conviction and an ability to get things done.

  •  Nonvoters lacked enthusiasm for Coakley (4+ / 0-)

    not for Obama, not for Obama's policies.

    The reason we lost is because the triangulation worked and too many of us bought into the lies from the right.

    "It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses." - CS Lewis, Weight of Glory

    by Benintn on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 10:46:42 AM PST

  •  Brown will pull a Palin (0+ / 0-)

    Hated by the teabaggers and voted out in 2012 or loved by the teabaggers and voted out in 2012... My guess is he'll pull a Palin. Hire a ghostwriter... write a manifesto... quit late 2011...make money... go work for Fox and Lobbying.

  •  Its simple really. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    relentless

    They are saying " GET SOMETHING DONE DEMOCRATS THAT BENEFITS THE PEOPLE NOT BIG BUSINESS AND WALLSTREET!" And without any other choices they are gonna pick Republicans. I don't see Democrats waking the fuck up any time soon. 2010 is gonna be a blood bath.

  •  Vote the person and not the party (3+ / 0-)

    I hear this from "so-called" Independents (who somehow still only ever vote Republican) all the time.  This diary sounds like that's what Massachusetts did.  How else can you explain those stats, like wanting Brown to work with the Democrats.  How naive do you have to be to think the Republican leadership will allow him, if he even actually wanted to, to work with Democrats?  Do they think they elected a true "Maverick"<tm>?  What idiots!

  •  Mostly Intrinsic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

    That's what these numbers tell me. This portends no huge shift towards the right - there might be one elsewhere in the country but that's not what happened in the Bay State.

    There was a lot of dissatisfaction with the status quo, and dissatisfied people looked around, saw a Democrat in the White House, Democrats with a majority in both chambers on Capitol Hill, a Democrat in the Governor's chair (MA has no Governor's Mansion) and huge Democratic majorities (not to mention multiple legislative corruption scandals) on Beacon Hill in Boston.

    It is a little odd that so many Brown voters either failed to grasp or didn't care that Brown essentially promised to help Mitch McConnell gum up the works in the Senate. (There were of course voters for whom that's a selling point for Brown, but no one's even going to come close to winning an election in Massachusetts with just those voters.) That's a messaging failure and is the fault of Coakley and the people involved with her campaign.

    It's not that we shouldn't be concerned. It's that panicking and deciding that the answer is to be more like the Republicans is counterproductive.

    Stuck Between Stations : Thoughts from a bottomless pool of useless information.

    by Answer Guy on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:00:50 AM PST

  •  You know what I find kind of unbelievable? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bulldawg

    Commentators who recognize that Brown ran on X, Y, and Z, but then, in the next breath, say that those who voted for him don't actually want him to keep his promises on his stands about X, Y, and Z.  

    Look, Brown made his stand on various issues -- including "I will be the 41st vote to kill healthcare," and that he would support cutting taxes and cutting spending dramatically, pretty clear.  To say that people who voted for him don't really believe he is going to take those positions in the Senate is kind of silly. Of course voters know he is going to (1) vote against the Democratic HCR plans; (2) vote against any significant tax increases; (3) vote against signficant additional spending, including stimulus spending.  That's what he expressly campaigned on.  I think the vast majority of those who voted for him know that's what he expressly campaigned on.  

    Me, I think that the Brown election needs to be laid at the feet of Democrats. Even if Obama and Congress  believe that HCR will be good for the vast majority of the public, they have not convinced the American public of that. FOR WHATEVER REASON, the public as of now opposes the Obama/Democratic plans for HCR.  (How silly is the notion that, well, we'll pass it, and THEN the public will figure out that they really like it, which is what has been going on?  Part of governing is convincing the people that you are right BEFORE you pass the most significant legislation in a generation.)  And, FOR WHATEVER REASON, the Democratic Party has lost control of the debate on spending and the deficit, which polls say rank pretty high right now on voters' concerns.  What's the Democratic answer to that?  Well, (1) we didn't want to run up these deficits, but we had to; and (2) Bush ran up deficits, so don't complain about us running up bigger deficits.  Neither of these is a particularly persuasive story to tell Independent voters (partisan Democrats will always buy it; partisan Republicans will never buy it; so the fight for public opinion is with Independents, who are the fastest growing segment of the electorate).

    Finally, I think that the procedure by which HCR has recently proceeded has looked bad to most voters (at least those who are not partisan Democrats -- like the Independents who voted Brown).  The Landrieu buy-off, the bigger Nelson buy-off, and finally the deal where a unions get a pass on the Cadillac health plan tax but a non-union worker making the same salary with the same benefits has to pay it -- none of these looked good.  

    In my opinion -- and it's just an opinion -- whatever the actual merits of their policies, the Democrats have lost control of the debate since last summer, at least with Independent voters.  And if the Democrats don't change strategies with respect to winning the debate with Independent voters, they will have a particularly difficult time in November, especially since few economists see unemployment figures being significantly down -- like under 8% -- by that time.  

    •  "I'm ready to tell you my secret now. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coachster

      Photobucket

      I see stupid people.  They're everywhere.  The say stupid thing, they do stupid things.  AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THEY'RE STOOPID!!!"

      "Wide acceptance of an idea is not proof of its validity." Dan Brown

      by Bulldawg on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:54:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Evan Bayh As Greasy Liebercrat on MTP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

    He advises a swift flight towards GOP talking points.

    David Gregory takes this Very Seriously

  •  [banging head against wall] (8+ / 0-)

    75 of Brown voters feel strongly that he should work with Obama?

    Only 11 percent said he should stop the Democratic agenda?

    they really were that dense?  they really had no idea what they were voting for?

    somehow that makes me despair even worse than when I thought they were angry.

    this just means they were successfully duped by GOPropaganda.

    again.

    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
    --Tom Harkin

    by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:16:36 AM PST

    •  Dick Armey's Feedom Works (teabaggers) (3+ / 0-)

      went to Mass. to ambush the Coakley campaign.  They poured a lot of money and resources into the election.  They whipped folks into a frenzy with a lot of disinformation and fear mongering tactics.  

      Dems had better wake up and get a clearer and more forceful message out there.  Right now I am in a verbal war with members of my family who live in Ohio and NC.  The amount of misleading info on HCR, thanks to FOX, a right wing media and the likes of Dick Armey is quite frankly appalling.

      Yes, some people are too distracted and so easily misled that many will vote against their own self-interests if not financial survival time and time again.

      The R's have been really effective at selling the guvmint as the root of everything evil and awful.

    •  Dear God when are you people going to get it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dicentra

      there was no campaign for Coakley.  Blame her or the voters all you want but you should blaming the Democratic Party establishment.  DNC Kaine? Senatorial campaign, Menendez?  Where were they?  Lifetime House members for decades in their districts; never showed up for her.  Were they mad that Capuano didn’t win and want to set him up for 2012?  Great loyalty to the party elected Dems!  While I do think the voters are angry, this is a blue state.  I am not that naive to think that they could not have been manipulated to vote for anyone including Mickey Mouse, if the party told them to.  It didn't. Why?

      •  the voters i am talking about (0+ / 0-)

        don't give a damn about Kaine.  They don't know who Kaine is or who Menendez is.

        "The Party" did tell them to vote for Coakley.  But they didn't.  And some of them didn't because they imagined that Scott Brown was a moderate.

        There is nothing Kaine or Menendez could have done about that.

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
        --Tom Harkin

        by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 04:19:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The big story here for me is the non voter (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Boston to Salem

    Most of the people who didn't vote seem in support of the Democratic agenda. We have to find a way to get these people to the polls.

  •  will be listening for the roar (0+ / 0-)

    when they wake up and see who Brown is.

    "We're creating instability that could lead us into wider war."....Dennis Kucinich

    by lisastar on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:21:43 AM PST

  •  Don't tell Scott Brown this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

    Let him be a wingnut in the Senate.  Then he won't last long.

    I finally put in a signature!

    by Boris Godunov on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:28:16 AM PST

  •  Again, economy and environment aside, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bulldawg, kittania, marabout40

    this was a referendum... on MARTHA COAKLEY.  She called Curt Schilling a Yankee fan and scoffed at the idea of shaking hands out in the cold.  Scott Brown out-campaigned her, plain and simple.

    A Democratic candidate who got out there, hit the road, and fought for it would have beaten Brown.

    Faith in oneself is not trusting that you will always be victorious. It is trusting that you will either die or get back up.

    by Justashotaway on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:34:44 AM PST

  •  Martha Coakley was KKT-lite (4+ / 0-)

    I've written about this before but the reason she lost is that she ran the same type of campaign that former Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townshend ran against Bob Ehrlich in 2002. In that election cycle the GOP captured the MD Governor's office for the first time since 1966 in the most unthinkable of defeats. Much like MA it was a shocker.

    Like Coakely KKT ran an inept campaign. She did nothing for months and acted like she was going to win in a landslide. Meanwhile Ehrlich, a popular Congressmen from suburban Baltimore who found himself in a very hostile district, out-organized her and ran a better campaign. He had volunteers out on the streets and defined KKT early. Only when polls in the late summer showed Ehrlich ahead did she take him seriously; and, by then, it was just too late. The dynamics had been set.

    Like Coakely KKT also had to deal with an unpopular incumbent Governor. For whatever reason the state Democratic establishment hated her as well. In fact several key Democrats either refused to endorse KKT or campaigned for Ehrlich outright. Furthermore the media portrayed KKT in the most negative light. She also angered the Black community by picking a white running mate and former Republican, Admiral Chuck Larson. In turn Ehrlich picked Michael Steele, now head of the RNC. Coupled with a toxic environment for Democrats nationally and 2-1 and 3-1 margins in the Baltimore exurbs and suburbs, Bob Ehrlich defeated her by a 52-47% margin, mirroring Brown's margin over Coakeley.

    On election night Glendening referred to KKT's campaign as "the worst in the country". Ehrlich's tenure in Annapolis, however, came to an end four years later, when Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley defeated him. Expect the same to happen to Brown.

  •  the best thing I've read (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, El Camino, greengemini, marabout40

    about Coakley's failure was a comment on a diary the day after the election.

    The writer's mom was a long-time 'democratic machine' worker in Boston. She said the loss was completely attributable to Democratic party infighting. When I read it, I said to myself, "there you go".

    My wife and I wondered all election cycle- where was Mayor Menino? Where was Rep. Michael Capuano, who she beat in the primary? Capuano represents 70% of Boston in Congress. If turn-out was bad, it's possible that he and the Mayor just didn't step up for her.

    Why? It turns out NOBODY on Beacon Hill likes her. It was personal. She's from western MA, and she was viewed as an outsider.

    The question the commenter ended on is one that's stayed with me: would the Democratic establishment let Kennedy's seat go to a dickwad over a family argument?

    You bet, apparently.

    'If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be.' Yogi Berra

    by coachster on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:42:25 AM PST

    •  Why did Capuano lose the primary? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Happygirl

      Do you think he would have had a better chance in the general?

      Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82
      meh. Meh, I say!

      by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:44:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  bullshit, where was the national support (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lams712

      this was a federal election with huge implications you don't leave it to the locals; unless of course you want to lose.  It was very clear to people like me that Brown had huge RNC support from the beginning and Martha had no support, no DNC, no senate campaign support, no unions, no one helped.  It was pathetic.  

      •  But.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Futuristic Dreamer

        as Massachusetts' own Tip O'Neil said, all politics is local.

        Capuano would have done much better in the general. Nobody in the Democratic machine in Boston pushed turnout in the primary because they thought it wouldn't matter, and then when it was Coakley, they thought, 'screw her', and again did nothing.

        Are you from MA? If not, you might not get it.

        If you think I'm full of shit, that's fine, but let me ask you this: Where the hell was four-term Mayor Menino? Did he even endorse Coakley? Maybe, but it was quiet and lukewarm at best.

        In Massachusetts, that's a baaaaaad sign.

        'If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be.' Yogi Berra

        by coachster on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 03:23:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greengemini, marabout40
    * There was overwhelming support for working government and passing legislation under Democratic leadership. 82 percent of all voters should Scott Brown should work with the Democrats. Only 11 percent said he should "stop the Democratic agenda." That includes 75% of Brown voters. 60% of Brown voters feel strongly that he should work with Obama. * There was overwhelming support for passing health care reform. 70% of all voters think Brown should work with the Democrats to get something passed.

    Well those voters are in for a rude surprise because Brown is unlikely to work with the Democrats at all on anything. He knows that he is on borrowed time because he can't win in 2010 and so he's just going to obstruct. And if he does work in a bipartisan fashion he also knows that the teabaggers will work to primary him. So they are in for a rude surprise.

    •  I wonder what his 'end game' is (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know much about Mass politics, but presumably if his winning was such a big surprise, then he ran not expecting to win. If that is the case, exactly why did he run? - was he trying to set himself to run for a different office, e.g. Understanding that might give some insight into what he plans to do now as a Senator.

  •  What does it mean when there's confusion about (0+ / 0-)

    what the elections results mean?

    What does it mean when everyone is spinning the meaning of the election results?

    My guess is that it means the politicians and pundits will continue to misinterpret, confuse and ignore the intentions of the voters and the election results.

    Ultimately, the politicians and pundits will serve their masters: the bankers, Wall Street, insurance companies, energy companies, and weapons system manufacturers, and outsourcing to label a few.

    You can bet that the needs of the middle class and the poor are not on the minds of the politicians and pundits. Even the ones who talk about them to get their votes.

    Some posts will attract a strong response from those unfamiliar with robust dialogue

    by Eposter on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:46:50 AM PST

  •  Frank Rich explains Obama - NYT (0+ / 0-)

    Obama’s plight has been unchanged for months. Neither in action nor in message is he in front of the anger roiling a country where high unemployment remains unchecked and spiraling foreclosures are demolishing the bedrock American dream of home ownership. The president is no longer seen as a savior but as a captive of the interests who ginned up the mess and still profit, hugely, from it.

    That’s no place for any politician of any party or ideology to be.

    We thought we won in 2006 and 2008. We were wrong. The Corporate team is still in charge. Let's win next time.

    by mrobinson on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:54:22 AM PST

  •  "Government should do more" (0+ / 0-)

    Don't we want this number to go down??

    If everyone thought government was doing just the right amount, wouldn't this number be zero?

    Under Bush, the government did nothing. It is no surprise people wanted more.

    Now the government is doing more, which should reduce the number of people who think the government is not active enough.

    Why is this sentiment spun as a negative?

    Religion gives men the strength to do what should not be done.

    by bobtmn on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 11:57:46 AM PST

  •  It was a rejection of the botched HCR plan (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    proud2Bliberal

    that was totally botched by the Democrats with constant criticism and obstruction by the Republicans.

  •  excellent diary. The MA-SEN was about a horribly (0+ / 0-)

    bad candidate losing to a better one, political ideologies aside.

  •  Work with Democrats... (0+ / 0-)

    Yeah, our newly elected centerfold is bound to work with Democrats.  Because ... er... because that's what the people want.  And he is the "people's senator" as he said...so, it's bound to happen.

    This is the logic I heard at the dinner table today from a 21 year old white male family member who voted for Brown.

    Where are the "better" Democrats?

    by lalo456987 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:23:27 PM PST

  •  This is GOOD news? (0+ / 0-)

    61% of the voters approve of Obama and only 47% voted for the Democrat? That's hardly cheering, since Obama's not on the ballot in November.

    The problem is that Obama (and the rest of the Dems) haven't done enough (i.e., anything) to devalue the Republican brand. It's not enough to let the Repubs shit all over themselves and hope the public smells it. You have to rub their noses in it. You have to TELL them.

    The Dems' problem is that they're afraid to campaign against their opponents. God knows why.

  •  Obama voters? (0+ / 0-)

    In the primary Obama lost Massachusetts by almost 20 points and that is after the endorsements of both Kerry and Kennedy.
    You'd be hard pressed to find another state where Obama took that kind of a beating in the primary.

    As for the general election, there wasn't much of a choice since voters were simply not gonna risk having President Palin. But I would not consider them Obama voters.

    If Romney had been on the ticket Obama would've lost Massachusetts. And if Romney is the republican candidate in 2012 the electoral map of how Obama gets to 270 better not include Massachusetts.

  •  Papermoon please fix this! (0+ / 0-)

    It's a great and interesting diary but it's full of typos and the formatting is way off (bullet points and stuff aren't working right).

  •  This election should be ignored and the (0+ / 0-)

    administration should continue doing things exactly the was they have been.

    Really, it was just an outlier.  Everything is great!

  •  Excellent reality based diary (0+ / 0-)

    I also think it was a referendum on Coakley's bad performance and Scott Brown's charismatic appeal to a lot of voters.

    I saw CNN interviewing a few voters today (one independent, one republican, one democrat). Even the democrat said she wasn't upset about Coakley losing. The independent said she voted democratic last election but supported Brown because he represented "change."

    When things are going bad, there's something in a lot of people's mindset that thinks the alternative just has to be better.

    It's the reason people keep switching lanes during a traffic jam. They keep thinking "That lane is moving faster. I should get in that lane." Then the move over, and it's "Wait, it looks like the other lane is moving faster now!"

    They have no idea which one will get them to their destination faster. They just want whatever one they are not in right now, because they know they don't like their current situation.

    Supporting a Pragmatic Approach to Progressive Policies

    by CatM on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:41:51 PM PST

  •  Ok for Obama. Sucks for the rest of us. (0+ / 0-)

    His personal approval is 9 points better  than the approval of his policies (61-52). In a state where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-1.

    These are the people who like his smile, his speeches, his family, but not his policies.  I'm sure David Plouffe will be very happy with that, but it doesn't do much to encourage them to actually bring about the "change" thing.

    Sanctimony thy name is Joe Lieberman.

    by roguetrader2000 on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 12:48:59 PM PST

  •  has Scott Brown (0+ / 0-)

    been asked exactly which agenda items he plans to work with the president and Congress on; has Scott Brown been asked anything specific or substantial by any news media outlet, or they still fawning over him like they did during their so-called "coverage" (i.e. cheerleading) of his campaign?

    Can we at least get some legitimate journalists from dailykos to ask him exactly how he plans to be "independent-minded," exactly what items he plans to work with Democrats on or whether he plans to vote with the Republican majority in the Senate on all of the issues currently pending?

    Or...is he...too "Palinesque" to be taken seriously enough to ask anything of substance?

    •  doesn't matter what brown says (0+ / 0-)

      He's palinesque like you say, only idiot teabaggers bothered to vote in mass, what this poll says is it's Obama's fault that Brown won. Since obama wanted a corporate friendly HCR the conspiracy theorist in me says that Obama put up coakley the horrible candidate to lose on purpose so some blame for HCR failure could go to Brown and the repubs. Or it could just be gross incompetence.

  •  It does not matter... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fitzov rules

    ...what the polls show.  It only matters what Cokie Roberts says the polls show.

    When you punch a lot of holes through steerage, the first-class cabins sink with the rest of the ship.

    by Roddy McCorley on Sun Jan 24, 2010 at 01:02:51 PM PST

  •  Oh, boy! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MouseOfSuburbia

    More of these post-mortem pontificating diaries!  That's exactly what got us into the position we're in now.  Enough!

    What voters want is a party that can get the job done.  I'll end by repeating what I've written the past two days:

    I'm kind of sick of this bickering about who is to blame for why Democrats are in the predicament they are in now.  The truth is that Democrats should have passed health care reform long before the Massachusetts Senate election.  That Democrats weren't able to get things done is another good explanation of why Martha Coakley lost.

  •  The great presidents instinctively knew where (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Turkana, El Camino, pkbarbiedoll

    the people were. They didn’t need polls. What this diary doesn’t address is; if Obama’s agenda is so popular, why did so many Democrats stay home?
    It doesn’t look like we’re learning the correct lessons.

  •  Question about taking vaca in middle of campaign? (0+ / 0-)
  •  The kaiser poll included (0+ / 0-)
    public option which is no longer available and showed mandates and excise taxes to be deeply unpopular.

    http://www.docudharma.com/...

    You are simply misinterpreting the data.

  •  And then you have so-called progressives (0+ / 0-)

    like Ed Shultz ranting about how Obama is losing his base.  No, he's losing the lefty blogosphere and some not so bright liberals who are tangentially associated with it.  Ed wouldn't know the base if it bit him in his big butt.

    Ed, I can't wait until your lame ass TV show is cancelled...you know it's coming.  

  •  Oh, and excellent diary papermoon! (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for doing it.  

  •  excellent visuals. thanks. (0+ / 0-)

    ads considerable value to the narrative.

  •  Too much info: We lost b/c of MA Dem infighting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Futuristic Dreamer

    and Boston Dem arrogance. Coakley was always an unlikely nominee. But the Boston Dems never took her seriously and the Western Mass Dems came out in huge numbers for her. After that, the Boston Mafia derided and belittled her and never gave her the support she needed.

    This really was a "domestic" fuck up. Unfortunately it cost us #60, so the corporatist media is protraying it as some kind of tectonic shift in power. It is not. I pray Obama realizes this and ignores it. Thank God David Plouffe is back. Rahm is useless to the President.

  •  Why hasn't the MSM showed this? (0+ / 0-)

    This makes me mad at TV and newspapers.  I don't think they do a good job of reporting the news.  They simply sound like parrots, squawking in a cage.

    •  Pundits/MSM have low intellect:repeat common shit (0+ / 0-)

      They prefer to just repeat what they have heard others say, no fact checking and they rely on the traditional narrative. This is the new lazy, journalism and why the profession is in crisis and dying. Very few political journalists these days on TV or cable provide us with nuanced, complex, but real detail. Explaining why a group of voters votes a certain way requires real skill - both at the battery of questions posed to the right subset of voters/non voters and then making intelligent analysis. I no longer expect this from anyone and it is very discouraging. Dumb ass Americans.

  •  Excellent diary papermoon. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm glad that it stays on the rec list for some time. Good basis for discussions.

  •  But he still won...Didn't he? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fitzov rules, davidkc

    Isn't that what counts?  Who cares about the whys and hows?

    They now have the votes to do with as they please with this wimpy Democratic majority.

    Another squandered opportunity...Pitiful.

    "Try not to become a man of success, but rather to become a man of value." ~ Albert Einstein

    by LamontCranston on Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 04:33:27 AM PST

  •  All very analytic, but . . . (0+ / 0-)

    . . . I can see a poll like this in most of the House districts and Senate seats that are up this Fall. So, if all of this is true and the repugs still manage to take control of the House (they've already got effective control of the Senate), would that be cause for alarm?

Meteor Blades, maxomai, JekyllnHyde, tmo, kid oakland, LeislerNYC, taylormattd, thinkdouble, hester, lowkell, murphy, slinkerwink, ORDem, Adam B, irmaly, GreenSooner, alisonk, Pandora, TrueBlueMajority, emal, PeterHug, wytcld, newjeffct, bread, Emerson, donna in evanston, Hesiod, suswa, kenlac, StAdams, LuLu, theran, MarkInSanFran, bumblebums, zeroooo, HeavyJ, eyeswideopen, Mr Teem, CatM, Delilah, concernedamerican, raines, bronte17, EricS, indybend, wonkydonkey, nyceve, understandinglife, rhp, whenwego, Janie, evilrick, jiffykeen, nudger, Pithy Cherub, Minerva, jaysunb, mxwing, buckeyekarl, Glic, Boston to Salem, Torta, superba, BruinKid, kitebro, antirove, artebella, Alna Dem, sidnora, celticshel, nalakop, Quege, Getreal1246, psnyder, danthrax, pat bunny, casperr, leevank, mad ramblings of a sane woman, grannyhelen, Nina, cosette, wdrath, BMarshall, 42, lizah, defluxion10, nika7k, Catte Nappe, AbsurdEyes, chickeee, puffin6092, rlharry, Timbuk3, lcrp, Anna Luc, anneschu, JayBat, zerelda, ybruti, randallt, WisVoter, Vicky, tomjones, Wife of Bath, lyvwyr101, rickeagle, cartwrightdale, Schwede, snowbird42, boran2, Sybil Liberty, vivens fons, CO Democrat, davidkc, hopalong, Julie Gulden, madaprn, Fabian, bloomer 101, marina, Pokerdad, lilypew, glynis, Othniel, baccaruda, klamothe, PBen, Militarytracy, willibro, ccasas, basquebob, Gary Norton, WinSmith, owlbear1, GUGA, NLinStPaul, majcmb1, LABobsterofAnaheim, Kayakbiker, Overseas, Phil S 33, illyia, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Geekesque, Savvy813, ebgill, FindingMyVoice, Silence is Complicity, deepsouthdoug, Rogneid, ohcanada, Alan Arizona, Paddy999, terjeanderson, fhcec, xaxnar, begone, alrdouglas, Nowhere Man, Grassee, JustinS, martini, third Party please, elliott, CParis, Numinous, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Keone Michaels, Milly Watt, keeplaughing, vigilant meerkat, ej25, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, dharmafarmer, Themistoclea, profundo, Gorette, Yellow Canary, martyc35, The Wizard, Naniboujou, Wary, fiddler crabby, irishamerican, kck, Rat Lady, Lefty Coaster, goodasgold, TalkieToaster, danktle, Francine Shacter, gpoutney, bubbanomics, Glorfindel, agnostic, gatorcog, Libby Shaw, plf515, armadillo, bleeding heart, el cid, sceptical observer, soccergrandmom, doinaheckuvanutjob, Pilgrim X, Nancy Hartley, 5x5, profh, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, cherryXXX69, blueoregon, kurt, revgerry, Temmoku, AllanTBG, Nulwee, OHdog, Aaa T Tudeattack, DrMicro, DBunn, lams712, sephius1, pgm 01, marykk, BeninSC, asilomar, Loudoun County Dem, byDesign, Femlaw, dmh44, camlbacker, uniongal, Dartagnan, WeBetterWinThisTime, Outrider, yowsta, HeartlandLiberal, noofsh, DWG, Seneca Doane, jayden, vbdietz, mp, mudslide, bobswern, jnhobbs, millwood, yella dawg, Pinecone, cececville, Rumarhazzit, leonard145b, JML9999, A Person, Bikemom, Predictor, W T F, bkamr, gundyj, revm3up, VelvetElvis, Scioto, ShadowSD, DraftChickenHawks, LizzyPop, scooter in brooklyn, geez53, Youffraita, lockewasright, Fe Bongolan, OutCarolineStreet, monkeybrainpolitics, rssrai, royce, boatjones, pademocrat, pickandshovel, mnguy66, bakenjuddy, luckylizard, Blueslide, binkycat, Danise94, watercarrier4diogenes, papicek, lissablack, fayea, clent, maggiejean, cameoanne, Sun dog, Bule Betawi, MufsMom, Zorge, Searching for Pericles, wtxdem, MTmarilyn, Rick Aucoin, snackdoodle, Boycott for Peace, bsmechanic, Michael James, RustyCannon, weltshmertz, Methinks They Lie, DFH, h bridges, velvet blasphemy, EquationDoc, Daily Activist, lookit, newyorknewyork, beijingbetty, virginwoolf, manucpa, worldly1, MKSinSA, asym, oxfdblue, phillybluesfan, sanglug, hyper, allep10, The BBQ Chicken Madness, Mom in Maine, IreGyre, RadioGirl, sfarkash, seeta08, RoCali, PoliticalJunkessa, sherijr, jfromga, Sleepwalkr, Essephreak, Livvy5, ludlow, deviant24x, Leftcandid, French Imp, Amber6541, brentbent, pinback, loper2008, awcomeon, marabout40, Morus, Jampacked, TFinSF, Obamican08, veracityus, Vacationland, Commoditize This, eXtina, bullyness, gramofsam1, blueyescryinintherain, kjoftherock, GeeBee, TheWesternSun, CS in AZ, LeanneB, angelajean, Polly Syllabic, No Looking Back, 2questions, polar bear, DavidHeart, k8dd8d, ctlrick, ItsSimpleSimon, Puddytat, juturna, ThisIsMyTime, sharonsz, MJinSM, Micheline, abrauer, Weaselina, nirbama, Betty Pinson, MsGrin, BlueFranco, sniperfire, ericlewis0, Bobbysmom, Dems in 08, alexa100, JanG, slice, Quantumlogic, indubitably, no way lack of brain, VitaminD, yellow dog in NJ, annieli, Mike08, gobears2000, bmat, kerflooey, Valerie8435, ban nock, bluebluelady, BlueUU, Mz LadyPhoenix, implicate order, wildlife advocate, MaryinHammondsport, BlueJessamine, island in alabama, Eclectablog, PAJ in Ohio, kevin k, deeproots, princesspat, lovespaper, marleycat, Lorikeet, Cinnamon Rollover, theone718, lebowskiachiever, KVoimakas, Grandma Susie, tier1express, MRA NY, durrati, nokomis, corvaire, Safina, littlebird33, lincoln deschain, just another vortex, rscopes, zenox, jvmwordsmith, Huginn and Muninn, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Besdeekian, too young to give up, New Horizon, sprogga, Patric Juillet, weatherdude, mod2lib, Caractacus, ridemybike, KiB, KidofStalin, NancyWilling, James Renruojos

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site