Yesterday I posted a major editorial in which I analyzed the causes of Coakley’s defeat in the Massachusetts special election for the Senate. Since then, I have heard pundit after pundit stating the need for more bipartisanship, the exact opposite of my conclusions. However, a new poll of Democrats and Independents who voted for Obama in 2008, but either voted for Brown or stayed home Wednesday backs my contentions.
Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election a year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they’ll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election.
A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street." A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.
In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican — 37 percent — said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.
It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday’s vote was cast in protest.
The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care’s role in the election. A plurality of people who switched — 48 — or didn’t vote — 43 — said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among those Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" — but 36 percent thought it didn’t go far enough and 41 percent said they weren’t sure why they opposed it.
Among voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate bill because it didn’t go far enough; 39 percent weren’t sure and only eight percent thought it went too far.
The firm Research 2000 conducted the post-election survey Tuesday night on behalf of three progressive organizations — the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org.
Taken from interviews of 500 Obama backers who voted in the Senate election and 500 Obama backers who sat out the election, the firm discovered that 18 percent of Obama backers who voted in the Senate race ended up casting ballots for Brown.
Of that group, 82 percent said they favored a public option for insurance coverage, with 14 percent opposed. Of those who sat out the election, 86 percent favored the public option, while only seven percent opposed it. The findings suggests that progressive arguments that disappointed Obama supporters deserted have serious merit… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
Just a moment ago, I heard Bitch McConnell say that the results of the election clearly show that the American people don’t the government taking over health care. Either he is lying, or he is a fool. Probably both. These results clearly show that the voters who gave Obama a landslide victory in that state oppose the health care bill because they favor a public option.
The voters sent a clear message. They are not happy with business as usual. They want change we can believe in. If Obama and the Democrats don’t get out of bed with the Banksters and the Corporate Criminals of Health Care, there will be hell to pay.
24 Responses to “Research 2000 Poll Confirms My Analysis”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I feel like my opinions hit right in the middle of the poll results. The man I voted for appeared to not only be intellectually astute but a politician of some skill and his performance so far to say it nicely has been disappointing.
I am long tired of fighting to maintain rights that are eroding either through legislation or the corporate purchase of them who have been elected to govern.
If that's the case, these voters are in for a rude awakening since upping the number of Republicans in the Senate will make it harder for the Democrats to pass anything, regardless of what lessons they take from the election result.
In practical terms, the only thing that matters is who wins the seat, not the reason why people voted them into it. Unfortunately there is a seemingly endless supply of "send a message" voters who don't understand that until it's too late.
PS: At least banking re-regulation seems to have a chance at getting through — the Republicans are a bit scared to block it.
if the end result of this is to get geithner and summers cannned and bring volcker and warren to the forefront on policy, it could be a victory in disguise…
TomCat,
I knew you were on the right track!The Democrats repeatedly think that after they have been deceitfully framed by the GOP and suffer a setback, that they must go "Republican Lite" and head in a more conservative direction. This is craziness. For one thing, they were overwhelmingly elected in 2006 AND 2008 because the public was fed up with government by the wealthy and for the wealthy. After a valiant but flawed attempt at major health care and banking reform, in which the Republicans successfully lied them out of public favor, it makes no sense whatever for the Dems to take a more conservative posture.
Democratic strategists and politicians need to wake up. The public overwhelmingly does NOT want to continue the broken health care system just as it is; does NOT want the regressive payroll and income tax systems to remain as they are; does NOT want the rich to keep getting richer by holding everyone else down; does NOT want Wall Street to get any more bailouts or walk away scot free from payback and punishment; and does NOT want its government being bought out and effectively run by corporate interests. The overwhelming majority want JOBS and JOB SECURITY along with RISING WAGES and a fairer distribution of the economic pie. Thes e goals will never be accomplished if the Dems go Republican Lite, become timid, and fail to boldly implement the proghressive wants of the people at large.
The choice for Democrats is ridiculously obvious: stop playing footsie with corporate America and Republicans and start delivering what the majority of the country needs and wants. Doing so will strengthen them in November; not doing so will kill them, and could even usher in a return of the Bushonomics which got us into the mess we're in right now!
I agree with everyone here and for the record, I was right too. (nanna na na – that's my inner 3 yo) It's Obama and the economy. Like I said, Obama better find his balls and he better find them soon.
On a side note, here's the creepy Scott Brown talking about his teenage daughters “for anyone watching around the country, they’re both available.” He offered up his own daughters! Both their mouths dropped open (rightfully so!).
Glenn Beck even chastised him for it for 5 minutes on his radio show saying, “I want a chastity belt on this man. I want his every move watched in Washington,” he said. “This one could end with a dead intern.”
You know you fucked up when Glenn Beck is calling you out.
Linky:
http://www.newser.com/story/78701/scott-brown-my-daughters-are-available.html
That, my friends, is some creepy assed shit!
I think that it does not matter who takes leadership of the Dems, AS LONG AS SOMEONE DOES!!
Howard Dean was crazy as a loon, but he was as instrumental to Obama's victory as Obama's campaign. Dean had vision, and more importantly, complete control. Dean had no problem telling 'Blue Dogs' "Tow the line or find your own financing".
Obama doesn't have to take control of the party. There have been more than a few Presidents that weren't the leaders of their respective party, and there is nothing wrong with that, IMO. The Dems just need a leader!
So, in Massachusetts support for the public option is HUGE. Which makes voting in a Repub who is opposed to it a really stupid thing to do, regardless of what you think of Martha Coakley. Sorry, Mass voters who marked ballots for Brown, but that was stupid, stupid, stupid.
On the topic of stupid, though, the White House has abandoned the public option. How stupid, not to mention morally void, is that?
I was just watching The View. (Yeah, I know – look, I'm tired and feeling a bit sick. Cut me a break.) Whoopi said she'll be presenting details of Congress members' health insurance on Monday. That should be a good education moment for some Viewers, though I'm sure the blonde panelist will filibuster with irrelevancies.
And Otis, Howard Dean is not and never was crazy as a loon. Don't let that "Whoooo!" moment mislead you. The flipside to that is that, if he'd dialed down his enthusiasm, he would have been accused of lacking passion.
There's little doubt in my mind that the Mass election would have gone the other way if Dean were still in charge at the Dem Party.
Stimpson, I agree with you and not my husband, Otis. Dean was not crazy, but brilliant. His 50 state strategy won the election for Obama.
Can anyone name the head of the Democratic Party? Anyone?
It's this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
Bet you didn't know that eh? I had to look it up. Where the hell has he been? Locked in a closet? I haven't heard a peep from this asshole the entire time Obama has been Prez.
Mark, I think we all feel that way.
Infidel, there will come a day and rue their own foolishness at what they have done. Perhaps these folks should be wearing a scarlet B. I plan to research the new bankster proposals for tomorrow's offerings.
Good point, RJ.
Jack, I agree. That the bottom 40% of Americans own only 0.2% of the wealth should make that obvious.
Lisa, there can only be one explanation for Beck's acumen. A stopped watch is right twice a day.
Otis, I disagree with you there. The media portrayed him that way by pawning off his cutting up as serious.
Stimpson, congrats on being visitor #30,000! I agree. Censor the blonde and tell us the rest tomorrow. 😉
Lisa, if memory serves, it's the governor of a southern state. I won't say who to preserve your riddle.
i think youll all agree with downtown denny: Kucinich shreds dems at Raw Story
Rj, I agree with most of what he said, but as usual, he goes too far. In what may come as a surprise to some of his supporters, Kucinich declined to blame Republicans for what he believes have been economic policies gone awry. Whatever failures the Democrats displayed, this economic mess is the result of the GOP No Millionaire Left Behind program. Unless Democrats keep reminding the public, the GOP will try to rewrite history, such as their new mantra that 9/11 did not happen on their watch. I lost my respect for Dennis when he announced his choice as a running mate during the 2008 primary season. Please don't mention the name. Doing so always engenders a flood of wing-nut trolls.
Here is a good take on it also.
http://brucekrasting.blogspot.com/2010/01/consequences-of-mass-election.html
Dems call to extend bush tax cuts
The Republican obstructionist strategy forced Obama and the leaderless DNC to take their eyes off the prize. Let's see them obstruct banking reform.
There are people in the Democratic Party who can hold a thought in their head, if they can take the abuse from the Tea Buggers, time for them to show themselves.
Tom, I laughed when I read Lisa's comment.
"Like I said, Obama better find his balls and he better find them soon."
I agree.
Is it too soon for me to say I TOLD YOU SO?
Oh, wait, I already did. *heh*
Tom,
I was the whole thing was a protest vote.
Time for Obama to be tougher. He can't play the nice guy anymore.
He inherited an 8 year mess and there's no way he can salvage the situation in one year, not even in 2 years, without the cooperation of all americans, regardless of party affiliation.
Sadly, seems to me that whatever effort he makes or will make, and for whatever reason, a great chunk of the American population wants him to fail.
There's a reason I only have real bloggers and not the "A" list crowd on my link list. The "A" listers are all rubes, pikers and clowns compared to TomCat. Your editorial was right on the money.
Bipartisan nonsense and comprimise only make winners out of the enemy (republicans)
Ooops, begging your pardon… spoke too fast!
President Obama finally gets tough
Thanks, RZ. That was worth the read.
RJ, just so folks don't get the wrong idea, those 'Dems' are a small group of Blue Dogs. Remember, Blue Dogs have GOP fleas.
Josie, between Edwards and Obama, if I had a nickel for every time you've played the ITYS card, I could retire to Tahiti with a Canadian blonde. 🙂
HB, you're absolutely right. I think he found a pair yesterday.
Thanks, Truth. I appreciate that.
Tom, I know, but ya love me anyway. AND I am always right.
*heh*
If I didn't, Josie, I'd take a brunette to Tahiti. 😉
You were right about Edwards. On Obama, the jury is still out.