3 reasons why Coakley's loss was NOT a 'referendum' on healthcare OR Obama

[ProgressiveEconomist]

1. It was a special election with limited campaigning and therefore limited turnout in urban areas. For example, Only 43% of Boston turned out, compared to abouy 60 percent in the suburbs. What's new about suburbs going for a Republican, especially one whom the Massachusetts media allowed to claim Coakley's pressing him to take positions on issues was "negative campaigning"?

2. One of Brown's biggest campaign themes was "Massachusetts already has universal healthcare. Why should Massahusetts taxpayers get stuck with the bill for Texas's and other poorer states' healthcare?" All the right-wing talking heads know this very well, but you'll never hear them say it.

3. During the last two months of the election, Brown gained 23 points in political polls. Was there a 23-point negative swing nationally towards Republicans during that time? NO! Obama remains popular, even in Massachusetts. Just like the Virginia and NJ gubernatorial races, where Creigh Deeds was an inept campaigner and Jon Corzine was an unpopular Wall Streeter, the Massachusetts special election to replac Ted Kennedy was dominated by purly local concerns. As a campaigner, Coakley made Creigh Deeds look like Bill Clinton!

[still_one]

1. It is a referendum that our country is much more right wing then we would like to believe /nt

[MannyGoldstein]

2. We Inaugurated Our First Black President One Year Ago Today

We're not so much right wing as we are searching for change. We didn't get it, and now we're getting more change, as Dr. Dean predicted.

[Toots]

32. How can electing right wingers be change?

That is the "change" everyone wanted in the first place, to get rid of them and their incompetence..Electing them back is just downright stupid....America is a country made up of some very stupid people, and apparently getting more stupid all the time.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. The facts disagree with you. The last Democratic candidate for President

to win a solid majority of the white non-Hispanic vote was Lyndon Johnson in 1964!

Whenever minorities in urban areas turn out at much lesser rates than Caucasians in suburbs, Democrats lose.

[still_one]

9. What were the statistics in Mass? /nt

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. Boston.com has complete city-by-city results, including turnout, at

http://www.boston.com/news/special/politics/2010/senate/results.html

[ProgressiveEconomist]

28. Statewide turnout was 2.2 million out of 4.1 million eligible

"More than 2.2 million voters, out of 4.1 million eligible, cast ballots in the three-way election between Brown, Coakley, and independent Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the late senator)."


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/01/20/frustration_with_status_quo_fuels_emotions_big_turnout/

[rox63]

41. Turnout was much higher in the wealthier suburbs than in the cities

And those 'burbs tend to vote repuke.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

20. And 2008 Massachusetts general election results are at LINK

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/2008%20Return%20of%20Votes%20Complete.pdf

[RC]

5. Bull shit. Blame it on our 'liberal' media and the republican wing of the Democratic party

Go look up the word Fascist. See also the "health care" joke in our bought off congress.

[cali]

7. um, how about the epically bad campaign run by coakley.

[tango-tee]

21. I've been following that and her campaign must have been dismal.

But I don't think that this ho-hum la-dee-da campaign was the be-all and end-all which led to this disastrous result. It should be viewed as a wake up call.

Would I not vote for a candidate simply because the campaign was lousy? I can only speak for myself and no, there would have to be more reasons to it than a lead-footed campaign. I could possibly deal with a particular brand of a shoo-in hubris, as long as I would believe that in the end, this particular person would represent my needs as a citizen. Those needs are varied and manifold among the electorate, and I don't think it is possible to latch onto only one particular cause for her defeat.

[cali]

27. it wasn't just lousy. and it was a MAJOR factor.

you may vote for someone you perceive as out of touch, arrogant and entitled but to lots of folks, it's a enough to turn them off.

[tango-tee]

31. I don't know, I really and truly don't know.

But for the time being I'm living over here in Europe and I'm certain you have a much better knowledge of what is happening. I'm trying to educate myself, but at times it isn't all that clear cut. At times it is a bit difficult to sort through all of it. Your input is always appreciated, cali.

[still_one]

10. and how did voting for brown improve that again? /nt

[elocs]

15. Right, because if a Democrat loses it is always the fault of somebody else.

Always.

[aquart]

12. Rework the slogans, then they're not.

Or you could ask them to describe, without using a slogan, what it is they want from their government.

Labels are really worthless till you get some idea of what you are talking about.

[depakid]

33. That's about the stupidest comment I've heard yet- and that's saying something

[asjr]

4. I don't understand the mindset of those who

voted for Mr. Brown. Maybe it was the pickup truck. If only he had worn a flannel plaid shirt he could have doubled his votes.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. IMO, Coakley's 'vacation' campaign strategy created a huge

vacuum, which Brown filled brilliantly with the same anti-tax rhetoric and the same lies about healthcare reform Republicans have used all year.

And a nitwit local media allowed Brown to dodge Democratic attempts to put him on record on issies as "negative campaigning".

[Skidmore]

8. That second point you made is something similar to things I've heard

on DU from time to time from people who ask why should bluestaters/urban/whatever people assume any responsibility for redstaters/rural/whatever through the use of taxes. Same mentality. Either we are our brother's keeper or we are not. Doesn't matter who says it, the result is the same. Left or right.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

14. The irony here is that the very Red states where politicians

rant most furiously about "Big Government" are precisely the biggest beneficiaries of redistributing Federal tax revenues from richer states to poorer. IMO,
Democrats need to re-fund an annual "fisc" report on this phenomenon that died soon after its progenitor Daniel Patrick Moynihan expired. See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22the+fisc%22+Moynihan&btnG=Google+Search for fiscal facts that will astound you.

[FBaggins]

11. Wrong on all three counts

1) 43% is much higher than expected... it just wasn't as high as Brown's areas. More importantly, turnout wasn't lower in the city because of "limited campaigning"... it was low because Democrats (for a number of reasons) didn't feel the need to show up and vote.

2) I don't see any evidence that this was one of the "biggest campaign themes".

3) That's a common misconception... this wasn't that large a shift in overall public opinion. There were still plenty more people in MA who would vote democrat over republican if they showed up to vote... the massive shift was in who felt strongly enough about the issues to show up. Where there was a shift (in all three elections) was the substantial swing among independents.

Lastly, I understand the need to spin, but to claim that the race was all about "local concerns" is ridiculous. There were hardly any local issues in play at all. We could easily say that absent her poor campaigning, she could have easily closed a five point gap...


...but it's the other 30 percent that worries me.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. Sounds like you're agreeing with me solidly on point #3, you're

splitting hairs on point #1, and you don't watch "Inside Washington".

Charles Krautheimer sat silently while the rest of the panel the last two weeks made point #2 repeatedly, but that did not stop him from spouting "referendum on HCR" repeatedly as a talking head on Faux News.

Keith and Rachel have also emphasized point #2 on MSNBC.

So you agree with me on two of my points, and you admit you have low information on the other.

Thanks for your support!

[FBaggins]

30. Sorry no.

Oh, we're closer in some areas than others, but who reads a reply that says "you're mostly right :)

Seriously, my #3 and yours really aren't the same. When "turnout" makes a different, part of it is the ground game and part of it is the disenchantment of the base. This one wasn't the first category... our ground game was well superior to theirs.

Charles Krautheimer sat silently while the rest of the panel the last two weeks made point #2 repeatedly

That doesn't make it so. It cannot be doubted that both candidates made their positions clear on HCR. She was committed to supporting the current proposal, he was committed to killing it. THAT is a far clearer reality (as a "biggest campaign theme") than focusing on one of his many reasons for opposing it and saying "THAT's the real reason".

[ProgressiveEconomist]

34. Fact that MA already HAS universal HC is not just "one of Brown's

many reasons for opposing it" IN MASSACHUSETTS.

IMO, it is a crucial point that makes what most of the right-wing talking heads are saying and likely will continue to say for weeks an outright Orwellian lie.

[Hannah Bell]

13. ...

Massachusetts
Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 11; Public Policy Polling, Jan. 7-9
2008 election: Obama 62 percent, McCain 36 percent

Rasmussen says that 57 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing while 41 percent do not. Fifty-two percent back the health care reform plan being pushed by Obama and congressional Democrats while 46 percent oppose it. Sixty-five percent say the would-be bomber who tried to set off explosives on a U.S. airliner Christmas Day should be tried by a military tribunal and not in a civilian criminal court as the Obama administration has decided.

PPP says Massachusetts voters are split with 44 percent approving of Obama's performance while 43 percent disapprove and 13 percent are undecided. Forty-seven percent oppose Obama on health care reform while 41 percent support him, with 12 percent undecided.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Tnanks for those poll results, showing majority support in MA

for Obama and for HCR.

[KharmaTrain]

17. It Was A Repudiation Of The Status Quo...

Since the Democrats have control of all three branches, they're being held accountable for the inaction that has led to a lot of frustration on many levels. Healthcare was just one of many frustrations I'm seeing with people on all sides...a dysfunctional government...specifically the Senate that turned this process into a big money game...along with catering to the rich and powerful while millions saw their jobs vanish, networth plummet and catering to special interests.

Coakley ran a terrible campaign, the DNC has all but vanished (50 state strategy has been shitcanned) and the non-stop propaganda from the corporate media and hate radio had their hand in what transpired. It wasn't healthcare in specific, but the overall gridlock and ineptness of the Senate that opened the door for Brown...Coakley helped by going on vacation. But it doesn't matter now...cause the results will be internalized by every Democrat running for re-election this year and they'll gladly put their heads in the sand rather than ruffle feathers. Opportunities have been squandered...and now the question to the Democratic party leadership is get off the dime and don't take any seat for granted no matter where it is...and to be prepared for an electorate that is frustrated at all the beltway games. Since the Democrats are in charge, it's their dime...and will be held responsible.

Alas, with all the backstabbing already going on...I don't see anyone learning...if anything it's going to further polarize. Healtcare reform...for good or bad...suffered a critical blow last night and it'll be interesting to see how this administration tries to rescue it.

[Political Heretic]

19. That's a pretty tough sell, my friend.

:crazy:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. Not if your mind is open to FACTS rather than bright-shiny-

object DISINFORMATION from the media, led with lots of female leg by Faux News.

[RBInMaine]

24. Good post ! COAKLEY and HER TEAM = SUCKED OUT LOUD AS CAMPAIGNERS.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

26. "Good Post'. Thanks. But why is my recommendation score NEGATIVE?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

46. kick

[sendero]

25. I'm going out on a limb here..

.. I don't think this was all about Obama, and I don't think it was nothing about Obama either.

I think determining the exact amount of "Obama" involved here is impossible.

But I will say this: "everyone" in the Dem party thought this was a gimme, and that has a lot to do with the failure. So at best one could reasonably say that the instincts of our party leaders are not too finely honed to what is going on with the electorate.

[Tailormyst]

29. It was indeed a ref on Heaalth insurance reform.

Talk to random people on the street here for an hour. Here is a fucking clue to DC: The people want REAL reform, not a give away to the Insurance companies that will end up costing them more. They want REAL banking reform, not more unregulated give aways to billionaires.

If DC doesn't wake the fuck up, get ready for bloodbath in November.

[Javaman]

35. We lost a seat that had been democratic for 40 years...

It was a referendum. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

38. I remember Jack and Teddy also. I liked them too. But Martha Coakley was no

Teddy Kennedy, now, was she?

[Javaman]

43. That's a very lame responce and you know it.

Stop trying to channel Benson, it's very unbecoming.

[Toasterlad]

36. How's the View Down There In the Sand, Mr. Ostrich?

:eyes:

[MadHound]

37. You could get away with such obfuscation in almost any other state

But not in MA, sorry. Coakley should have won this one even though she did run a crappy campaign, but instead she lost, badly.

Look at the polling trends, as health care became more and more of a corporate give away, Coakley went down and down. After her little tete-a-tete with the insurance industry and big pharma, her numbers really sank.

Those on the left in MA, and across the country, don't want to see the party continue on this corporatist, right wing path that they've taken. That's what this election was about.

[JVS]

39. You go ahead and believe that and watch Caribou Barbie and this pinup clown eat Obama's lunch in '12

[kenny blankenship]

40. Point 2 refutes your own thesis ( I can tell you're an economist )

[ProgressiveEconomist]

42. Enlighten me

[kenny blankenship]

44. "It was not a referendum on healthcare..."

and then you say one of Brown's BIGGEST campaign themes was that Massachusetts would not benefit from the healthcare bill but be soaked by it for poorer states' benefit.

That which was to have been demonstrated just tripped on its own crank.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

45. Sounds like sophistry. True, I left out the word "national" when I said "referendum".

But in point #3 of the OP, I made clear I was talking about potential NATIONAL implications of the MA special election, didn't I?

Why would anybody waste time on MASSACHUSETTS implications of the MA special election?

National HCR has costs and benefits. MA voters already have the benefits of universal healthcare; therefore the costs of national HCR to MA were there for a pinup boy to exploit in an election in one state.