If Coakley supported a single payer system, would she have won?

[apples and oranges]

Do you think more people would have voted for her if she ran on getting a single payer healthcare system?

[mn9driver]

1. If she had bothered to run on anything at all, she would have won. n/t

.

[mikelgb]

2. No, she ran on a public option and lost.

the election was not purely a referendum on health insurance reward... I mean reform

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. Coakley ran as a vote FOR of the emerging bill, which will have NO public option.....

....and everyone knew that.

That wasn't the only issue, but it was perhaps the biggest, and 82% of 2008 Obama voters who voted for Brown support a public option "like Medicare". By a 2:1 margin they oppose mandates, and they oppose the Senate bill.

[Tailormyst]

13. And that is why a big chunk of why she lost.

[Tailormyst]

11. Wrong- She supported it during the primary

The didn't support it during the general.

[laughingliberal]

22. She was for a public option but the only bill she would be voting on did not have one

Had the Senate bill not already passed and there were still opportunities to add a public option that might have made the difference. But it was already apparent to all that the public option had been thoroughly killed off and buried by the Senate.

[Faryn Balyncd]

3. Don't know about Single Payer, but 82% of Obama->Brown voters favor public option:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7531687

[cali]

12. but what does that actually signify? That they voted for him because

they were pissed at dems? That it was because they thought brown would support sp? That they had other priorities?

[Tailormyst]

14. They voted for him to stop the current bill which they think is so bad

that they were willing to vote R to stop it from being passed. People tried to get Congress and the WH to listen and frankly, they were ignored. So they did what they felt was their only option left.

[cali]

17. or they voted for him because other things were more important

looks like fear of higher taxes was a biggie. And let's face it, voters straight out didn't like her and they liked him. I don't buy that they voted for him to stop the current legislation. I think that's reasonable re some who didn't vote but not very plausible re those who did.

[laughingliberal]

21. Dean said on Hardball yesterday that post election polling of

Obama voters who sat the election out showed 20% were opposed to the bill without the public option. Around that same number (18%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown were opposed to the bill with the public option.

I know there were other factors but it does seem the opposition to seeing the Senate bill became law drove enough away from Coakley to change the outcome of the race.

[RobinA]

19. If This Statistic

is true - the 82% thing - I'm thinking it's Option 4, they are just stark raving stupid. I don't have a high opinion of the majority of the electorate, but even I have to think they aren't this dumb. I seriously doubt the 82% number.

[laughingliberal]

24. Well, the public option presented as a choice within the exchange had huge support even in

conservative areas. I never saw in poll in the whole country where it had less that 60% support.

[phantom power]

4. I think the idea would be closer to...

"If Obama and the Dem caucus had come out swinging for Single Payer, and delivered, and Coakley ran in support of it, she would have won."

But in reality, there are other components. Like bailouts for banksters, and Coakley's local unpopularity and lack of charisma. And the fact that Brown worked harder.

:shrug:

[stray cat]

5. No

[cali]

6. not with the campaign she ran.

[subterranean]

8. My guess is no. She supported a strong public option, didn't she?

It would have made a difference if the Democrats were actually considering a single-payer system and she supported it. In that scenario, she probably would have won.

[Tailormyst]

10. She did- then she didn't.

[Tailormyst]

9. If she ran on a public OPTION she would have won

[hughee99]

15. The problem with the health care issue for Coakley

was that the bill is basically already written. She could come out in support of it or not, but the voters would know that discussion of a single payer system would be just campaign rhetoric.

More people would have voted for her if she took the campaign seriously instead of letting Brown gain traction. She created a situation where some people were thinking "she's not even Senator yet, and already she's not talking to the people". She's not a great candidate anyway, she can't also afford to run an awful campaign.

[laughingliberal]

23. People are ignoring that fact-that the bill was written already

And she could have stood on her head and expressed support for PO or SP or any damn thing else but the only question was whether she would vote for the bill already written or not vote for it. She did run an awful campaign but DFA's post election polling showed high enough percentages who either voted against her or did not vote based on this issue that she would have won had those numbers been reversed.

[hughee99]

26. I agree that it would have likely made a difference,

but there were a bunch of other things she could have done differently to win. This was her race to lose, and she lost it.

The other thing is that this is a 2 year seat, and I expect that a lot of people are expecting other Dems to jump in for the 2012 campaign, so I'm not sure that voters were thinking very "long term" in this election anyway. Though given the fact that Brown won, many weren't thinking at all.

[laughingliberal]

27. Perhaps that was the thinking. A two year term? How much damage could he do?

And they wouldn't get the horrible Senate health care bill if they kept Coakley out. I hate that Brown won that seat but I do see a certain logic in it. People who understand the HCR bill hate it. Those who don't understand it hate it, too. It was just bad timing. If the damned thing had passed before the election she could have run on getting a public option added or something but that's not how it went down. She could have run a better campaign and the party and the White House could have been paying attention. I truly think they believed the bill would be passed before election day and were not that interested in it. They were caught napping.

[vincna]

16. No way she would have won with single payer

It might even have been worse

[RobinA]

18. Certainly

She lost to a guy far more right wing than she is, but she would have won if she had moved to the left. Makes sense to me.

[KittyWampus]

20. If she'd actually campaigned, she'd have won. SHE DID NOT CAMPAIGN.

Unbelievable, but true.

[CoffinEd]

25. 66-19

That's the number of campaign appearances that both candidates made in the weeks following their nominations. Brown 66, Coakley 19.

Not trying to downplay the other factors that might have led to Coakley's embarrassing defeat (such as 'likability' and her stance on a PO), but not campaigning in a way that clearly and unmistakably shows voters you really want their vote typically leads to what we all witness Tuesday evening.