Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Massachusetts Liked Universal Health Care Before It Voted Against It

1.24.2010

Massachusetts Liked Universal Health Care Before It Voted Against It

John Sides has a good catch from the Washington Post/Harvard poll of Massachusetts special election voters. By a 68-27 margin, voters in last Tuesday's election supported the universal health care law in Massacuhsetts; this included a majority of Scott Brown voters! But these same voters opposed the Democratic health care plan, which is quite similar to the Massacuhsetts law, by a 43-48 margin.

What accounts for the discrepancy? There are basically three* things:

First, precisely because they're happy with the Massachusetts law, a lot of voters didn't see the upside in supporting a national health care plan that might usurp theirs. Whereas 44 percent of voters in this poll thought that the health care bill would make the country better off (versus 40 percent saying worse off), just 23 percent said the same for Massachusetts in particular (versus 37 percent worse off).

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.

Thirdly, although there were no questions that quizzed voters on their knowledge of the policy substance in this particular poll, we can probably infer that at least some Massachusetts voters are misinformed about the Democratic health care plan, as is quite manifest in national surveys on the subject.

Make no mistake: a lot of voters in Massachusetts were speaking their minds about health care. The evidence is much stronger that this was a vote about health care than the Obama agenda in general; in fact, special election voters in Massachusetts approved of Barack Obama 61-37**.

Still, it's important to keep in mind exactly what those voters were saying about health care, as the message was rather mixed. And Democrats can take some comfort in the fact that, several years after a near-universal health care program in Massachusetts was implemented, it is overwhelmingly popular with that state's voters.

__

* Although I'm reluctant to cite polling conducted by activist groups, even activist groups whose aims I generally agree with, if you buy the PCCC/MoveOn.org poll then a fourth potential reason is that Massachusetts voters thought the Democrats' health care plan didn't go far enough.

** This is a completely separate point, but pollsters who are bragging about having nailed the special election but which projected Obama approval in the 40s among the likely voter electorate may have gotten the right answer for the wrong reasons.

87 comments

Bart DePalma said...

Once again, it would be interesting to see if these voters supported Romneycare if there was a price tag attached to it. Romneycare and Medicaid is destroying other public services in the state budget because they cost far more than advertised.

Parlophone said...

I agree the most with your third assessment blaming "misinformed Massachusetts voters" What an understatement! Vote Robot

Rudy said...

One need not do a lot of reading about MassCare to see how much of a fiscal train wreck it is turning out to be. It got voted through during flush times when there wasn't so much attention paid to the fiscal risk, and more attention paid to the increased access aspects.

In practice, all of the things that are pointed to by Obamacare opponents already are happening in Masachusetts -- skyhigh premium increases, ineffectual cost management, system gaming, and bloated overhead. It has been successful at increasing access for some, but at what cost? That is the crux of the revolt against further government intervention.

Vern said...

It's a stern lesson that the means matter as much, if not more, than the ends. This was a refutation of Saul Alinski tactics; demean, dismiss and marginalize any opposition -- calling them racists, astroturf or ignorant. (Jim DeMint might have been playing the politics of obstruction, but the public was and is not.)

Specifically in MA, the novelty of "historic passage of a bill -- any bill" has worn off already. Here, it's about what worked, what didn't and what we need to do going forward. Our costs continue to skyrocket faster than ever. That's the real problem and pretty much everyone agrees the HC bill in congress does little or nothing at all to address that.

Rudy said...

And "misinformed" is a subjective, which colors Nate's analytical judgment. Again, grasping at straws and ignoring the obvious.

SigmaChi1855 said...

Breaking News: Only 103 seats are safe for the Democrats in Congress!
Remember Virginia and New Jersey? Can someone dispute the source below?
Voters overwhelmingly liked Obama in 2008 but voted Republican governors recently because they now have buyers remorse for his progressive agenda. Much like Massachusetts did last week and many more will do in the next election. The honeymoon of hope without change is over.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/If-Republicans-run-like-Brown-then-only-103-House-Dems-are-truly-safe-82360422.html

Pan said...

It's seems a little silly to not have listed the fourth theoretical: they voted for RomneyCare and have been very dissatisfied by how it turned out.

I was this health insurance reform bill to pass, but you simply can't ignore that possibility and keep a straight face.

Geoff said...

FOLKS,

You're smashing your credibility by continuing to rant on about how you're going to get OBamacare thru and how Obamacare realllllly is popular, just people are stupid and dont know it.

Give it a rest, lefties.

You have no chance.

It is over.

Obamacare is D-E-A-D

The only reason Nate thinks he's the "leader" of the debate against Brooks and Megan is that there is no actual debate going on. Its over.

You're just acting like spoiled intellectuals lashing out with a final set of unrealistic projections, JUST LIKE YOUR MASS ELECTION PROJECTIONS.

now, carry on to flame out your entire political power base in 8 months.

the only way Obama and the Dems have a chance in nov is moving to the center with an economic programme (not bashing banks) RIGHT NOW.

Continue to push your 60/40 opposed Obamacare at your peril.

Its like Scott Brown, A REPUBLICAN, didnt just get 52% of the votes in Mass - over 1.1 Million voters - you people are in total denial.

The votes for your fraudulent schemes to get Obamacare thru wont work for one very simple reason - you dont have 51 senators or 218 house members for it.

But please, by all means, keep deluding yourselves and cheering on the "feisty" Obama.

Ben T said...

I'm still looking for an answer to this question:

Scott Brown received only 60,000 more votes than John McCain did in Massachusetts in 2008. If a significant number of Obama independents joined forces with conservatives and voted Republican last week, shouldn’t Brown’s total vote tally be higher? Perhaps vast numbers of McCain independents decided to sit the special election out, only to have their missing votes replaced by disgruntled ex-Obama supporters, but I doubt it.

How can we explain this?

justin32099 said...

Rudy--you're missing the fact that RomneyCare had no cost control provisions whatsoever, which the Senate bill does. I understand people are skeptical that they won't work, but the problems with the Mass health care system should show that a half-assed reform effort can be worse than none at all.

Also, that Washington Examiner article is a really shallow analysis (not surprising from Barone). Obviously if every campaign went like Coakley/Brown, yes, the GOP would rack up a huge majority. But (a) polling makes it quite clear that national trends only made up a portion (~half?) of the voters Coakley lost from 2008, and (b) the Democrats have 257 (minus however many are retiring) incumbents, which gives them an advantage (which Coakley didn't have).

But, by all means, let Republicans dream that they'll rack up a 219-seat majority in November.

Geoff said...

Ben T said...

I'm still looking for an answer to this question:

Scott Brown received only 60,000 more votes than John McCain did in Massachusetts in 2008. If a significant number of Obama independents joined forces with conservatives and voted Republican last week, shouldn’t Brown’s total vote tally be higher? Perhaps vast numbers of McCain independents decided to sit the special election out, only to have their missing votes replaced by disgruntled ex-Obama supporters, but I doubt it.

How can we explain this?
January 24, 2010 1:00 PM

SIMPLE.

It was not a presidential election, so turnout was lower.

And, it wasnt an election to elect the First Black President.

Turnout actually was quite high, highest for ANY non-prez election in Mass since 1990 and certainly highest special election turnout, ever.

henwy said...

@Ben

Turnout. There was 55% or thereabouts turnout in the special election. It was much higher than that during the presidential.

harold said...

The situation is very simple.

Americans strongly support universal health care.

They want essentially the same health care that they get now, but they want it to be provided in a system that allows universal coverage.

This is a highly realistic desire. Frenzied right wing lies and subject changing notwithstanding (I bother to say this only because I know that such will follow my comment), health insurance companies provide nothing but a for-profit middle man.

However, Americans don't want "reform" that fails to provide universal or expanded coverage, but potentially makes things worse.

The health insurance industry, for example, would love to see all sorts of restrictions placed on medical practice by physicians.

The currently envisioned reform may be a very weak, trembling step in approximately the right direction, but it is complex and ambivalent.

The only reason for its ambivalent nature is that very obvious simpler and better things were not pursued, and that decision was made primarily to benefit the health insurance companies (with the fundamentally timid and conservative, in the correct use of the term, nature of the Democratic party, possibly playing a role.

The lesson is simple. Don't tout "health care reform" unless you have a "reform" that people want, and the only reform they really want is universal, or at least expanded, coverage.

In fact, even the use of the term "reform" is problematic. Americans don't want "health care reform", they want health care.

They will support only a change which is a clear improvement, and which they trust, and reject other changes.

Give everybody Medicare.

justin32099 said...

Geoff said--
"Continue to push your 60/40 opposed Obamacare at your peril."

A general statement to conservatives trying to be "helpful": We (liberals/progressives/Democrats) do not want your advice. We will not follow it. You're wasting your time. Promise.

For the Democrats to give up on health reform would be a win for Republicans, and a huge loss for the Democrats and the American people.

henwy said...

Lately Nate's logic train seems to have run off the tracks. I hope for his sake he's trying to make political arguments with a lot of these recent entries rather than logical ones. With the former, it's expected that you skew the truth and reality a bit.

I surveyed a bunch of people yesterday.

96% thought it would be great if I gave them $10
85% thought it would be great if I offered free ice cream
76% thought it would be great if everyone got free balloons
94% thought it would be great if anyone hungry got a free hot dog
1% thought it would be great if in return for all the benefits above I charged each $1000 a month


According to my survey, 80% of my proposals had a positive rating. Public opinion is surely with me.

Doc Mara said...

Funny how the Washington post did some actual polling and found out (with actual research and stuff) that Massachusetts support MassCare by a huge margin 68-27% (even Brown voters support it 51-44%). Only 1 in 5 Brown voters (and under 1 in 30 Coakley voters) think Brown should work against the Democratic agenda.

I guess the Massachusetts voters spoke clearly. Work with the Democrats. Don't mess with MassCare/RomneyCare. Looks like Nate is right. Curses!

Those pesky facts get in the way of the GOP AGAIN! "If it wasn't for those meddling facts...

boo said...

We understand Nate but Mass. is old news and you have to move on just like your mate Obama has. Now as to your impending marriage to Chelsea Clinton; I still haven't received a wedding invite. Has it got lost in the post?

Yours faithfully,
assy

Number_Seven said...

I have to agree with Harold,

Medicare for all, even if you have to do it incrementally so as to give the insurance parasites, I mean companies, time to find something else to insure.

justin32099 said...

henwy: Of course he's making political arguments. The discussion of how best to craft a package that will find enough votes for passage (and be favored by public opinion) and the discussion of how to make the package that will do the most good for the American health care system are, sadly, completely different arguments.

The latter discussion would be the more useful one, but in the face of a public that is uneducated about the bill and an opposition party that is spreading as much misinformation as possible, unfortunately, it's almost irrelevant.

Geoff said...

justin32099 said...

Geoff said--
"Continue to push your 60/40 opposed Obamacare at your peril."

A general statement to conservatives trying to be "helpful": We (liberals/progressives/Democrats) do not want your advice. We will not follow it. You're wasting your time. Promise.

For the Democrats to give up on health reform would be a win for Republicans, and a huge loss for the Democrats and the American people.
January 24, 2010 1:08 PM

its not "giving up" my friend, you've been beaten.

Obamacare is dead, and further whining and scheming just makes you look worse in the eyes of the Average Jane and Joe.

So, by all means, push your lefty congresspeople to scream and yell at obama to keep trying - soon, obama's overall popularity will meet with the approval of obamacare - forty percent.

right now, obama's well on his way:

gallup 48/47 (adults)
ramuss 46/54 (likely voters)

by all means, keep going, push obama down to forty, or heck, 35%, and you STILL wont get Obamacare thru, no matter what you do.

:)

Demint was right, health care reform = Obama's waterloo, the AGE OF OBAMA (tm Gwen Ifill) is OVER.

You lefties had a year to ram your garbage through with a supermajority in Congress - and you dithered and fucked it up.

Can you blame independents for thinkign you're douchebags at this point?

The only thing Obamacare will be remembered for is the bribery of Senators and backroom deal with unions.

JGabriel said...

Nate Silver: Make no mistake: a lot of voters in Massachusetts were speaking their minds about health care.

Why? Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign. Why assume the vote was about health care when Coakley's campaign is such an obvious and much more likely culprit?

.

J. Scott said...

The Mass Senate race means nothing as far as HIR (health insurance reform) is concerned.

The reason its in trouble, is the corruption.

The Democrats allowed the Health Insurance Industry and big Phrma to write the Bills. Making it too complex and impossible for Americans to understand. And leaving everything wide open to misinformation and disinformation campaigns because of it.

They took everything that was easy to understand and popular out.

So no wonder.

Its the corruption. Its always about the corruption.

It was more important to try to protect the re-election chances and big campaign contributions of a few Senators, that it was to provide a good, popular bill to the American People.

The End.

harold said...

Thank you number_seven.

Here are a few other logical thoughts.

As an entrepreneur, I buy my own health insurance. I am a healthy, single, non-smoking male, and I pay about $4200/year for nothing-special coverage.

Because I pay it myself, I see it, but if an employer were paying it, although group rates would make it cheaper, it would not be much cheaper, and it would still be costing someone (ultimately the shareholders of the employer) the same thing.

Basically, any universal or expanded coverage system which kept everything the same, but which provided me the same coverage at an annual cost of $4200 or less, would be be a no-brainer. A complete win-win for everyone except the health insurance industry.

The big problem, of course, is that if there is a universal health insurance system in place, the health insurance companies effectively go bankrupt overnight. Some of them might survive providing boutique insurance or super-minimal insurance to those who are allowed to opt out of a universal system, as happens in many nations (not Canada, but many). However, the industry would effectively be destroyed.

I had the idea that since the government "bailed out" elite failed speculators at a huge cost (those speculating with mere hundreds of millions or less still get burned when they lose, of course), it might make at least sense for the government to "bail out" the health insurance industry shareholders with a payment if universal health care were to be enacted. I would hate to see them get anything, but this might be one obvious way to deal with the dilemma of their demise.

harold said...

Everyone who ever refers to anything as a "Waterloo" (unless they are actually referring to a place actually called Waterloo http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/01/massachusetts-liked-universal-health.html#comments, or the real Battle of Waterloo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo) is always wrong.

This is stronger than Godwin's law.

yokem55 said...

So does this mean that the Senate Dems can get Scott Brown's vote if they provide a complete carve out for states that implement their own near universal plans? For example, if a state implements a plan that gets 95+% of its legal residents covered, then instead of having to participate in Obamacare, they get a TANF-style block grant to implement Wyden-care or Sanders-care or McConnell-care. States that don't want to do anything get Obamacare. Federalism FTW?

Geoff said...

@harold

No, Brown will never vote for Obamacare.
Ever.

Back to committee, put together centrist incremental reform, and then maybe.

Obamacare = dead.

Juris said...

@Nate: Nice note, and I really like your footnotes.

@Yokem: The Senate Dems will get Scott Brown's vote only if the Senate GOP leadership tells him to vote that way.

Administrator said...

Not only did it not go "far enough," it was a terrible plan. It mandated. Democrats have got to realize that SOME PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE GOVERNMENT MANDATES telling us/them what to do, when those mandates are NOT otherwise protecting the rights of others, just ourselves.

It ceded almost complete control of both the process, and the defining of the issues, to its opponents

It did not address the real cause of the problem -- the excessive amount of health insurance now built into th system and eating up enormous amounts of money, putting insurance companies between doctors and patients, causing massive delays and headaches, when insurance is supposed to provide security for extreme risk, not simply cover our day to day or year to year risks.

By putting most of our health care money into the hands of large, private insurance carriers, we have done the exact opposite, and added an enormous amount of waste and cost to the system

AND NOT ONLY DID THIS BILL NOT ADDRESS THAT, IT ADDED TO IT, AND IN SOME WAYS, EVEN MANDATED MORE OF IT!!

democrats keep thinking that they need to "water stuff" down to get "re elected" when if they would just stop for a minute and listen to what some of the legitimate complaints or concerns of others are, they would know that 'watering' down this bill to make it worse, actually not only made it worse, IT MADE IT WORSE IN MUCH OF THE COUNTRY'S EYES, as well.

But they live in this world where everybody sees things just as they do, and when something is being met with "resistance" it must be "lessened" without even knowing what the resistance is, without even knowing what "lessening" it means, and without even making the right effort to sell, show, communicate and repeatedly illustrate why their opponents are either wrong, or lying, and why what they are doing is right.

And they consistently allow their opponents to shape the debate, come to ridiculous conclusions and cede even the desire to take control of the discussion, and make ridiculous excuse after ridiculous excuse.

harold said...

Geoff -

I must concede that the current health care reform package is now unlikely to be enacted.

That does not mean that no health care legislation at all will ever be enacted, nor that Obama himself is in particularly serious trouble in the long run.

Geoff said...

@harold

i agree completely - obama can save himself if he moves to the center.

just like slick willie.

but, does obama have it in him to turn on the hard left?

we'll see.

i think he might just go down with the ship.

Administrator said...

Democrats also took Massachusetts for granted. Democrats also presumed, once again, that whatever was being said by their opponents, was irrelevant, instead of using it to see where and what people were connecting with and addressing it, or using it to properly define their opponents with.

Here's an even better example of the type of defeatist, presumptuous, overly analytical yet practically azz backword thinking that passes for "wisdom" in the hard core Democratic party today -- that emanates from a world where defining the actual issues and taking control of communicating and showing don't even exist, when in the real world, they trump everything else, and ultimately define politics.

No wonder Democrats are so bad at it.

Here's another example of the basic, more common type of democratic presumptuousness, regarding one of the otherwise best communicators and writers and independent thinkers on the blogosphere today! (Who I believe has improved in this area considerably since said communication, and has otherwise done some excellent work.)

shrinkers said...

@Vern
It's a stern lesson that the means matter as much, if not more, than the ends. This was a refutation of Saul Alinski tactics; demean, dismiss and marginalize any opposition

I'm not sure why you say that. These are exactly the tactics the Republicans use, exactly the tactics they always use. That and lie, lie, lie.

shrinkers said...

@Pan
It's seems a little silly to not have listed the fourth theoretical: they voted for RomneyCare and have been very dissatisfied by how it turned out.

Uhm, Pan? Nate dealt with that possibility:

"By a 68-27 margin, voters in last Tuesday's election supported the universal health care law in Massacuhsetts; this included a majority of Scott Brown voters!"

Did you read the article you are commenting on?

Marvin8 said...

Nobody EVER went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American electorate.

shrinkers said...

@harold
Give everybody Medicare.

You are exactly correct, all down the lone. Great comment.

brian said...

Geoff-

Obama's ego is way bigger than Clinton's, so I doubt he moves to the center. He is convinced he is a historic man. Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he was used to giving in to Repubs. Obama has never had to compromise.

shrinkers said...

@brian and Geoff,

This "move o the center" crap is just that -- crap. Obama was elected on an enormous mandate to bring real change, away from the failed policies of the right wing. In as far as his job approval ratings have declined, it is precisely because he has appeared to "move to the center" -- that is, he keeps trying to let the Republicants be part of the process, and they keep simply being obstructionists.

What he "needs to do" it is utterly ignore them from now n, and give the people of this great Nation the things we voted for.

I know righties have a lot of trouble understanding that America actually elected -- by an enormous landslide -- a liberal President and a Democratic congress. That is what We the People want, not your failed conservative anti-populist oligarchy. I thinik we'll see Congress and Obama start tacking strongly in this direction, and you'll see his poll numbers go up -- a lot -- in the coming months.

Jim Gonyea said...

People in Massachusetts did not understand that the national medical reform plan is substantially similar to what Massachusetts already has. It's just another in a long series of screw ups by Democrats on defining the medical insurance debate. First they refer to healthcare reform. It's not healthcare reform, it's medical insurance reform. When did medical insurance get replaced by healthcare? Blue Cross does not supply my healthcare, my doctor does. Blue Cross supplies my medical insurance. Secondly, what the hell does public option mean? How about public medical insurance plan? Democrats blew the debate by not using simple language that means something. It's also why they alienate Main Street.

kankan said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

Nate Silver,

I take issue with the premise that there is something odd about Massachusetts voters opposing federal health reform that resembles MA's reform.

You may not agree with the conservative view of federalism in which the vast majority of issues are properly left up to the states, but that doesn't mean it is inherently wrong.

I am obviously not saying the people of MA went to the polls with a deep appreciation of federalism. The people of MA would gladly vote for those who would expand the scope of the federal government.

It's a matter of emphasizing the role of state government, not turning the unwashed masses into experts on federalism. In this instance, the people of MA appreciated the role of state government and saw the unnecessary overreach of the federal government.

Ben T said...

Geoff and henwy-

I'm not so sure your simple little answers clarify this problem. Look at voter turnout in McCain's strong areas like Lancaster, Hanover, and Boxford, and compare that with turnout in Obama strongholds like Cambridge, Provincetown, and Aquinnah (someone who knows what they are doing should really do a thorough comparison of turnout, but a quick flip through of the numbers should suffice to cast doubt on your explanation).

None of this is to mention your ridiculous suggestion that many hardy Mass. Republicans would let their one chance to impact national politics pass by, especially given the media hype about it.

LongTom said...

I live in MA and all this rightie palaver about the problems the health care system is encountering are overblown. My premiums haven't gone up much at all over the past 5years. As for the impact on the state budget, I haven't noticed any new taxes or levies or surcharges to pay for it. Small businesses like it. Maybe some people in their 20s don't like having to buy in, but over all, it seems to be working fine.

Doc Mara said...

Occam's Razor: Simplest explanation is usually right.

The poll proves that:
Mass. voters say "we like RomneyCare."
Mass. voters say "we like Obama."
Mass. voters say "work with the Dems."
Mass voters say "don't obstruct Obama agenda."

If you actually READ what the voters told the pollsters you will realize that a vote for Brown was still a vote for ObamaCare. It's also a vote against the corruption creep that was seeming to take over the debate.

The complicated Rube Goldberg logic of the GOP and their media enablers makes no sense. The vote against Coakley was a vote against complacency and dithering. Hopefully Brown heeds the message and works with Obama and stops cowtowing to the idiot pseudocenter. I'm guessing he won't because he'll need another job in 2.5 years, but the electorate didn't put him in to have the likes of Lieberman and Nelson dictate the terms of our country's future.

brian said...

I agree Shrinkers. So please quit whining and get it done! If we had 60 Repubs in the Senate and some massive conservative program wasn't enacted in 1 year, I would be livid.

kankan said...

To conservatives, I ask, would it be delusional for conservatives to look at the results of the 2006 congressional election and to determine it was more than just an anti-war vote? Would it have been stupid to figure some conservatives were not excited to vote because they were disappointed by Repub’s spending and huge deficits? But Dems are delusional to do the mirror image, not for a national "thumping", as W called it, of 2006 in many different states and different candidates, but rather, Nate is parsing one special election with special circumstances . But you can't handle that your pet theory may not be the whole story...come one, don't be so freaking inconsistent.
I know you and the majority of people in US dislike HCR bill. I'm not delusional. I'm also aware that some of the opposition to HC bill comes from the left.
It is just plain fact that there is a double digit segment of population that disapproves of the HC bill form the left. You can spin it if you want to be all about HC bill objections from the right, but you cannot wish away public sentiment. For the circles you move in and for the media you watch it may seem like everybody but some mental asylum patients are opposed to this bill from the right, but it is simply not factually the case.
If Mass special election was a poll on HC bill it was biased by these obvious facts that no one can deny:
1) Coakley was an especially bad candidate and Brown was a pretty darn good one.
2) Mass is an outlier because they already had universal health insurance. MA voters could vote for Brown both if they liked or disliked their Romney care of MA because killing national HC bill keeps Romney care. But don't take my word for it, listen to what Brown said repeatedly in his campaign:...we already have a universal health insurance program in MA, we don’t need/want a national one, I'll vote against it. Brown was obviously and shrewdly playing both ends.
3) There were at least some independents and Dems that voted for Brown for reasons other than HC bill, not every single Brown vote was a vote for "I oppose HC bill", as much as you wish it so.
4) Many progressives were unexcited to vote for Chokely because their hope for change had been dashed....many progressive I talk to have quit with Obama...they feel duped, they have no excitement to support him. You conservatives should be happy about this, but it counters your thought that 99 percent of sentient beings on the planet oppose the HC bill from the right. Progressives are not energized anymore. Enjoy that conservatives, but don't think that means you are the majority and Brown got elected only because of an emerging right.
While polls can be biased and Nate does a good job looking at that, I say polls will get you a lot closer to seeing how people feel about HC bill than this Mass election.
Again, when you see a poll that shows the majority opposed to HC bill, like 55 percent oppose, know in even the most conservative read, at least double digit points of the opposition to HC bill is from the left who wanted more reforms and less sellouts, including single payer supporter and public option supporters, etc.
People and voters are more complicated than just hard core opponents to any one issue.
My dad, a vet, is a hard-core neocon, a northerner that thinks civil war was an unjust war and current Iraq war was a just one, AND he supports single payer health care...actually he wishes we had the UK's systems , Vet Care for all.
Don't get angry at us because we point out obvious variations and mixes to voters motivations and trends. They exist, not everyone thinks just like you, even when your candidate prevails.

IMHO said...

Wow. No thought to a bad poll/question?

This analysis is further proof that smart people learn dumb things better.

henwy said...

@Ben T

No, it does fix the problem pretty well. People have crunched the numbers already. Check pollster and other places.

Korry said...

Geoff, why is it that so many more conservative types seem to be so bad at cause and effect?

Clinton did move to center. He gave the opposition Congress a whole lot of what they wanted. But that had nothing to do with why he got re-elected.

THE ECONOMY, stupid.

Then the opposition Congress crucified him, anyway.

Carter wasn't too darn progressive. But that had nothing to to with why he didn't get re-elected.

THE ECONOMY, stupid.

And maybe some hostages in Iran.

It doesn't matter how progressive Obama is, or whether he moves to center. If the economy is markedly better 2.5 years from now, he's going to get re-elected, too.

kankan said...

@ henwy

what does explain it, or a better question is what could possibly make it off by so much...any crazy theories?

henwy said...

@kanken

Again, difference in turnout %. Ben is comparing absolute number of votes between the presidential election of '08 and the recent special election. That's just stupid, considering a vastly smaller number of people turned out to vote in the special election (though, it must be said still far far more than was expected or predicted given previous turnout models).

kankan said...

so are you saying numbers are cooked/crooked?

henwy said...

@ kankan

No, that's what Ben is claiming because he has no concept of the numbers. It all pans out perfectly fine as long as you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Burt said...

i agree completely - obama can save himself if he moves to the center.

I fully agree that Obama should move to the center.

However, in order to move to the center, he'll have to move left.

henwy said...

Ya, because god knows so many americans consider themselves to be liberals.

henwy said...

And before some ill-informed moron claims that's because 'liberal' is a tainted label, when Gallup's done the same type of poll but substituting 'progressive', even less people self-identify as progressives than liberals.

harold said...

Shrinkers -

You are exactly correct about "moving to the center".

I certainly don't regret voting for Obama, and will almost certainly vote for him again, unless there are some unexpected changes in the Republican party.

But I'd be much happier if he simply enacted some of what he campaigned on, centrist and mainstream as it was. If I recall correctly, he implied that he might reduce spending on useless and unjustified wars, reduce the use of torture, enact some kind of economic stimulus that helped people earning less than ten million dollars a year, and give more people health insurance. Any of that would be appreciated. But I'm not holding my breath.

My hypothesis, which only hit me recently, is that, although Obama wasn't in the senate very long, his behavior as president reflects his "training" in the senate. The senate is all about exaggerated courtly courtesy to people who have been elected for at least six years (but often, in practice, for a lifetime).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Obama basher. There are many things I like about him, and he was clearly a better choice than his opponents. Just because I'm not crazy about the Democrats doesn't mean that the Republicans are better!

Ben T said...

Actually, I have been in an e-mail exchange with some people from pollster, and none of them have a more sophisticated justification for what they are saying than you do (which doesn’t speak well for them). The fact that the total was so close to McCain’s number, the fact that turnout seemed to be above average in former McCain districts and below average in former Obama districts, and the motivation for high participation by conservatives makes the suggestion suspicious. You might be right, and certainly the Harvard survey backs this up. But people can also lie to those surveys, and the whole thing seems fishy to me.

faoladh said...

I'm not sure why people are insisting that this election was a referendum on health care reform. It seems to me that the Massachusetts voters were handed a pair of terrible options, and had to choose, somehow, between them. Why can't the Dems have just lost because they fielded a terrible, horrible, awful candidate? Why does everyone have to make this about themselves, when it looks to me like it's about a woman who believes that, no matter the evidence, law enforcement is always right, even when they are clearly wrong? I think that the failure of Coakley was more to do with Falls Acres and Coakley's subsequent comments on that and similar issues than it was to do with any national issue.

Burt said...

The lessons of the Massachusetts Senate race are there, if Democrats care to learn them. There was no surge of conservatism in Massachusetts; Scott Brown only received 50,000 more votes than John McCain. Coakley, however, received 850,000 fewer votes than Obama. The Democratic base is not motivated to turn out. A year of Obama governing from the right has made them apathetic. The Dems have a choice - they can either start delivering the change they promised, which will motivate the base to turn out, or they can be destroyed in November. It's really as simple as that.

shrinkers said...

@Korry
It doesn't matter how progressive Obama is, or whether he moves to center. If the economy is markedly better 2.5 years from now, he's going to get re-elected, too.

You're right. Let's also point out that it doesn't matter if Obama goes far left, leans to the center, or starts suggesting hard-right programs. The Republicans in Congress are going to oppose everything anyway. They are going to be obstructionist partisans no matter what, and will lie and spin and attack and mis-represent everything that the Democrats do.

So the Dems might as well try to do what they were elected for -- that is, to advance Progressive programs, since the Republicans have proven that conservative government is an utter disaster.

henwy said...

@Burt

Scott Brown only received 50,000 more votes than John McCain. Coakley, however, received 850,000 fewer votes than Obama.

And here we go with the apples to oranges again. I don't understand why liberals keep floating this ridiculous piece of trash reasoning. Anyone with half a brain easily sees that it's trash.

It's like saying this....I worked for 15 hours and earned $100 while someone else worked 10 hours and earned $90. My job is obviously better since I earned 10 dollars more than the other guy.

You cannot compare ABSOLUTE vote tallies when the TURNOUT is different. Percentages to percentages and absolute numbers to absolute numbers.

Brown Votes: 1,168,107
Votes Cast: 2,249,026

McCain Votes: 1,108,854
Votes Cast: 3,080,995

Ben T said...

I understood your point the first time, henwy, I understood it before I first wrote (and I assume that goes for most of us who are having doubts). And I encourage you, I encourage the people from pollster.com and Nate, to take a closer look at the town by town tallies. Turnout seems to have been higher in McCain-friendly areas. I could be wrong, but that is what you need to deal with, not some straw man about overall turnout confusion.

henwy said...

If you understood it when you wrote it, then you shouldn't have written it in the first place. The idea that if we simply added another 800,000 voters to last week's special election that they would all vote for Coakley is insane. Since that is the case, it's pointless to compare Brown's vote tally to McCain. For some reason, (Actually, I think we all know the reason) you and others stubbornly want to disbelieve Brown took a huge percentage of independent votes and even 20%+ of democrats as every single post-election poll as shown.

Pan said...

#33: shrinkers said...

Uhm, Pan? Nate dealt with that possibility:

"By a 68-27 margin, voters in last Tuesday's election supported the universal health care law in Massacuhsetts; this included a majority of Scott Brown voters!"

Did you read the article you are commenting on?


Yes, actually. I did not read the articles linked to in the article, though. The ones that Nate was (attempt to) paraphrase. Guess where the misunderstanding was?

Nate: voters in last Tuesday's election supported the universal health care law in Massacuhsetts.

Poll (my paraphrasing): Voters in last Tuesday's election support the universal health care law in Massacuhsetts.

Spot the difference?

henwy said...

There's partisan and then there's stupid. Shrinkers seems to enjoy playing double-dutch across the line.

Let's also point out that it doesn't matter if Obama goes far left, leans to the center, or starts suggesting hard-right programs. The Republicans in Congress are going to oppose everything anyway.

I would love to see you get the chance to be proved right. Maybe Obama could offer a standalone bill on tort reform just to see the republicans filibuster it. Or maybe he could get the Congress to write up a law raising taxes but only on Unions. I'm sure the Republicans will love to filibuster that too just to thwart him.

shrinkers said...

@henwy -

That would be an interesting experiment. And I agree -- as you said, "There's partisan and then there's stupid." I haven't seen much to convince me that the current crop of elected Republicans has more than one -- perhaps two -- who don't leap past the distinction.

Ben T said...

"If you understood it when you wrote it, then you shouldn't have written it in the first place."
??...This is your argument we are talking about...??

"The idea that if we simply added another 800,000 voters to last week's special election that they would all vote for Coakley is insane."

No more insane than saying large numbers of the state's conservatives decided the race was boring and sat it out. Take a look at the town by town, I'd love to know what you think? Brown consistently gets only a small percentage more than McCain, and the turnout seems on average higher in his strong districts.

henwy said...

If you understood my argument, then there was no reason for you to write your supposition full of ridiculous holes in the first place.

And if you really think it's not more insane to speculate that if 800,000 more people went to vote last tuesday, all 800,000 would have just happened to vote for Coakley, you're insane. The turnout percentages were good across most of the state. The reason Brown won was he built up good margins in the suburbs and exburbs, buoyed not by republicans but by registered independents, but also because he ate into Coakley's vote in even the blue parts of the state. He picked up more dem votes, by percentage, than McCain did. There aren't enough registered republicans in the state to pull off a victory even if you want to imagine some mythical world where every single one of them comes out to vote but the independents and democrats vote as a block against them.

Matt said...

@brian:

I agree Shrinkers. So please quit whining and get it done! If we had 60 Repubs in the Senate and some massive conservative program wasn't enacted in 1 year, I would be livid.

The problem is that there aren't 60 Dems in the Senate. There are 59 (counting Sanders; why not?) and Lieberman.

Sure, he caucuses with the Democrats (big fuppin deal), but then he votes with the Repubs. As long as there are useless turkeys like him in the Senate, it'll be very difficult for the Dems to bring meaningful change to Washington.

PeterAtJET said...

>Only 1 in 5 Brown voters (and under 1 in 30 Coakley voters) think Brown should work against the Democratic agenda.

Then the other 80 percent probably shouldn't have voted for a Republican.
[bangs head on desk, repeatedly]

Oww!

faoladh said...

@PeterAtJET: Or the Dems should have fielded a reasonable candidate.

Ben T said...

"If you understood my argument, then there was no reason for you to write your supposition full of ridiculous holes in the first place."

I'm not sure that you understand my argument (especially per your comment about there not being enough Republicans in the state--there clearly are enough conservative voters [Republicans and otherwise], we've seen them vote in these numbers before, in the 2008 election when they knew they would lose, so what in god's name are you trying to say?).

Further, turnout was not equal across the state. Your repeating that claim over and over won't make it more convincing, especially if you did actually go and look at the things I mentioned.

Beyond saying that overall turnout was lower than in 2008, this seems to be your argument:

Scott Brown won more independents because shut up I'm right.

henwy said...

I have no clue what fantasy world you live in but based on 2008 voter registration there were less than 500,000 registered republicans in mass. Even if magical pixies of light and magic forced every single one of them to vote and they all voted for Brown, he would have still lost if that's all he picked up. You seem to have a very hard time dealing with reality.

Lets assume this magical world of yours exist. Of the 1.75 million people who turned out to vote last week, 500,000 were republicans because magical pixies wisked every single one of them to the polls and had them cast a ballot for Brown. Brown now has 500,000 votes.

For some asinine, flat-earth reasoning you also seem to be implying that no democrat would vote for brown despite the fact that every single post-election poll shows that Brown picked up around 20% of the democratic vote. Lets assume your magical supposition is true.

The remaining 1.75 million people who also showed up to vote were Democrats and Independents. Based on the registration breakdown, this should mean that there were around 735,000 democrats and 1,015,000 independents. In your magical world, no democrat would vote for someone as icky as Scott Brown. To reach his tally, he would still need 668,000 votes which have to come from the Independents which means he would have had to won the indy vote by over 30%.

I really don't get your malfunction here. Are you a conspiracy theorist? Do you believe that all the voting machines in a state controlled top to bottom by the democratic party were somehow rigged in favor of Republicans? Are you just stupid? The numbers are clear and blatantly obvious.

Cugel said...

I'm just amazed at the stupid right-wing cant and idiotic chortling.

In 2008 Democrats mobilized more of their base than Republicans and won because there are More Democrats nationally. Independent liberal and moderate voters supported them by a significant majority.

Democratic voters gave Democrats 60 votes in the Senate and a 50 vote majority in the House as well as the Presidency.

And they did this because Democrats promised ACTION!

Obama campaigned on Health care reform, a jobs bill to jump start the economy, "investment in the transition to a green economy", and climate change legislation.

What did we get?

One entire year of arguing with Joe Lieberman over whether we get health care reform or not! Conrad Nelson vetoing everything. A stimulus bill that was too small to be effective, so not enough jobs.


So, why would Democrats turn out and support Democratic candidates when all they get is whining and inaction on everything? How many more seats do they need to actually DO something?

Congress simply needs to pass a health care bill and move on to a jobs bill and GET SOMETHING DONE! Period.

If they don't do anything of COURSE they are going to lose. Who votes for inaction?

Republicans and Conservatives are unhappy at what Democrats want to do? So freaking what? All the right-wing gas-bags on this site didn't vote for Obama or the Democrats in 2008 and won't vote for Democrats in 2010. They weren't a majority in 2008 and they aren't a majority now, so who cares what they think?

But, if Democrats don't turn out on election day because Congress hasn't given them any reason to bother then of course Republicans will win!

Some 10% of Democrats and about 6% of Republicans ALWAYS vote for the opposite candidate: Go back and check the election totals in 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008 -- it's never unanimous.

So, if base Democrats who actually vote DEMOCRATIC don't turn out, then Republicans win. Even in MA of course.

And nationwide unless Democrats start getting the message -- pass legislation and don't sit on your hands cringing in fear of right-wing attacks then they are going to lose.

Because right-wing shills are certainly NOT going to vote for them, and Democrats won't bother, and Independents HATE weakness and inaction. So, who will turn out and support them?

Ben T said...

Despite all of that rhetorical and mathematical diarrhea, you still didn't address the issue. People are saying that large numbers former Obama voters, regardless of their party affiliation, voted for Scott Brown. It doesn't matter if there are only 500,000 Republicans in Mass.

If Brown's votes are largely comprised of the 1,108,854 that voted for McCain, again regardless of their party affiliation, then the claims about the independents' exodus are exaggerated. I have given you reasons why I think this is so, namely the total number of votes (which you can also observe at the town level), and turnout patters by town. Your responses to these points have been vague. Instead you continue to argue other irrelevant points, and do so rather poorly I might add. The most convincing rebuttal to what I am saying is that the Harvard study showed large numbers of people claiming to be former Obama voters who voted for Brown (I already made that point for you). But for the reasons I mentioned, I am unwilling to take that at face value.

henwy said...

How can it be exagerated when you're talking a voter participation difference of 800,000 voters? You claim you understand the difference in turnout but every bit of gibberish that you type after that says starkly that you have no clue what you're talking about. How about this, why don't you give us some numbers then. Break out these town-by-town turnout numbers you keep referring to and show me step by step how and why you think they prove your point. Every single flipping post-election poll has shown that turnout among the dems was not the tipping point for this election but despite all of that, you still claim otherwise. So walk it through then. Bring out the numbers and I'll try my best to figure out what you're trying to say because as it stands, and I've looked at the turnout numbers by district and some of the town/city data as well, I have no clue how you could possibly find proof for your ridiculous assertions.

Cugel said...

We can finish this debate right now for anybody who thinks that FACTS matter:

Here's the actual POLLING result from OBAMA VOTERS who voted for Brown:

OBAMA VOTERS WHO VOTED BROWN
QUESTION: 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 OPPOSE NOT SURE
ALL 82% 14% 4%
MEN 79% 18% 3%
WOMEN 85% 10% 5%
DEMOCRATS 89% 7% 4%
REPUBLICANS 68% 24% 8%
INDEPENDENTS 83% 13% 4%

Democrats and liberal independent Obama voters are NOT tea-baggers! They either stayed home or (7%) actually voted for Brown because the bill WASN'T STRONG ENOUGH!

QUESTION: If oppose, do you think it goes too far or doesn't go far enough?
NOT ENOUGH TOO FAR NOT SURE
ALL 36% 23% 41%
MEN 34% 26% 40%
WOMEN 38% 20% 42%
DEMOCRATS 49% 18% 33%
REPUBLICANS 11% 61% 28%
INDEPENDENTS 38% 20% 42%

So, 36% thought the health-care bill didn't go far enough, 23% thought it went too far. And these were voters who VOTED FOR BROWN NOT COAKLEY!

That ought to be clear but the delusional keep their delusions tight to their chests.

henwy said...

I figured out another way we can do this and maybe this time it'll snap in place for you. You believe that Coakley lost this election because Dems didn't turnout out for her. You believe that it was this lack of Dem turnout that lead to Brown's victory rather than anything to do with his overwhelming appeal to independents as reflected by every single poll. So, lets assume that you're right. Lets assume that Independents only voted for Brown at McCain's level.

According to exit polling from '08, this would mean Brown only won 41% of independents. We'll also round up and assume he won 100% of republicans.

If this were the case, for the results we saw, (even still assuming that magical pixies brought every single republican in the state to vote for Brown), the democratic turnout would have had to be only 120,000 voters. Meaning that to get this result due to turnout alone, you would have to get a 6% turnout of democrats!

Democrats make up over 35% of the state but this ridiculous idea only works if you believe just 6% of them showed up to vote last week.

henwy said...

Cugel:

I dunno why you think that will convince Ben. He doesn't believe that there were any Obama voters who also voted for Brown. That's the crux of his argument. It's insane but he seems to fundamentally believe that Brown only got McCain's share of the vote (800,000 missing voters be damned) and Coakley lost because no democrats showed up to vote.

Ben T said...

Fair request, here you are. I don't have time nor expertise to do a thorough study, and I could be wrong baout this, but what you'll see below is enough to make me suspicious.

Obama strongholds (based on percentage of the vote in 2008)

Boston turnout 43% (Brown still gets 46,468, less than 1,000 more than McCain's 45,548).

Cambridge turnout 54% (Brown still gets 4,921, McCain: 4,697).

Provincetown 55% (Brown 238, McCain 256).


McCain strongholds:
Boxford turnout 69% (Brown gets 2,837, McCain 2,586).

Hanover turnout 71% (Brown gets 4,731, McCain 4,411).

Lancaster 63% (Brown gets 1,860, McCain 1,770).

Norfolk 75% (Brown 3,308, McCain 2,723)


Nate?

Ben T said...

You might be on to something, but I don't follow your reasoning (and I don't think that's my fault) Flush it out a bit, you have my ears.

It also appears mine are not the only posts you aren't reading carefully.

Ruth said...

given massachsetts is the only state with healthcare, if brown's senate vote prevents national healthcare reform --then folks needing healthcare insurance should try to relocate to massachsetts. The state will need to set up tent cities to handle the crowds.

medfordjared said...

Two words for ya: 'talk radio'.

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
We have
nike femmes chaussures
nike chaussures basket
nike chaussures hommes
chaussures pas cher nike
nike chaussures air max
nike chaussures shox
nike chaussures air jordan
with excellent quality!!Welcome to our store.

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
We have
tennis rackets
babolat tennis rackets
wilson tennis racquets
tennis racquets
wilson tennis racket
cheap babolat tennis racquets
cheap tennis racquets
with excellent quality!!Welcome to our store.

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.
We do kinds of casual clothing wholesale online, welcome to visit!!
winter clothing
winter jackets
winter clothes
ski jackets
north face sale
discount north face jackets
north face coats
men's down jackets
cotton polo shirts
polo shirts
cheap polo shirts
ralph lauren polo shirts
discount polo shirts
polo shirts wholesale
columbia jackets
the north face jackets
columbia sportswear jackets

poloshirts said...

nice post!! There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also.

We do kinds of casual clothing wholesale online, welcome to visit!!
Polo Shirts On Sale
Cheap Polo Shirts
Burberry Polo Shirts
ski jackets
The North Face Clothing
Mens ski jackets
Womens ski jackets
Ralph Lauren Polo Shirts
men's down jackets
cotton polo shirts
polo shirts
cheap polo shirts
discount polo shirts
polo shirts wholesale
womens polo shirts
mens polo shirts
polo clothing
polo long sleeve shirt
short sleeve polo shirt
long sleeve polo shirts
embroidered shirts
discount north face jackets
winter jackets
short sleeve polo shirt