Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Pelosi is a thug, and yes, she gets credit for being a good one. I only disagree with the idea that suddenly the Senate is to blame for her inability to round up enough House votes.
To respond to your earlier requests, here are a few reasons--absent exit polling--that I think the Massachusettes election revolved around more than just local politics:
- Brown repeatedly and loudly campaigned on being the 41st vote to kill health care. It was the single most memorable thing about his campaign, except perhaps his truck. He repeatedly mocked the "back room" deals that were then on-going.
- Brown specifically campaigned against Obama's approach to terrorism, particularly giving them lawyers and Miranda rights
- Brown specifically campaigned against Obama's approach to taxes
- Obama came and personally campaigned for Coakley, and he studiously avoided mentioning his health care bill
- Though Obama remains personally popular, a plurality of MA voters opposed his health care bill (PPP: 40% for, 48% against)
- The Democrats constantly referred to health care as Kennedy's life's work, and appealed to voters to elect Coakley to preserve the chance to "pass it for Ted". Kennedy's widow specifically made this clarion call.
- 56% of voters named health care as the most important issue, though Coakley won more of those voters, 53-46% (Rasmussen)
- 78% of Brown voters said their vote was intended to stop health care (Rasmussen)
I think it's crystal clear that Obama's policies--particularly health care--played a significant role in what happened on Tuesday, and Dems ignore that at their peril (fine with me, BTW). Evan Bayh was subsequently quoted as saying, "If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up."
The reasons in VA and NJ are similar, though not as pronounced as MA:
- Obama spent a significant amount of time campaigning for both Democrats, far more than Coakley's one-day visit
- 40% of VA voters said their view of Obama factored into their choice, roughly split between support and opposition
- Both elections took place not long after weeks of media attention on anti-health-care town hall meetings
- During the campaigns, both Republican candidates continually linked their Democratic counterparts to Obama and to Congressional Democrats
Other evidence common to all three: independents, who were crucial to Obama's decisive victory, fled the Democrats in all three elections ... by a 2-1 margin in VA and NJ, and a 3-1 margin in MA. To me, that's an indicator that transcends local politics. In addition, it has become increasingly clear that Obama is unable to transfer his personal popularity to other candidates. He's becoming the Sports Illustrated kiss-of-death of national politics.
You will almost surely interpret this data differently than me, and that's fine. But to say it doesn't exist ("zero evidence") is to put one's head in the sand. I read Robert Gibbs telling Chris Wallace today that in the MA election, "More people voted to express support for Obama than to oppose him." That's just delusional, finger-in-the-ears, "I can't hear you" sort of stuff. Of course, Obama gets that luxury because he has 3 years to go. House Democrats don't.
|
"Zero evidence" is obviously hyperbole. That said, if this is the evidence you were looking at in forming your opinions, I can only conclude you ignored all other available evidence.
As even the evidence you cited suggests, those who cared most about health care voted against Brown and for Coakley. Given that this is obviously the biggest domestic issue on people's radar today, that isn't a small point- particularly if you are trying to make the case that the election was a referendum on Democrats and health care. If it were a referendum on health care as you argue, the people who most care about it voted and spoke- a majority support health care. How does that support your claim?
Most of the rest of your evidence is that Scott Brown campaigned for or against certain things which are associated with the Democratic party. Sure, he did. Am I to believe, then, that most voters thought he would be in favor of the Democratic party platform one month before the election? Because a month before the election, he was down 30 points in the polls. Did people's opinions change to the tune of 35 points in one month on fairly significant issues, even though there was almost no change or news regarding any of those issues at all in that month period? If people didn't like those positions at all, wouldn't they automatically default to supporting the Republican as opposed to the Democrat one month before the election? Even if you know absolutely nothing about either candidate, if the issues you cited were highly important to people, why start with the presumption that you favor the Democrat? Or are you suggesting that his arguments were so persuasive a full 35% of voters changed their mind on those issues in a one month span?
We can at least agree that the data points in Virginia and New Jersey are even less useful in finding a conclusion that voters were rejecting Obama or the Democratic party. Where we disagree is on your statement that "Obama spent a significant amount of time campaigning for both Democrats, far more than Coakley's one-day visit." For Deeds, Obama spent two days campaigning for the candidate- once in August, once in October. I suppose that is a 100% increase over his time with Coakley, but to call 2 days "significant" seems like a huge stretch. As for Corzine, I have found news of 3 visits by Obama over a five month span (it isn't as if Obama was thrilled with Corzine either, as the WH approached the NJ Senate President and asked him to run instead of Corzine in July of 2009).