Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

MA voters: what were they thinking? (new poll coming)

Republican Scott Brown won two-thirds of the Massachusetts voters who believe the country is seriously off course, according to a new Washington Post-Kaiser-Harvard poll of special election voters (and non-voters). Brown's margin here highlights a shift in voter anger; in 2008, Obama scored a decisive win among those dissatisfied with the direction of the country.

The poll was conducted Jan. 20 and 21. Check back here for crosstabs from the survey.

By Jon Cohen  |  January 22, 2010; 11:42 AM ET
Categories:  Post Polls  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Rating Obama on terrorism
Next: New Poll: Massachusetts special election

Comments

Obama needs to do the right thing. This is very much like when Roosevelt inherited his Depression... people were mad at Washington to a person but during his first mid-terms people got in that voting booth and just could not deliver the country back to Wall Street and the repuglicans. The repugs lost an additional 9 Senate seats and just 9 House seats but the loss in the Senate allowed the New Deal to proceed and brought us 20 years of Progress.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | January 22, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I believe that the back room deals made by Sen. Reid to secure votes were perceived as illegal kickbacks in the minds of many voters. Those deals cast a veil of secrecy and politics as usual at the expense of the average American struggling to make a living. That is not exactly what Obama supporters were promised by the President during his campaign.

Posted by: ogozalek | January 22, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Can we have a redo vote!

I think that the package we were sold was a misrepresentation of facts.

A progressive, Socialist, Marxist, Liberal, Democrat posing as a centrist!

Votes present and delegates all responsibilities!

Yes! We need a re do!

.

Posted by: Acornisascam | January 22, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

No one is mentioning the fact that Massachusetts already has universal health care. The patients, the providers, and the insurers seem reasonably happy. I think Massachusetts voters did want increased taxes to pay for health care in Alabama and Nebraska and Mississippi, with no improvement in their own health insurance.

Posted by: gidrdrake | January 22, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

WWII ended the Depression, not the New Deal. Read a history book.

How about we end partisan politics? Remember that the D's don't need a single R vote to pass this the Senate's bill. If it's so great, why won't D's in the House vote for it?

Instead of bashing each other and never getting anything done, could we just - as a country - focus on reforms that A) don't require government spending and B) reduce healthcare costs?

Why does everything worth doing require a hefty tax increase and more spending? Why can't the government just make laws and enforce them? I think that is somewhere in the constitution.

Posted by: npurpura | January 22, 2010 3:06 PM | Report abuse

angriest dog should read some history books. Even the most partisan liberal economists agree that FDR policies actually exacerbated the Depression, and it wasn't until the GIs came home after 1945 and started spending and buying houses(1947 on) that we had positive economic growth. Please look it up, and stop posting ignorant misinformation.

Posted by: apberusdisvet | January 22, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Amazing is what is to be said for comments such as that above. Roosevelt led this country into the great social experiment that continues to this day. The 20 years of prosperity noted above was actually 9 years of dismal performance with an economic boom that only occurred due to WWII. The comparison with the conditons today lacks any real analysis of all that is currently being manipulated to the ruin of the economic foundation upon which this country was built.

Posted by: mcrook | January 22, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

....spin, spin, spin.

Obama still doesn’t get it. The American people are not upset because they have a feeling of detachment from Washington; they are upset because Washington has a detachment from American values and what is good for this country. In just one year, the people are feeling the initial effects of Obama’s grand plan for the United States and the world, and they realize they made a horrible decision when they allowed him access to the Oval Office.

Second, Obama is naïve in thinking that he can fix the problem by explaining the virtues of his plans. As the American people watch the dismantling of America, they are seeing that Obama’s plans lack virtue. No amount of explaining will change that fact.

Finally, talking to the American people “about what their core values are” and “making sure those institutions are matching up with those values” is fanciful. Years ago, he embarked on a path heading in a radical direction that is wrong for America. Now, it is simply impossible to match his program with American institutions and core values, because they are not compatible.

Posted by: Accuracy | January 22, 2010 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Amazing is what is to be said for comments such as that above. Roosevelt led this country into the great social experiment that continues to this day. The 20 years of prosperity noted above was actually 9 years of dismal performance with an economic boom that only occurred due to WWII. The comparison with the conditons today lacks any real analysis of all that is currently being manipulated to the ruin of the economic foundation upon which this country was built.

Posted by: mcrook | January 22, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Angriestdog needs to review his history. WW2 caused the 20 years of progress not the New Deal. The New Deal is generally regarded as a failure. Obama is on the verge of becoming Jimmy Carter #2 unless he starts doing a good job of imitating Bill Clinton. In another couple of months, it will be too late and nobody will listen to him.

Posted by: Texanforchange | January 22, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

For the Democratic Party the only chance to survive politically is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: JuanCarden | January 22, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if the stimulus were not passed, if the economy would have righted itself more quickly. Pumping dollars into bad businesses just delays the inevitable does it not.

But anyway, yes President Obama inherited an economic mess... from President Clinton ultimately, since it was he who signed Barney Frank and group's legislation to deregulate home loans and get all of these bad loans started.

President Bush tried for years to stop this and address it, but Congress would hear none of it. And now the blame President Bush, when President Clinton is more responsible for the initiation of this mess.

Basically,

1. Clinton started the mess.
2. Bush did not do enough to clean it up.
3. Obama is making it worse.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | January 22, 2010 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Where is General Marshall when we need him?

Why have Americans abandoned the idea of a common good?

Why don't we turn over our big banks to the honest, competent bankers in Canada?

Why do we wage perpetual war?

Why does the US elite govern with a bias in favor of the powerful and moneyed?

Why is income inequality increasing in the US and the security of the Middle Class being undermined?

Why, in the 2020s, did the US elite transfer their wealth out of the US and move to other countries?

Did the looting of the US economy by the elite start in the 1990s, later, or earlier?

The above are questions from a future History text book entitled "The Petering Out of the US Empire in the 21st Century."

Posted by: Citizen0 | January 22, 2010 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Thousands of Massachusetts voters supported the Democrats; the House and the Senate committees should continue to work on their health care bill and VOTE on it. Let us see how people vote. Let us see exactly who is making this country ungovernable. At least, Americans in the 30s had the good sense not to vote for Republicans. And the reforms that FDR made are still working for all of us.

Posted by: anncassin1 | January 22, 2010 3:24 PM | Report abuse

While I cannot speak for the voters of Mass., I can only try to understand why Mr. Brown was elected. Anger may have something to do with it. But my common sense tells me that the Dem. party was not thinking very sensibly with their choice of candidate. Mr. Brown played a smart card by playing down his party.
I, for one, am very dissappointed in our President. The man I voted for did not speak out of both sides of his mouth as he is doing now. Not to be crude, but he needs to grow a new set of you-know-whats and take charge. He needs to set up programs to HELP we the people and to make our quality of life much better. Keep the lobbyists at bay. Put the medical insurance companies down a couple of rungs on the ladder and allow doctors to do their jobs to give us better medical help. Serious issues need to be taken up with these banks. You have these "financial wizards" bringing home vulgar bonuses and yet, most of us have kids in college that are going to be paying off loans until they are in their forties and older. Higher education should be a given--not a luxury. Listen--if I knew that my federal taxes would be raised by ten or twenty percent AND I would get GREAT free healthcare AND send the kids of this great country to college--all on the raised taxes, it would be a great thing. Ceilings should have been placed on banks a long time ago regarding interest charges for credit cards. The average person is no longer benefitting--and thanks to our Supreme Court, the US Caste system will be in full force. We need to have democracy back.

Posted by: Wynstep | January 22, 2010 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Do you want to know why we voted for Scott? Our representatives stopped listening to us. In an interview Scott stated it was the people's seat, not Ted's nor the Democrats. What a concept!

Can you here us now John?

Posted by: CxxO | January 22, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we have Health Care in Mass. and it is generally popular. But the reaction here was not just about the Mass Insurance program: The unsavory tactics by which the national healthcare bills were put together has shattered confidence.
Few believe in the quality of the end-product and I don't know anyone who honestly believes it will not cost more than is estimated.

(BTW, the often vaunted 'Emergency Room' savings has been proven false here in Mass; previously uninsured patients use the ER just as much as they did before).

And besides the bill, I think a great many people are concerned that overall the Feds are spending too much money with too little to show for it.

And the Mass. Democratic party - like the National Party - has become contemptuous of the middle class.

Scott Brown is the best thing that could happen for Democrats - but only if they perceive the real reasons for his election and do not delude themselves with sophorisms like 'We just didn't communicate our policies well enough' or 'Voters looked for easy answers'.

Posted by: capeman228 | January 22, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

As a Canadian looking from the outside one can get a different perspective.

The most glaring one is the niavity of the American people. You think things can be undone and remade in an unrealistic time frame. You want the politicians to do things but don't spend money???
You want freedom of everything and call it unamerican if there is regulation of some things but you expect the American banking and investment industry to be honest and self regulate??? You complain Obama is not doing enough than say he is ruining your country.

That man Obama is the freshest breath of air you have had in years. He can speak english words (not made up bushisms), he is working to give the "American dream" to ALL americans with health care inspite of the Insurance and medical corporations throwing millions at you to fight it. Do you not understand that these companies are not there for you but for your money?

But to pay taxes is the worst thing. I must have brain freeze- The USA doesn't sound like the "best country in the world" otherwise there would be some intellegent live there.

You get what you pay for.

I think they made a cartoon about you -the Simpsons.

Posted by: fransh | January 22, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The commenters who implore us to look at history here seem to be taking Amity Schlaes seriously as a historian. She is a right-wing media darling who has propagated lies about FDR's true effect on the economy after the rich conservatives ruined it the the first place. Hoover exacerbated the problem by doing nothing to stop or ameliorate the Great Depression.

Even before WWII, the unemployment rate went from 25% to 10%. There is plenty of evidence to prove that life in general improved greatly under FDR' presidency. And he was hugely popular because he understood the he needs of the people and communicated with them. So popular, in fact, that conservatives institued term limits as soon as they gained control.

And even if WWII were wholely responsible for the recovery, war is nothing but government spending. Why is it okay to spend money to kill people, and for the corporate welfare of military-industrial complex corporations like KBR and Blackwell, who bilk the American taxpayer out of billions, but not ok to spend OUR money on US? Why is the tea-bagger argument that we can't have health care like the rest of the civilized world because we are paying for their defense. If that is true, why are we to foot the health care of other countries, but refuse to insist that insurance companies act live up to their mandates? Oh, I forgot, their mandate is not to their consumers, but rather to their stockholders and upper-level employees.

Posted by: wdague | January 22, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

It boils down to this: Americans are ignorant and impatient. The R's took 8 years to run the country into the ground; how can these people expect Dems to turn it around in 12 months?

Posted by: rowjimmy31 | January 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

The media was bought off not to look into Obama's past. Marxism, communism, and a Muslim mind-set were part of his early life teachings from his parents. That kind of "brainwashing" doesn't disappear.
He was a student of Saul Alinsky's, was sponsored through Harvard by Dr. Khalil Abdullah Tariq al-Mansour.
But the media did a great job of suppressing any biographical information about him, except his so-called "memoirs", ghost-written by Bill Ayers.
He even stated, on his own website that because Obama Sr. was a British subject, all his children would be British. why would Americans elect a Brit to be president?
And, of course, McCain was not a "natural born citizen" either, because he was born in Panama.
Best thing that could happen now is to legally remove him from office via "quo warranto"

Posted by: vrajavala | January 22, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

@fransh. I agree! Just in the US from Europe. How can Americans complain about taxes? In Holland they are discussing a 60% tax rate for the highest incomes to bring back government debt and spendings from the economic crisis! A normal middle class income will pay at least 42% taxes, most will pay 52%.

I see good regulations and ideas in the US, but no money to really do s.t. with it.

Posted by: loexy | January 22, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

No need to get into complex analyses. It was simple before Obama was 'elected' and it is simple now: ES&S and Diebold (the sister companies that control 80% of the US vote tabulation market via their electronic machines) refuse to let their software be inspected by public officials. That means that Americans vote on blind faith and let Republican right-wing private companies "count" their votes. The situation couldn't' be worse if it were an episode of Dukes of Hazzard. Putting Obama in the White House temporarily quelled the doubts of the electronic voting machine skeptics, but now that his bluff is called, smart people are starting to realize they've been had.

Posted by: djteryaki | January 22, 2010 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The trouble with Obama's campaign promises is that he, along with most of us, presumed he would inherit a functioning country. Instead, he got dropped into an economic mess that was mismanaged and lied about for years (sound like anything else?) until it was ready to collapse. Then the guilty parties said "Your problem now sucker." and walked away.

Well, it's OUR problem too, all of us. And though the previous Administration has run off, most of Congress, which worked hand in glove with the Bush/Cheney cabal to sell us down river, is still there and mostly still screwing everything up. The Democrats on the hill seem unable to wipe their own noses, let alone manage their own members of Congress. The Republicans stick together to stick it to the Democrats and the rest of us.

So voters had a choice of a functional party of crooks or a nonfunctional party of glop. The glop lost. So did the country if Republicans think this is a vote of confidence for the last decade.

I’m holding out for a 3rd party - one for responsible grownups.

Posted by: MdwstMom | January 22, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

The "Thinking" of MA voters, is a taste of what's coming. There will always be those that vote R or D without thinking. But, there are many more that want a candidate that "says what she means, and means what he says." BO promised all kinds of things, primarily: 1) "No more Politics as usual," and 2) :Transparency in writing bills."
He has kept one, and not the other. It truly has not been "Politics as usual." Instead of sponsors creating bills and hiding them from view, until out of the SubComittee, and rapid voting out of the Senate or House, we got different. Senator Reid writes the bill and delivers it to the Senate floor, unseen and mostly unread, by everyone. Speaker Pelosi does pretty much the same in the House, with many fewer changes (bribes). In both cases, the bills were treated like buckets of water headed for a house fire. Obama politics has made the old way look like comparing the Wright brothers aircraft and the Concorde.
The transparency we were promised has only been in naked power grabs made, or attempted. Bills aren't up 72 minutes, much less 72 hours, before voting. Some important bills have been 240-19?, or 60-40. Numbers like that tell us that the bills couldn't find any Republican votes. Couldn't. . .find. . .any. If there were any transparency in the process, there might have been one or two Republican votes.
That is what was being rejected by Independent voters. Now, it's. "If you don't speak straight, don't bother." (As in you're outta here.) I expect a lot of Incumbents to lose in the primaries, or general elections, because they just want power. They'll tell any lies to get it, and expect us to ignore it.

Posted by: fbngraph | January 22, 2010 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Several of those commenting have asserted that FDR's New Deal did not defeat the depression. While it is true that the economy did not fully recover until WWII, reducing unemployment from 25% to below 10%, restoring public confidence, eletrification of rural America, building water supplies and irrigation systems and reforming agricultural practices...these and more, were huge accomplishments. It's bizarre to say that "all liberal economists" say that the New Deal was a failure. America came out of the New Deal with an enlarged middle class, greater social stability...all while Europe was descending into chaos. How can anyone ignore these basic facts?

Posted by: NDprairiepopulist | January 22, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

We got what we deserved, a Kenyan president with a socialist agenda. Barry is as truthful today as he was during the campaign, which is to say, NOT TRUTHFUL AT ALL.
The difference is we wanted to believe him. The truth is McCain was more correct and more honest.
We must now tolerate the "change" Barry wants, or REJECT HIM, as Massachusetts did.

Posted by: esquire2 | January 22, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Well now, the smucks can be found in every smoke filled room. Shut the front door up! Men you followed him because of his good looks, because he did not run as a Republican He fooled you people and you will deserve what you get. Do you really believe he will do what you want him to do not a chance now after the all white conservative save one Supreme Court Justices They will be able to buy the Senators, be afraid the Gay ban will be next and all the freedoms as a country we have? It will be a communist country. Thanks to the conservative republicans. I am moving to Argentina where the country has its own problems, but not ruled by a dictator the republicans want in.

Posted by: amorcita_loca | January 22, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

The government is out of alignment with people's wishes. The first thing the new administration did was to vote themselves a salary increase. Then they commensed to try and help the American public get their jobs back by printing money and giving it to corporate America?

The push to pass a health care plan against the public's request, looked like a football game. It was the Democrats verses the Republicans with the media as the referees. Final score: Taxpayers billions of dollars in new debt. Congress: salary and benefit increase.

Sounds fair to me! No one is unhappy with this new administration.

Posted by: alscoins | January 22, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Note to AngriestDog: I hope that the present administration doesn't use your advice for getting us out of this recession. It was only 8 years after FDR took office that some relief was seen for the depression and another 5 years until some normalcy returned. No wonder the Dems aren't able to pass anything meaningful with supermajorities in both houses. They don't know where to start to analyze the problem.

Posted by: wonderingwilly | January 22, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Healthcare reform is certainly needed in this country but what congress is trying to sell us is health Insurance reform with a huge bill attached to our backs! Health insurance reform became law in Massachusetts, raised the cost of insurance while forcing everyone to buy in or be fined and still actual health care is unimproved-it may even be worse now. Would you like to have one of your family on the same college campus or streets of Boston that my daughter is walking while spreading undiagnosed strep throat and being told by her health services to continue going to classes? Who knows how many she infected and as if that isnt bad enough, they told her they'd let her know for sure in 2 days but it took them 3 to contact her. I can't help but think that they want others to get sick as well so they can rack up additional fees and her own pain didn't matter one iota to them. How many people can one college student infect with strep in 3 days? Any guesses?

Posted by: nhoscar | January 22, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

'angriestdogintheworld' gives FDR and a Democratic majority credit for the 20 years of progress following the depression... YO DOG! You should change your name to DUMBESTDOGINTHEWORLD! It was WWII--the big one--that put people to work and drove that change. This is well documented but routinely ignored by the left that never fails to ignore that which does not fit their twisted view of the world. Like Reagan said, It's not that Liberals don't know anything, it's just that so much of what they know is wrong. He was talking about clowns like you, dog!

Posted by: suttondb | January 22, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Thank You to realtexan1 for pointing out that in 1999 it was Barney Frank who pushed for the lowering of standards in the Fed housing loans, and who said he wanted to continue to "gamble" in 2001 when the Bush Admin tried to correct that.
Being from MASS and Berkshire Cty (all blue, all the time) my home state has finally sent Washington the correct message. I have voted (as a red man in a blue state) for Sen Kennedy for the last 30 years. He was good for MA in that he had a lot of clout and could keep our needs known to Wash. However, as Scott Brown indicated, it is time to do what is best for our state, instead of "the party" or ones personal goal. This was not Sen. Kennedy's seat, but The People's seat. Keep your eyes on Mr. Brown in the next few years, you just may see a newcomer with some real savvy and honest values. Health care in MA isn't perfect as yet, but on the state level it is easier to fix.

Posted by: tipupdad | January 22, 2010 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the often mentioned unemployment rate during FDR's terms: (per bureau of labor statistics) unemployment percent from 1933 thru 1940 was--24.9, 21.7, 20.1, 16.9, 14.3, 19.0, 17.2, and 15.0%. The average unemployment for these years was 18.6% and no long-ago fond memories of fireside chats can possibly ever make that sound good. Not until gearing up for World War II, in 1941, did unemployment drop below 10% to 9.9& (!). The depression lasted until the post war years of 1947-48. Obviously, during the war, millions were taken off any unemployment statistic as a result of being in the armed forces.

Posted by: cubanpete1 | January 22, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Pres. Obama spent the last year trying to prove that "Yes, we can - win over the GOP!" He succeeded in dissipating political capital and making us (Democrats) think he cared far more about Republican opinions than his own agenda. His conciliatory efforts cost him our confidence and that in turn cost him a vote in the Senate.

Posted by: sltzbgh | January 22, 2010 5:47 PM | Report abuse

I think the comment by 'fransh' is a pretty good view of how America may appear to most of the western world that has universal health coverage. Universal health care comes at a small cost as it does here in Australia with a medicare levy but it provides peace of mind should a medical emergency occur. Quite frankly some of those 'American' values you seem to cherish are not in the best interests of all American people. Also it was not only American people and institutions that were harmed by your financial collapse due mostly to an unregulated financial sector. I thank America for its generosity and contribution to providing relief around the world whenever and wherever it is needed and at great financial cost to American taxpayers. It is also important to ensure that adequate and affordable health care is provided for all Americans.

Posted by: billspost | January 22, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Reading these posts reminds me why the Chinese believe America will soon be a third rate country; we spend so much of our energy blaming one another, we haven't the ability to solve real problems. The non-US posters seem to have the more productive takes.

Posted by: restaurantquality | January 22, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

why dont they fix whats wrong with mass. healthcare and get it right before experimenting with the whole country? seems easy enough.

Posted by: unicornsbypauline | January 22, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I don't live in Massachusetts so I don't claim to know how they feel. They do have thier own health care, I suspect they don't want to pay for Texas or Alabama. Coakley obviously didn't capture them, she got beat pretty soundly, has anyone asked what they think about her. Ultimately, it was her name and face on the ballot of the voters mind. She was rejected.

Posted by: mikekrohde | January 22, 2010 8:11 PM | Report abuse

some keeps saying the repubs, messed every thing up but look back and see who was in the house and senate. the democraps and they still messing things up and trying to shove stuf down our throats . they suspose to be working for us and not us for them

Posted by: mahye1935 | January 22, 2010 8:36 PM | Report abuse

What were they thinking? Apparently they weren't.

Posted by: laSerenissima2003 | January 22, 2010 9:39 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama (after twice voting for Bush, my mistake) to:
- Get out of Iraq, now.
- Stay out of Afghanistan, militarily.
- Close Guantanamo's prison.
- Spend the huge TARP monies on work-programs at home... as the TVA did in the thirties, putting tens of thousands of men to work in different communities.

Not one of the above has happened... so much for "HOPE," so much for "CHANGE."

Posted by: stevekeshner | January 22, 2010 10:52 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Obama (after twice voting for Bush, my mistake) to:
- Get out of Iraq, now.
- Stay out of Afghanistan, militarily.
- Close Guantanamo's prison.
- Spend the huge TARP monies on work-programs at home... as the TVA did in the thirties, putting tens of thousands of men to work in different communities.

Not one of the above has happened... so much for "HOPE," so much for "CHANGE."

Posted by: stevekeshner | January 22, 2010 10:53 PM | Report abuse

Those folks reading the history books and bashing FDR's New Deal may be the ones literally interpreting the Bible. By all measures the New Deal succeeded in stopping the Depression. WWII merely stimulated uprecedented economic growth, giving us all a false sense that the only healthy economy is one raping, pillaging, and plundering at will, growing between 5-10% a year.

The Chicago School of economics fails in the real world of greed and corruption.

If GOP policies are so darn good, why did their policies and their inept leadership cost them the house, the senate, and the Presidency?

The GOP only exists because fear lasts forever, but hope has a short memory.


Posted by: drcalm | January 23, 2010 12:05 AM | Report abuse

I think, the majority of US Citizens have lost the sense to analyze the cause of the situation. They could judge Obama in such a short time but could not understand the mistakes made in eight years of Republican Rule. Obama is taking actions under the weight of past baggage.

Posted by: pbirla | January 23, 2010 12:23 AM | Report abuse

There seems to be a lot of speculation and conjecture about the effect of mandating universal national coverage.

Frankly no one knows for sure what would happen if we required everyone to get insurance. It's never been done before in this country. Being a resident of MA all I can say is that the sky didn't fall and civilization didn't end.

In fact as a recipient of private insurance who switched jobs for a year and had to buy into the state plan there was no difference in my coverage. I kept the same doctor and had access to all the same care that I did under my work sponsored plan. When I got a different job this past year that came with health benefits I easily switched back with no problems and zero red tape.

So the claims being on about MA health insurance are coming from people who are not on the plan, know nothing about it, have never been on it, are scared, or they have an agenda of sorts.

Posted by: gmro | January 23, 2010 1:18 AM | Report abuse

I'm from Massachusetts and
IT'S SWEET -

I hope the Democrats keep telling the country that its Bush's fault and we are just an angry mob. The more they talk the more voters defect.

Our Gov Deval Patrick, he is next on the list to be sent packing. I'm sure President Obama will give him a job somewhere.

Yes the Democrats know what is best for us

Posted by: masssgt | January 23, 2010 4:18 AM | Report abuse

gldrdrake is mistaken, misinformed, or perhaps distorting reality. The MA health care plan has turned out to be what has been feared, i.e., hugely expensive to the point that MA is not covering everyone it originally once did because of that expense.

Posted by: 65tarheel | January 23, 2010 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Have we now turned into an electorate with limited attention span, short-term memory deficits, and the need for instant political gratification? After enduring eight years of Bush administration policies that drove the world financial markets to the brink of collapse, the voters have already become impatient with President Obama over his lack of ability to perform miracles. From the time he first was sworn a disgruntled group of special interest groups and their followers have been leading the uninformed in a chorus of complaints on issues of nationl importance.From the impatient uproar over deciding on the feasibility of a troop surge(the Bush administration almost let Iraq descend into total chaos and for months they ignored the problem before sending more troops in; yet no complaints were voiced by the conservative pundits) to the endless nayaying about the President's plan to further promote high tech sectors of the economy, a climate of hysteria has begun to grip certain groups of voters. There also exists a core group whose main agenda consists of making sure a black man will never be elected again in their lifetime. To deny there has been no animosity toward President Obama because he is black is delusional. Conservatives have been complaining about the Christmas bomber being tried in federal court; where was the outcry when the Bush administration afforded the same treatment for dozens of terrorists? I can only believe that today's voters are more susceptible to the demagoguery of people like Beck and Limbaugh because they are too impatient for reasoned arguments. Today's electorate wants every issue to simple and would rather hear easy to remember cliches than dispassionate logic. The voters will soon realize that Mr. Brown is just another member of the political class and it will be business as usual in the Congress.

Posted by: CMAN27 | January 24, 2010 1:28 AM | Report abuse

There has been no shift in voter anger. Voters were angry at Republicans and so voted Obama into office. Now voters are angry at Democrats and so voted Brown into office. What is the common denominaor: voters are angry at the status quo of Washington politics.

Posted by: MarmaladeSteele | January 28, 2010 6:08 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company