Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Poll: Mass. Voters Protested Against Weak Wall Street, Health Care Policies
Massachusetts voters who backed Barack Obama in the presidential election one year ago and either switched support to Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown, or simply stayed home, said in a poll conducted after the election Tuesday night that if Democrats enact tougher policies on Wall Street, they'll be more likely to come back to the party in the next election.
A majority of Obama voters who switched to Brown said that "Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street."
A full 95 percent said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.
In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.
It would be hard to find a clearer indication, it seems, that Tuesday's vote was cast in protest.
The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- and didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough; 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.
For voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate health care bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it didn't go far enough.
The firm Research 2000 conducted the post-election survey Tuesday night on behalf of three progressive organizations -- the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org.
The firm discovered that 18 percent of Obama backers who voted in the Senate race ended up casting ballots for Brown.
Taken from interviews of 500 Obama backers who voted in the Senate election and 500 Obama backers who sat out the election, the results suggest that supporters of the president are more committed to comprehensive health care legislation than to any particular political party -- although the willingness of public option proponents to support a Brown candidacy suggests that health care may in the end not have been a determining factor.
These numbers have to be a cause for concern among Democratic lawmakers skittish about the House of Representatives passing, pro forma, the Senate's version of reform. For those progressives demanding that the party use reconciliation to push from something larger than the Senate's bill, the survey provides something of a boost.
More details on the poll here.
48 Comments so far
Show All"For voters who stayed home and opposed health care, a full 53 percent said they opposed the Senate health care bill because it didn't go far enough; 39 percent weren't sure and only eight percent thought it didn't go far enough."
I'm not sure what the hell this means. I think the Huffington Post editors missed something on the proof read.
Yes, or was it even proofread?
It is likely that it meant to say the only 8 percent thought it went too far.
But the whole thing seems loony. Why would someone who is to the left of the democrats express their displeasure by voting for a republican? Some message that will send! And stying home wasn't the right thing either. The appropriate thing to do was to go to the polls and write in Noam Chomsky or other such leftist resident of the Commonwealth. Or maybe just Mickey Mouse, or just "spoil the ballot" with a single payer slogan or such.
pj, the only strategy in which writing in a name, as you suggest, might be applicable would be if the progressive principled left actually recruited a candidate named F. K. Hue and we broadly promoted his stealth candidacy.
Then, whether he won or not our point would be made.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. Quite probably some of the Jewish prisoners in Nazi camps felt the same nearly insane angst in their only 'choice' of being whipped by nicely dressed Nazi officers or sadistic Polish guards. It probably says something about the level of anger among average working-class Americans, and its not likely to by spun by the DNC/DLC into something polite and rational before the next vote.
The bill went too far? WTF? Too far in which way? Mandating purchase? No public option? Taxing workers already receiving benfits? Went too far robbing the workers to pay the corporations? What a poorly written article.
Agreed.
What a piece a crap article.
As far as Democrats voting for the Republican in this election, I think it's a matter of the chickens coming home to roost. Everybody who has eyes knows that Obama and the rest of the spineless Democrats punked their supporters after the election.
So the health care bill goes down in flames. So what? It was just another sellout to the insurance corporations anyway.
Never again will I vote for the lesser of the evils. If my third-party candidate can't get on the ballot because of the stacked deck the two parties cooked up to keep third parties off the ballot, I'll stay home like these Democrats did.
--Tom Joad fka Cavedweller
Until Obama stops looking like Herbert Hoover and starts looking like FDR, none of us should even acknowledge the Dems as a serious political party.
Ah yes, there it is, the clear signal to justify moving Right.
Right.
Take this passage from the article:
-"the results suggest that supporters of the president are more committed to comprehensive health care legislation than to any particular political party -- although the willingness of public option proponents to support a Brown candidacy suggests that health care may in the end not have been a determining factor. "
The Huffington post is saying that there is, somehow, a contradiction between being "committed to comprehensive health care" and...
a willingness of "public option proponents" to support Brown.
Is the Huffington post aware that the "public option" is no longer "on the table" in the senate as the Dems like to say? So where is the contradiction between supporting "public option" and voting for Brown. The Dems already abandoned the "public option" remember? So how exactly would a vote for the Dems who trashed it, be a vote for it?
This all leaves aside whether the frankenstein monster that the Dems created called "public option" was anything close to being as good as single payer, or medicare for all, to begin with.
There is still a contradiction. Voting for Brown is a positive expression of desire for no healthcare reform at all - particularly single payer.
Better to write-in a candidate, like "Single H. Payer" or "Healtthcare F. All" or such.
-"Better to write-in a candidate, like "Single H. Payer" or "Healtthcare F. All" or such"
You can do that in the US? Unfortunately I am only accustomed to voting for real-live candidates. Perhaps you should look into that as part of an electoral reform. How many times have we heard that the Greens, for example are "unelectable" and here we have a suggestion that it is better to vote for a imaginary Mr/Miss. "Single H. Payer". I think you have hit close to home on the progressives' inability to coalesce aroung actual human-being candidates.
I have counted ballots for many years.
Such write-in ballots may make the counter smile, but they are never tallied or seen by anyone else. You have to write in a real person and municipality for the write-in to count and even then, many of the votes are just ignored as "scatter" votes. Only when a viable write-in candidate is announced will these votes usually be tallied.
I would not recommend writing in such comments as it is really a wasted vote.
This SHOULD have been a wakeup call to Obama for the mid-term elections. But in all probability, it will most likely move him even more to the right.
The Democrats certainly DO deserve to lose. But the Republicans do not deserve to win. Woe is our country.
Voters chose a Republican because Dems werent "hard enough" on Republicans? For some reason the phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind. This has to be up there with the bizzare logic that DP supporters use: we have to kill killers to show tht killing is wrong.
Agreed.
Such a vote is positively idiotic. And fellow-commonwealth-to-the-north Massachuetts is supposed to be the best-educated place the USA!
It can be understood as a protest vote\message as an antidote to powerlessness.
Increasingly the point is, what is the difference despite partisan allegiance that serves to divide people? Is there anything Obama didn't throw under the bus from climate change to abortion rights to expanding wars to military coups to gutting medicare? At least with a Republican we don't have to pretend it is such an improvement while we are getting screwed. The Right could impose the same corporate policies as Obama and it least no one would be advocating that we give them more time.
Gotta love the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' attitude coming from the Progressive masses. So what you're saying is why bother with dinner and a movie when we're already in the back seat?
Truth, its more like the Dems are Repuglican fascists except they use KY jelly and hand-cuffs.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
BTW, that's actually my old tag line describing what the NYT did for average Americans, until the Times blocked my posting.
Actually, since Obama and the Dems have been in lock-step with the Republicans, "cutting off your nose to spite your face" doesn't apply. What "change we can believe in" has Obama fought for? The voters in Massachusetts noticed that the new boss IS the same as the old boss, and they don't like it.
So the voters in Massachusetts have demonstrated to Rahm Emanuel that they actually DO have someplace else to go, because they can at least prevent the Democrats from winning elections. Sell us out, we kick you out. I think we'll be seeing a lot more of that in the next few elections; revenge is not much, but at least it's something.
Write-in protest votes don't bother either party, but they do hate to lose the perks of being in office.
petrkrop,
Well said.
For an excellent explanation of why progressives voted for the Republican, see "Why I Voted for the Republican in Massachusetts" on counterpunch.org. today:
http://counterpunch.org/walsh01202010.html
Yes, most helpful for anyone lost in the haze. A snippet from petrkrop's link:
Would I not risk the failure of the Obama health care bill if the Democrat did not win? But I do not want the Obama health care bill to succeed. It is little other than a formula for permanently handing our entire health care system over to the sector of finance capital known as the insurance industry, for taxing decent health care plans and for putting off to the indefinite future comprehensive, egalitarian, universal health care. Dr. Marcia Angel, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine and long-time crusader for single-payer, has taken the position that it would be far better to have no new law than the Obamanation known as the Democrat Party “health care reform.” I agree with her on that, and so do many of my colleagues in Physicians for a National Health Program, although that is not our official position. So on the issue of health care, it made little difference which candidate I would vote for.
But why then not stick with the Libertarian? Why vote Republican? This is where my Democrat Party friends came in. Whenever I went to vote for Nader or a Green, they would explain that I was wasting my vote on a third Party candidate. Was I not doing the same here by voting Libertarian? Suddenly I realized that the Democrats were right. If I wanted to protest the lies of the Obmacrats and “send a message” to the Democrat Party elite, I should not waste my vote on the Libertarian. And so they convinced me to vote Republican. And so Scott Brown, the Republican, won in Massachusetts with my vote and that of many others pissed off at the betrayal of the Democrats.
Massachusetts already HAS MANDATED HEALTH INSURANCE. So, as a bellwether, this serves to tell the country that it's BAD!!!
Corporate Democrats are leading the party down the path to disaster in the mid-terms as this poll so aptly shows. We need to elect STRONG PROGRESSIVES with a backbone -- those who are willing to stand UP to the so-called party leaders who took "single payer" off the table.
In California's 36th, there's a classic case of STRONG PROGRESSIVE (Marcy Winograd) running against an incumbent BLUE DOG corporate Democrat. Time to turn the page on these old line hacks.
lindasutton
"Time to turn the page on these old line hacks."
Absolutely!
Yup!...we have find a way to eliminate the traditional "two-party" system. We're getting screwed by both!
Run-off voting is needed if the people of this country expect to be represented by the people they vote into office.
Talk about a kick in the ass election! Voters so pissed off they will vote for someone they don't even want to express their rage. I would say the Democrats were lucky to get this wake up call before the midterms instead of in the middle of them, but with their track record, they may just spin it instead of waking up.
If Obama is smart, he would do some serious house cleaning, starting with the treasury and defense departments. But I don't think he has the courage to do that.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
BeForKids
They are spinning away!
Actually I'd suggest to you that he start his housecleaning with Rahm, Napalitano, "Little Timmy" and Eric Holder.
Then the democrats immediately get new leadership and end the disgraceful excess of Pelosi and Reid.
But it is really too late for them. New management coming in November.
OBAMA: KEEP THE CHANGE
Danks, I will!
A glaring example of how two-party (one party) politics works. Don't like the Ds? Vote R instead. Now that is what I call democratic choice and accountability. Best democracy money can buy.
John F. Kennedy! It was simply punishing DEM for NOT DELIVERING single-payer AS PROMISED, period.
The White House has been blind to a radical political change in our country triggered by the eco-financial crash/scare of 2008 an no apologetic of Mr. Obama or the President himself appears to understand.
The change I refer to I call a reawakening of an "Anticapitalist Longing" among the working class. Instead of taking the criminally irresponsible bankers to the woodshed, the Obama administration mollycoddled them, gave them nice presents, and stroked them "good guy, good guy" when they began to "repay" their presents. The result was predictable. Defeat in Massachusetts. Or should I write Massacrechusetts? From everything I now read and see/hear on TV coming out of the White House I deduce that these dangerous clowns have not learned anything as I had fully expected they would not do.
This is the chance to begin organizing a true labor party for the elections of 2012. No, not Nader or the Greens but an old-fashioned labor party which is willing to engage in the "class war" that is raging today.
Hey, you'd make a damn good signal crow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huTMHkobLL8
You called out the intruder intent on killing the whole flock loud and clear;---- caw caw caw Empire, caw caw Empire, caw caw caw fascist Empire.
Whereas, the pundits merely blather about shifting “priorities” from one ‘symptom issue’ to another ‘symptom issue’, without ever addressing the single, signal, and seminal cause of all these symptom issues: the hidden cancerous tumor of EMPIRE.
The only real priority is to confront EMPIRE, drive a stake through its heart and get on with the American democratic experiment.
Patrick Martin, the insightful and principled left political analyst writes, "The inevitable political result of the Massachusetts vote will be a further shift to the right by Obama, the Democratic Party and bourgeois politics as a whole. The corporate-controlled media has already drawn the conclusion that the special election proves that Obama has been too left-wing and must “moderate” his supposed big-spending liberalism."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/mass-j20.shtml
I had broadly posted the following warning before the election, "Yes, this is a national political model (much as Brown is a model of a friendly-fascist 'Ken Doll') --- but beneath the surface, and beneath the 'Vichy' facade of polite 'center right' vs. 'center left' discussion and 'fair and balanced' coverage in the corporatist media --- lies an egregious strategic error by the Democratic Party of where the political center of America really lies, and a gutless misjudgment and appeasement born of that error which could well make Neville Chamberlain's appeasement and negotiation of a "lesser of two evils" pale in comparison."
I find myself in full agreement with Martin and most other principled progressives that the actual political 'center' of all average American's political-economic beliefs is far to the left of either wing of this disguised single party corporate R&D 'Vichy' facade. This truth was first recognized by Ralph Nader in 2000 when he correctly said, "the Green Party platform actually reflects the vast majoritarian view of all average Americans" (although Nader was a far better political strategist and 'democracy advocate' than a candidate).
This truth of the modern political center is also underscored by the fact that all surviving and sustainable democracies in our post-WWII and post-Empire world (in Europe and Japan) are 'social (qua socialist) democracies' --- it's just that the American people had not so directly experienced the visible wrath of Empire in their own country, and thus are a bit slower in comprehending what all other thinking people in developed democracies have long understood as the need to excise Empire. That will ultimately be the real lesson of this friendly-fascist Brown-shirt vote --- which will hopefully expose the weak half of the Empire’s R&D Party, and facilitate the growth of a real humanist ‘social democratic’ party in America.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
"In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies."
Let me get this straight! The progressives thought that voting for the conservative would help the progressive movement? If that's true, those voters are insane!!
When things aren't working the voters always switch to the other Corporate Sock Puppet.
That's the problem!! People think there are only two parties and that these are in competition----WRONG!! They are the two well paid heads on one corporate monster.
We have to get over this folks. Neither one of these parties is worth your vote. The big money boys got plenty of money to corrupt politicians, but only WE have the votes---so don't be so dumb as to take your vote from one of the heads and give it to the other. Neither one is the lesser evil---THEY ARE BOTH EVIL. Please get this into your head. And don't forget when it comes time for you to vote again. Any candidate with a little D or a little R after their name is a paid lackey of the big money boys and doesn't care at all about you or any other working class person.
Let's work for a little democracy around here where the Representatives really represent the people.
Having been around here at CD for long enough, I pretty much take what you are saying as a given. But then I forget that the rest of the world doesn't think this way. Every once in a while I discover a seemingly progressive event and think, "Oh my, progressives actually organizing something? I must check this out and see if I can find out more about this group and become involved!" Then, I get there and they say things like, "Let's all write our Congressmen and women!".
Because I've written them so many times and they really listen so well. In fact, I think I wrote to my Senator a couple of weeks ago asking him not to reaffirm Bernanke and he did actually write me back saying that he would indeed reaffirm him because he can't vote against him because of his "politics", but only if he has reason to believe that he will not enforce the laws or discharge the duties of the office. And I thought well, what more evidence do you need than what he's already done! That's the results of writing to Congress right there!
I attended a discussion about the state of the peace movement tonight. It was quite ironic because everything that has weakened the peace movement was on full display...from attempting to tackle all issues at once, to weak and ineffective tactics, to failure to build on anything, to continually just talking to ourselves with no real movement building, to believing the Democrats are a means to salvation. Oh yeah, almost forgot...to disaffected former activists like myself who are desperately seeking an organization that offers anything more substantial than a website!
Your message is clear, concise, cogent and to the point. But it will not make a dent in the cement blocks that are Americans' craniums because Americans are the stupidest people on the face of the earth. We who are watching all this nonsense from the bleachers have known this about the American idiot tribe for many decades.
Any way people spin this, it's clear that the Democrats were spanked by the voters. Even Ted Kennedy's backyard went for the Republican.
It seems to me that people are saying that if the Democrats are going to act like Republican lite, then we may as well go for the real thing.
Are you listening Democrats? No, I thought not.
I think a lot of posters on this thread have completely missed the point and the lesson.
The former Obama supporters that voted for Brown saw it as an unexpected opportunity to derail the worst piece of legislation in our collective memory. Period.
And they were absolutely correct to do so because now the bills as they exist in both houses of Congress are dead in the water. Did no-one take note of the doctor pressing for single payer that "no bill is better than the abomination" the Democrats were on the verge of foisting on us.
You may not like how it works, but seems to me democracy showed us yesterday that it is not dead just yet.
Unfortunately Americans are convinced that their only choices are Republican thugs or Democratic weasels. It's not that they actually wanted to elect Brown, but they REALLY didn't want to elect a Democrat. This was a message vote to the Democrats.
The Democratic leadership can spin it however they want, but if they don't change their ways, it will be much louder in November. But I believe that corporate money has them tone deaf. And I don't expect Obama to suddenly grow a spine and stand up to the corporations or the right. Although he's brave enough to kick the left wing. What a guy!
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
True, Kathy. I wrote that the voters spanked the Dems for being Republicans lite. You added that this election was a message.
While we are both right (I believe), it is more nuanced and complicated. Brown ran on terror, taxes, and health care. All three are hot-button issues in this country. Also, those pesky swing-voters just love to whipsaw this nation with their wet fingers in the air testing the wind and leaving us guessing.
Anyway, this is the way things go here in our political system. Some think this is democracy, but I disagree. This is plutocracy and we are the pawns. Nothing will change with our votes until we back them with our real power - our wallets (or lack thereof).
The only problem with a progressive pulling the lever for a Republican to "send a message" is what "message" do you send *next* election? Pull a lever for the Democrat to let the Repig know how you feel?
People need to either get serious about third parties already or not even pretend to participate in politics. We need IRV, public financing and equal airtime for candidates.
How do we get there? We don't - which is why I'm emigrating. You're welcome to join me once you figure this out for yourself.
Where are you emigrating to?
Those policies weren't weak. Obama and the Democratic Party ignored the public on the wars, on a public healthcare option, on green jobs, on jobs period. What we got instead was policies that appear to throw money at Wall Street and the health insurers with a fire-hose while american families are kicked to the curb.
The people received NOTHING from the Democrats in the past year. If the left stays home the right wins by default. Since winning the House and Senate only earned us more kowtowing and scraping to the right why should we even bother?
If politics are dead what's the next step? I'm all for declaring the Bear Flag Republic and those of you east of the Sierra Nevada can go hang.
Congratulations Mr. President and Dem "leadership" - You have managed to rehabilitate the opposition party - something they could not have done on their own for years.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party has had this coming to them for thirty (30) years. Residents of that state could swap tales of repeated, stunning Democratic idiocy; the payback factor for this one is simply off the chart.
But don't worry, Mr. and Mrs. America, whether the Dems have 35, 59, or 80 votes in the Senate, you'll still get bent over on health care, employment, the environment, and all else. We're into fascist territory now; Scott Brown is a pale imitation of Sarah Palin, a preview of the near future.
In fact, there are not many differences between liers and criminals.
is it so hard for the US people to vote for a 3rd party?
congratulations on continuing with the fire-and-frying-pan or is it devil-and-the-deep-blue-sea choice.
i would say that the US democracy might as well be deemed dead as long as it remains a 2-party game.