Did Massachusetts Voters (Liberals Included) Let Brown Win to Kill the Bill?

[Capitalocracy]

Run time: 09:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2ZrmCU_48U   Posted on YouTube: January 27, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: February 16, 2010 By DU Member: Capitalocracy Views on DU: 605

 
Many Obama voters stayed home or voted for Scott Brown in the recent Massachusetts special election, and polls show that the vast majority of them are in favor of a public option and against the Senate's private health insurance mandate. Is it possible that they decided to let Brown win to kill the Senate health reform bill?

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Hmmm....

[mdmc]

2. No

the cons were energized, we were less so. They did a great job GOTV. We did a pretty good job GOTV. Their candidate worked his ass off. Our candidate thought she would win..

[Ozymanithrax]

3. You're asking, "Do liberals in Massachusetts prefer to let 45,000 people a year die because.."

they have no health care." Which is asking, "Are liberals and progressives in Massachusetts giggling murderers that get off on 45,000 deaths?" "Are they so happy with corporations deciding who lives and who dies that they electec brown?"

I don't think so.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. No. Period.

Coakley's campaign SUCKED, and Brown seized the opportunity.

Voter turnout was very high, BTW.

[Crabby Appleton]

5. No nt

[Mumblefratz]

6. Speaking as a Massachusetts voter that voted for Coakley ...

I've had those same thoughts as well, that voters that disapprove of the Senate HCR bill from the left expressed their displeasure by voting for Brown. However in reality that makes no sense whatsoever and would be an extreme case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Basically my take is that although MA is a very liberal state with Democrats significantly outnumbering Republicans there are still more Independents than there are Democrats and once there became the slightest possibility that Brown could actually win it motivated all those folks and somewhat depressed an already unenthused Democratic base.

Turnout in the suburbs was extremely high whereas the turnout in the city was only pretty good.

I put Browns win down to the economy. Massachusetts has little manufacturing and what is left of the middle class is pretty much in the service area and particularly in construction and unemployment in construction is huge. While I believe it to be extremely short sighted having been less than a year I believe that the election of Scott Brown was because of the economy.

It didn't matter that the Republicans were the MF'ers that got us into this mess in the first place, it was still the economy stupid. And even though Democrats have provided unprecedented unemployment extensions and COBRA support that Republicans never would, it was simply a matter of voting out those currently in power. Like I said it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me because it requires people to unthinkingly vote out whoever is in power but in the end it's the only reason that makes any sense whatsoever.

Just one man's opinion.

[Capitalocracy]

9. I obviously don't think they ALL voted to kill the bill, but I think some might have

I don't think all Mass. Obama voters who switched to Brown were necessarily progressives who wanted to kill the bill, of course, the most likely influencing factors in the win are obviously the feeling of disenchantment and disenfranchisement that kept people home, but I'm willing to bet there were some people who switched their vote specifically as a way to kill the mandate. After all, the Dems haven't been doing much with their supermajority anyway, so what's the point of fighting to keep it?

To be clear, I'm not advocating this way of voting, I wouldn't vote for a Republican for any strategic reason (unless they were genuinely more progressive than the Dem candidate I guess, can't see it happening) but I'm trying to analyze this in a new perspective. I think the mandate pissed a lot of people off on both sides of the aisle.

The main factor is probably just what happens when the entire political system is corrupt and untrustworthy and things are going bad... whoever's in is out, unfortunately even if it puts someone even worse in

[rox63]

7. No

The pukes were organized and enthusiastic. The Dems had a lackluster candidate and an apathetic voter base who simply assumed the Dems would win.

[DeSwiss]

8. I think it's more than possible and very likely.

Because people are tired of being lied to. By Repukes or by Democrats.

But this appears to me to be the same point that many Dems can't face up to now. They want to support their party as I do -- but they realize the people in it right now ain't worth much. They're all tainted. I'm not so much mad at Obama for his weakness - but I hate what this system of governance has become. It is so corrupted now that we need to wipe the slate clean!

At this point my main interest is amendments to the Constitution to end corporate personhood and limit terms to Congress. And also to encourage the establishment of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x518487">state-owned banking systems as they have in North Dakota. The monetary system we have now makes sense for only bankers. As it was meant to. But. No. One. Else.

And I want to kick all (almost all anyway) of these bastards we have now in Congress -- OUT! And start anew with a publicly-funded campaign system and make corporate "bribes" "donations" to elected officials at any level -- ILLEGAL.


- And that's all I ask......

K&R

[Capitalocracy]

10. well, if I were a genie, your wish would be granted

but I'm not.

Of course, considering the fact that Congress had access to information concerning U.S. torture policy under Bush and chose not to say or do anything until it became public (and didn't do much afterward either), I think there's grounds for impeaching everyone in Congress.
Now, what's the procedure for that?

[DeSwiss]

13. "Now, what's the procedure for that?", you ask?

Luckily in declaring their independence, the framers of our little 200+ year-old experiment in freedom left us an "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence">How-To Guide" should it ever be needed again:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[activa8tr]

11. Well, I can see how maybe 10 or 20 thousand voters might have wanted to

kill the health care bill currently before the Senate, but the actual reasons for the failure of the Dems to hold onto the seat have to do with Martha, and complacent Democratic voters in Mass, who never saw the trainwreck coming, up until Jan 10, 9 days before the election.

The Boston Globe published a poll in early January, claiming that Coakley was 15 points ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That, in retrospect, was the Lullaby that put the Massachusetts Democratic voters to sleep.

I have a brother in law who went away in late December to Florida for the month, not thinking he needed to vote absentee, figuring his vote wasn't needed for a Coakley win. (I didn't like his thinking, by the way, and voted absentee, myself!)

That's what happened.

[Capitalocracy]

12. Do you think he would have voted if there was a public option at stake?

Or single payer/medicare for all/whatever your/his vision of strong health reform would be?
Or do you think he still would have been 100% convinced that Coakley would win no matter what?

I mean, if the stakes were higher, if there were more to gain with a Dem supermajority, do you think that would have gotten him to absentee vote?

[activa8tr]

14. Thanks for the question. Yes, I think SOME people would have

voted absentee, or gone out of their way, or worked harder for Martha IF there had been a public option.

But, specifically, my Brother In Law, no, he's not going to go out of his way, retired, well taken care of in pensions, insurance etc.

He's a Democrat only because he's smart enough to see the Republican bullshit, not because he actually works hard to help out the cause.