If that is true, it is frickin' insane. Why on God's green earth would you vote for someone who is the exact opposite of what of you want, in order to convince people that what you want is the opposite of what you voted for?

Coakley wasn't a great candidate, but she was vocal for her support of the public option and lost to a person who wants to shut down health care reform. So what we are supposed to take away from this is that people want the public option, so they voted for the person who was against it, instead of the one that was for it? Makes perfect sense to me...NOT!

Don't get too hung up focusing on the nonsensical behavior of Brown voters and forget about the information in terms of Obama voters who STAYED HOME! That is a very rational way to send a message to a nonresponsive political party and it is time they started listening.

Lib, it is pretty obvious that I don't get it...unless maybe the message I want to send you is that I do get it, but in order to make you see that, I have to say I don't. Yeah, that's it. Makes about as much sense.

So, then the message is what? The blackmail has begun, but exactly what is it that "they" want. What is the ransom price? They have proven that "they" can put the repubs back in power. And by doing that, exactly what do they gain, or are "they" even looking at the end game? "They" just figure the dems will give "them" whatever this really sort of unknown thing is, then they will vote for dems again?

I don't even know who "they" are, this bizarre coalition of liberals, republicans and tea-baggers." It's sort of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kinda thing.

Like I keep saying, I'm not a political animal. All this posturing crap...I sure hope you guys know what you're doing. If this works, you'll be heroes. From my perspective all I see is our President getting beat up by both sides, and it makes me sick. I can't see this having a happy ending. But what difference does it make? You say we have a republican president now, so a different one in 3 years ain't no big. Oh, and no health care plan. Now I forget...is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It is inane to say that the Brown anger couldn't have been anticipated. Here is a Pew Research poll (national) released last week. You can bet your sweet bippy that the White House saw it:

Just 38% approve of his handling of health care policy, while for the first time a majority (52%) disapproves. Obama receives even lower ratings for his handling of the budget deficit (32% approve) and immigration policy (30%).

Here's something interesting:

The survey finds that with the health care debate at a crucial stage, more people continue to generally oppose (48%) than generally favor (39%) the health care bills before Congress. Opinion about health care legislation has been stable in recent months.

In assessing the personal impact of health care legislation, relatively few say they expect their insurance coverage to improve should the measure become law. Fewer than half (39%) say their ability to get health insurance with a pre-existing medical condition would get better if the legislation becomes law; fewer (33%) expect they would be better able to obtain insurance if they change jobs or lose their job.

And perhaps the best "mood" indicator:

For Republicans, the midterms rank among the year's top events. Fully 60% of Republicans say they are especially looking forward to the midterm elections; that is only somewhat fewer than the proportion of Republicans that said they were looking forward to the 2008 presidential election (66%). Among upcoming events, about as many Republicans are anticipating the midterms as are looking forward to the Olympics (64%) and the Super Bowl (60%).

Democrats, however, are not as eagerly anticipating this year's elections: 48% say they are especially looking forward to the elections, while the same percentage says they are not. A little more than two years ago, 82% of Democrats said they were especially looking forward to the 2008 presidential election. When it comes to upcoming events, far more Democrats are looking forward to the Winter Olympics (63%) and Super Bowl (59%) than the elections.

So... it's clear there is dissatisfaction out there. The GOP has rallied and will probably whip the Independents up as well.

As far as Obama's decision making goes:

When asked to assess the way in which Obama makes important decisions, a plurality (46%) says his decision-making style is about right, 26% say he is too impulsive in making important decisions, and 20% say he is too cautious. Among Republicans, the critique of how Obama makes important decisions is that he is too impulsive (47%) rather than too cautious (21%); a quarter of Republicans says he does about right. Most Democrats say Obama’s decision making is about right (70%), but to the extent that there is a critique, it is that he is too cautious (18%) rather than too impulsive (9%). Independents split about evenly between too impulsive (26%) and too cautious (24%), with a 40% plurality saying he handles things about right.

So much for the "indictment" of Obama -- at least from non-Republicans.

But let's look at this "health care issue" more closely:

More Americans trust private insurance companies rather than the government to make decisions about what kinds of medical procedures should be covered by health insurance. A 45% plurality is more confident in insurance companies, 31% are more confident in the government, with 16% volunteering that they do not trust either.

Not surprisingly, there is a substantial partisan gap – by a 65% to 10% margin Republicans trust private insurance companies rather than the government when it comes to making insurance decisions. The balance of opinion is less lopsided among Democrats, with 47% trusting the government more and 32% trusting insurance companies more.

Despite the fact that the Dems trust the government more, that's a far smaller margin (15%) than you typically hear about here at TPM.

And here's a WTF kicker for you, stilli:

Those 65 and older – the majority of whom receive their health insurance from the government – are the least likely to be confident in government decision making. Just 20% say they trust the government over private insurers, while 52% say private insurance companies do the better job. Fully 68% of seniors report Medicare as their main source of health insurance, and another 5% cite other government insurance sources.

As far as congress, the approval ratings are low with Dems having a bigger drop since the GOP couldn't get much lower. But look at this:

Independents are about equally critical of the job being done by both Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. A quarter (25%) of independents say they approve of the performance of Democratic leaders, while 22% approve of the job being done by GOP leaders. These numbers have changed little in recent months.

Early in 2009, independents were more likely to approve of the performance of Democratic leaders than Republican leaders, but Democrats had lost that edge by October. Independents have consistently given Republican leaders low ratings since early in 2009.

This means that a decent candidate may have a shot at unseating an incumbent because of the Independent vote.

Now, why Obama can't capitalize on this I don't know:

Republican leaders in Congress continue to take more of the blame for the sense that the two sides are not working together. About a third of the public (32%) says Republican leaders are most to blame, while 19% say Obama is most to blame. Those numbers also have changed little since August 2009.

And just to let you know the right is also unhappy with being "too centrist" (whatever that means these days):

More than half (55%) of Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters say they think the party’s leaders in Washington should move in a more conservative direction. That is about the same as the 60% of Republican voters that wanted their leaders to take a more conservative course just after the 2008 presidential election.

And at the risk of painfully reminding people that we don't lean to the left:

Meanwhile, most Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters (56%) say they think their party’s leaders should move in a more moderate direction, which is about the same as the percentage of Democratic voters who said this after Obama’s 2008 win (57%). In both surveys, one-third (33%) said Democratic leaders should move in a more liberal direction.

A majority (55%) of liberal Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters say the party’s leaders should move in a more liberal direction, while 34% say more moderate. This is unchanged from November 2008. Most Democrats describe their ideology as conservative or moderate, and 69% of this group says the party should move in a more moderate direction; 23% say more liberal. The percentages also are not significantly different from just after the 2008 elections.

This is what I've been saying all along: you need to resell the "liberal" brand. People want not to be classified as a liberal -- even if they want the benefits of liberal ideas (social security, medicaid, etc.) This is the political reality today. This is something that the left must wrap their heads around if they want the country to move back away from the right.

Democrats problems are beyond labels and messages. Republicans didn't lose in 2006 because Bush couldn't sell Iraq to the American people well enough - they lost because Bush thought he could message himself out of a policy disaster.

Democrats just won an election as liberals with a message. By sticking to a liberal message, they won. This isn't a message problem. There is only one thing that will save the dems. Kicking some ass and no longer looking like total losers.

It's important to bear in mind many Independents are independent because we know damn well both parties are fully corrupt. The only thing they understand or care about is power. We aren't any more afraid of republicans than we are democrats. If the DLC wants to play chicken, I'm quite certain we're pissed enough to send them back to the wilderness.

Hear, hear!

No. The right wing is taking anti-government populism and is serving the pro-corporate elites.

Remember why and how the tea parties started. They started because a floor trader hack didn't want any taxpayer money being given to the poor and minorities who were facing massive foreclosures. Further tea parties have been dedicated to fighting socialism and comparing any subsidized health care to the holocaust.

There is a misconception being fostered by individuals like the New Turks that we have a lot in common with the tea partiers. We don't. Their message is strictly anti-government... their opinion is that the financial crisis was instigated by liberals using Fannie and Freddie to distribute loans to the undeserving poor. In fact, the call to investigate Rahm is predicated on Grover Norquist's intention that Rahm was instrumental in helping push subprime loans.

The tea party message is nativist, pro-corporate, and entirely in keeping with the far right message since Goldwater. The media keeps conflating them with traditional populist movements and some on the left are identifying with their anger... and I believe projecting upon them something that doesn't exist.

This doesn't mean that Obama isn't completely caving to corporate interests. The health care bill all but guarantees a massive transfer of wealth... it does help the least among us and does expand Medicaid, and we can thank the liberals in both chambers for fighting for these provisions. But the only reason the tea partiers as wearing anti-corporate shirts is because they are being handed out by the media village.

WOW! I'm going to subscribe to this too, as it really is the only thing that makes sense to me and it's far better than alternative rationale.

Mega thanks Qwerty!

Thanks for update. Kudos!

"Democrats just won an election as liberals with a message."

Yes. And that message was, "We're not George Bush."

Maybe some good will come out of the MA debacle. But I'm pretty sure health care reform is dead.

"Coakley wasn't a great candidate, but she was vocal for her support of the public option and lost to a person who wants to shut down health care reform."

As much as I agree at the apparent counter-intuitiveness of these voters, Coakley never said, "If elected, I'll go down to DC and do Teddy Kennedy proud by insisting on the reinsertion of a robust public option into the Senate bill."
Coakley would've just been one more 'aye' vote for a seriously compromised bill.
Maybe, just maybe, that's what these people (though I don't agree) were saying with their (in)actions.

What is the "massive transfer of wealth" you talk about going to look like? I assume you mean giving people the ability to buy health insurance is a transfer of wealth to insurance companies. But in return don't those companies have to provide a service, and isn't the value of that service that people who lacked access to health care can now get it and can save their own lives or improve their well-being. If 40,000 people a year die because of lack of access to care, how dies the value of eliminating that compare to the potential increased revenues of insurers?

further more what is the financial value of having actual insurance compared being exposed to ruinous costs if you get seriously ill without insurance.

The balance sheet has two sides.

Can my fellow Democrats explain to me, an African-American Democrat, how voting in a Republican sends a message that you want bolder health care legislation? It seems that MA voted against it's best interest. Do you have a racial breakdown on this issue. African-Americans have loads of problems with Democrats, but would never vote in a Republican out of spite.

Your statement reminds me of someone treating their headache with a baseball bat. Illogical and counterintuitive.

It's obvious that you speak from experience with regard to that type of treatment...

We didn't vote against our best interest. We voted in the best interest of the Commonwealth, we already have a health care program that we pay for. As such we're not interested in subsidizing the rest of the nation.

That is a mischaracterization of the progressive position on the issue. The PO is a functional safety mechanism that represents minimal diligence in light of mandates. If mandates were taken off the table, the Public Option could also come off.

The interesting thing to me is that when progressives have non-negotiable issues, they are unreasonable. When conservadems stake out a non-negotiable position, they are simply being pragmatic.

If you can't stop just wandering the site attacking people Rip, then take the day off. It's not as bad as you think.

"The MA vote was a repudiation of the liberal and progressive movement - from the most liberal state in the country!"

No, I think you must have invented the whole baseball bat migraine treatment. Then tested it on Libertine, qwerty, oleeb, and yourself. Repeatedly and without regard for clinical guidelines regarding patient safety or outcomes.

Mass. is liberal. You got that part right. Dumbass.

No thanks. I feel quite healthy. But I think you should double up on your anti-psychotic meds. You have completely lost touch with reality.

And quinn, heal thyself.

I'll meet you under the St. Louis arch. You can offer me ice cream. I'm afraid I only have a boot to break off in your ass.

No, it's far worse.

Good-bye for now.

Ooooh, fighting words. You're such a tough little progressive, aren't you?

and whose side are you on besides your own?

On the side of all the common sense centrists that look at each specific issue and judge it on its own merits. On the side of all the common sense centrists that believe the government should put the best interest of the people who elected them first. Not the corporations nor the small group of far reaching (either right or left) individuals among us.

Great. You really helped a lot. Not.

Ok, I'll be more specific. I'm on the side of all those that are not far right or far left lunatics.

I love it. Obama's and Dems' "pragmatism" has been rejected by the people it was supposed to appeal to- those "moderates" or "independents" or "pragmatists" who see public options, or anything else that can be made intelligible to anyone but a healthco lawyer, and now you yell at Libertine and kgb for not understanding that these opaque "compromises" would have worked- if only-

A case of an unpragmatic pragmatist, who made his "necessary compromises" and has nothing to show for it.

I understand that you had your reason for voting for Brown. The poll indicates that HCR was not bold enough for many MA voters. I was wondering why those voters chose Brown.

While you may not have wanted a national health care program, a significant number of Brown voters did want a national program. The Brown vote makes no sense.

"You don't stand for shit. You don't work for shit.

But you know how to read a poll and bitch."

I thought you were addressing Libertine! I get so confused.

They also serve who only loll about and bellyache, no? No?

Most people trust the insurance companies more than government yet others "cling" to their Medicare, interesting. I wonder how often people have had to go through the red tape associated with private insurance to get something done?

kgb, please see my comments about indies in MA waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay below. :o)

stilli:

Coakley was an awful candidate. By that I mean not what or what not she stood for. But she didn't campaign, was more interested in talking to the press than the voters, took weeks off for a vacation, and left people with an arrogant, entitled attitude.

At some point, you can't trust what they will or will not do in office.

Frankly, it didn't look like she wanted the job. And *that* is the very first thing you look for in a good candidate: someone who will commit 100% to completing the task at hand.

Can't say I disagree with ya Q!

And here in a nutshell are key issues that need to be solved:

a) You need to purge the "e-word" from your vocabulary. Every time you use it you help perpetuate the GOP's message. (Ever notice how thee aren't any GOP elitists?) You are framing your language in their terms. Bad!

b) If the working class is the core of the Democrats as you say, then they shouldn't be in power because they end up neglected other, large, portions of the middle class. These are the people that Dems need to reach out to.

I will remind you that the very well educated (your "elite") voted for Obama by a huge margin. And most income categories were closely split between Obama and McCain. It's time to put down ancient rhetoric and get with the times.

See my comment below. People in MA were tired of "being counted on."

Agreed - she was a flawed candidate!

I think that's what happened it I think it may save the Democrats in Nov 2010!

Well said. I think you've identified a key bias that colors many of the arguments/fights I've observing over policy.

Is this part of a feedback loop driven by liberal/progressive/left self-loathing?

Not the inner workings of insurance, just the sad real-world effects of the dirty work that you admit you profited from.

I don't agree with the *I got mine* mentality, but I understand it and see why it can be a source of outrage given the context you cite.

You really need to chill Ripper. Your shots at others are way over the line and have been for a couple of days at least.

We should send all of them but especially the Bluelame dogs, a a set of balls (golf, tennis, baseball, billiard, rubber, 4-square, medicine-I don't care).

Go buy a set of balls and mail them to your Democrat representative.

Another interesting one to go with the Gallup poll and the Pew poll Clearthinker went over above, and countering a lot of spin I aee on this website:

Poll: Obama still most trusted

By DAVID CATANESE | 1/21/10 7:59 AM EST

...a new poll released Thursday shows that President Obama is still viewed as the most trusted political figure to solve the nation’s problems.

....while trust in government continues to slip, 54 percent of voters still have faith in the president, if not the party he represents.

“President Obama’s trust rating remains steady at 54 percent — a number that has not changed since last July, including among independents,” wrote Dick Keil of Public Strategies Inc. in a memo accompanying the poll.

Just 41 percent said they trusted the Democratic Party to come up with solutions to the problems that plague the country. An almost identical number — 40 percent — expressed confidence in the Republican Party to do the same.

“Trust in Democrats and Republicans is now identical and remains very low. Trust has decreased significantly for Democrats over the last year, but Republicans have not been able to capitalize on this decrease,” Keil wrote.

The online survey of 1000 registered voters was conducted Jan. 11 to Jan. 12.

None of the other politicians that voters were asked about earned a positive percentage on trust. Just 28 percent said they trusted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to deal with problems; only 35 percent said they had confidence in former vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin.

The polling also found voters divided on the role of government to address problems. A slim majority of 52 percent said government is trying to do too much; 48 percent said Washington should be doing more. 56 percent said they trusted the government to do “what is right.”

The economy, unsurprisingly, is the top concern of those polled (49 percent), followed by health care (20 percent) and government spending (20 percent).

“Americans remain pessimistic in their economic outlook, with strong majorities rating the national economy, their local economies, and their local job markets as weak — more than four out of five voters have characterized the U.S. economy as weak consistently since last March,” Keil wrote.

Public Strategies is a business advisory firm based in Austin. Its clients include trade associations, nonprofits, professional firms and Fortune 500 companies — some of which have a stake in the outcome of pending legislation like health care reform and climate change measures.

Note government spending and health care have equal priority numbers in that one, that Nancy Pelosi, often a favorite in commentary here, fares more poorly than Sarah Palin, and that though the numbers on what the government is trying to do are confusing in this report on the poll, certainly the numbers that it is trying to do too much are omimously large.

Actually, it's come "alive" again, they're talking about reconciliation and with that, it is possible that the public option is back on the Senate table. In the end, you've got to agree it's a "shot" around the country, and the polls are making it clear that HCR is back on the agenda instead of a done deal. We'll see where the chips may fall on this, but it's clear there's a revolt out there, and it looks like Obama is going to surge on the populist message. The Mass. protest would not then have been in vain.

Apologies to the other civilized posters - kindly avert your gaze, but Jack-the-Ripper thought it is his prerogative to make it PERSONAL.

At least some dogs, including bitches, have balls, unlike spineless, sycophantic ring kissers, I take it as a BADGE of honor.

OlgaCT, I sincerely do, having spent my formative years there in the heart of the birthplace of the *original* Tea Party. They might not make a lot of noise, dressing up in period costumes, banging on drums and hamming it up in Washington, but their action sends a swift, unmistakable message, either through the dumping of expensive tea or costly votes. Wasteful? You bet. But it seems much more effective than us hollering on a board and being ignored or slapped senseless, don't you think?

The other Republican win I can recall is that of Gov. Weld - the Dems candidates were as corrupt as they come, and they held their noses and voted for a vapid, dull but socially liberal conservative.

thank you for the heartfelt apology.

Hang in there, Qwerty. Most of us are with you!