Americans Know Bubkes
Jeff Alworth
"Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare."
--Charles Krauthammer
This is one of the most familiar tactics used by pundits and politicians: drawing a correlation between public approval (or disapproval) of a particular policy and an election or poll result. With the election of Scott Brown, we had to endure the risible argument that voters in Massachusetts selected their senator based on their displeasure over a single policy fight in Washington. (As opposed to, you know, their rejection of the other candidate.) To be charitable, I suppose you could say that we do this because we're hard-wired to draw associations, however unrelated, between phenomena.
But let's put an end to this charade. In order for Americans to be guided by public policy during elections or when answering opinion polls, they have to be aware of the public policy. Results from a new Pew poll show they are not. Whatever causes them to choose candidate X over candidate Y, it ain't a subtle understanding of the issues involved. Maybe they just like Brown's Cosmo spread.
Every quarter or so, Pew does a Public Knowledge Survey--12 multiple-choice questions about basic facts currently in the news. Most readers of this blog (right and left) would score a minimum of 10 of 12. Since the questions cover a spectrum of topics, there's usually one question in a field that bores you (and which you have therefore not been following)--so you might get one wrong. But mostly, they're gimmes. Like:
Do you happen to know if the national unemployment rate is currently closer to:
__ 5%
__ 10%
__ 15%
__ 20%
Now, given that 81% of Americans cite "jobs" as a top priority for the year, you would imagine that everyone knows the answer to this question, right? Wrong. Only 55% do. Shockingly, only a third of people know how many Republicans voted on the health care bill. (Zero.) Only a quarter know that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. This despite near-constant mention of these facts over the past two months. In fact, the entire health care debate rests on understanding these two facts. Yet Charles Krauthammer wants us to believe that these same people voted against Martha Coakley because they disapproved of "Obamacare."
This post could continue with a lecture on all the ways in which the institutions of the United States have failed the electorate, but it would be somewhat beside the point. Americans are ignorant of many of the most basic facts about how our government operates and who runs it, never mind what policies are being proposed, how they'd function, or what effects they would have. Their opinions about public policy are free of most facts about them. I'll leave you a graphic of the results of the survey, and you can rest in the shock of the implications.
Discuss, if you can bear to.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Feb 1, '10
I wonder how many would correctly answer "who won American Idol last season?"
Sadly, I am guessing at least 75%
Feb 1, '10
This is the follow-up to the measures? That constant "we'll chew that tough meat for you attitude"? I love Pat's take that regular people don't have the time to pour over the details like you do, so you're just giving them a heads up about the latest Rep lies.
I would love to know how many hours those "busy people" spend in front of the boob tube every night. You're really willing to accept that the mind numbing trash on primetime is a legitimate reason not to research the issues that affect your life? You are really taking political pandering to new levels!
Most readers of this blog (right and left) would score a minimum of 10 of 12.
You are seriously deluded, my good man. Back when you started covering the TEA protests, there was not one CONTRIBUTOR that understood the most basic of facts around the historic tea party. Oh, I get it. That was more pandering! I can understand collegial competition, but, dude, you're not going to top Novick's "this was the greatest victory and hardest work in the history of human affairs" for grade A, number 1 political pandering.
Feb 1, '10
I am obliged to respond, having taken the vote as a rebuke of the health care legislative efforts of last year in my comments at the time.
Even though voters in the MA election were likely ill-informed of some salient facts of the political landscape, how could it escape their attention that the legacy of Sen. Kennedy of dedicated pursuit of health care reform would be thrust aside by election of a Republican?
Did the inept campaigning by an inexperienced Democrat so incense MA voters that they trashed Sen. Kennedy's legacy out of pique? Did they just not know of his legacy? I can't accept that.
Feb 1, '10
" "Scott Brown won by running against Obama not Bush. He won by brilliantly nationalizing the race, running hard against the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare." --Charles Krauthammer"
Why would anyone who is not a right-wing ideologue pay any attention to Krauthammer? Or Media Matters which is in the business of exposing right-wing dishonesty
Feb 1, '10
I accept the proposition that most people are not paying attention to public policy debates or legislative issues. But I believe that among those who were paying attention (a regrettably small group) a substantial number did not like the Senate Dem. health care proposals. Regardless of what we are taught in church or in the Robin Hood movie, the vast majority of folks do not want to have something taken from them and given to the poor. That is what the Senate Dem. proposal would do to the middle and upper classes. Until Congress can come up with a health care reform plan that gives a clearly identifiable benefit to the middle/upper classes while simultaneously giving relief to the poorer classes, I don't think we will have a plan. That is unfortunate, but not surprising. I doubt that either Social Security or Medicare could have been passed if the middle/upper classes had been excluded from the benefits offered. Given the current political mind set and the budgetary problems caused by our endless prosecution of foreign wars, real health care reform appears to be D.O.A.
Feb 1, '10
I thought they were talking about bukakke !
Feb 1, '10
Jeff Alworth:
we had to endure the risible argument that voters in Massachusetts selected their senator based on their displeasure over a single policy fight in Washington.
Bob T:
Krauthammer didn't say it was a single issue, but "the Obama agenda, most notably Obamacare." Hardly the same thing.
Bob Tiernan Portland
Feb 1, '10
@ Greg D.: "the vast majority of folks do not want to have something taken from them and given to the poor."
Nice painting of America as self-absorbed skinflints! You obviously have no respect for democratic governance. Such social programs are not instituted like armed robbery as you imply. Real people recognize their obligation to assist "poor people" to share in the promise of America... refer to the poetry at the Statue of Liberty should you not recognize our expression of the the better angels of our nature.
Feb 1, '10
I'm reading BlueOregon. What's this? Oh, just another liberal elitist who is dismissive of the intelligence and opinions of average Americans. Yawn.
Well, that low opinion of vox populi would explain the recent vote on M66 / 67.
Feb 1, '10
Jeff, I think your conclusions are mitigated by the fact that people who bother to vote are more likely to be informed about these issues than people who don't. The Pew report notes, among other things, that there is a significant age gap in the knowledge this quiz tests, and that Republicans are more knowledgable than Democrats. From the summary: "Republicans tend to be older, well educated and male, which are characteristics associated with political and economic knowledge. Still, even when these factors are held constant, Republicans do somewhat better than Democrats on the knowledge quiz." Surprisingly (to me, anyway), more Republicans than Democrats knew that Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader! A psychotherapist would likely call that "denial." :-)
Given that older Americans are more likely to vote than younger Americans, and that Massachusetts Republicans and engaged Independents were very motivated to send the Democrats a message, I don't think you can reasonably conclude that voters elected Scott Brown because they are uninformed. Massachusetts already has comprehensive health care, a pioneering program that covers most residents and that would be negatively impacted by parts of the Senate health insurance reform bill if it passed. (I know, here at Blue Oregon, it is only our state that gets recognized for being "trailblazing" or "bucking trends," but in the wider world, we aren't all that special or innovative.)
Sorry, but I give this one to Krauthammer.
11:55 a.m.
Feb 1, '10
I dunno, Jeff. I would buy ignorance as AN explanation, but not necessarily as a primary explanation for what happened in Massechusetts.
I suppose that to an extent that means I'm nominally in agreement with Michael M. above. But his conclussion makes the same error that he's suggesting you've made - it assumes facts not in evidence and disregards Occam's Razor.
In my view, no explanation which seeks to address primary motivations for why Brown beat Coakley is complete without at least addressing the results of the moveon.org/DFA Poll taken immediately after that election.
Your post here doesn't do that. Nor did Krauthammer's highly subjective cherry-picking of data points.
12:02 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
You are seriously deluded, my good man. Back when you started covering the TEA protests, there was not one CONTRIBUTOR that understood the most basic of facts around the historic tea party.
And you are seriously deluded if you think that the historic tea party was anything more than demagogically associated with the astroturfed Tea-bagger demonstrations.
And before you get your knickers in a wad, I documented a tea-bagger demonstration and spoke with the participants.
12:05 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Yeah, because in a state that has universal healthcare, they really wanted to vote as a referendum to reject universal healthcare.
You see, that's where Krauthammer had them. They laughed at him and made jokes, but Krauthammer proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic, that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist!
Feb 1, '10
OK, assuming our America is fairly characterized by lots more ignorance and false consciousness than we would like, what is to be done?
Feb 1, '10
That MoveOn poll has no credibility unless they state how the sample population was selected and what the sampling error is. To really show credibility, they should provide the raw regression analysis. This is why most polls in popular press or on websites cannot be trusted.
Feb 1, '10
"Regardless of what we are taught in church or in the Robin Hood movie, the vast majority of folks do not want to have something taken from them and given to the poor."
... [O]ne nation,...,indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" Yeah, right.
Feb 1, '10
Surprisingly (to me, anyway), more Republicans than Democrats knew that Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader! A psychotherapist would likely call that "denial." :-)
When political parties suffer major, crushing, electoral defeats, complete with low poll ratings and people universally saying that it is all their fault, how often does the victor continue the same policies? When you think about it that way, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have taken the mantle from Carl Rove.
I'm serious. Carl Rove did the most in the naughties to advance the extreme right agenda. Name one other Republican that has done more to keep failed Republican policies in place than the Democratic Congressional leadership.
I've no doubt they know his name. Got any polls showing "favorables" by sex and party? Bet you see the exact same group of older Republican males giving him high ratings. Again, probably higher than an equivalent group of Democrats.
Cultural aside: Why is Freud regarded as a wacko on sex and dreams, but when it comes to psychological defense mechanisms, he's the only gospel? During the millions of pedantic debates you've heard people get into over whether someone is denying facts, how many times have you seen them argue, "'denial' is only a theory, and a Freudian one"? It's so entrenched, it even gets its own idiomatic prepositional phrase! You quote someone with an understanding of transactional analysis, who did their research in our culture, our era, and it's called self help air-headedness. Even the hypothetical "expert witness" is a linguistic invention. What's a psychotherapist? Someone with a masters practicing with a licensed pychologist, a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist? The former says it because they never studied psychology until they were out of their medical internship, into residency, and it gets people to cooperate with them, because they believe it. The latter don't say it much unless it fits the data, which means, at a minimum, having an alternative theory at hand.
Sometimes it's easier to discuss esoteric subtleties than to just recognize that he did a favor for the Reps and the Dems are too feckless to address the issue. What do you think gave Lieberman the green light? We've talked a lot about LBJ, but BHO is not even up to Big Bill's ability to execute policy in the Congress. On his watch LiebeCorp was party faithful. "We're keeping score". And WHAT are you doing with it? Like every corporate statement that xyz is taken very seriously. Never mind the actions to address it are totally inadequate.
Feb 1, '10
Posted by: Joe Hill | Feb 1, 2010 12:06:54 PM
OK, assuming our America is fairly characterized by lots more ignorance and false consciousness than we would like, what is to be done?
Raise consciousness?
12:35 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Zarathustra, I never heard of Carl Rove.
Are you by chance referring to Karl Rove?
12:35 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Michael M, I was aware of that partisan knowledge gap, which is why I credited readers of this blog (right and left) with knowing the answers. As to the motivation of Mass voters, hogwash, I say! An election is a binary decision, and yet voters are motivated by gobs of reasons. To suggest that you can ascertain what the bulk of them were mainly motivated by just in seeing the results indicates a level of mind-reading I lack. But I stand by my comment that whatever motivated them, it wasn't necessarily the facts.
Joe Hill: my suggestion? Way more civics in k-12 education. No student graduating high school should score less than nine or ten on a test like this. But since civics are such a minor note, lots of kids graduate without any real sense of how the government functions.
Feb 1, '10
It's a dig at Shrub's (have I ever said "Bush"?) doing peoples' names wrong as an insult, like "sadamn". The "k" looks fascist, like he is. Reversing it makes it conspicuous. So, that's what you got from it? Seriously, I understand. The glimpse of a moment to get me on a factual matter must be quite irresistible!
Feb 1, '10
KenRay commented: Well, that low opinion of vox populi would explain the recent vote on M66 / 67.
Damn... beat me to it - heh!
Feb 1, '10
Jeff, You said, "This is one of the most familiar tactics used by pundits and politicians: drawing a correlation between public approval (or disapproval) of a particular policy and an election or poll result." It sounds like you disapprove of this tactic.
Kari had a post last week that was basically a quote from Mary Nolan. She was asking the rest of the nation to follow Oregon's lead and increase taxes because the people of Oregon appear to approve of this policy based on the results of the election. Am I missing something or did Nolan use the "same familiar tactic"?
Is this tactic only bad when used by the opposition?
I also agree with Bob Tiernan, above, when he notes that you have badly distorted Krauthammer's argument by making it all about Obama's Health Care Agenda. Your entire argument is based on a single policy, healthcare, and Krauthammer said nothing of the kind.
Feb 1, '10
I thought "Bubkes" used to be middle linebacker for the Bears.
1:24 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
They voted for Brown because they didn't see anything getting done in DC for the past year. What they did see was a bunch of huge banks getting bailed out, more jobs gone overseas, unemployment rising, and so on.
The guy that they sent up to DC to change things hadn't done much high profile changing, and most importantly, he allowed his political opponents to define him, with a little help from feckless allies in congress.
Last Friday, for the first time since assuming office, Obama took the cameras over to the Republican caucus and spent about an hour letting them make fools of themselves. No teleprompters, no notes, just the president's knowledge and reasoning skills, confronting totally irrational but comforting soundbites.
He didn't raise his voice or call them names or accuse them of anything, even when they started flat out lying. He took them to task for failing to make arguements that meet the test of basic logic and mathematics, and allowed as how they were either deluded or dishonest in claiming that a lot of his policies, which are to the right of both Nixon and Reagan, could legitimately be charaterized as a Socialist Takeover.
Everyone should watch that exchange if for no other reason than to remind themselves that Obama is a Once (and future?) college professor with an easy manner and a taste for socratic dialogue.
Und so Weiter.
If the White House will offer even a tiny bit of self defense and point out specifically why the ideas of opponents will not work, he can begin to guide both the congress and the voters toward some sort of reality based policy debates.
I don't think that the Republican "leadership" is stupid enough to allow themselves to get trapped in an honest discussion of the issues again any time soon, but you never know. FOX cut away before the end, and one of the Republican staffers allowed as how letting the drubbing to be televised might have been a poor idea.
If, on the other hand, the White House decideds to remain above the fray, it's going to be a long cold three years.
<hr/>Oh, yeah, while we're on the topic of wild claims, without the need to resort to facts or logic, so far I like this comment from the (apparently honest) abnormal:
there was not one CONTRIBUTOR that understood the most basic of facts around the historic tea party
Really? Abby, stay classy, crazy, and anonymous. It's your only hope.
The tea party was about a bunch of middle class north american merchants who thought they were getting the shaft by the shipping monopoly generated by an alliance between the Crown and the East India Company.
An early example of corporatism. Somehow, those merchants, never having entertainted the idea that corporations are people too, defined the Class War very differently than it is defined by latter day disciples of Mises, Rand, Hyeck, Friedman, or even five Originalists on the US supreme court.
So it goes.
1:41 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Tom, first of all, I'm not Kari. How many times have we had to write that we "speak for ourselves"? But in this case, I find your argument a bit thin. When voters have a binary choice about a particular measure--which is specifically about public policy, I don't think it stretches credulity too strenuously to draw some inferences about their opinion of that policy. Now, if you ask me whether they are informed about it, I couldn't say yes with any confidence.
1:42 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Oh, but to your larger point--do lefties do this, too? Yes, they do. Does that fact convince you that it's right? Me neither.
Feb 1, '10
Jeff, Weren't you just praising the well-informed electorate for their great decisionmaking on 66/67?
2:52 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
I figured you didn't want to look like you didn't even know how to spell Rove's name, I stand corrected. I shall gladly refrain and let you misspell people's name and lessen the factual impression your posts gives others if you prefer.
Feb 1, '10
I appreciate the concern, lestat, but that's hardly possible!
Feb 1, '10
Re: unemployment rate closer to 10%:
Actually, this (courtesy of changes wrought by the sainted Bill Clinton) is an understatement by perhaps half. The answers to this "quiz" remind me of those multiple choice exams that really test the ability to regurgitate whatever the lecturer deems to be the "right" answer.
The tea partiers are correct about the tendency of Democrats to denigrate the abilities of ordinary people. The fact is that ordinary people know something that those with elite educations are too indoctrinated to know:
The system is hopelessly corrupt and fixed in favor of those with wealth and power, including the management class that regularly visits this site.
Feb 1, '10
Top hole, Pat! I have to partially agree with Abby Somebody and say, "where were you during the debate"? Would have loved to have seen that pithy blurb of factual sanity injected.
Spot on. The "dumping" was what the Brits were doing with their Indian tea onto the US market, and Mr. Hancock was not best pleased. As I said at the time, one doesn't dress up as a social outcast to make a political point! So, in a sense, the TEA people are doing something similar. Corporate shills dressing their selfish interests up as patriotism.
Feb 1, '10
"'Get off your butts,' implored Boston Democrat Mayor “Mumbles” Menino. Thus spake the inarticulate mayor at the desperate rally featuring Barack Obama last Sunday before the special Senate election in Massachusetts. Mumbles was savvy enough to recognize that the Democratic base in Massachusetts, the only state to vote for George McGovern, was deeply disappointed in Obama and the Democrats."
Why did John Walsh of Massachusetts vote for Republican Scott Brown? One of the more interesting of many reasons. Trying to explain the vote with one theory is nonsense.
Feb 1, '10
Earth to Jeff-None of these survey questions matter as long as they vote Democrat.
I don't care if this person is an inmate with a life sentence.
I don't care if this person just jumped the border with a fake ssn.
What's Paramount - is voting Democrat.
As a matter of fact, here is a new Logo for you!:
"Vote Democrat: Because we told you to, you brainless peon!"
Here's a few other sample Logo's for you: • The party of girly men and manly girls • Bend Over Now or Bend Over Later…You be the Decider • Perverts Promoted To Leadership Positions • Why yes I believe we CAN tax that! • Soros Sissies
Feb 1, '10
All about bupkuss, and the need to spell:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/02/01/0553259
Feb 1, '10
If as Jeff asserts there is not evidence to infer an ulterior cause for the loss of Sen. Kennedy's former seat, then he also cannot claim they were not voting as a referendum on health care. He does not know...
I don't believe that election occurred in a vacuum of policy opinion. If it were, polling can tell you nothing of the genesis of that defeat.
Feb 1, '10
Jeff.
My apologies if you felt that I lumped yours with other voices on this site's list of contributors. It was my intent to show that Blue Oregon speaks out of both sides of its mouth in this case. I was wrong to broad brush and see one "progressive" contributor as being part of a single voice.
I have no apology, however for stating that you are dead wrong in your use of the Krauthammer quote. He said clearly that Brown waged a campaign "...against the Obama agenda..." not against a single policy.
Your distinction between the Kari/Nolan piece, "voters have a binary choice about a particular measure--which is specifically about public policy, " as opposed to an entire political agenda of a President, may be valid. I'll think a bit more about that one.
Your main point ("Americans are ignorant..."), that the public is woefully ill informed about the issues and the workings of their government is a good one. No poll out there could better prove it than the fact that a majority of those who voted in Oregon chose to vote for higher taxes. A large number of voters who chose higher taxes had no understanding of the reasons of 'need' for the additional revenues nor the true consequences with which they will soon be (unhappily) faced.
4:51 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Not sure why you think so lowly of your posts that they couldn't possibly be made to look less factual. ;)
4:55 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Posted by: Tom Vail | Feb 1, 2010 4:17:21 PM
So is "Obamacare" an agenda or a single policy? INquiring minds want to know.
BTW, are you suggesting that a state that has universal coverage really voted as a referendum on expanding universal coverage to the nation?
Or could it possibly be a myriad reasons from an abysmal Democratic candidate, a lackluster campaign, a disastrous economic situation etc.
Feb 1, '10
To explain Brown's election, how about the-perfect-storm analogy? Several factors coming together at the same time.
Feb 1, '10
"drawing a correlation between public approval (or disapproval) of a particular policy and an election or poll result."
Unless the policy is "progressive" in nature.
Feb 1, '10
@ Lestatdelc - "...is "Obamacare" an agenda or a single policy?" My view is that it is a single policy issue - health care. Many of those who think it is an 'agenda' seem to see it also as a conspiracy.
Not sure that I understand, "...are you suggesting that a state that has universal coverage really voted as a referendum on expanding universal coverage to the nation?" If anything, it would be the reverse, voting for the vote that would keep the Democrats from the Supermajority.
And, no, I am not suggesting that one issue was what this was about. From the start, I have believed that this was lots of independents, most Republicans, and quite a few Democrats showing distrust of their government and hoping to find someone who will listen to them. All of the factors you mention were likely in play.
Feb 1, '10
Posted by: lestatdelc | Feb 1, 2010 4:51:02 PM
Not sure why you think so lowly of your posts that they couldn't possibly be made to look less factual. ;)
Unfortunate brain freeze. That should have ended with "as I don't think they could be regarded lower". Makes a tad bit 'o diff in the meaning!
This, "what was Mass. thinking" meme... What were they thinking when they elected Mitt Romney? Never heard a good explanation of that one, yet.
Feb 1, '10
I suspect the biggest factor in Scott Brown's win was that the Mass. Democratic Party and Coakley didn't think they could lose a seat that Sen. Kennedy held since 1963. By the time they realized they could it was too late and the voters spanked them for their arrogance.
10:38 p.m.
Feb 1, '10
Jeff writes: But let's put an end to this charade. In order for Americans to be guided by public policy during elections or when answering opinion polls, they have to be aware of the public policy.
Sorry, Jeff, this is basically dead wrong, on so many levels.
On the basic empirical fact: I can point you to dozens of academic studies that demonstrate that voters are extremely adept at using source cues in order to substitute for detailed policy knowledge. Put simply in the MA case, all the voters needed to know was that Coakley was for "Obamacare" and Brown against it in order to allow them to vote their policy preferences.
Few Americans know precisely the level of unemployment, but they know if it is going up or down and if things are better off or worse off.
But more fundamentally, I'm surprised to see on a progressive blog the argument that "Americans are stupid" and therefore ... what? They shouldn't be allowed to vote? When they do vote, we should ignore the candidates they chose?
Please help me understand the implications of this post, because it sounds vaguely anti-democratic and awfully elitist.
1:16 a.m.
Feb 2, '10
It was my intent to show that Blue Oregon speaks out of both sides of its mouth in this case.
BlueOregon doesn't speak out of any mouth. It doesn't have a mouth. It's a bunch of pixels and bits.
BlueOregon has five editors and over two dozen contributors. We fully expect to disagree all the time. And happily so.
It's the righties that enjoy marching in lockstep.
Feb 2, '10
Great information and content. I really like your energy on stage, you would be a great person to see live. Let me know if you are ever coming to Melbourne Australia and I will definitely come along and be inspired to achieve.
Feb 2, '10
Great information and content. I really like your energy on stage, you would be a great person to see live. Let me know if you are ever coming to Melbourne Australia and I will definitely come along and be inspired to achieve.
Feb 2, '10
"To explain Brown's election, how about the-perfect-storm analogy? Several factors coming together at the same time."
For example:
(1) Reports from the media (not always reliable) indicated Martha Coakley was a poor (personality-wise) candidate;
(2) She ran a sorry campaign (did she use some of John Kerry's campaign staff?);
(3) There was a lot of resentment against the Democratic Party for a variety of reasons:
(a) Not-much-change Obama;
(b) Committees led by Senator Dodd (D-Wall Street and M-I complex) and Rep. Frank (D-Wall Street and MA) tried to rig the system to push through a bailout for Wall Street without considering opposing opinions from progressives such as Joseph Stiglitz;
(c) Incompetence in health care reform;
(c) Dodd has so offended Democrats in CT that he wisely decided to not run for re-election. Some of this probably spilled over to neighboring MA.;
(d) Democratic Party pandering to Judas Lieberman (I-Insurance Industry, M-I complex and AIPAC);
(4) Scott Brown ran a skilled campaign. In addition to voters who thought positively of him, he probably got many votes from disaffected Democrats and independents who were also disaffected with the DP and saw him as the lesser evil.
Feb 2, '10
It looks like another Dem - Blanche Lincoln (D-WalMart) is in trouble: Blanche Lincoln Trails GOP Opponents -- And So Do Other Possible Dem Candidates
You're doing a heckuva job, DP!!!
Feb 2, '10
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Feb 2, 2010 1:16:26 AM
It was my intent to show that Blue Oregon speaks out of both sides of its mouth in this case.
BlueOregon doesn't speak out of any mouth. It doesn't have a mouth. It's a bunch of pixels and bits.
BlueOregon has five editors and over two dozen contributors. We fully expect to disagree all the time. And happily so.
It's the righties that enjoy marching in lockstep.
Oh, fine then. The same argument applies to the Democratic Party of America. Obviously people make entity like attributions anyway. How can the same people that are always calling progressives naive for not getting the realpolitik, ignore that?
6:13 p.m.
Feb 2, '10
So you are indeed seriously suggesting (as I said) that a state that has universal healthcare voted for a vote to prevent the nation from having what they have had since Romney was their Governor. Thanks for confirming that your argument is complete nonsense. Though I don't fault you alone for it since the idiot boobs in the traditional media punditocracy have been vomiting the same non-think, which is of course directly refuted by actual polling by the Washington Post where 82 percent of all voters in the MA election thought should Scott Brown should work with the Democrats and only 11 percent said he should "stop the Democratic agenda."
Feb 2, '10
@ Lestatdelc
Feb 3, '10
That is pretty sad, we need to get informed.
Feb 4, '10
Re: Us ignorant non-elites and our view of labor statistics:
Government Labor Statistics: Lies and Damned Lies:
"...while we’ve been getting all those soothing words about how job losses are slowing, and about how the economy is going to start coming back, in fact, the number of jobs supposedly created or added during the past nine months has actually been overstated by almost one million! That would be the entire population of the cities of Seattle and Miami combined...
"As Dean Baker, an economist with a PhD who is co-director of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, and a guy who, as a left-leaning economist outside of the mainstream concensus does exercise common sense, puts it, when all those rosy numbers about job creation or slowing job losses were coming out, 'the idea that we had a significant number of businesses being created didn’t make sense.'"
Ah, but that begs the question: if the government numbers are that grotesquely wrong, what does that say about the government’s policy with regard to joblessness, about it’s policy towards economic stimulus, about the government’s policy towards alleviating the suffering of the struggling citizenry? After all, policies are supposed to be designed around a solid set of facts."
(http://pubrecord.org/nation/6819/government-labor-statistics-damned/)
<hr/>